Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-23Approved 10-18-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1983 - 7:00 PM - Civic Center California COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter In the absence of Chairman Porter Vice -Chairman Livengood con- ducted the meeting. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The staff presentation will follow as closely as possible the 8-23-83 staff report for clarity. However, Secretary Palin noted that staff will also wish to address the handouts given to the Commission this evening - the response to the July 12 letter from the Huntington Beach Company, a diagram of Districts 7, 8, and 9 showing the mobine home zoning areas, an outline of how staff is proposing to organize each district in the Specific Plan for ease in locating zoning provisions, and the updated Greer Report on projected downtown traffic and circulation. Item 1: S. 4.11.03 - Intensity in District 9 Item 2: S. 4.11.04 - Maximum Building Heiqht in District 9 Mike Adams prefaced his presentation on this item by calling the attention of the Commission to the drawing depicting the relative heights in districts abutting Pacific Coast Highway, pointing out that this drawing represents heights and heights only and not building density or bulk. The grade differentials between the districts effectively mitigate the visual effects of the different heights which the Commission has recommended. (This had been requested by the Commission when it deferred action on building heights in District 9.) Staff is recommend- ing that if any height restriction is placed on this district it allow 12 stories. Mr. Adams compared the heights, lot coverages, and floor area ratios in Districts 3, 7, and 9. Commissioner Mirjahangir indicated that he would like to see the FAR in this district re- duced to 3.5 because he is concerned that heights allowed in District 9 will provide an inducement for that district to dev- elop ahead of District 3. In response to questioning from Commissioner Schumacher, Secretary Palin concurred that with a 35 percent lot coverage a FAR of 4.0 could result in some tall Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 2 7-7 structures. He further indicated that a 3.5 FAR with no height limit would be acceptable to staff in this area. Further discus- sion took place between staff and the Commission in regard to uses allowed in the district and height limits. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, SECTIONS 4.11.03 AND 4.11.04 WERE APPROVED WITH A MAXIMUM FAR OF 3.5, A 35 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM, AND NO LIMITIATION ON PERMITTED STORIES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Livengood ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 3: S. 4.0.04 - Definitions Mike Adams presented the definitions as recommended by staff for building facade and residual parcels, with which Commission con- curred. However, the proposal to define north and south as being relative to the direction of Pacific Coast Highway engendered dis- cussion. Staff explained that this has been proposed because of the angle at which the downtown streets are constructed and the re- sultant confusion in designating directions on the plan. The Commission discussed the historical custom of using the direction of Beach Boulevard as north, and determined not to depart from that usage. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTION 4.0.04 WAS APPROVED FOR "FACADE" AND "RESIDUAL PARCELS" AND WITH THE DELETION OF THE DEFINITIONS PROPOSED FOR "NORTH" AND "SOUTH," BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 4: S. 4.1.02 - Special Permit Mike Adams informed the Commission that the Special Permit process presently in the Specific Plan document says "Special permit shall be granted with the -exception of maximum density, parking, and building height." Staff is now recommending that that wording be changed to read " . . . with the exceptions of maximum density or parking re- quirements and maximum heights in Districts 1, 2, and 4." This will allow the Planning Commission separate review of proposed develop- ment projects in the downtown area that may exceed the building heights and allow flexibility. Legal counsel De la Loza, noting that the wording might imply that a developer could request a special permit for either density or park- ing but not both, suggested addition of "and/or" in the sentence. 1 -2- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 3 Commissioner Livengood, nowever, expressed his opinion that the special permit will open the door for each individual developer to ask for more height and building bulk. It will constitute a loophole in the Specific Plan and the height restrictions should remain as set forth district by district. Other commissioners felt that the special permit would be a mechanism under which the Commission could address special circumstances without having to make adjustments to the Plan itself at a later date. Commissioner Winchell asked that the wording be changed to make sure that maximum density or parking requirements could not come under the special permit in any district. She also said that, since Districts 1, 2, and 4 are directly adjacent existing residential, it would definitely not be desirable to permit any flexibility in heights in those buffer districts. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SECTION 4.1.02 WAS APPROVED WITH THE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY LEGAL COUNSEL DE LA LOZA AND COMMISSIONER WINCHELL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir, Erskine NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 5: 4.1.05 - Appeals from Director's Decisions Mike Adams explained that throughout the document the Director's decisions are the deciding factor for a number of issues, so the staff is recommending that the wording in all such instances be changed to the General Provisions to state: "The decision of the Director of Development Services on non -zoning matters may be appealed to the City Administrator and his decisions on all zoning matters may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Ad- justments." Secretary Palin further explained that such an appeal to the BZA would then follow the regular appeal channels provided by District 9; i.e., to the Planning Commission and thence to City Council if necessary. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.1.05 WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 6: 4.2.04 - Parking Mr. Adams informed the Commission that, due to confusion as to what constituted "subterranean" and "semi -subterranean" parking, Planning staff has worked out a defintion and table of lot coverage allowance for such uses, as presented in the staff re- port. -3- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 4 He pointed out that in the document at present anything under 42" above grade is counted at 50 percent lot coverage, and the new formula will provide a sliding scale for inches above adjacent grade from zero to 42 inches. In response to Commission'discus- sion and questions, staff responded that 42 inches has been the traditional cut-off mark for anything allowed within a setback and that anything over that height has always been considered a structure that must be sited behind the setback lines, hence the re- quirement that anything above 42 inches be counted at 100 percent for lot coverage calculations. Commissioners Higgins and Mirjahangir questioned whether or not the 42 inches might be somewhat low, suggesting that it might be allowed to go up for four or five feet without requiring the structure to be counted at 100 percent of lot coverage. Staff ex- plained that the height was set because of historical precedent as noted above and also that anything higher than the 42 inches might present a box -like appearance from outside a development, while the lower height will provide more of a feeling of open space. Commission and legal counsel discussed more accurate wording to make sure that no ambiguities remain in the height designations; staff will correct the wording to that effect. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS S. 4.2.04 WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WITH CHANGES IN MEASUREMENTS AS REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE AMBIGUITIES AS ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None After the vote, staff informed the Commission upon request that the height would be figured from the highest point on the adjacent street. Item 7: 4.2.27 - Multi -Block Consolidation Mike Adams reported that under (g), Street Vacations, in this sec- tion there are a number of items. Point iv of this title refers to maintaining the width of the right-of-way when a street is vacated. Staff is recommending that this reference be taken out of the General Provisions and put into District 2 where it is desired to maintain the right-of-way through the Townlot area for pedestrian access over and across. - Commissioner Schumacher questioned the desirability of allowing public right-of-way across private property and the matters of privacy and liability that -could arise from such action, citing ex- perience the City has had in other areas from such a provision. She also noted that requiring a developer to put an easement in the middle of his project does not seem to encourage multi -block con- solidation, which is one of the aims of the Specific Plan. -4- 8-23-83 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 5 Secretary Palin explained that pedestrian access is a require- ment of the Coastal Act and the City must comply. However, it could be established that there be easements for a certain amount of frontage, possibly one access for every two blocks. Wording could be added that would state that where a street vacation allows a consolidated parcel of more than 600 feet there shall be a public accessway provided. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION DIR- ECTED STAFF TO DELETE SECTION 4.2.27 AND AMEND SECTION 4.4.10 (IN DISTRICT 2) TO ADD THE WORDING THAT "A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT WHERE CONSOLIDATION WILL CREATE A PARCEL EXCEEDING 600 FEET IN LENGTH," BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Item 8: 4.3 - District Map, District 1 Staff explained that this is a request that in this non-contiguous district a letter be attached to identify the separate sections of the district. In the northwest portion of the map the desig- nation of 1-a will be attached; the area around 17th Street will be 1-b, and the area down between 8th and 9th Streets will be 1-c. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE DISTRICT MAP FOR DISTRICT ONE WAS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Item 9: 4.4.03 - Density - District 2 (Lot Size,Frontage) Mike Adams said that this item is to permit 50 foot lots o n 17th Street or Goldenwest to have a maximum of four units, in lieu of the present three permitted units in the Specific Plan docu- ment. He stated that this will give owners parity with previously developed lots in the'same areas. The Commission discussed what it felt had been the intent to allow fourplexes on residual parcels only where development on either side would preclude consolidation; staff responded by saying that this amendment would take all lots on 17th and Gold- enwest and treat them equally without consideration of whether or not they were residual. These streets had been selected because they are arterials. -5- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 6 Secretary Palin reviewed the history of the Townlot Specific Plan, informing the Commission that it has been many years since a four- plex had been granted there. The triplexes presently allowed in the District will be the same density -as allowed in the Townlot, al- though it is a downzoning from the R4 on some of the properties out- side the Townlot. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOURPLEXES ON 50 FOOT LOTS. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO LEAVE SECTION 4.4.03 AS IT IS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKE NO CHANGES. Commissioner Erskine stated that he will be voting against the motion because he feels that it does not establish equity for the parcels which are presently R4 upon which a fourplex could be built under the present zoning. Commissioner Livengood commented that his vote in favor of the mo- tion will be based on the fact that standards have been established in the Specific Plan and any owner of R4 property should be able to construct units under those standards which will provide a return on his investment. MOTION TO MAKE NO CHANGE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 10: S. 4.4.10 Street Vacation - District 2 Staff noted that this item has been approved by a prior action on Item 7, page 4 of these minutes. Item 11: S. 4.5.01 - Minimum Parcel Size, District 3 Mr. Adams said that in reviewing the minimum parcel size staff had determined that a half block was not the most realistic number for small consolidations and is now recommending that the minimum parcel size be.100 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet in area, and that a waiver of this requirement may be granted by the Director for residual parcels where the adjacent parcels are already developed. The original recommendation was found to possibly be discouraging existing property owners from achieving significant developments on the smaller parcels, with the waiver allowing flexibility in special instances. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR S. 4.5.01�WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -6- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 7 Item 12: S. 4.5.02 - Permitted Uses, District 3 Staff is asking for minor changes: just shifting auditoriums and motels from uses permitted with a conditional use permit to uses permitted by a use permit, and adding theaters under uses per- mitted by a use permit. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.5.02 WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Item 13: S. 4.5.02 - Permitted Uses, District 3 In this section staff is also recommending that the Commission reconsider its prior deletion of residential uses from this district and re-insert residential uses and time-sharing resi- dential in (C) of this section. It is staff's feeling that the residential potential may be a deciding factor in whether or not the City will have developers interested in the downtown area and may be a very crucial element for mixed -use develop- ments. The prior action was reviewed for Commissioner Schumacher, who had been absent from the meeting when the residential was deleted. After extensive discussion of its reasons for removing the residential uses, Commissioner Schumacher said that her basic concern had been the development of a viable economic center for the City and if removing residential from District 3 encourages the other districts to develop their residential uses first that should enhance the need for commercial in 3. Given the Commission's establishment of height restrictions, she can support the preservation of the area for commercial. Commissioner Winchell suggested that perhaps residential could be allowed on one side of Main and not the other, since the higher buildings had been moved over to the east, and asked if the district could be divided by an (a) and (b) designation. Mike Adams indicated that would not be necessary because the text could simply carry an asterisk next to the residential uses with a footnote stating that they would be allowed in speci- fied areas only. Commissioner Higgins reminded the Commission to keep in mind that the residential had never been intended to occupy an entire building and the lowered heights would proportionally lower the residential units which could be built. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4.5.02 WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL AND TIME SHARING RESIDENTIAL USES IN DISTRICT 3 ONLY IN THE AREA NORTHWEST OF MAIN STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN; None -7- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 8 Item 14: 4.5.03 - Densities, District-3 These are the densities proposed originally when residential was allowed in the entire district. Staff is now recommending that these same provisions for density be incorporated into the area northwest of Main Street where Commission has just allowed resi- dential to go back in. Chairman Winchell asked for calculations, using worst case possi- bilities, to see if the allowed maximum density of 30-uhits per gross acre for a full block could be attained. Staff's calcula- tions indicated that it could come out to 33 units/acre,' and Ms. Winchell said -in that case she would recommend that the section be.amended to allow a lowering of the maximum units possible. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SECTION 4.5.03_ WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF EXCEPT THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOW- ABLE DENSITY FOR A FULL BLOCK IN THE AREA NORTHWEST OF MAIN STREET BE LOWERED TO 25 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Mirjahangir, Schumacher NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Porter, Higgins ABSTAIN: None Item 15: S.