Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-01Approved June 15, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mahaffey CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Winchell requested a word change in the Minutes of the last meeting, on Page 2, where the straw vote was taken. She asked that, for clearer intent, her vote read "would support the motion". This correction was noted. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18,-1982 MEETING, AND TWO CON- FORMANCES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, NUMBERS 82-2 AND 82-3, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None C014MISSION ITEMS: None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than 2 feet of cut and 2 feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delineated as Open Space Corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 2 a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Florence Webb informed the Commissioners that staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened on the Specific Plan, however, due to the fact that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 82-1) pub- lic hearing will be heard on June 15th because of the review period, it was further recommended to continue the public hearing on the Specific Plan to that date also. Carol Inge, Mike Adams, and Chuck Clark shared in the presentation of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, which included a slide presentation. Staff received a number of comments on the Specific Plan, such as the following: 1. The 10-acre minimum lot size is too restrictive. 2. There is not enough freedom to build on the small lots. 3. The collector street linking with Ernest Avenue cuts across private property in an undesirable location. 4. The development standards proposed are too rigid. 5. The Huntington Beach Company states that planning efforts in this area are premature. 6. With regard to oil: a. there are not enough sites for new drilling; b. allowing residential in the area might force oil out, and c. regarding mandatory islands,to preserve future access, tem- porary use should be allowed on sites that are now abandoned. It was also mentioned that the geothermal grant application efforts will not be jeopardized by the proposed Plan. Staff called the Com- missioners' attention to the fact that the Planning Division received an application from Chevron U.S.A. for a General Plan Amendment re- questing that the City redesignate a specified area from Estate Re- sidential to Resource Production. This involves approximately 115 acres in the proposed Specific Plan area. Commissioner Porter asked if, since the linear park was Orange County property, was the County in favor, or aware of the plans for the area. Staff stated that the County is aware of our efforts and goes along with whatever the City wants. Commissioner SChmacher referred to the slide presentation with regard to maintenance of the proposed easement and fencing. Public Works responded by stating that no 1 -2- 6-1-82 -.P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 3 extra maintenance would be required with the proposed plan. Jean also felt that equestrian uses in the proposed plan were too flexible. She felt that the City should either impose this condition or drop the idea of an extensive trail system. The creation of an assessment district was briefly discussed. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Specific Plan. Hillman Walker, representing Chevron USA, gave a presentation using an aerial view of the City to delineate the Chevron property in question. He cited the fact that many changes have occurred since the late 70's with regard to the production of energy. He said that the Specific Plan document itself made reference to reports conducted by the State Division of Oil and Gas, when in fact, there was (.in -his opinion) no written statement made by that Division. He further stated his company's need for more drilling islands and asked that the Chevron property be removed from the Specific Plan area. Emil Pletel, representing J. I. Hathaway, also requested that the Hathaway property be eliminated from the Specific Plan area. Bill Holman, representing the Huntington'Beach Company, stated that the proposed plan was not consistent with the direction given to the Planning Commission by the City Council. (Commissioner Porter took exception to this statement.) Mr. Holman felt that the planning in this area was premature and does not reflect the feelings of all the property owners. He recommended that the Huntington Beach Company holdings either be deleted from the Specific Plan, or that the issue be tabled. He stated that the Company is in a position to support Chevron in amending the General Plan for the area between Edwards and Goldenwest Streets. Ann Brindle, a property owner in the area, was opposed to the Plan. At the recommendation by staff, the Chairman did not close the public hearing, but continued it to the meeting of June 15, 1982. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Higgins felt that there may be other property owners concerned about energy that, for one reason or another, could not attend the public hearing. He agreed with one of the suggestions during the hearing, that an outside consultant be retained to determine whether the property should be developed or not. He tended to agree that it seemed premature to implement a Specific Plan at this time. Commissioner Paone-felt that it may be a good idea to hire a pro- fessional to access the situation, but also felt that planning in this area was not premature and that it is the Commission's job to plan. He did feel that perhaps the specific plan process was mis- understood by some to mean that the City is mandating development -3- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June l,. 1982 Page 4 when, in fact, it is only "drawing a picture". Commissioner Schumacher agreed that more oil islands were needed, however, she felt that the proposed Specific Plan was "not something out of the blue"; that it was general planned as estate residential, and that the economic situation reflected the fact that large custom houses were selling and not among the moderate income houses that are in a slump. Brief discussion also took place regarding access roads. Staff stated that there was a possibility of going back and contacting the Division of Oil and Gas before a consultant was hired. Florence Webb stated that the staff did work closely with D.O.G. and the oil operators and felt that their concerns were addressed in the Specific Plan. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None A recess was called; Commission meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-04 Applicant; J. I. Hathaway This is a request to allow the redrilling of an abandoned oil well on property that is zoned RA-O-CD and located 330 feet north of Schleicher Road; 660 feet west of Goldenwest Street. Redrilling of an abandoned oil well is presently not allowed under the provi- sions of Section 9681 (Oil Districts) of the Ordinance Code. The public hearing was opened. Emil Pletel, representing J. I. Hathaway, asked that the application be approved and said he would answer any questions. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 82-04 WAS APPROVED FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Based on the fact that there are numerous producing oil wells in the surrounding area and that the proposed test well will be -located over an abandoned well, there are exceptional cir- -4- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 5 cumstances that apply to this property that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vi- cinity under similar zoning classifications. 2. Since the approval of Conditional Exception No. 82-04 is for a 90-day period and is for testing purposes only, the granting of this conditional exception will not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning classifications. 3. Since there are numerous producing oil wells in the general vicinity and on surrounding properties and the subject test boring shall be located over the abandoned well, the granting of this conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the general area and within similar zoning classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Conditional Exception No. 82-04 will become null and void ninety (90) days from the date of Planning Commission approval. 2. Said drilling shall take place directly over the abandoned well (Denubila #1) with no other drilling allowed on the subject site. 3. If after the 90-day period the subject well does not comply with the provisions set forth in Chapter 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code for productive wells, all equipment will be re- moved and the well shall be capped in compliance with State and City standards. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter,*Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE At the May 18, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, Code Amendment No. 81-18/Negative Declaration No. 82-1 was approved for recommendation to the City Council.. Since it was a combination of several proposed alternative ordinances, Planning Commission requested that staff come back with the final document that will be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Paone suggested a word change on Page 4, Paragraph #3, delete the word "or" from the first sentence. He felt that "and/or" was too ambiguous. Also add, in the same sentence, the word "combined", so the sentence now reads, "In no wax shall -5- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 6 the combined cost of relocation and purchase of the units exceed one-third.of the appraised value of the raw land of the mobilehome park at the time of filing an impact of conversion report". Chair- man Winchell asked that the title of Section 9270.7 be revised to read, "Removal of the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone Or Mobilehome Zone". Commissioner Paone then suggested a change on Page 3, the last paragraph and second sentence; to delete the word "include" and replace it with the phrase "be limited to". The phrase now reads, "Those costs shall be limited to disconnection and break- down of the mobilehome,". A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADD TO THE TRANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE SECTIONS 9270.15 AND 9270.17 FROM ALTERNATIVE #1 WITH REGARD TO FEE FOR IM- PACT REPORT AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. THIS PASSED BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN• None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO BRING THE MATTER OF THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Paone, Porter NOES: Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None Commission consensus was that at the meeting of May 18, 1982, the intent of the Commissioners was that the language shall include the two sections from Alternative #1 regarding Planning Commission action and fees for impact reports, for the sake of continuity. LIVENGOOD MADE A MOTION'.,TO RECONSIDER THE FIRST MOTION REGARDING THE TWO ADDED SECTIONS. THIS WAS SECONDED BY PORTER AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Paone ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER WAS THEN VOTED ON AGAIN AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -6- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 7 AYES: None NOES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE MOBILE HOME ORDI- NANCE WAS APPROVED IN ITS FINAL FORM TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ALLEGED STORAGE LOT ON GARFIELD AVENUE Staff investigated the lot in question, at the request of Commissioner Schumacher. Mr. Bellavia reported that as a result of the investiga- tion, it was learned that the lot is a nonconforming use with equip- ment being stored, however, it was approved under a Certificate of Occupancy on file with this department. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin announced two upcoming meetings: A Subdivision Com- mittee meeting at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, June 11, and a Joint Study Session at 7:30 P.M. on the Downtown Specific Plan, on Monday, June 14, 1982. Florence Webb asked if any Commissioners might be available to at- tend a meeting with the property owners regarding the Downtown Specific Plan to be held this Saturday from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM. No commissioners were available due to the workshop to be held at the same time on Saturday, at U.C. Irvine. COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Winchell announced a meeting regarding Beach Boulevard to be held on Wednesday, June 2, at the Garden Grove Community Meeting Center. The Chairman also asked if any Commissioners were planning their summer vacations that might conflict with Planning Commission meetings. Only the Chairman announced she would not be attending the July 20, 1982 meeting due to vacation plans. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. to the Joint Study Session on the Downtown Specific Plan to be held at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, June 14, 1982. -7- 6-1-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 8 Grace Winchell, Chairman 1 -8- 6-1-82 - P.C.