Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-10-27MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1970 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MEMBERS PRESENT: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins MEMBERS ABSENT: None DISCUSSION: Edison Company Facilities and Undergrounding procedures. Messrs. Dick Campbell, Bob Shelton, Bob Burbank and Ken Sather, representing the Edison Co., attended the meeting. Dick Campbell, District Manager for Edison Company, reviewed the District's responsibilities and discussed the load growth within the district over the past years. Chairman Slates requested that the Commissioners direct any questions they may -have to Mr. Campbell so that he may answer them prior to a general field trip by the entire Commission. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like to see facilities for the Edison Company and those of the General Telephone Co. consolidated into one set of poles in an attempt to make the lines less obtrusive. Mr. Campbell answered that they have a joint pole agreement with the telephone company; however, the telephone company is reluctant to locate their lines on poles with high tension - Edison Company lines. Commissioner Duke questioned the cost of undergrounding. Mr. Campbell replied that Harbor Blvd. may be used as a bench mark where the costs ran anywhere from $75 to $100 per foot to under- ground existing overhead facilities. He further stated that within residential developments the direct burial system, the CIC (cable -in -conduit) is used at a cost of $50 to $100 per lot. He added that cost within commercial and industrial districts was considerably higher; however, the Edison Company was engaged in research and development in an attempt to provide for a low cost direct burial system. Commissioner Slates asked the amount of money the Edison Company has set aside to under- ground existing overhead lines in the City. Mr. Campbell stated that approximately $280,000 had been set aside for this purpose. With regard to undergrounding costs, Mr. Campbell stated that with the exception of undergrounding residential areas, developers are required to pay the difference in cost between the overhead and underground facilities. He also stated that the load in commercial and industrial areas are -too great to be undergrounded economically. Commissioner Kerins asked what the highest voltage was that could be undergrounded. Mr. Campbell stated that 12 KV lines have been under - grounded in some areas and that extremely high voltage lines (66 KV) have been undergrounded in certain instances such as for offshore drilling rigs, around airports, etc. He stated that the main problem with undergrounding high voltage lines was that of heat dissipation. -Commissioner Duke asked questions relative to undergrounding electrical facilities leading from sub -stations. Mr. Campbell stated thatthis is a question of density and electrical load. Commissioner Duke asked the number of sub -stations existing in the City. Mr. Campbell replied that there were seven. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission October 27, 1970 Page 2 Commissioner Porter asked the capacity of the existing steam generating station. Mr. Campbell replied that the two existing units generate 790 kilowatts each. He stated that ultimately the station would generate a total of 22 million kilowatts. He further stated that the cost of the proposed expansion would run in the neighborhood of 179 million to 200 million dollars. Commissioner Porter asked the status of the Bolsa Island. Mr. Campbell replied that as of this time, the future was unknown. The Commission then ad- journed to an informal meeting to tour the Edison facilities at 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Slates ex- cused himself from further participation in the meeting. The Commission reconvened at 4:45 P.M. DISCUSSION: Restudy Alignment of Atlanta Ave., Orange Ave. east and west at the intersection of Lake St. Jere Murphy, Associate Planner, and Ralph Leyva, Assistant Traffic Engineer, dis- cussed with the Commission three alternate alignments of Atlanta Ave. and Orange Ave. east and west at the inter- section of Lake St. Commissioner Bazil expressed concern over the design of the intersection of Second St. with Lake St. It was pointed out that Second St. could be terminated in a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Duke asked how the market value -of theland was determined. It was hinted out that this was determined by multiplying the assessed value times four. Commissioner Bazil was excused from the meeting at 5:07 P'.M. Commissioner Higgins asked how the proposed alignments will relate to the parking authority. Ken Reynolds, Planning Director, indicated that precise locations had not been determined. Discussion then followed regarding rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway. The following regularly scheduled items were deferred to a future meeting: 1. Design Review Criteria for the Civic Center. 2. Code Amendments regarding staff review of applications. 