Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-02APPROVED 12-18-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California TUESDAY, October 2, 1984 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None ITEM B -1 UPDATE - OLD WORLD OKTOBERFEST Mike Strange of Planning Staff reported that, upon visiting the festival on a weekend evening, all activity in the village was quiet. He said that all conditions have been met except for one no parking sign on Center Street. He went on to say that Mr. Bishoff has indicated that the signs would be posted prior to next weekends events. Commissioner Livengood requested that the staff updates be included in the staff report of March 1985. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 84-25 (RELOCATION OF SPA OF HAWAII Applicant: Susie Kyung Su Hong On September 5, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 84-25, a request to relocate the Spa of Hawaii from its present location at 17434 1/2 Beach Blvd. to property located at 5915 Warner Avenue. Mike Adams stated that prior to the approval, Planning staff had requested a written Police report. He said that no written comments were received; however, a detective verbally indicated that the Police Department had no concerns with the application. On September 18, 1984 the Commission voted to reconsider the application in order to obtain a written Police Report and also to readvertise the public hearing with expanded area of notification. Secretary Palin stated staff has received several thousand signatures on petitions in opposition to the use. He went on to say that the City Council on October 1, 1984 had adopted Ordinance No. 2733 which granted an additional six months for discontinuing non -conforming adult businesses made non -conforming three years ago. This allows the operator an additional six months to close or comply with the site criteria. He said that the City Attorney's office had requested that the Planning Commission continue this item as they had been in contact with the applicant's attorney. Commission discussion began with Commissioner Erskine requesting that staff look at changing the code to expand the area of public notification for non -conforming adult businesses. He went on to say that the Commission should recommend denial of the CUP to the Council. He said that the applicant should demonstrate that the use is compatible with the neighborhood as the evidence of the petitions indicates that the use is not compatible. Commissioner Livengood recommended that the public testimony be heard and then the Commission could decide whether to take action at this time or continue the item. Secretary Palin stated that the Commission should make a determination if there are grounds for reconsideration and, if that is affirmed, then have the public hearing. Legal Council, Art Folger, stated that since the applicant had requested continuance, the Commission would default if they reconsidered without the applicant being present. (The applicant was in the audience but did not make her presence known until later in the meeting.) Commissioner Erskine responded that the applicant would probably pursue the Commission's action if denied in court in anyway. He felt that the Commission should state their opposition of this location to the Council. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-25 WAS APPROVED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS INADEQUATE NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS AND MERCHANTS IN THE CENTER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter,Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The public hearing was opened. Chairman Porter asked if the applicant or applicant's representative was present. There was no response. Dan Datko spoke in opposition to the CUP. He stated that there are two high schools, several elementary schools and about 7,000 children living in this general area. He stated concern that a massage parlor could drive out the present merchants and possibly attract other adult types of business. He went on to say that his main concern was for the children and requested the Commission to vote for denial. Vicki Cafasso, representing Victorio's Restraurant, addressed the Commission in opposition to the CUP. She indicated that their family restaurant had been at this location for 14 years and they felt that they could not operate next to a massage parlor. She stated that -2- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 customers have indicated that they might not bring their families for dinner at their establishment should a massage parlor go in next door. Sharon Burke, owner of the Mail Secretary which is located in the subject shopping center, spoke in opposition to the CUP. She stated that the subject center is the type of center that the ordinance was established to protect. She stated that customers have indicated that they will not be shopping in the center if the massage parlor goes in. She said that the applicant has agreed to withdraw if she could get an extension to stay at the present location and have the deposit for the new location refunded. She said that they have been unable to contact the owner of the center regarding the deposit as he has been out of town. She concluded by saying that the Council did grant a six month extension and requested that the Planning Commission vote to deny the CUP. David Robin addressed the Commission in opposition to the CUP. He stated that he was present at the planning Commission meeting when the CUP was approved. He said that the information he was given at that meeting was misleading as to the type of establishment. He said that this area is a very clean family community and this type of business does not belong in a family center. James Anderson addressed the Commission in opposition of the CUP. He expressed concern that this is a family shopping center frequented by a lot of minors. John Nielsen addressed the Commission in opposition of the CUP. He stated agreement with previous public testimony and added that his concern was not so much with the massage parlor but with the people visiting the massage parlor not being suitable with regard to the children who frequent the center. Chairman porter asked if the applicant was present. He stated that the applicant or respresentative should take this opportunity to testify before the public hearing was closed. Susie Kyung Su Hong, owner of the massage parlor, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was not prepared to speak because her attorney was out of town; however, she would do her best. She said the establishment