Loading...
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)