3. Goals and Objectives schedules. DISCUSSION: Guidelines for working relationship with Planning Commission's Citizens Committee. Ken Reynolds, Planning Director, pointed out to the Commission that there are several citizen's committees appointed by the City Council who were to work in conjunction with the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds stated that there was a question as to which group the staff would be responsive to. It was his opinion that staff action should be through the Commission. -The Commission indicated that this matter needed further discussion and requested that the staff prepare some idea so as to establish a work- ing relationship between the Planning Commission and Citizen's Committee to be discussed at a later date. -2- 10/27/70-PCSS Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Study Session October 27, 1970 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 70-50 Applicant: John R. Turner Richard Harlow, Acting Secretary, informed the Commission that there was a need for clarifi- cation of one of the conditions of approval for Conditional Exception No. 70-50 which was approved by the Planning Com- mission at their October 20, 1970 meeting. He stated that condition no. 2 required that a blast fence be installed 100 ft. from the north property line in line with the -end of the runway and taxiway. He stated that there was some question regarding the location of "the fence and asked whether the location of the fence was to be as stated in the condition or was to be located 100 ft. north of the end of the runway. He also asked if the existing runway between the end of the runway and taxiway as permitted by the conditional exception and the blast fence, should be removed. It was the consensus of the Com- mission that there was no need to remove that portion of the runway but that the runway between the blast fence and the north property line should be removed. Mr. Harlow asked that a motion be made to amend the conditions to reflect the above discus- sion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY DUKE TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 70-50 AS FOLLOWS: No. 2 - A blast fence shall be installed 100 ft. north of the end of the runway. The precise location, size and building materials shall be approved by the Board of Zon- ing Adjustments. No. 3 - That portion of the runway and taxiway north of the blast fence shall be removed. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Porter, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: Bazil, Slates THE MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 70-44 Applicant: Real ProDerty Manazement. Inc. The Acting Secretary, Richard Harlow, informed the Commission that according to their request, the findingsof fact for Conditional Exception No. 70-44, which is to be transmitted back to the City Council, was prepared by the staff and that a copy of the letter was before them for their review to determine that all the findings were consistent with those speci- fied by the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that the findings stated in the letter were the same as the findings relied upon to render their decision. The findings are as follows: 1. Because commercial boat slips and high rise buildings are not permitted in any zone, the applicant was ad- vised by the Planning Department to submit a conditional exception application covering the entire project. 2. The conditional exception was accompanied by an appli- cation to rezone the property so as to permit the pro- posed project. 3. To avoid speculative zoning, the Planning Commission in the past has withheld action on a zone case when processed concurrently with a conditional exception. The zone case is later approved when the project'is under construction. -3- 10/27/70-PCSS , Minutes: II.B. Planning Commission - Study Session October 27, 1970 Page 4 4. The conditional exception procedure assures surround- ing property owners that the property will be developed in the manner prescribed by the applicant. A zone change does not provide this guarantee. 5. Approximately 15 acres of the property is designated for medium density residential development. Most new apartment projects in medium density areas are developed at a density of 25 units per acre. This density on the 15 acres in question would result in 375 units. The applicant proposes to construct 378 units; thus, this proposed density complies with the Master Plan of Land Use. 6. Property to the northwest is zoned for commercial and high density development. 7. The plan provides a transition in density from the single family area along the southeasterly portion of the property to the highest density along the northwesterly portion on the property. This transition provides the best protection for residents across the channel to the southeast which would not be provided if the property were to develop to one density as per- mitted on the Master Plan of Land Use. 8. The plan includes a proposal to develop a water oriented commercial development. This orientation results in a reduction of land area necessitating the use of high rise buildings. 9. A transition in building height has been provided. 10. A development of this nature will bring substantial tax benefits to the City. 11. The development will upgrade the area and be an asset to the City. 12. It will serve as a landmark at the northerly entrance on Pacific Coast Highway. The Acting Secretary requested that a motion be_ made to reflect this_ opinion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property, and B. The exception is necessary for the preservation of enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti- tioner, and C. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Porter, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Miller ABSTAINED:, Duke THE MOTION CARRIED. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THEE=TING WAS ADJOURNED. A. Reyno og ates Secretary Chairman -4- 10/27/70-PCSS