Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-21Apptoved Match 6, 1919 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1979 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT ITEMS: ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 29, 1979, WERE ADOPTED AS DISTRIBUTED BY THE CITY CLERK, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION FOUND THE SALE OF A .25 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND NORTH OF WARNER AND WEST OF MAGNOLIA STREET TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN (CGP NO. 79-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY COHEN AND SECOND BY RUSSELL THE MINUTES OF THE REGU- LAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1979, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Stern ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1B Initiated by the Planning Department It was determined by the Commission that the separate areas of con- cern would be addressed separately, with straw votes taken on each and final action after hearings had been completed on all three. Richard Barnard made a brief presentation on the General Plan Amend- ment, noting that in all instances the issue is to provide safe movement for traffic in and out of the study areas and to provide an arterial network which can handle the projected traffic volumes. He reviewed the studies used by staff in its preparation of the amendment, pointing out that the land use assumptions used in those studies are essentially the same as those existing today. Traffic figures in those studies are projected out for ultimate development of the study areas. The public hearing was opened on Area of Concern 2.1, Lake Street be- tween Garfield and Yorktown Avenues. Richard Harlow addressed the Commission on behalf of the Huntington Beach Company in opposition to the extension of Lake Street. He supporte Alternative 3 as the most realistic approach to solving traffic prolems in the study area and noted that the other alternatives appear to over- emphasize the significance of the intensity of future downtown develop- ment, which has not yet been resolved. He also strongly opposed the closing of Main Street, saying it would eliminate the traditional entrance into the City and would seriously impact the existing Seacliff shopping center and the office complex across Main Street. Beverly and Bernard Rogers, residents on Lake Street, addressed the Com- mission to oppose extending Lake Street, citing the overwhelming public protest when the widening project was heard in 1976. They said that the extension would serve outside traffic at the expense of neighborhood residents and discussed traffic volume, safety, and cost factors. Lance Jacot, 215 Crest Avenue, spoke in opposition to the extension. He noted that Lake is not designed to handle such volumes of traffic and beach users should not be encouraged through a residential area. He also suggested that the extension would have a growth -inducing effect on the area. Frank Mola also spoke against the extension of Lake Street, saying that another major circulation street is not needed in the area and would further impact the local streets. It was noted that a letter has been received from Steve Holden also in opposition to the Lake Street extension. Bruce Greer addressed the Commission in favor of Alternates 1 or 2 (which both include the future extension of Lake), saying that these -2- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 3 would provide the best long-term solution to circulation in the area. He also said that not to extend Lake would adversely affect both the high school and existing lower Main Street. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 was closed. Jim Palin addressed the Commission to state that the staff feels fur- ther evaluation is needed prior to any decision to delete the extension of Lake Street. He noted that the intensity of future development for the downtown area has not yet been determined, that a new transporta- tion model is in preparation, and the Council is in the process of selecting a consultant for preparation of a fiscal impact model for the City. All of these, he felt, should be available as tools for decision making before any action is taken to change the proposed extension of Lake Street, which has been on the books since the early sixties. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Stern analyzed the percentages of traffic on Main and Lake Streets resulting from each alternative, concluding that the most acceptable alternative appears to be Alternative 2, which evens out the traffic more equitably than the others. Commissioner Bazil spoke to the issue, reminding those present that the Commission is considering only the extension, not the widening, of Lake Street. He discussed traffic flow and impacts from each alterna- tive, saying that the extension of Lake would probably smooth out the flow but that traffic could be -handled by installing traffic restraints at 17th and Main and widening Utica Avenue to provide access to Lake. Mr.!Bazil also indicated that it would seem reasonable that arterial_ status should be retained for Main Street at least up to Yorktown Avenue to avoid adversely affecting the commercial and office development at that location. Commissioner Russell discussed the alternatives, saying that Alternative 2 seems to be the best choice, although 3 would be acceptable to keep traffic out of residential areas and to avoid impact on the shopping center. Commissioner Paone stated that the deletion of Lake Street extension at this time might cut off future planning options, considering that the downtown development is critical to a decision. Because of this pre- servation of options he favored Alternative 2, although adding out that he still considers the five -legged intersection a problem. Commissioner Cohen said that the deletion of Lake Street extension should not be acted upon until the downtown land use is determined and agreed with Commissioner Paone that Alternative 2 is the most viable choice. Commissioner Higgins discussed institution of traffic controls, the funneling of outside traffic through residential areas, and the need for a Main/17th Street corridor to carry beach