Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-28MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1973 - 7:00 P.M. - STUDY SESSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Boyle, Wallin, Porter COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None JOINT STUDY SESSION:, ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Kerins called the meeting to order and requested Mrs. Harriet Wieder, Chairman of the Environmental Council, to introduce the Council and staff. Chairman Kerins then intro- duced the Planning Commission members and staff. I. ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL AND PLANNING ROLES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCESS A. Evaluate Environmental Council, ERB and Planning Commission relationship. General discussion took place between the members of. the Environmental Council and Planning Commission as to the procedures followed in the processing of an.EIR. Mrs. Carlberg outlined the process utilized by the Environmental Council Review Committee on an EIR and stated that the Review Committee submits their report to the Environmental Council for review prior to the Council making recommendations on a report to the ERB. Mrs. Carlberg also stated that the quality of EIRs was improving, however, in some isolated instances, in the past, reports were set for public hearing prior to being properly drafted. It was the consensus of the group that the reports should be acceptable prior to being transmitted to the Environ- mental Council for review as well as before being set for 30 day public comment. It was noted that the pages of the EIRs should be numbered in all cases, also that additional copies of the ERB's transmittal should be made available to the public at the time the Planning Commission and/or City Council.meeting on the application pertaining to the project. The staff was directed to transmit to the Chairman of the Review Committee of the Environmental Council, the Planning Commission action on the application and conditions imposed thereon. The Environmental Council also requested that copies of the ERB's transmittal on projects which have EIRs.filed thereon be mailed to the Review Committee prior to a public hearing being held by the Board of Zoning Adjustments, Planning Commission, or City Council on the application for the project. -1- 8/28/73 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planningg Commission Tuesday, August 28, 1973 Page 2 B. Observation regarding conditions of approval as they may result from -the EIR. After a lengthy discussion on the conditions as they may evolve from the EIR procedure at which time Jim Palin, Chairman of the ERB, indicated that there is a very good rapport between the Environmental Council Review Committee and the Environmental Review Board. He also stated that Mrs. Carlberg attends almost all of the Environmental Review Board meetings in which she participates freely in discussion on the proposed impact of the given project. It was noted that the Environmental Council does not always offer specific conditions for any given project, however, when such conditions are offered to the Environmental Review Board, the Board takes those into consideration along with their own recommendations when transmitting to the appropriate City body. It was the consensus that the Environmental Impact Report Committee of the Environmental Council address itself to the basic issues according to certain categories. Also that the conditions of approval as recommended by the ERB should be arranged according to category, i.e., water, air, noise, etc. The recommendations of the ERB should be specific in the conditions applied to the project and should be clearly spelled out so that there is no question as to the suggested requirements. In conclusion, the Planning Commission requested to see copies of the Environmental Council's recommendations as an attachment to the ERB transmittal on all projects. Also the Chairman directed the staff to make copies available of the staff report as well as the ERB recommend- ation to the applicant prior to the public hearing so that the applicant could address himself to'the ERB recommend- ations at the meeting. II. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES AND THEIR INTERFACING WITH THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL 0 S A. Staff report on joint meeting between staff members of the City of Huntington Beach and staff members of the South Coast Regional Commission. K.-A. Reynolds, Planning Director, gave a brief recap of the recent meeting between the South Coast Commission staff members and the staff members of Huntington Beach. He stated that there are many problems which have to be mutually worked out, such'as the conflict between parking requirement for which the South Coast Regional Commission will accept tandem parking whereas the City will not allow tandem parking. Mr. Reynolds also reviewed with the group the interpretation and definition of approval J I. -2- 8/28/73 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planningg Commission Tuesday, August 28, 1973 Page 3 in concept of project which by their interpretation would mean that all discretionary acts have taken place by the local agency. He also stated that there was a problem with enforcement