Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-31Approved 9/21/76 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center and Room B8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1976 - 7 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None SCHEDULED ITEMS: ZONE CASE N0..76-20 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Chairman Slates stated that a public hearing had been held on August 17, 1976 with public input solicited at that time. This zone change it a request for a prezone on 1603.12 acres of land to RA-02, ROS-01 and ROS. A portion of this land is prezoned R1, Rl-CD, RA and -CD. A majority of the property is not prezoned. Existing County zoning is A, A1(0) and AR. Acting Secretary Selich stated that he had responded to a letter written by Ms. Linda Moon which seemed to reflect a general mis- understanding concerning the actual impacts of prezoning the Bolsa Chica: He reported on the three areas of apparent misunderstanding. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Herb Chatterton, President of Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed the Commission with the following statements: The negative declaration accompanying the prezoning proposal is not the appropriate environmental document for this project. The negative declaration which has been publicly distributed has been essentially invalidated by the recent modification of the prezoning plan. _The zoning currently proposed is not appropriate to the Bolsa Chica area. If annexed now with a developable zone (even RA), the conversion to open space,zoning later would amount to substantial downzoning and subject the City -to the risks of inverse condemnation proceedings.. He further stated that the only zoning which would be appropriate -for "the'1603 acres of'the Bolsa Chica is a non -develop- able open space' zone (ROS) which will allow full flexibility at the completion of ,the planning phase. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1976 i Page 2 ! George Stringer, representing the Signal Bolsa Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that the proposed.prezoning is a downzoning, that there is already Ri prezoning in the Bolsa Chica which will be changed to RA. He was questioned by Commissioner, -Boyle as to whether or not ROS would be acceptable on the leased land. He indicated that the lease agreement between the State and Signal Bolsa provided an option on the part of the State to ultimately own the leased land if they provide an ocean access. Since no activity has been made toward this ocean cut, Mr. Stringer indicated a doubt as to whether the State ever would, in fact, accomplish this, and therefore the land would revert back to Signal Bolsa Corporation. Therefore, the City would be doing the landowner a disservice'by prezoning their property ROS and as'a consequence limiting the potential use of that property. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finley stated that she felt the Bolsa Chica is an area that is environmentally sensitive and how it is planned and ultimately developed is of great concern to many people. She stated that there- fore the Commission'should be absolutely scrupulous,in'the way,the environmental steps,are handled. She'also expressed concern over "the fact that the prezoning designation was changed, and that the Negative Declaration -was granted on the basis'of_the original pre - zoning request. John O'Connor was questioned as to the legality of the City.Ordinance requiring that.ann�xed property come into.the City with Rl zoning unless it is prezoned. O'Connor indicated that the Ordinance may be legally questionable. Chairman Slates stated -that the proposed prezoning is transitional and therefore the real environmental impacts will be reviewed when permanent zoning is considered. Commissioner Boyle questioned:the legality.of downzoning in reference 'to RA=02 prezoning.on State-owned and leased land,.should-it..be later changed to ROS. ! John.O'-Connor-stated that' downzoning was legal. -. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FINLEY TO GO BACK TO THE INITIAL ! NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THIS ISSUE SO THAT'AN-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE BRINGING INTO FOCUS THE PREVIOUS POINTS SHE MADE. The motion failed for lack of a second.' A•MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY-SHEA TO APPROVE zONE- CASE NO. 76-20 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ' -2- 8/31/76 - pC I- I I 1 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August'21, 1976 Page 3 1. The Bolsa Chica should be prezoned RA-02, ROS-01 and ROS in order that upon annexation the Bolsa Chica would not auto- matically enter the City with R1 zoning. This would provide -a transitional zone that would allow for a comprehensive plan to be prepared for the Bolsa Chica prior to determination of permanent zoning designations. 