HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment GPA1986002 - Project Descriptione
C ITV HUN TI NG TO N BEACH
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICAT ON
HUNTINCTON BEACH
City Council Members
Subject UPDATE - MEADOWLARK.
AIRPORT
From
Date
Paul Cook
C=ty Adrniiistrator
March 20, 1989
The 65-acre Meadowlark Airport site is currently zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan, with
a General Plan Land Use designation o.' Planned Community. The General Plan
designation and Specific Plan were adopted by the City Council on February 1, i988, and
provide for 15 acres of retail commercial along Warner Avenue, and 50 acr+ of mixed
low density to medium-high density residential development to the north of the
commercial site. The residential portio., will consist of a mix of product types, not to
exceed 600 units (an average of 12 units per acre). The Specific Plan governs such 1 `ems
as buffer areas, circulation in and around the Plan area, and phasing requirements.
On Noveinber, 7, 1988, the City Council adopted a Development Agreement between the
City and the owners of the Meadowlark property, which outlined the rights and
responsibilities of the City and the developer with regard to future development on the
site. The Development Agreement does not constitute approval of a specific project.
Rather, it stipulates that the developer may proceed with future projects in accordance
with the rules, regulations, and policies in force at the effective date of the agreement,
subject to certain conditions. These include provision of infrastructure and utilities in
accordance with the Specific Plan, and cessation of airport operations by September 1,
1989:
Currently, the Department of Community Development and the Attorney's office are
working wi i.h the property owners to develop an airport closure plan. The plan may
include such measures as removal of runways, tie-downs, and the flight school, so as to
prohibit take-offs and landings as of September 1, 1989.
No development proposals have been submitted at this tin a. However, each phase of
commercial and residential development will be subject to separate Planning Commission
review at noticed public hearings. Staff has spoken with some potential developers, and
expects the first phase development plans (probably the commercial ,#'-ase along Warner
Avenue) to be submitted within the next several months.
I
ATTACHN NT
Project Chronology
1986
The application requesting a general plan redesignation and zone change for the 63-acre
Meadowlark Airport was submitted in January of 1986. Following the application
submittal, staff, Dick Nerio (representing the Nerlo Family) and Dick Harlow (the offit;ial
representative and consultant to Dice, Nerio) meet to discusf what procedures would be
established in response to the request. The director of Development Services directed
staff tea prepare the environmental impact report (EIR) and also required the applicant to
provide specific, necessary, studies which were also significant components of the EIR
The specific studies included: the traffic analysis, market analysis, archaeological
assessment, sewer assessment and preliminary soils analysis. Thuse studies were
completed in early 1987 which allowed staff to complete t.ce ETR and bring it to th
Planning Commission for the first study session in May 1987 (copies of all Planning
Commission staff reports are included as attachmerits to this RCA).
Mgy 1987
The request brought to the Planning Corn mission study session in May 19, 1987 was as
follows:
Redesignate 65 acres located on the north side of Warner Avenue, south side of Heil
.A,venue and 600 feet east of Boi2a Chica Street from Low Density Residers,. _. to 30 acres
of Medium Density Residential (4.)0 units), 15 acres of Mealum High Density (375 units, 6
acres of ,Se, ;ior Citizen Residential (250 units). The total nurnuer of residential units
equal 075,) and 15 acres of Commercial (196,020 gross square feet). The proposed
nurnber4oLud`its included density bonuses.
At that time Land Use Element 87-2 (LICE) addressed two amendment requests;.
Meadowlark (Area 2.1) and OCTD (Area 2.2). OCTD was adopted first as LUE 87--2A. A
concurrent LUE for A.C. Y '-ion was adopted as LUE 97--213, and Meadowlark as LUE
87-y2C. The Meadowlark analysis contained an analysis of six land use scenarios or
alternatives which were later expanded to seven.
The issues raised at the May studying session included:
1. Compatibility: A mixed r°eidential development would be compatible with some of
the existing residential uses adjacent to Meadowlark but not compatible with
existing single-family on both the west and east side of the subject site.
2. Traffic: The proposed residential and commercial developments would contribute to
increased traffic in the area surrounding the site.
Sewage: The site currently uses a se .{ti : tank, therefore, the proposed development
would require asewer system that would discharge into the County Sanitation
Di6.rict No. I 1 service area and the Slater Pump Statilon. The Slater Pump Station
is at capacity.
Water: Questions arose regarding the Water Oepaetment`s ability to adequately
serve the site if and when it was totally developed.