of the conditions of approval by the Regional Commission and they were under the understanding that the City was enforcing said conditions. However, it was pointed out to the staff members of the Regional Commission that the local agencies were barred from doing so and if they were required to enforce the conditions imposed by the Regional Commission, it would require amendments to local ordinances. He informed the group that there was a publication available for information on the Coastal Commission entitled "Coastline Newsletter". Mr. Reynolds was directed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission to obtain eopies for Planning Commission review. III. ENVIR IL'S ROLE IN PROVIDING INPUT TO THE The Chairman of the Environmental Council, Mrs. Wieder, stated that the Environmental Council had changed their meeting dates from Tuesday to Thursday in order that members could attend Planning Commission meetings. In addition she stated that the Environmental Council has established subcommittees to review the land use element, conservation and open space element, and the -forthcoming Growth Policy. The Chairman of -the Planning Commission instructed the staff to furnish the Environmental Council with Planning Commission agendas and copies of the afore- mentioned elements so that they may review and have input to the Planning Commission at such time as the Planning Commission may review these elements at a study session. IV. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL PROVIDING TO THE'CI'TY RECOMMEND TA TT?T_ T\T1TT CST r%%r A It was a consensus that a report would be submitted back to the Planning Commission by the Environmental Council on possible amendments to the standard conditions of approval as well as amendments to Division 9 of,the Ordinance Code to incorporate provisions to mitigate possible adverse environmental impact -of a project. This report was to be submitted back to the Planning Commission within 45 days after staff and -the Environmental Council 'had' been able to formulate these recommendations. The joint meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. IONS -3- 8/28/73 - PC Minutes• H.B. Planning Commission August 28, 1973 Page 5 Chairman Kerins stated that he felt a PRD would be appropriate but was concerned about the height of the units, that they should not be obstructing the view of the units on the other side of Marina, that some grading should be done to assure this. He stated that he felt unit No. 6 should be deleted and that the City should allow driveway access only across City -owned property. He further agreed with Commissioner Bazil on treatment of wall on Warner Avenue. Commissioner Geiger stated that he preferred an RI development but without the 9 ft. fence along Warner Avenue. Acting Secretary, Jim Palin, stated that it is a requirement of ,the standard condition of approval that a six foot fence on an R1 development if it sides or backs on to the arterial be installed. The developer addressed the Commissioners, and discussed the proposed project with them. He requested clarification on their suggestions and requests. He agreed that the height of the houses will be 14' 611. REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN AND MULTI -STORY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TOWNLOT AREA Steve Kellogg presented the proposed specific plans and alternatives for the Townlot area of the City. Vugraphs were shown indicating alternative.plans, There was a discussion on realignment of Pacific Coast Highway. Also there was a discussion of'two one-way streets going through the City, with three lanes in each. Dave Eadie addressed the Commission and requested that there be a question and answer discussion of the MULTI -STORY SUFFIX. Chairman Kerins requested that at next discussion the Commission be provided with a display showing models -of the concept, since they would like to visually depict the proposed plan. Commissioner Wallin asked Mr. Eadie why he had felt that Draft No. 7 had been too restricted, and Mr. Eadie stated that it had been too specific for smaller lots and hence needed more flexibility. Ed Selich gave a brief update on the assessment district. .He stated that the City Council did not want to authorize any City commitment of funds until further interest is indicated from the property owners, that there had not been much response to date. He further stated: 1. Planning stage - will review layout and reevaluate it. Time period will be approximately 3 months. -5- 8/28/73 - PC Minutes; 11.R, Planningg Commission Tuesday, August 28, 1,973 Page 4 REVISED PLOT -PLAN OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7743 (JMC Construction The Acting Secretary stated that Tentative Tract No. 7743 had been continued to September 5, 1973 meeting by the Commission at the August 21 meeting. He reviewed the revised plot plan that reflected the city -owned property declared surplus by the City Council. There was also an R1 overlay which had been pre- pared by the staff. Slides of the property were shown, depicting -the property from several points and showing topography. The Commissioners discussed the driveways, water tower area, fencing, and their opinions as to whether it should be developed as R1 property or PRD. The Acting Secretary