Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-10MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT ADJOURNED MEETING WITH PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Room B-8 (Basement) Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1976 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Parkinson, Finley, Slates, Boyle, Kerins, Bazil Commissioner Shea arrived at 8:50 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chisholm, Schroeder, Jarrard, Shandrick, Terry, Mulligan, Shea, Bennet, Coplin, Whaling PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Henrickson, Pasqualino Chairman Slates introduced Mr. Mel Carpenter, Executive Director, South Coast Regional Coastal Commission as his guest for the evening. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF PURPOSE AND ROLE OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Ed Selich gave a background report on the formation of the Project Area Committee. He stated that the Redevelopment Project Area was formed in August, 1975 and the City Council was subsequently required to form a Project Area Committee. Such a Committee was appointed by the City Council on December 15, 1975. Presently, the Committee consists of 12 members, however, the City Council will appoint one more member. Mr. Selich stated that this Committee was established for a three year period after which time it would be reviewed annually by the City Council. The responsibilities of the Project Area Committee were primarily to work with the Planning Commission in preparing a Preliminary Redevelop- ment Plan of the Downtown Area. The,plan would be adopted by the Planning Commission and sent to the Council for their information only. Mr. Selich further stated that the City felt it necessary for the Project Area Committee to review the General Plan Amendment because it is closely related to the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Selich stated that the Project Area Committee held its initial meeting January 8, 1976 and a meeting each Thursday night for the month of January with an attendance of 6 or 7 people the first meeting; 20 to 30 people were in attendance the second meeting; and with an undetermined large group of people in attendance at the third meeting. -1- PC 2/10/76 N.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 2 The meetings of the Project Area Committee were held to formulate their recommendations on the General Plan Amendment as well as the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Selich stated that people selected for the Project Area Committee are very familiar with the Downtown area and its problems. Chairman Slates stated that the purpose for the joint Study Session was to clarify discrepancies in recommendations between the Planning Commission and Project Area Committee. Mr. Whaling, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, stated the Committee's concerns on the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Selich presented a communication from Leonard Wright stating his concerns with the Redevelopment Area. In answer to a question raised by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Selich stated that the public had been extensively notified of upcoming. Project Area Committee meetings. Jerry Shea and Bob Terry, members of the Project Area Committee, presented the recommendations of the Project Area Committee on changes to the Land Use Diagram, Figure 6.1. After each item was presented, staff made their comments and recom- mendations as follows: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4b. That the medium density area bound by Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Orange Avenue (Area No. 5 ) be modified to reflect commercial along Fifth Street for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the frontage along Fifth Street is presently used and zoned for commercial. 2. Abutting commercial and residential at an alley provides a better transition of land uses than residential frontage on an arterial street with commercial on the other side. 3. Since Fifth Street is a proposed arterial, commercial develop- ment on both sides would be more appropriate. 4. The commercial designation would be a logical extension of the commercial area (No. 3) adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. k STAFF 4b. The Planning Staff concurs with this recommendation even though it provides for an excess of commercial land over what is warranted. The staff feels that if*the specialty area east 6f:5th Street is -2- PC 2/10/76 H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 3 successful, ecomonic pressures will be generated on the west side of Fifth Street for commercial development. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4c. That the area of the apartments adjacent to the beach between Seventh and Sixth Streets (Area No. 20) be designated high density residential to reflect the existing use for the following reasons: 1. It would be a logical reflection of a present use that will exist in the long term. 2. The conversion to condominiums may be jeopardized by an inappropriate land use designation. 3. The City has found that development consistent with the General Plan in a letter to the property owner. 4. No public agency is presently considering acquisition of the property for open space. STAFF 4c. The staff feels this could go either way. The original staff recommendation is a graphic representation of City Policy regarding the beach,whereas the Project Area Committee's recommendations reflect a condition that will exist throughout the planning period. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4e. That the triangle created by the proposed realignment of Atlanta Avenue be designated general commercial since the realignment creates a small section of medium density property and isolates it from a contiguous similar use. STAFF 4e. Although the triangle is relatively small and it will again increase commercial acreage beyond the warranted projections, the staff feels that general commercial would be more compatible south of the Atlanta realignment. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4g. That the two medium density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (west of Beach, north and south of Atlanta) be redesignated for high density residential for the following reasons: -3- PC 2/10/76 H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 4 1. It provides more flexibility than the medium density designation. 2. Flood problems may make low rise medium density develop- ment more difficult to design than multi story high density use. 3. This is an excellent alternate location for high rise,, particularly if high rise cannot be developed in Town - lot Area No. 5. 4. These are two large and vacant parcels available for innovative design. STAFF 4g. The staff feels high density is acceptable since the developer would still be able to develop it to a low intensity. Staff disagrees with the Project Area Committee that these areas would be a good alternative location for residential high rise. The sites are too far removed from the ocean for economically sound residential high rise. Although the concept of stepping heights away from the ocean sounds nice, it is economically impractical. PROTECT AREA COMMITTEE 4d. That the Specialty Commercial Designation* be expanded to include the west side of the pier and around the pier itself for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the Committee feels that a higher density of commercial development than proposed may be -desirable as it leaves the option open. 2. The Coastal Commission may desire a higher use than proposed. STAFF 4d. The staff does not agree with this recommendation as it con- flicts with the original staff recommendation that the pier not be expanded until Main Street is firmly established as a viable commercial area. The Committee's point that their recommendation leaves the option open for future expansion is outweighed, we feel, by a need to indicate on the diagram that the pier should remain at its present intensity of commercial use. The option that the Committee is concerned about is always there as the General'Plan can be amended 3 times per year. :1 1 -4- PC 2/10/76 H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 5 PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4h. That the high density residential designation on the City owned property bound by Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to tourist commercial for the following reasons: 1. The property is City owned and the tourist commercial would allow for greater flexibility. 