traffic. He noted that downtown densities could have a major impact on all local streets and should be restudied prior to a definite decision. -3- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 4 Commissioner Finley said that circulation helps determine land use and by providing the Lake Street extension,,the,City would be affecting uses and densities -in the downtown-. -It was` -her feeling that decisions fo downtown should be made using Goldenwest and Beach as the main arterials rather than adding another arterial through a residential- neighborhood.' She favored Alternative 3 for that reason and to�avo d-impacting a residential neighborhood. - Commissioner Paone added that the best way would be to divert all of the through -traffic -away -from residential areas, which could be best accomplished --by a Main/17tli corridor-as'suggested by Commissioner Higgins, but if .,Lake .extension, -is deleted -,now, rit--may- be, found in., the future that-'such--a-corridor cannot_ be --provided. The process of deletion should be delayed until the downtown development is determined. In response -to -questioning from the Commission, Mike Zambory of Public Works indicated that there -are many types of traffic control which can be'utilized to. disperse the projected traffic volumes in the event that Lake Street -is not extended as now planned. He listed signing, signal- ization-, traffic- constraints at 17th, and Main,:_ possible, yidening of Utica, and the closure .of Park -and-.Pine-�Streets:-at,-Utica by cul-de-sacs. In summary; he concluded that the- traffic -:could-: be,handled without the extension of Lake Street. A motion was made by Stern and seconded by Cohen to leave the Circula- tion Element of the General Plan in regard to Lake Street extension as it is today and that when the precise planning of Lake Street is imple- mented Main Street shall be included in the General Plan by amendment as a secondary. or. primary arterial -::highway.: - After discussion,_..the Chair ruled,_that,,this,-motion• was ,beyond the scope of the General Plan,_and-Commissioners Stern and Cohen withdrew it. A' motion. was made by Stern. .and. seconded by Cohen ,to . leave. -the General Plan'as it exists at present. Discussion determined that this motion. would result in -adoption of Alternate 1; Commissioners Stern and Cohen withdrew the motion. A,inotion was made by Stern and seconded-by:Cohen=that the Commission adopt Alternative No.-2; and that,when-the,precise,-planning of Lake Street is implemented Main Street shall be included in the General Plan by amendmdnt as a secondary or primary arterial highway. Motion failed by*:the following voter AYES: Stern, Cohen NOES: Higgins, -Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Bazil and seconded by Paone that the Commission adopt Alternative 3, incorporating into the motion a requirement that the flow of traffic be curtailed at 17th-Street to be channeled down 17th or east on Utica to Lake Street.' 1�1 -4- 2-21-79 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 5 John O'Connbr.informed the Commission-th$t the.motion could be acted on in this fashion but the traffic.requirement could not be included in the Genera1­Plan.-°-He suggested separate motions to handle the pro- posed street treatment. Commissioners Bazil and Paone withdrew the motion. A motion was made by Bazil and seconded by Paone that the Commission adopt Alternative 3, for the deletion of the Lake Street extension from the General Plan. Motion carried"by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES: • • Stern, • Cohen ABSENT:* None ABSTAIN: None". Commissioner Bazil requested that the following reasons for the selec- tion of Alternative 3 be entered,into the record:- 1. Lake Street extension would create three streets within a one-half mile section. 2. Northbound traffic on Lake Street can be to any or all of the following streets: Delaware, or Beach Boulevard. Inbound same-toutes.- north/south arterial dispersed at Yorktown Goldenwest, Main, Gothard, traffic could use the 3. Inbound traffic from Gothard and Main Streets could be -diverted down Lake or 17th Street at the 17th intersection with Main. These streets are designed to carry a heavier traffic load, and the downtown Main Street is not. 4. Existing commercial at Main•and Yorktown would be best served by. Alternate 3. A'motion was made by-Bazil and seconded by Higgins to recommend that the transmittal sent to Council with the Commission's action on Alternative 3 include a recommendation for a traffic deterrent similar to Figure 2.4 in the General Plan Amendment which will channel traffic either d6wn-17th Street'or over to Lake via Utica Avenue, and further that the Commission considers that Main Street as it presently exists would not,take care of the added flow of -traffic to be generated. Commissioner Paone requested that the motion be expanded to direct staff to devise a program to direct traffic away from residential streets and get beach traffic traveling on the under -used Goldenwest Street. Commissioners Higgins and Bazil agreed to expand the motion to direct staff to study other crucial intersections to try to channel- ize the traffic flow. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern, Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -5- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning -Commission February 21, 1979 Page 6 Commissioner Stern asked that the minutes.should,reflect-his minority opinion that this action is premature, that it does not take into account emergency access that is potentially needed based on develop- ment that will occur at the Old Civic Center_site,_that it does not take into account the upcoming transportation model, and is being made prior_to-any decisions on .the downtown land uses. -Commissioner Cohen concurred'with the above_ remarks and added his name to -the -minority report. Area of Concern 2.2 --Street Classification -for Talbert Avenue between.Gothard Street and.Goldenwest-Street.