pointed out that the proposed development exceeds the open space requirements required by the City Code. Commissioner Porter stated that the plans on display had been changed since the Subdivision Committee Meeting and did not reflect the placement or number of units suggested at the meeting. He further stated that he would prefer the property developed according to R1 standards rather than a PRD, and that he would like to see some renderings indicating roof line elevations between 12 and 14 feet in height. Commissioner Boyle stated that although he had not attended the previous hearing on this development he would like to see Unit No. 6 deleted if the property is developed as a PRD project, and that there should be a reorientation of -the drive to provide access from Marina view to lessen the length of the driveway. Commissioner Wallin requested that the staff work with the applicant in making certain that he is.made aware of all the requirements necessary to meet PRD standards. She also stated that she con- curred with Commissioner Boyle in deleting Unit 6 and in fact stated that she would prefer the deletion of Unit 5 as well. Commissioner Higgins stated that he favored a PRD, but felt that the use of property for open space which is to be possibly pur- chased from the City should be clarified. He stated that after this has been determined the development can be planned accordingly, Commissioner Bazil stated that he would be in favor of a PRD, that he felt the 6 ft. fence required on the arterial for an R1 project set in a 3 foot height elevation would give the effect of a 9 ft. wall and block off landscaping and certainly would not enhance the area. He further stated that the open space indicated on the proposed plan far exceeded that of any other project comparable which had been approved in the past, He stated that he would like to see the driveways changed so that 2 ft. retaining wall on Warner - could be built. -4- 8/28/73 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 28, 1973 Page 6 2. EIR prepared and processed and taken to Coastal Commission. This will take about 4 months. 3. Engineering stage final by Public Works in 3 months. Art Knox, of the High Rise Committee, addressed the Commission. He stated that he knew philosophy on density had never been discussed previously, and that he had not been asked -to work with the staff, but had merely functioned as a critic.. He stated that he wanted the Planning Commission and staff to poll the owners of the property in the Townlot area regarding rezoning the area. Staff was directed to prepare models and maps delineating exist- ing construction in the area. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 for a 10 minute recess. At 11:20 P.M. Chairman Kerins asked to be excused and Vice -Chairman Higgins presided. Proposed Code Amendment No. 73-20 Retail food services in M1-A Zone The Acting Secretary reviewed the Staff Report and the previous discussions. ON MOTION BY BOYLE SECOND BY WALLIN PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 73-20 WAS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Kerins PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 73-21 Guest Parking - to require guest parking within all multiple residential districts. The Acting Secretary stated that Ken Reynolds, Planning Director, had removed this item from the agenda pending receipt of an opinion from the Attorney's office on amending provisions to allow guest parking to be on street with assessment district. He stated that it would be heard as a miscellaneous item at September 5 meeting. Review pursuant to Condition No. 2 of approval of Tentative Tract No. 7837. "Fencing material and landscaping around all patio areas fronting on Algonquin Street shal-1 be approved by the Planning Commission." The Commissioners reviewed the renderings on display as well, as the landscape plans. -6- 8/28/73 PC Minutes: H.B. Planningg Commission Tue5dgy, August 287 1973 Page 7 ON MOTION BY BOYLE SECOND BY PORTER LANDSCAPING AND WALL, MATERIALS AS SHOWN ON PLANS WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Wallin, Boyle, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Kerins MISCELLANEOUS The Commission requested staff to place on September 11 Study Session Agenda discussion of enforcement of conditions of approval by South Coast Regional Coastal Commission. Commissioner Wallin presented Acting Secretary with a list of conditions suggested for Edison Company expansion. The Acting Secretary spoke in behalf of Carl Duncan, Fire Department, concerning the Edison Company's possible need for fire fighting equipment being installed on premises. The Acting Secretary reviewed with the Commission a proposed PD and stated that it was located on a piece of property zoned R2-PD-14 with density of 5.7 units per acre, that the concept was for patio type home in a 30 acre area. It was the consensus of the Commission that the concept as presented did not meet the intent of the Planned Unit Develop- ment Code. Commissioner Wallin requested that clarification be sought on Rule 67 on possible retroactive application. There being no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:25 A.M. • 4.1,4 �n�_ 'n't . jft,& )/. �v A J,".J K. A. Reynol-ds f N war H. Ke r1ns Secretary Chairman -7- 8/28/73 - PC