Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-28APPROVED AS CORRECTED 7-19-83 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2/ DRAFT FINAL E.I.R. 82-2 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The Plan is bounded on the inland side by Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta. Chairman Porter stated that the best approach was to deal with general topics then go into the plan itself and cover general elements of the Specific Plan, followed by individual zoning districts. Secretary Palin further identified the method by which the Planning Commission should vote, i.e., first dealing with the EIR. He said that the Commission received a new diagram on daily traffic volumes and an introduction and summary of findings from the Williams-Kuebelbeck group. Also dis- tributed was a position from Councilmenibers Finley and Bailey. Claudette Dupuy gave a brief response to questions raised at the last regular meeting dealing with clarification on time limits and "worst case" parameters. She also called attention to the Greer traffic study which was distributed. The Commissioners had some question on service level explanations. Les Evans stated it was a way to describe how well traffic is flowing on a scale of A to F. Commissioner Erskine asked how many days per year we operate on Level F. Mr. Evans replied in summer months on weekends. Commissioners discussed the impact on Pacific Coast Highway regarding traffic as a result of the project area. Mr. Evans felt that it would "barely cause a ripple" on PCH. Discussion took place regarding the discrepancies between the staff's figures and the consultant's figures. Commissioners wanted additional information from Greer. Chairman Porter said that in implementing the plan, an adequate right-of-way should be designated to ac- commodate potential traffic volumes and that an effort be made to H.B. Planning Commission June 28, 1983 Page 2 minimize impacts in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Evans stated that Greer had suggested bringing Atlanta around to Lake and making Lake a key intersection; Public Works is not convinced that this is the way to go. Rather to leave that flexibility with the Atlanta -Orange option which would move traffic to Goldenwest, Gothard and streets on the west side. Commissioner Livengood asked if the master plan of streets and highways would have to be changed based on these proposals. Mr. Palin stated that the circulation plan has been master planned sufficiently to accommodate traffic projection. Chairman Porter felt that the extension of Walnut between Lake and Beach is a boundary in the specific plan that does exist as an alignment on the master plan and it seems to be a significant part of the ability to handle traffic. Discussion continued on market feasibility. Pat Dawe of the Arroyo Group stated that Williams-Kuebelbeck was supplied with all of the available documents to make a recommendation, however, "market studies come and go" and that the market was not very "cheery" when discussion started on the specific plan. He further stated that a good study could cost between $25,000 and $45,000. He stated that what the Com- mission set as a goal was ambitious. He felt that the real test of the plan is its flexibility and is it something that will last a long time; that this could only commence with specific projects. Discussion ensued on the EIR. Jeanine Frank explained that the EIR analyzes fiscal possibilities rather than economic. Commissioner Erskine commented on the maximum square footages set in the specific plan; he felt that the minimum would take care of itself. He said that the maximum would be set by traffic and would not necessarily deal with economics. Commissioners raised questions regarding floor area ratios, street widening relating to levels of service and cost versus revenue related to specific projects. Chairman Porter believed that 600 of maximum build -out would not realistically occur for about 17 years. Commis- sioner Higgins commented that if you don't substan- tiate the market's potential, you "cannot come up with a reasonable plan." Commissioner Schumacher commented that the possibility of rolling back residential has to be looked at to create revenue for the City. She said we will not always have oil here; all we have is that beach. Commissioner Livengood read from a report that was similar to the proposed Specific Plan, but the report was dated 1967. Brief discussion took place on the proposed convention -type facility written into District 3. Commissioner Erskine asked for clarification as to what is written into the City's plan and what the Coastal Com- mission has approved in the L.U.P. Jeanine Frank explain that we will be held to the areas where we have designated visitor - serving. Commissioner Higgins brought up the fact that a freeway had been proposed 19 years ago that was never built, which had been propos in the ERA study. This he said to show that those figures in the 1967 report are not accurate. 