- 4.8.03 - Density, District 6 Again, staff is recommending that -the Commission reconsider its - prior action to place a maximum density of 25 units per gross acre in this district and go to 30 units maximum. Staff explained that the original recommendation for this,"super-block" area had been 35 units; the Commission lowered that to 25 and staff is now ask- ing for a compromise figure of 30. In response to Commissioner Livengood's inquiry for the purpose of the proposed compromise, staff responded that the property owners in the area have been working with a developer and a conceptual design has been proposed; staff would like to have the flexibility in the numbers to make negotiations easier. Mr. Livengood then indicated support for the staffs proposal. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND'SECOND'BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO MAKE NO CHANGE TO S. 4.8.03 AND LEAVETHEMAXIMUM DENSITY AT 25 UNITS, BY -THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Livengood ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 16: -4.0 - District Map, District 8 This is a recommendation to.split District 8-into (a) and (b) sections to allow'easier reference to both large parcels. She in- formed'the Commission that each parcel is under separate ownership. -8- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page .9 ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL DISTRICT MAP FOR DISTRICT 8 WAS REVISED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Winchall, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Item 17: S. 4.13.01 - Permitted Uses, District 11 Staff reviewed its research and reported its recommendation that beach concession stands should be limited to a size of 2500 square feet. No limit has been proposed as to number of stands to be allowed. Commission discussion centered on a definition of the concession stands and the question of whether or not something like this inside another structure would also be required to comply with a size limitation. Also reviewed was a means for limiting the number of concessions. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.13.01 WAS APPROVED WITH THE SIZE LIMITATION FOR FREESTANDING BEACH CONCESSION STANDS SET AT 2500 SQUARE FEET WITH A DISTANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 1,000 FEET BETWEEN SUCH STANDS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Erskine SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED FORMAT OUTLINE. - Mike Adams reviewed some changes in the recommended format to make it simpler to interpret the Specific Plan document when it is adopted. Commissioner Livengood asked that, for ease in tracking the changes which have been made and the actions that have been taken, there be a cross-reference in numbers in the new document referring back to the numbers of the same section in the original document. After discussion it was the consen- sus of the Commission not to do this, as it could make the approved document difficult to follow. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE NEW PROPOSED FORMAT OUTLINE WAS ADOPTED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None -9- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 10 Mr. Livengood-then requested that staff -use the -'existing index -and indicate on it where each item is under the new format. Staff will provide that as a handout. MOBILE HOME ZONING MAP Staff is recommending that the zoning map be inserted into the Specific Plan document for clarification of where the existing mob- ile home parks are -located; this map will take the place of the mobile home map on,"page 87 of the present report. It also shows MH as an additional permitted use in Districts 7, 8-b, and 9. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSON APPROVED THE INSERTION INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN THE MH ZONING MAP AND ADDITION OF THE MOBILE'HOME USE IN DISTRICTS 7, 8-b, AND 9, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Sechumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None RESOURCE PRODUCTION OVERLAY - ATTACHMENT.'2- Wording has been -rearranged but the intent remains the same; the changes are so that_the overlay areas a; b, c format -is -consistent within each district. The overlay now more accurately represents the actual areas in which resource production can take place. The new overlay also corrects some discrepancies between where the "0" (which allows only existing operations -to -continue) and the "0-1" (which allows new drilling to take place).- Each area is now accur- ately depicted. ON MOTION BY HIGGIINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ATTACHMENT NO. 2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None CONSERVATION OVERLAY - ATTACHMENT 3 This revision adds a description of the boundary developed by the State Department -of Fish and Game and includes a better map showing where that boundary occurs. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ATTACHMENT-NO.'.3 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher,. Mirjahangir NOES: None ABS'tNT: Porter ABSTAIN: None -10- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 11 APPENDIX ON COASTAL PERMITTING PROCESS - ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Staff explained that the Specific Plan had not carried a CZ zoning suffix; this has been changed and it will, in fact, now carry that suffix. This has been incorporated into the text. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ATTACHMENT NO. 4 WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None CIRCULATION IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA Mike Adams made a brief presentation on the Commission's prior review. For the benefit of those who had not been present he said that the Commission had talked about Alternatives A, B, and C and discussed options on the original proposal recommended by the consultant. This recommended Alternative A comes into the downtown area by way of Lake, Lake into Orange, and Orange div- erting to an intersection with Atlanta and Lake. The adopted City alignment is somewhat similar with Lake remaining pretty much in its present configuration. The difference between those two is that the City's recommendation looks at the problem from a traffic efficiency approach and the consultant has looked at it from the angle of creating (or maintaining) a developable parcel. Alternative C takes a compromise approach, looking more or less at Alternative A and channeling traffic through the core area and possibly using Indianapolis as a means of getting down- town. All alternatives incorporate Delaware coming into a point beyond the Walnut extension at the present intersection of Huntington and Pacific Coast Highway to become another north/ south access to the beach. He summarized the Commission's discussion by asking if staff was looking at the property streets in the downtown; that 5th Street should have its arterial status trans- ferred over to 6th Street (with a possibility for vacation of 5th as well); Orange Avenue should not carry an arterial desig- nation beyond 6th, with an intersection designed to discourage through traffic flow; and Main Street should be vacated or diverted out of the "super -block" area. Commissioner Schumacher discussed the amount of land that would have to be acquired to use Indianapolis as a major means of getting downtown from Beach, and expressed the opinion that this would be very costly. Secretary Palin said that staff is trying to find a configuration that could get the street over without being too detrimental to the people who live there. He -11- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes; H.B. Planning Commission August.23,'1983 Page 12 informed the Commission that this area -will be.the-subject of a study which has been promised to the -City Council within the next six months. The three alternatives were extensively discussed among Commis- sion and staff, -taking into consideration the capacity of exist- ing streets, the future effects on existing neighborhoods from the possible new street configurations, the types of traffic con- trols that might have to be applied at peak traffic hours, and the effect of the deletion of parking because of the State's proposed improvements to Pacific Coast Highway. Secretary Palin said that Alternative -A was the original recommendation of the - Planning staff- but -Alternative B is -being recommended in the document as.a compromise approach among City departments.- In response to questioning from Commissioner Higgins, who noted that "A" seemed to him to be the most effective in channeling the projected traffic in the downtown area, Les Evans of the Depart- ment of Public Works indicated that there should be no problem with Alternative A-if�-the three areas identified for immediate study are resolved. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE COMMISSION REC- COMMENDED ALTERNATIVE A FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN -THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH FURTHER STUDY OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE AND ATLANTA AND THE INDIANAPOLIS/SIXTH-'STREET/MAIN STREET CON- NECTOR, AND WITH DIRECTION FOR ORANGE AND SIXTH STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: --None - S. 3.3 Circulation ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 3.3 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine,-Livengood, Higgins,--Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter,-, ABSTAIN: None S. 3.3.1 Automobile Circulation After discussion, Vice Chairman Livengood directed staff to make the following corrections: 1) any changes -that are necessary to reflect the above recommendation for Alternative A 2) change number and/or delete diagrams as necessary; 3) try to separate paragraphs so that each individual street is discussed ,in its own paragraph for ease of reference; 4) make sure that wording is included in the text to re- flect the Commission's determination at 6th and Orange; and 5) in- u -12- 8-23-83 --P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 13 clude a statement saying that Indianapolis is a secondary arterial at 80 foot width. After this general discussion the Commission reviewed this section page -by -page as fol- lows: Page 19b - Page 19c: Chairman Mirjahangir said that in the 4th paragraph regarding the east/west route of Atlanta to tie into Lake and Orange there may have to be a deletion of Orange and a rewording of the entire paragraph since there will not be any arterial traffic west of Sixth on Orange. Mr. Livengood also requested a change in that paragraph that would indicate the limits of Lake to 6th, a statement that 6th Street is planned as a sec- ondary arterial to Pacific Coast Highway tying into Main near Acacia, replacing 5th Street which is presently designated as a secondary connecting with Indianapolis. Also a new paragraph must be added making the statement that Indianapolis is an arter- ial based on the General Plan. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 19b AND 19c WERE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir Page 19d: Direction was given to delete the last paragraph in- dicating which figure is to be corrected to correspond to the approved Specific Plan. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGE 19d WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir Page 19e: Brief -discussion regarding elimination of the under- pass . Staff responded that one section is stating the intent and the other is implementing that intent; he feels that the discussion in the text in both areas is appropriate. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGE 19e WAS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Schumacher directed that the record show that her "no" votes on the circulation sections of the Plan reflect her feeling that the consideration given to the residents on -13- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes' H.B. Planning Commission. August 23, -.1983 Page 14 Orange Avenue through the deletion of its arterial status west of 6th Street had not been extended to people living on Main, Lake, and Indianapolis Streets NOTE: UP TO THIS POINT IN ITS ACTIONS, ALL VOTE$ TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION WERE STRAW VOTES ONLY. RESOLUTION NO. 1306 - DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN_ ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS RESOLUTION NO. 1306, APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND RECOMMENDING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter - ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY.ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE -CHANGE NO. 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ATTACHMENT NO. 9' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING FEES Staff explained that the fee will be prorated among developers of property in the -Plan -area to defray the City's costs for prepar- ing the Plan. It is staff's understanding that assessment of the fee will.be triggered -by the actual proposal for dedelopment'and will be paid by the developers of the property and will not be used as a tax encumbrance -against property owners. The amount of the fee, listed as $500/acre in the attachment in the staff re- port, may be raised depending upon what additional costs are incurred by further processing of'the Specific Plan. The Commission's action on this item will not be specifying the exact dollar''amount of the fee per acre. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ATTACHMENT NO. 9 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Erskine -14- 8-23-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 15 FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zone change from the existing zoning to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. The area within the boundaries of the Specific Plan has experienced extensive physical and economic deterioration and blight over the past years, and a number of buildings have been declared seismically unsafe. The proposed new zoning will provide an incentive to encourage revitaliza- tion of the area. AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Higgins, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Report to City Council on Downtown Specific Plan Vice Chairman discussed the method by which this approved Specific Plan will be presented to the City Council. He sug- gested that,since there are still a few areas where staff's recommendations differ from those of the Commission Chairman Porter and the Commission be allowed to review the staff report, with Mr. Porter presenting the Commission's points of view to the Council. He also requested that the Council -hearing on the Specific Plan be scheduled so that the public would have a minimum of two weeks to review the final document. In the sub- sequent discussion the possibility of a joint study session was suggested and rejected by the Commission. Mr. Livengood again said that he feels the Commission should be given the opportunity to present its own views in a written format to the City Council in the -form of a consensus report. Projected timing of the Council's hearing was reviewed.. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND -SECOND -BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE A LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL EXPLAINING RATIONALE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LEAST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 23, 1983 Page 16 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None _ ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood further suggested that staff circulate copies of the document to the Central Library and various fire stations in the City. He also suggested that staff prepare -a -letter showing Planning Commission action, for the Huntington Beach Company. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher asked staff to investigate and'rept ba ck on a racketball court on Main Street' with a possible violation_to the sign code. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS STAFF WAS DIRECTEDVO BEGIN QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION AT THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING FROM 7-7:30 P.M., BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin recommended that the previously discussed study session be postponed. He recommended a joint study session with the City Council at their September 19, 1983 meeting to discuss the Downtown Plan and further informed the Commissioners that the City Council requested that a parcel map hearing-be'"scheduled at their September 7, 1983 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11 P.M. -to the September 7, 1983 meeting at"7 P.M. for a question"and answer session with the regular agenda to begin 'at 7:30:P.M. <M Tom-.Li ood, V' e C airman 1 -16- 8-23-83 - P.C.