is for the good of the people and community health. She said that she has not done anything wrong and that it is her legal right to open the establishment on the approved CUP. Commissioner Livengood asked the applicant if the owner of the present location would allow the establishment an additional six month lease. Susie Hong responded yes. Tracy Pellman addressed the Commission in opposition to the CUP. She stated concern over the possible use of alcohol in the establishment as empty alcohol containers were found in the trash bins. Rowland Clark, owner of a massage therapy school, addressed the Commission. He said he has been providing graduates to Ms. Hong for several years and that she has always insisted on the finest graduates (1471d) -3- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 from the school. He went on to say that Ms. Hong does not allow illegal activities and is not trying to break the law. Susan Hoffman, a patron of Spa of Hawaii, addressed the Commission and spoke in favor of the CUP. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine stated that the proposed use is not compatible with the other business in the area. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS DENIED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use has a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or is detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing or other proposed uses in the neighborhood. a. This site is a family orientated shopping center with a Thrifty Drug Store, Baskin -Robbins, family restaurants, and other establishments which are frequented by minors. The proposed use is not compatible with -a family orientated shopping center. 3. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on a site are not properly integrated. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-2 AND PRE -ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-11 Applicant: Fieldstone Company Land Use Element Amendment No. 84-2 is a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to redesignate 42.4 acres from planning reserve to low density residential. Florence Webb of the Planning Staff requested that the Planning Commission receive and accept the Fieldstone Company's request for withdrawal of the subject applications. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None (1471d) -4- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-46 - APPEAL Applicant: Ken Reynolds Conditional Exception No. 84-46 is a request to permit a single story, 428 square foot office and den addition to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard building setback. It was reviewed and denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on August 29, 1984. The public hearing was opened. Ken Reynolds, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the architectural design has been carried out in the remodel; and the east and north walls are designed without windows in the attempt to maintain privacy for the neighbors. He presented slides which showed other additions in the tract which met the setback requirements but did not address the architectural design or privacy for neighbors. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. The Commission discussed the open space requirements. Commissioner Winchell stated that she would be voting to deny the Conditional Exception although she felt this was a good project, the City Ordinances must be maintained. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS TO UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Findings for Denial: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved which do not apply generally to property of class of uses in the same district. 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification because it is typical 60 by 100 foot R1 lot. 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 4. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-46 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Erskine ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None (1471d) -5- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-27 Applicant: John Clifford Vaughan: A request to permit an towing service with vehicle impound yard. Mike Adams indicated that the project included a business office, two service bays and storage yard to be screened by a concrete wall. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Vaughan, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the operation would not include crushing of vehicles. Commisioner Livengood questioned the applicant if the operation would be a 24 hour business. Mr. Vaughan responed that it would and that trucks would dispatched out of the proposed location. Commissioner Erskine questioned the applicant on the security to be provided. Mr. Vaughan responed that there would be a 8 foot high wall with an electric gate. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion began with Commissioner Winchell who stated that she would not be in favor of the CUP because the project is a 24 hour business. She said that the business would create a noise problem and should not be located within 660 feet from property zoned residential. Commissioner Livengood stated agreement with Commissioner Winchell that the proposed use would create problems in the late evening and early morning hours with the residents. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that a stipulation should be included to require a 9 foot high fence in the rear property line to help resolve the noise situation. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-27 WAS APPROVED WITH REVISED AND ADDED CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan dated 8-30-84 shall be revised to depict the modifications described herein: (1471d) -6- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 1 a. Elimination of the front setback encroachment; b. Two additional required parking spaces on south side of driveway; C. The type of screening fence along rear property line; d. Label the type of easements on the plan. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. C. Storage area plan to the Fire Department for review and approval of driveway and vehicle storage space widths. d. Copy of the recorded Lot Line Adjustment No. 84-8 creating subject property. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, Fire Department, and Municipal Code. 4. Service roads and fire lanes as determined by the Fire Department shall be posted and marked. 5. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. 6. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (27') in width and shall be of radius type construction. 