2. It balances the increased population density resulting from other Project Area Committee recommendations.. STAFF 4h. Staff accepts the Project Area Committee's recommendation even though it increases the amount of tourist commercial land beyond our warranted acreage for the number of tourist commercial facilities set forth in the modified destination resort alternatives. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4f. That the proposed park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be removed from the plan for the following reasons: 1. The Committee feels that enough parks exist to service the area and that the Planning Commission should proceed with caution in designating additional sites. 2. The Committee feels that adequate information demonstrating park demand has not been submitted. STAFF 4f. The staff does not agree with the Project Area Committee recommendation. An analysis has been performed on park needs for the area with a resultant reduction from city- wide standards. Staff feels that both sites should remain as proposed. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 4a. That the Old Civic Center Site be designated High Density Residential (mixed use development would allow commercial on lower levels) and the proposed park designation be removed for the following reasons: -5- PC 2/10/76 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 6 1. Sufficient parks can be provided elsewhere, if needed. 2. Development of the site would act as an anchor and a catalyst to downtown revitalization. 3. This is a parcel suitable for low and moderate income housing. 4. The present public uses may not be economically viable in the long term. 5. The proposed mall will provide a park -like setting in the Downtown Area with landscape features, benches, fountains, etc. 6. A reassessment of Citywide park needs must be undertaken. STAFF 4a. Staff does not agree with the PAC recommendation on the Civic Center Site and stands behind the original recommendation for public use. Since further information on cost benefit alternatives is still being prepared, staff feels that planning reserve could be an intermediate designation to allow this issue to be resolved in the final Redevelopment Plan. Chairman Slates suggested that each item be once again reviewed and a consensus should be reached between the Project Area Committee and the Planning Commission. Following are the results of that discussion: PAC RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 The Project Area Committee recommends that the land use plan be modified in accordance with the attached diagram. Specifically, the PAC recommends the following changes: 4a. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Old Civic Center Site be designated High Density Residential (mixed use development would allow commercial on lower levels) and the proposed park designation be removed for the reasons previously stated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission felt the site should be designated for public use. -6- PC 2/10/76 I. n I� Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 7 4b. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the medium density area bouna by Fifth Street, Walnut Avenue, Sixth Street and Orange Avenue (Area No. 5) be modified to reflect commercial along Fifth Street for the reasons previously stated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee. 4c. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the area of the apartments adjacent to the beach between Seventh and Sixth Streets (Area No. 20) be designated high density residential to reflect the existing use for the reasons previously stated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission felt it should remain designated as open space. 4d. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the Specialty Commercial Designation be expanded to include the west side of the pier and around the pier itself for the reasons previously stated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee's recommendation. 4e. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the triangle created by the proposed realignment of Atlanta Avenue be designated general commercial since the realignment creates a small section of medium density property and isolates it from a contiguous similar use. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee for the area south of Atlanta Avenue. 4f. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the proposed park site designated in the vicinity of Delaware and Chicago Streets be removed from the plan for the previously stated reasons. -7.- PC 2/10/76 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission felt the proposed park site designation should remain. 4g. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the two medium density areas at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta Avenue (west of Beach, north and south of Atlanta) be redesignated for high density residential for the reasons previously stated. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission felt that the properties should be medium density. 4h. PAC RECOMMENDATION That the high density residential designation on the city -owned property bound by Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to tourist commercial for the previously stated reasons. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENATION At the night of the meeting, the Planning Commission concurred with the Project Area Committee. The Coastal Commission's role in the Downtown Redevelopment was dis- cussed. Mr. Mel Carpenter, Executive Director, South Coast Regional Commission, stated that the Coastal Commission can only act on the application upon presentation. Mr. Carpenter suggested that the applicant (City Staff) study the coastal plan and policies for greater understanding. Mr. Carpenter offered his services to give the City occasional advice when needed. The Project Area Committee adjourned the meeting to their next regular scheduled meeting of Thursday, February 19, 1976. PROPOSED AMENDMENT, ARTICLE 968 Mr. Harlow addressed the Commission and presented the proposed Amendment to Article 968. Mr. Harlow stated that Staff had met with the Oil Committee to review the proposed Amendment. He further stated that the Amendment to Article 968 is proposed, precedent to the rewrite of the Oil Code, to facilitate oil production within the oil fields by permitting a sidetrack operation within an existing surface bore hole to facilitate recompletion in the same production zone. 1 -8- PC 2/10/76- 1 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 10, 1976 Page 9 Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY PARKINSON, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 968) WAS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Bazil, Finley, Slates, Shea, Boyle, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Parkinson gave a brief report of his recent trip to San Francisco where he attended the League of California Cities Planning Commission Institute Meeting. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Mr. Harlow presented an invitation extended by the Edison Company (Mr. Bill Compton) to the Planning Commission for a tour of the San Onofre Power Plant. ADJOURNMENT: ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY PARKINSON, MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M. TO THE FEBRUARY 18, 1976 REGULAR MEETING. AYES: Parkinson, Bazil, Finley, Slates, Shea, Boyle, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None (2 &- /k-,/ Richard A. Harlow Secretary Chairman am PC 2/10/76