1 H.B. Planning Commission June 28, 1983 Page 3 EIR 82-2: The following suggested changes were made to the EIR document: In Section 4.1 there was confusion on the figures dealing with lot area, that the figures on page 5 and page 19 should be the same. Commissioner Livengood did not agree with the density figures used under "Land Use and Population", he felt it was too much office and commercial space. Ms. Dupuy explained that the law requires that you address the worst pos- sible case. Commissioner Erskine believed that what was in the staff report on page 5 under population should be written in the EIR. Com- missioner Winchell stated that the figure of 5,000 residential units was not accurate since the actual figure was 6,308 - she felt it should be rounded up to 6,000. Commissioner Erskine wanted the "1.78 persons per unit" at the top of page 22 changed to reflect the 1980 census. It was suggested to make the circulation map which was distributed, part of the document. It was also suggested that references be made wherever comments relate to a particular section. (Commissioner Schumacher clari- fied a comment made regarding the Golden Bear Cafe as a historic site.) Brief discussion took place regarding noise attenuations, which can be' achieved by a combination of berms and walls; and mitigation of bill- boards along.Pacific Coast Highway, which is dealt with in state legis- lation. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE DRAFT FINAL EIR 82-2 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Specific Plan Document: Porter, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Discussion ensued with the following comments made on the Specific Plan document for the downtown: Discussion on the design theme as "Mediterranean" was discussed. Com- missioner Erskine stated that whatever the theme, the materials should be long-lasting, mainly stucco as opposed to Cape Cod wood. Upkeep of the awnings was discussed. Florence Webb stated that she had contacted a manufacturer about a brand new material that is acrylic but has the appearance of canvas with a life expectancy of about 8 years. Commis- sioner Schumacher felt that if it states "ocean -related" theme, this would be sufficient terminology. Staff responded that the original plan was to prepare a design guideline booklet looking at design themes and to bring it back to the Commission to review and adopt after the specific plan was approved by the Coastal Commission. A show of hands was counted on Commissioner Livengood's suggestion to clearly state "design will be of a Mediterranean theme". IN FAVOR: Livengood, Mirjahangir H.B. Planning Commission June 28, 1983 Page 4 A show of hands was requested on Chairman Porter's suggestion to includ by reference the letter written by the Arroyo Group dealing with design theme and include the renderings as part of the document in the appendix. IN FAVOR: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher Discussion followed regarding street circulation. Commissioner Livengood felt that sentences on Page 25 dealing with alignments should be deleted. Les Evans explained that it was an explanation of a possible senario, not fact. Chairman Porter stated that most people are concerned with intru- sion into the residential area to the west. He said he felt that the character in the area that is going from residential to mixed use would have more of a chance to change if a plan is adopted. A straw vote was taken to get a Commission concensus on eliminating the first two sentences at the top of Page 29, with the following vote: IN FAVOR: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OPPOSED: Higgins Les Evans reminded the Commissioners that they should be careful in "dropping" streets out of the pattern because it would impact necessary circulation. Chairman Porter re- sponded that it was a question of whether statements should appear in the document that increase the intrusion into the residential area and the Commission consensus is to leave that out. Discussion took place regarding specific streets in the downtown. Secretary Palin clarified the fact that Lake is a primary highway; Orange is a secondary highway; 17th was reduced from major to primary, etc. There was a question about Main Street. Mr. Palin stated that a design was worked out with the Public Works Department on the traffic model, to filter Main with 17th Street and the Gothard intersection with Main in the vicinity of Clay Avenue. He said he could report back to the Commission at the July 6th meeting on this (Precise Plan of Street Alignment 76-B). There was discussion to remove the entire first paragraph on Page 29 which would eliminate reference to Delaware Street. A straw vote was taken on a motion to leave the sentence as it is, by the following -'vote: IN FAVOR: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OPPOSED: None Commissioner Winchell suggested removing 6th Street from consideration for pos- sible street vacation, however, she added this would depend on what is done with the rest of the specific plan. Chairman Porter noticed that there was no mention of the R.V. parks. He felt that R.V. parks should be more accessible. Mike Adams mentioned that there was discussion by the state to include some camping areas, however, they are talking abou it for only the winter months. Commissioner Livengood favored includin a sentence from page 222 of the (Veen cover) earlier drafted specific plan. At this point Chairman Porter stopped the discussion and continued it to the regular meeting of July 6, at 6:00 P.M. He also said he would H.B. Planning Commission June 28, 1983 Page 5 not propose to reopen the public hearing on the Downtown Specific Plan. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Expansion, Plan Amendment No. 1 At the meeting of,June 21, 1983, the Planning Commission, by minute action, set this item for public hearing on July 6, 1983. This amend- ment would establish an amended redevelopment area which will allow the Redevelopment Agency (City Council) to capture tax increment as a means to finance the costs necessary to remove blighting conditions. Distributed for the Commission's review, was a correspondence from the City Administrator's office explaining the Planning Commission's role in the process, an update from Williams-Kuebelbeck and a diagram on traffic circulation from the joint efforts of the Public Works Depart- ment and Greer and Company. Tom Tincher recapped the discussion on public hearing requirements on redevelopment items. He explained it was not a requirement of the Planning Commission, but rather that the City Council is soliciting recommendations from the Commission. He again explained the time con- straints of other government agencies involved in the process. Commis- sioner Higgins was of the opinion to work toward a decision and forward the document to the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Porter, in light of this suggestion asked legal counsel if there was a need for a reconsideration motion. Secretary Palin said it would affect the in- crement on the Breakers project which is in the expanded boundaries of the amendment. The City would then lose the tax increment from the Breakers which would have been used to improve the commercial to the north. Art Folger advised that if it is the decision of the Planning Commission to recommend the Plan Amendment No. 1 to the City Council, that they take action to rescind their prior action to hold a public hearing. Commissioner Winchell stated for the record that she recognized her role as a commissioner to make recommendations to the City Council, however, she was not aware of any State law to require "a higher vote". She said, "state law thinks that we have something to say about things done in redevelopment". "As far as land use designation, the important thing is whether or not they want the land to go into redevelopment . . . I say let's continue and have our own public hearing." Commissioner Livengood asked about what the law states on notices. Mr. Tincher said the law states the City Council notices must be mailed out 4 weeks before the public hearing. Some discussion took place regarding the EIR that was just approved. Commissioner Schumacher stated that at the time the LCP was approved it was her idea for the high density for the purpose of encouraging con- solidation. She understood that people were opposed to the redevelop- ment plan and could not see the benefit to the City. Mr. Tincher re- sponded that the people's main concern seemed to be eminent domain in residential areas; that there were other concerns such as oil encum- brance, construction of the blufftop park and an increased demand in parking. As far as the fear of eminent domain (as voiced in letters H.B. Planning Commission June 28, 1983 Page 6 from several downtown residents) he stated that if they feel uncomfort- e about it he saw no problem with inserting restrictions on eminent domain in resid ial areas into the language of the plan. Further discussion ensued regard- ing tax increment and distribution of funds. Commissioner Livengood suggested a slight change on the negative declaration dated 5-12-83, this change was noted. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO RESCIND THE ACTION TAKEN AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO BE SET FOR JULY 6, 1983. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Erskine NOES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter decided that since the public hearing was advertised for the Redevelopment Plan Amendment at 7 P.M., the discussion on the Downtown Specific Plan will stop at 7 P.M. to take public testimony on redevelopment and then resume at the end of the regularly scheduled public hearing items. Brief comments were made by the Commissioners regarding policy on re- development items. Chairman Porter suggested a discussion item on the next agenda to establish policy for conducting public hearings on re- development plan amendments. A resolution (#1307) was adopted by the Planning Commission commending Savoy M. Bellavia, Senior Planner, for his untiring service to the Planning Commission and the City of Huntington Beach. Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 12 midnight to the next regu- lar meeting of July 6, 1983, with discussion on the Downtown Specific Plan to begin at 6:00 PM. Z7_�;R o � 12� ames W. Pal n, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, Chai n :jlm