5. Noise: Existing residential developments would be subject to noise levels of 70 and
65 Ldn, especially those residences along Heil Avenue, just north of the site.
The Plarkning Commission directed staff to provide additional informa:.ion, at the public
hearing, regarding traffic, sewage, water, market analysis and compatibility.
A public hearing was scheduled for June 2,1987.
June 1987
In addition to responding to the Commission's request for additional data, staff also
presented a seventh land use alternative to those analyzed in the EIR. Alternative No. 7
presented a combination of 50 acres of lcw density residential and 15 acres of
commercial . This additional alteryiative was developed in response to the Commission's
concern regarding the significant gmpacts, of the applicant's request on traffic and the
sewer system from the 1075 dwelling units. At thIs hearing, there were also unresolved
questions regarding future Water Depar,'ment services td the site, the feasibility/viability
of a commercial center in that area and the proposed multi-family impact on existing
single-family residences adjacent to the Airport.
The testimony at thy; public hearing could be divided into two groi.ps: those opposed to
closing the airport and those opposed to the proposed multi-family development on the
residential portion of the site.
Although staff proposed phasing the development to coincide with the availability of
water and sewer service, the Commission was also very concerned about the density of
the proposed residential portion of the development and related impacts. In response to
the public and Planning Commission's concern the applicant requested a continuatioti of
the hearing until July 28, 1987.
July 1987
On July 28th, staff requested a continuation of the item with a request of the Planning
Commission to direct staff to prepare a specific plan for the subject site concurrent with
the General Plan Amendment. It was also at thii time that the EIR was amended to
separate the subject site (Meadowlark) from the original report and establish Land Use
element Amendment 87-2C.
Staff also reconsidered its previous recommendation for the Iroposed project which was
approv al of the requested general plan amendment and zone change. The reconsideration
Concluded that infrastructure deficiencies were so great as to preclude any redesignation
other than 15 acres along Warner Avenue to commercial. This recommendation was in
conflict with staff's earlier conclusion as described in the environmental impact repot t.
That earlier conclusion was that Meadowlark Airport offered the opportunity for a variety
of housing product types as well as retail commercial potential. Any concerns regarding
infrastructure capability could be resolved through phasing of the project.
The revised approach staff pror;,sed was similar to the approach used in the Seabridge
project at B;-,ach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. The Planned Community land use
designation would permit a range of residential densities, as well as retail development.
A specific plan would then identify all of the constraints and mitigation measures to be
applied to the site, but would not identify the exact location of land uses. Those locations
and land uses would be established througn the conditional use permit process.
The Planning Commission supported staff's reconsideration and directed staff to prepare a
specific plan to be assessed at the next Dublic hearing.
In prior hearings, staff identified the major issues which surfaced in response to the
applicant's proposal to close the airport and develop the site with residential and
commercial use.
Those issues were as follows:
1. The closure of the airport would negatively impact general aviation in the country,
reducing available tie-down spaces.
1 Due to normal growth and development of the Bolsa Chica, traffic volumes on the
adjacent arterials are expected to it :crease greatly over the next ten years. The
additional traffic which would be generated by the project may increase traffic
volumes measurably.
3. The residents on Pearce Drive are concerned that development of the site will
excessively increase traffic on Pearce Drive.
The proposed residential demities are hlghe: than most of the surrounding
residential land uses adjacent to the site
5. Sewer capacity at the present time is not sufficient to meet the needs of any
densities which exceed the. existing Low Density Residential designation.
6. At the present time, it is undetermined whether sufficient future water capacity
exists to service the proposed development.
7. The site may be subject to contaminationby hazardous substances and leakage of
methane gas.
8. The site has been identified as a possible archaeological site.
At the July 28, 1987 hearing, the Planning Commission continued the hearing until
September 22, 1991 (tae public hearing was rncheduled to a special public hearing on t
29th) and directed staff" to address these issues b completing the following tasks:
1. Prepare a FeasibPity Study for isition and operation of the airport.
2. Prepare a Specific Plan which would include a maximum of 400 units (7 units per
acre) end approximately 10 to 15 acres of Commercial.
Prepare a Specific Plan which would include 400 to 750 units, approxi mately 10 to
15 acres of Commercial, and senior citizen nounng either on-site or off--site.
Subsequent to the hearing, the applicant withdrew his request for senior citiz
Staff responded to the direction of
items for the public hearing on Sep
housing.
e
ilowng
(9729d)
1. Meadowlark Airport Feasibility Analysis
2. Traffic Study Addendum by Parsons, Brinekerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc.
3. Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan
Option A - 750 residential units and 15 acres of commercial.