-. Richard Barnard --explained that the .transportation„issue,for-this area of, concern_ is- ' basically;to improve access to the -library and ,to -the land uses souh of Talbert where Recreation and Parks wishes to:master plan a -multi -purpose sports complex, as well as providing an 80-foot right-of-way to secondary arterial status. Jim Palin added that the redesignation is also intended to bring _the, street into,closer compli- ance with the .designation .carried_ -by ,the County ,on,.that ,portion of Talbert„and not jeopardize gas- tax ,funds" available- to 'the, -City. The public hearing was opened on'Area'of Concern 2.2; there being no persons- to address the, -Commission, ; the public, hearing was closed. A motion -was made by''Bazil and- seconded 'by-'Russell._that -the -Commission adopt Alternative l,.designating,the section of -Talbert Avenue between Gothard Street and Goldenwest' Street as,a secondary arterial and pro- viding . for an 80-foot street width., - -Motion . carried by- ^the 'following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, .Stern,` Finley, ygdhen, .,-Bazil.,- Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.3 Realignment of Ellis -Avenue between:Goldenwest and Edwards Streets. Richard Barnard presented an overview of=the-•area of -'.concern, -saying that the transportation -issue here_is improved access--east/west and improved emergency access. -The realignment--would-also-set---a--southern boundary for the- Central- Park-. " Realignment as recommended---by---staff would affect other circulation streets-in---the--area in, -.the --future; for that reason staff is asking that, if realignment is recommended by the Commission, no decisions are made on the design-of.the•arterial at this time before the new transportation -model is available-:. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.3 was opened. No persons were present to address the Commission, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion included consideration of the -'grade -differen- tials along the proposed realignment, archaeological sites in the -6- 2-21-791- P.C. 1 Minutes, H..B. planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 9- Area of Concern 2.3 North of Talbert Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard Bill Holman presented a review of the proposed redesignation and dis- cussed an alternative method of providing buffering between the area proposed to be industrial and the adjoining residential lots. Alterna- tive B shows a proposed encroachment of 4.5 acres into the area of concern, which would allow for a loop street connecting Newman Avenue and Ronald Road with lots backing onto the industrial. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.3 was opened. Bruce Greer, representing the Huntington Beach Commercial and Industrial League, favored redesignation to M1 but opposed Alternative B, saying that no further erosion of industrial acreage should be allowed and that the 90-foot separation presently provided would be adequate. There being no other persons to address the Commission in regard to this matter, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed means of buffering between the two uses. Fire Chief Ray Picard indicated that both Newman and Ronald Road present problems for emergency response and any connection which could be pro- vided between them would aid the Fire Department. Commissioner Bazil agreed that the layout depicted in Alternative B was not the only config- uration possible but noted that some connection between the two streets was imperative. A motion was made by Stern and seconded by Bazil that Alternative A, redesignating the area of concern to industrial, be adopted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY COHEN THE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INITI- ATE A PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT CONNECTING NEWMAN AVENUE AND RONALD ROAD, SAID ALIGNMENT TO BE JUST WESTERLY OF THE TWO EXISTING PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THOSE STREETS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY RUSSELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH INFORMATION REGARDING THE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AS THE CODE NOW REQUIRES AND WITH POSSIBLE WAYS TO PROVIDE MORE SUBSTANTIAL BUFFERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:- Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -9- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutest A.B. Planning Commission February.21, 1979 Page 10 Area of,C_oncern 2.4 South of Garfield Avenue, east of - Beach -'Boulevard -Bill Holman reviewed the limiting factors which makes the.subject property undesirable for commercial and reviewed compatibility of -Med- ium Density Residential with-'the'surrounding,land._uses.. Staff is recommending an R2 designation;.for the parcel. The public hearing was opened; there,were no�persons,present.to address the Commission, and ,the public .hearing -was closed. Commissioner Stern spoke in -opposition to the redesignation at this time, noting that the'City has no provisions to allow a small -site Planned Reside ntial_Development,at present and.a development.now could not take proper advantage of the site.-'- He recommended leaving the area as it is until such time as a small PD ordinance has been enacted. Commissioner Bazil spoke in favor of the redesignation. Commissioner Russell expressed the opinion `that leaving the _property with its -present industrial designation would jeopardize the quality Rl properties existing to -the east. - A motion was:made by Russell `-and 'seconded 'by_.Bazil _that the Commission_ adopt the medium density designation for'Area of 'Coricern-2.4.- Motion carried by the. -following vote: AYES: Higgins; Russell-, Finley,-Cohen,`Bazil,''Paone NOES: Stern ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Area of Concern 2.5 North of Orange Avenue and west of Fifth Street Bill Holman briefly reviewed the area of concern, explaining that the City Council has requested the redesignation to facilitate a senior citizen housing and recreation facility project on the site. The' public hearing on -Area of Concern 2.5 was opened; no persons were present to speak in regard to the -area, and the public hearing. -was closed. The Commission reviewed; the proposal:. ; - A mot ion was made by`Cohen, and seconded"by ,Bazil-.that" the Commission• adopt staff's recommendation for-a•Mixed Development'designation on the subject property. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None [I 1 -10-- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H_.B. PlAnninq CQMgi.ss.i,gn February 21, 1979 Page 11 Areas of Concern 2.6 through 2.22 Initiated by the Planning Department Thb public hearings were opened on the above items as a group and the public asked to address any item which might be of particular concern. A gentleman in the audience addressed the Commission in regard to Area of Concern 2.13 (south of Heil Avenue and east of Goldenwest Street). He expressed the fear that his insurance rates would rise if the area were redesignated high density residential and also questioned why the Park View School had apparently been included in the redesignation. Chuck Melchior addressed the Commission in regard to Area of Concern 2.15 (south of Edinger Avenue and west of Sher Lane), opposing a high density residential designation on the property. Betty Melchior also addressed the Commission on both Areas of Concern 2.13 and 2.15, opposing high density residential designations on either site. The public hearings were closed. Commissioner Paone expressed difficulty with the concept of amending the General Plan to reflect existing land uses. He noted that the General Plan should reflect what the Commission wants the City to be in the future and existing uses should be no part of this discussion. On that basis, he would oppose all of these 17 areas of concern. Commissioner Bazil agreed, cautioning those who had spoken in opposi- tion, however, that with the present designation there would be a very real possibility that code restrictions would prevent them from con- structing as many units on their lots as they now have in the event of fire or other loss. Commissioner Cohen asked the Commission to consider that zoning could add a suffix providing that only the number of units presently on a property could be reconstructed thereon6 Commissioner Stern questioned the number of additional units the redesig- nations would allow and concurred that he could not agree with the proposed method of achieving conformity between zoning and the General Plan. Commissioner Russell discussed the Council's intent when it directed the Commission to provide consistency in the General Plan and suggested that the upcoming Fiscal Impact Model would be a desirable tool for the purpose of amending the General Plan. A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Higgins that the Commission disapprove these 17 areas of concern, and if necessary a transmittal sent to the Council pointing out that the Commission is not trying to avoid making the planning and zoning consistent but that it wants the zoning consistent to the planning and not vice versa. -11- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21,'1979 Page 12 After discussion of the motion, it was withdrawn by the maker and the second. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND -BY STERN AREAS OF CONCERN 2.6 THROUGH 2.22 WERE CONTINUED TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -79-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Paone that the Commission direct staff to initiate - the appropriate zone changes to bring these areas of concern into consistency with the General Plan. Counsel John O'Connor explained the history of the General Plan and outlined the dilemma in which the City finds itself, in that the law expressly requires consistency and in any of these instances where there is an inconsistency the City is open to legal challenge. The Commission is faced with a policy decision of whether it is more desir- able to technically comply with that legal requirement as opposed to waiting to ultimately enact what will then be both the zoning and General Plan designations. After extensive discussion the Commission reaffirmed its original decision to include the areas of concern.in'the next General Plan amend- ment, which Mr. Palin-informed them will be a major revision. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Paone entered his reasons for making the motion: 1) Council has asked the Commission to take action; 2) it is a legal requirement; and 3) the properties in question are already developed, which should preclude any problems with his suggested action. Administrative Items Changes to General Plan to Reflect Land Use Diagram The public hearing on the administrative items was opened. There was no one present to address the issue, and the public hearing was closed. The proposed changes were reviewed by the Commission. A motion was made by Cohen and seconded.by-Bazil that the Commission approve the recommendations of staff and adopt the administrative items as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -12- 2-21-79 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 21, 1979 Page 13 ON MOTION BY COHEN AND SECOND BY BAZIL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS NOS. 78-110, 79-2, 78-21, 79-5, and 79-4 WERE ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen. Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE COMMISSION AFFIRMED ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTES ON THE AREAS OF -CONCERN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS CONTAINED IN_GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-1A AND RECOMMENDED SAID ACTIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finlev, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None STAFF ITEMS: Acting Secretary Palin reviewed the City Council meeting of February 20, 1979 for the information of the Commission. A joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment j Commission is scheduled for February 27, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. to review proposals for development of the Old Civic Center Site. Subdivision Committee will meet at 8:30 February 22 in Room B-8. ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY FINLEY THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO A JOINT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27, 1979, AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None _Meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. b Ja es W. Palin Ruth Finley, Chairman Acting Secretary :df -13- 2-21-79 - P.C.