7. The storage area shall be paved with asphalt concrete per City specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. 8. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 9. Security gate is subject to review and approval of the Fire Department. 10. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. (1471d) -7- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 11. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 12. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 14. The following uses shall not be permitted as part of this application; automotive dismantling, compacting, crushing, or the storage -of any disabled vehicles due to the existence of property zoned residential within 660 feet. 15. Construct a 9 foot high fence along the rear property line. AYES: Higgins, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Livengood ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DRAFT EIRS FOR HUNTINGTON CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND TALBERT GAP FLOOD CONTROL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS: Florence Webb of Planning Staff indicated that two public meetings have been scheduled for the project areas and that written notification had been sent to property owners, tenants and businesses. She informed the Commission of the time frame of the review period of the Draft EIRs and the final EIR document. She said that the Commission's comments, public comments from the October 4th meeting and other comments received during the 45 day review period would be included in the final EIR. The public hearing was opened for the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan. There was no one present to speak for or against the Draft EIR, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Livengood questioned what would happen if there is no funding to provide specific projects stated in the Plan. Florence Webb responded that the Plan is more or less a shopping list and, if monies were not available, the improvements would not occur. The public hearing was opened for the Talbert Gap Flood Control Redevelopment Plan. Florence Webb pointed out that this is a joint effort with the County. She said that the County is responsible for the channels and the City is responsible for the pump stations. Henry Bohrman addressed the Commission. He stated concern regarding (1471d) -8- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 20 percent for low income housing that is included in the plan and the issue of eminent domain. Secretary Palin responded that low income affordable housing does not have to be spent in this area as there are other areas in the City that meet this requirement. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the Plan, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion began with Commissioner Erskine who stated that the Plan should be clarified as to how the project will be funded. Florence Webb stated that the plan will be a joint effort with the County. She said that the County has two million dollars budgeted for this year to work on the channels. She went on to say that the County wants the City's assistance and staff has determined that redevelopment would be most the effective tool to repair the channels and pump stations. Secretary Palin stated that no action was required by the Commission as this was an update for the Planning Commission to incorporate their comments for inclusion in the final EIR. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO ACCEPT COMMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THEIR COMMENTS INTO THE EIR DOCUMENT. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Erskine ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-58/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-012 Applicant: Paul Tenold Conditional Exception No. 84-58 is a request to construct a fifteen foot high accessory building adjacent to an interior property line, to extend an existing eight foot masonary wall another eight feet in height and incorporate the extended wall into the construction of the accessory building. Site Plan Amendment No. 84-12 is the addition of the proposed accessory building to approved site plan and a minor change in the parking arrangement at the site. Mike Adams reported that the proposed site for the accessory building is presently an assigned parking space. He said the assigned parking space will be relocated to an excess parking space. The public hearing was opened. Harold Felix, representative of the home owners association addressed the Commission. He stated agreement with the staff report findings and conditions. Commissioner Higgins questioned the applicant as to why they do not convert two parking spaces instead of building up. Mr. Felix responded that the proposed space is wider than others which provides the area of two spaces and also requires shifting only one resident's assigned parking space. (1471d) -9- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 The applicant, Paul Tenold, also spoke briefly relative to their request. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Higgins indicated that he was concerned that building up 15 feet would create an unsightly view from Pacific Coast Highway. Mike Adams responded that staff had the same concern; therefore, had required landscape treatment to buffer this area from the street. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-58 AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-012 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-58: 1. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-58 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same ;zone classifications. FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-012: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-58: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 6, 1984.shall be the approved layout. 2. All previous Conditions of approval contained in Use Variance 752, Conditional Exception NO. 68-76 and Plot Plan Amendment No. 68-10 shall still be in effect. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape treatment of the masonary wall to the Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works for review and approval. (1471d) -10- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 1 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pursue and enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the abutting property owner for a landscape treatment on the exterior side of the wall. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will provide engineering calculation information that demonstrates that the existing wall foundation is adequate for the additional loading of the extension. CONDITIONS FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-012: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 3. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. AYES: Livengood, porter, NOES: Higgins, Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Erskine, Mirjahangir COMMODORE CIRCLE AND ASCON (MUD DUMP) REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREAS: On February 1, 1982, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to assist the Redevelopment Agency in preparing the preliminary plan for the proposed project area. On September 18, 1984, the Planning Commission requested additional time to review the plans. Florence Webb, of Planning Staff, stated that the City has received many appeals from residents to solve the problems in both project areas. She said the City Council has determined that the blighted conditions of these areas could be remedied by redevelopment and wanted the Planning Commission to explore this via the preliminary plan. Commissioner Higgins stated that he agreed that Commodore Circle needs redevelopment; however, was concerned about the Mud Dump. He said that due to the fact that the Mud Dump property is privately owned, the owner should improve the property. He went on to say that Commodore Circle has multiple ownership and the only way to consolidate is through redevelopment but the Mud Dump is a single owner who, in fact, just recently purchased the property. He questioned why the City would want to step in and improve the property for the owner. Secretary Palin responded that the City Council has had numerous complaints and they have declared it as a public nuisance. He went on to say that regardless of whether it was just purchased or not, it is a blight and creates a nuisance in the area. He said the area needs to be cleaned up and the Council has asked if redevelopment would be the most efficient way to solve the problem. (1471d) -11- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 Commissioner Erskine stated that prior to the Commission or Council taking any action staff should report as to the practicality of the project and obtain legal opinion for the City Attorney. Florence Webb responded that staff has discussed this with outside redevelopment legal council and that adoption of the preliminary plans will not remove any of these bodies from responsibility or care of the site. Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt -the Commission was premature in adopting the Mud Dump Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Winchell stated that her concerns were in Section 3.0 and 5.0 in both plans. She said the plans propose land use density to be medium to high density. She recommended that high density should be struck from both areas. Chairman Porter stated concern on the Commodore Circle Redevelopment Plan because the owners and lending institutions should clean up this area. Legal council, Art Folger, stated that as of that day, the City Attorney had assigned one of the deputies to the clean up campaign. Commissioner Higgins stated disagreement with Chairman Porter because the property owners and financial institutions would barely meet code if they clean up the area. He said that he would prefer the area being redeveloped with senior housing. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS RESOLUTION NO. 1332 WAS APPROVED WITH ADDED SECTION 4 AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE COMMODORE CIRCLE PRELIMINARY PLAN WITH REVISIONS TO ELIMINATE HIGH DENSITY: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood suggested that the Commission include their concerns in adopting Resolution No. 1331 for the Mud Dump. Commissioner Erskine requested the City Attorney's legal opinion regarding whether or not establishment of a redevelopment project for the Ascon Mud Dump would prevent the City from pursuing legal action against past major contributors to the dump site if the site characterization study reveals the presence of harzadous wastes. He also requested an overview as to the ability to pursue legal action with the property owner to clean up the site without assistance from the City. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE MUD DUMP WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO OBTAIN A REPORT FROM STAFF AND OVERVIEW FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS TO WHETHER ANY ACTION DECLARING THE MUD DUMP AREA A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD PRECLUDE THE CITY FROM TAKING LEGAL ACTION WITH THE LEGAL OWNERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (1471d) -12- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-014 Applicant: Mansion Properties A request to amend the approved site plan -for a 558 unit planned residential development (pacific Ranch). Mike Adams stated that the request is to change the parking configuration of the Ranch project by covering 6 open parking with a carport in order to screen an adjacent oil operation, change a number of perpendicular spaces to parellel parking design, and convert up to 15% of the available parking spaces to compact size stalls. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-014 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND REVISED CONDITION NO. 1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. The site plan dated September 28, 1984 shall be the approved layout and any additional changes shall be subject to a new site plan amendment. 2. All applicable conditions previously imposed on Conditional Use Permit No. 81-8 and Tentative Tract 11417 shall continue to apply. 3. All parellel parking stalls shall comply with the provisions of Article 979 of ;the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None AMENDMENT OF PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 79-4 - Lake Street Applicant: Clty of Huntington Beac Mike Adams stated that on September 5, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 84-2 for the alignment of the Atlanta/Lake/Orange connection. He said that at the request of the Attorney's office, in order to effect this new alignment, it is necessary for the Commission to act to amend a portion of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 79-4. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-4 WAS AMENDED AS REQUESTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None (1471d) -13- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84 There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. jr Marcus Porter, rman fl (1471d) -14- P.C. Minutes 10-2-84