Option B - 600 residential units and 15 acres of commercial.
Option C 400 residential units and 15 acres of commercial.
4. Alternative Specific Plan Concepts
5. "Qualified" zoning restrictions to be considered as an alternative to a specific plan.
All of the above-are inclur;ed in the September 29th staff report attached to the RCA.
At the September public hearing, the majority of individuals who testified requested the
Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the immediate closure of
Meadowlark Airport. Their secondary concern was the traffic that would be generated by
the proposed development.
In response to public testimony and staff's report regarding the feasibility of the City
owning and operating Meadowlark Airport, the Planning Commission passed a motion
ecommending that the City Council not pursue any consideration of purchasing and
operating a municipal airport at Meadowlark.
The results of a revised traffic study were also present. d (that included estimated Bolsa
Chica traffic) with the conclusion that, in the near term, assuming the completion of the
commercial center, the thrs:-e alternative land uses that had been most recently assessed
(all containing 1 S acres of commercial with .either 750,600 or 400 dwelling units) would
have similar impacts on the intersections adjacent to or near the airport.
A new issue that surfaced at this mraeetingfpublic hearing was the lack of a site plan
identifying the general location of the proposed residential portion of the development
and the relation of chose proposed units to existing residential developments adjacent to
the airport. The applicant, in response to the site plan request, requested a continuance
of the hearing until November to prepare a conceptual site plan,
The Environmental Impact Report 871-2C was found adequate by the Planning Commission.
November 1 "j7
Staff's recommended action, presented at the November 17th public hearing was as follows:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of General Plan land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C for a change in land use
designation from Low Density Residential tO Planned Community. Staff also recommends
approval with findings of Zone Change No. 87.13 for the adoption of the Meadowlark
Specific Plan, which would allow 15 acres of commercial and 50 acres of mixed
residential , not to exceed 600 units (an average of 12 units per acre).
The above recommendation was supported by a staff report that included, in addition to
the applicant's conceptual site plan containing 750 units, a site plan prepared by staff that
contained a maximum of 600 dwelling units. The report also contained further refinement
of the proposed buffer areas separating existing residential adjacent to the airport from
any proposed medium density (multi.-family) residential units proposed for the site and the
specific plan as reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office.
Testimony received at this public hearing focused on support of the applicant's proposal to
develop, its ad&cion to the retail commercial, 750 dwr,rling units on the airport site. The
applicant , however, charged their request, reducing the residential portion to 600 units.
The Planning Commission approved the general plan Land Use Element A mendment No.
87-2C changing the land use designation on t.h; Meadowlark Airpor site to Planned
Community containing 50 acres of r esidentifi s1_velopment with a maximum of 600 units
and 15 acres of retail commercial. The Comm ission continued the zone change
component of the request in order to provide additional refinement to the Meadowlar'.
Specific Plan.
Staff was directed to bring the revise Meadowlark Specific Plan back to the Commission
on December 1, 1987.
December 198
The Meadowlark Specific Plan was augmented in response to concerns raised by the
Planning, Commission at the November 17 public hearing regarding the need to have Home
specific guidelines in the plan focusing on issues related to circulation parking,
alternative development scenarios specifying residential product types, buffers, setbacks
and park dedication.
Also, within Section N. Developr::ent Standards, three alternative development scenarios
.were presented. Staff requested tha.i the Commission choose one of t lose scenarios to be
included in the final version of the Specific Plan.
density (7 DUfac), a maximum of 20 acres of medium density (12 DU/ac) and a maximum
of 12 acres of mediunt-high density (20 Div /ac).
At this time, 'it was also discussed that staff tentatively scheduled a public hearing of the
Meadowlark GPA, zone change, EIR before the City Council at their second meeting in
January 1988. There were ai_o further revisions to the Specific Plan which staff was
directed to prepare and return to the Plan-rning Commission at their December 15, 1987
meeting.
The Commission chose one of the alternatives which divided the residential portion of t
proposed development into three segments including: a minimum of 18 acres of low
December 15 19 7
Brought before them as an informational item (non-public hearing) was a further revised
Meadowlark Specific Plan including deletions of sections no longer necessary within the
context of the revised Specific Plan.
The Commission found some typographical errors and the deletion of a sentence they
wanted re-included in the Specific Plan. Staff will make the corrections and take the
corrected Specific Plan back to the Commission on January 5, 1988 for then review of the
latest revisions,
i A5 ('9729d)