2. The recommended zoning designations are consistent with the General Plan - Jim Palin discussed the Negative declaration process, indicating that the Negative Declaration is simply a one page document filed with the County. The documentation for the various proposed pre - zones is included in an initial study document._ The Negative Declaration is not amended because of data changes after the initial study. Commissioner Finley questioned Finding No. 2 above, stating that the prezoning was not consistent with the Open Space and Seismic Safety Plan Elements of the General Plan which were adopted by the City. Acting Secretary.Selich discussed the time framei indicating that the City is attempting to'fin_alize arinexation'procedures prior to'January 1, 1977. Commissioner Parkinson indicated that the RA-02 prezone is necessary to reflect the existing oil uses and the -02 can only be attached to the RA,. Ml, and M2 base districts. He indicated some concern about development in Bolsa Chica, but that the RA zone is a holding zone under which development is not anticipated. VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: Finley ABSENT: None Commissioner Finley stated that she would like it made a matter of record that she voted negatively on approval of this Zone Case for the following reasons: 1. The prezoning cannot be -separated enviro__nmentally from annexation. 'We should have'an EIR to help prezoning decision and not a Negative Declaration. 2.' The prezoning is*not in conformance with the Open Space and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan which have been adopted by the City Council'. At this time the Chairman called a'f ive minute recess and adjourned to Room B8 for the remainder of the meeting. -3 8/31/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1976 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY Chairman Slates stated that this item would be taken up at another meeting and there would be no discussion -at this meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, Chairman Slates acknowledged receipt of a letter from Neal Barab, Brian Trela, and Roger Bloom concerning the Draft of Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Project. He directed the staff to reply to this letter. Acting Secretary Selich summarized the three major concerns ex- pressed by the Planning Commission. Other than those three concerns, other Planning Commission concerns have been dealt with in the Environmental• Impact' Report. There was a discussion on the draft Planning Commission report to the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Shea felt the City should have more flexibility in planning of the Old Civic Center Site. She felt that mixed use was the best designation for the site. It was the consensus of the Commission that Item 1. of the report be amended to include "annual independent audit" as one of the provisions of -the proposed annual report. i After"Item 1.-was'amended, the Acting Secretary stated that the i staff would prepare Section-ll. to be included in the Redevelopment Plan outlining the requirements of the annual report. The Commission unanimously supported Item 1. as amended and Item 2. The Commission approved Item 3. by a four to three vote, with Commissioners Gibson, Shea and Parkinson opposing. Commissioner Finley was concerned about tax increment financing on the City. Commission directed staff to'revise the report and bring back to them for -the September 8 meeting. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY NEWMAN THE COMMISSION FOUND THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: -Slates ABSENT: None j -4- 8/31/76 - PC F 1 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1976 Page 5 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENTS 76-6A THROUGH E CIVIC CENTER/OLD TOWN AREA Chairman Slates stated that there will be a public hearing on this Precise Plan of Street Alignment on November 15, and indicated that the presentation from the staff would be waived. Instead the Commission was requested to address each of the staff recommendations and ask questions and make comments. Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-A: The extension of Lake Street from Mansion Avenue Regarding the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way, Commissioners Newman and Boyle asked questions regarding the feasibility of reserving the right-of-way for a transit corridor. Bryan Austin responded to the question by pointing out that the right-of-way will be expensive'to acquire, that the transit corridor is an extremely low priority line to the OCTD, a number of residential projects have been approved adjacent to the right-of-way that limits potential -as a mass transit corridor. Bill Hartge further pointed out that the railway did not plan to abandon the railway right-of-way north of Garfield Avenue for an estimated 20 years, making it difficult to extend the mass transit corridor north of Garfield Avenue. Acting Secretary Selich pointed out that the mass transit corridor adopted by the Orange County Transit District was a generalized corridor and extended somewhere between Beach Boulevard and Goldenwest Street. A`further study would determine a precise alignment. In addition, the type of hardware has not been determined, so there are many unknowns regarding the transit corridors. Questions were asked about the -buffer between the industrial and residential area along Clay. Precise Plan of Street Alignment'76-6B: The widening of Lake Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Mansion Avenue._ Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-6C: The realignment of Main Street from Mansion Avenue to Ellis Avenue. Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-6D: The vacation of Main Street between Mansion Avenue and Garfield Avenue and closure of Main Street at Seventeenth Street. Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-6E: The extension of Huntington Street to link with Ellis Avenue. Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-1A & B: The closure of Seventeenth Street at Mansion Avenue and the abandonment of Seventeenth Street from Delaware Street to Clay Avenue. -5� 8/31/76 - PC Minutes:' H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August` 31', 1976 Page 6 Discussion ensued on Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-6B through E and 76-1A and B. The Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. The Staff indicated they will begin preparing an Environmental Impact Report. Bill Hartge discussed the funding of street improvements, stating that it is possible to obtain funding from County Arterial Highway Financ- ing Program. The project would have to be submitted to the County before the end of the year and for this reason the process would have to be completed according to the time table submitted in the staff report.. Financing would be split equally between the City and'County. The City would be given two years in which to accomplish this work. OLDTOWN (1) Code Amendment No. 76-12 Oldtown Specific Plan (2) Suggested_Planned Development (-PD) Designations to be added within Oldtown Area Al Montes addressed the Commission and explained that the proposed Oldtown Specific Plan is similar to the existing Townlot Specific Plan. Commission discussion ensued and Al Montes was complimented on the work he had done in the Code Amendment. ON MOTION BY SHEA AND SECOND BY NEWMAN STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET CODE AMENDMENT NO. 76-12 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND T_O'INITIATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGES IN APPROPRIATE AREAS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 76-31: SIGN ORDINANCE John Cope addressed -the Commission and gave a brief history of this Code Amendment. He noted that while it had been previously approved in April of 1976, the City Council felt that it might be wise for the staff to get together one additional time to see if some differences could be worked out. He discussed the proposed changes. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY SHEA AND SECOND BY/NEWMAN STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET CODE AMENDMENT 76-31 FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 21,,1976 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson, Finley, Gibson, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle_ NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gibson was excused from.the meeting at 9:141Z P.M. 1 -6- 8/31/76 - PC Minutes: H.B.,Planning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1171 Page 7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 76-13: SPECIAL EVENTS Dave Eadie addressed the Commission and stated that he was pre- pared to answer questions. There was a discussion on the proposed amendment. The staff recommended that it be set for public hearing. ON MOTION BY BOYLE AND SECOND BY SHEA STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET CODE AMENDMENT NO. 76-13 FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Parkinson,,Finley, Slates, Shea, Newman, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Gibson ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PROCESSING Jim Palin, assisted by Mel Tooker, discussed the environmental document processing with the Commission, outlining the various steps in this process. .Commissioner Finley stated that she wanted CEQA requirements to be followed. PACIF.ICA"COMMUNITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENT The Pacifica Community Plan is a proposal to establish a specific plan governing 20 acres of land,wit_hin the vicinity of the Pacifica Hospital.. Included in the plan are development provisions and requirements for office/professional uses, medical buildings, residential health care facilities and residential multi -story structures intended for senior citizens use. The proposed specific plan would replace the existing,R5 office/ professional zoning within the subject area. Acting Secretary Selich addressed the Commission and stated that originally the developer had met with the staff concerning the possibility for providing for two senior citizens high rise towers. There was a discussion on zoning to allow.this type of development. It was the consensus of the staff that possibly a specific plan would be the best way to administer this proposal. The Staff was directed to work but criteria for justification of a specific plan and high rise to present at the next study session. -7- 8/31/76 - PC Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, August 31, 1976 Page 8 MISCELLANEOUS John Cope discussed -a memo from Bill Hartge's office requesting a finding of conformance with the City Council's stated intentions of declaring the old City Yard as surplus property. Jim Palin indicated that previous discussions have concluded that a zone change would have to be requested on the property prior to a finding of conformance by the Commission. The Commission concurred and directed the staff to pursue this matter with the Department of Public Works. ADJOURNMENT The meeting,adjourned,at 10:40 E D. Se lch Acting Secretary P.M Roger D. lates Chairman -8- 8/31/76 - PC