The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 97-12 RESOLUTION NO. 9 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-2 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-3; NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-4) AND REQUESTING ITS CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Sections 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2, which is a request to revise pertinent maps in the Coastal Element, as well as to delete certain language in the Coastal Element relating to High Density Residential Development and Affordable Housing on the site; and amend the zoning map in the implementing ordinances section of the Local Coastal Progran; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law,held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Certified Huntington Beach Coastal Land Use Plan and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in manner frilly consistent with the California Coastal Act, NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2, consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 96-3, Zoning Map Amendment No. 90-3 and Negative Declaration No. 96-4, collectively attached hereto as Exhibits A,B, and C, is hereby approved. 1 g:4:96reso1:1cpa96-2 r1s#96-903 Resolution No. 97-12 SECTION 2. That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-3. SECTION 33. That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-3 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 th day of February , 1997. A+%� Agv-A� Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney �� L�1.0/Vc REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Jt1;Vf1 INIT TED AND APPROVED: City A&inistrator Vtor of unity yevelnt ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution Nog 7-11 approving General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 and Negative Declaration No. 96-4 Exhibit B: Coastal Land Use Plan Exhibit C: Ordinance No3 3 4 6 (ZMA 96-3) (Includes Legal Description of Subject Property) 2 g*96reso1:1cpa96-2 rls#96-903 Exhibit: A, Page 1 of 39 Resolution No. 97-12 RESOLUTION NO. 97•-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-4 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 is a request to amend the Land Use Element and the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of approximately 99 gross acres of property generally located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street from High Density Residential-30 units per acre to Low Density Residential-7 units per acre, and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 and Negative Declaration No. 96-4 and recommended their approval to the City Council; and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 and Negative Declaration No. 96-4; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 96-3 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan; and The City Council finds that Negative Declaration No. 96-4 addresses the environmental issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1 g:4:96reso1:gpa96-3a rls 4 96-903 Exhibit A, Page 2 Resolution No. 97-12 SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more particularly described in the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 96-3, which amends the General Plan Designation for the Subject Property from RH-30 (High Density Residential- 30 units per acre) to RL-7 (Low Density Residential - 7 units per acre), is hereby approved, and the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, is hereby amended to implement General Plan Amendment No. 96-3. SECTli N 3: That Section 9.4.3(2) of the Coastal Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: The119 sCr�srt c-ofti '-FBccrt� �rn s£d "Seaeliff AF"de,_,elepmenr as beet Palm Avenue,Ike gelff ee se and 38tf'YS4eet Trc tal of appry iffiiixatec, 553-1 dwelling ks a ie be developed in__t,,ye low deli.ity area,, (of i94 ' ..� � � s . . .�. a 3 4t1, Street develeped with up to 4 50 high deiisity te;A�&uses bringing the tetal number ef units te a ffiaximum ef 991. 41"�aty per-eent ef the total units must be aff-er-dable byL +l.a State rl r+m + f LIn „ 1 (� m.�..ittr D--l—i ment defini the Scargoepartpnelnt ef14ousin and C-8z�a-rrc- JA mot• ...tip......... .... ..... ,... Street,This site, whieh is sea4h ef Palm Aveniie on beth sides of 38th has been b b b the r-eseuree pr-adueiiea ever-lay. A minimum of eighteen (18) units of the total number of residential units shall be made available and restricted, for a minimum period of thirty (30) years, to persons or households earning not more than one hundred percent (100%) of Orange g:4:96resol:epa96.3a r!s 4 96-903 Exhibit A, Page 3 Resolution No. 97-12 County median income, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These units may be provided at an offsite location. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of February , 1997. A#� 441�r Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: `City Clerk City Attorney REVIEW D APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Comm nity Development ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Property Sketch Exhibit C: Land Use Plan 3 g:4:96resor:;pa%-3a r[s 4 96-903 Exhibit A, Page 4 Resolution No. 97-1 �f OR-IS34458 TITLE OFFICER-GOMFZ � w r7: 1 z1 7-//� DESCRIPTION THE LAN D REFERRED TO IN TH IS REPORT IS SITUATED ICE TH E STATE OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF ORANNGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND 15 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED TRACT NO. 14135, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF: THAT PORTION OF FRACTIQNAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 1 I WEST, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF SEAPOINT STREET(SEAVIEW AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 166, PAGES 10 AND I OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY), SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT COURSE SHOWN AS "NORTH 20° 5P 46" WEST 336.59 FEET' FOR THE MOST EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE NORTH 200 51'46' WEST 336.59 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, THENCE NORTH 890 38' 49" WEST 846.30 FEET ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE TO A POINT ON A LINE 12.00 FEET WESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE SOUTH 11* 32' 26' EAST 150.83 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1522.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 536.37 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200 11' 30" TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 34` 47' 33" WEST; THENCE EASTERLY 353.03 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 250 17' 02" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1I00.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 09° 30' 31" EAST; THENCE EASTERLY 233.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°08'37"; THENCE NORTH 680 20' 52" EAST 124.38 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 200 51'46" WEST 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 68' 20' 52" EAST 100.01 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SEAPOINT STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BENEATH THE. SURFACE THEREOF (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "SUB-500 PORTION-), ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL OTHER FISSIONABLE MATERIALS WITHIN OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED OR EXTRACTED OR TAKEN FROM THE SUB-500 PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY, WHICH SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUMI, HYDROCARBONS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY CALLED 'SUB-500 INIINERALS-, WITHOUT HOWEVER, ANY INTEREST IN THE SURFACE OR IN ANY PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED(500)FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY DOWNWARD FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY,AS RESERVED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 8, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-679852 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-0384812 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit A, Page 5 zoNsNG R-SQ31 tioR No 97 i� D 4 - IONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-6-11 & 5--6-11 NOTE' 1k E•e_ED Tpb PT[D MARCH 7, d 51[�'�si.si'*�•1sa0c 0,or-a[.•+•a 0:r 1a0.y Ti 4d 1 W•••L. CIT COUNCIL 9RT:HIhCC NO 734 L EGEND CI1 V S5ORD D0 i5( 60. ;NChDEB ASE h0. 4 p[.>,.i°ezx++w.se••r UNTINGTON BEACH f2 7 a2 2n-10 93E w�• KaT Krct.•.4 bf+•ti'1 222bi 5.5 flnn .e-y w-oee ea.••f•ei.c bsr•er qt9-TO 7C-�O K05 •. a[ax+a.ac wr�rv.t bfr.ca t.2.T! 72-19 Te55 2ae2 "ice'' •t--eare...a r —f f Oa-•4T g A N GE COUNTY C A L I F O R N I A x-i2 eT n7.TC 260, g '..ar4=-[",r.• 9-19•e3 FPe1-1 xa' 2 c[a.+�01H:b`.f.Tpaf rcT 7-2- e20 2706 1-17-83 FLOWF[OE 26Cfi - J[Gr a.+.+! Ora •+0?+{r.0r Pf"•:cf a ALP+•'+] Ora r•0]�c r�o-r.f••'c' er'ea-f�.e oa raga.eTc.as^e- •� r r... r;aoo i ai 13 Y 12I 51 31• L•1 'v S/ /LUf ] Iyl{7/ •4� 4 I _.:e I cc-CL R Ilk Cl �r 11' _..�'� .,°� �r �QS•Or •l..,1. •3 .ay a q4 ROS-Q-CZ .•Ta....a-.3r• ! a• •? c - �Tyy raaElrl RS i6i`F?'ac-"f1. .-'T yy K:- �.• y+:�4:77C5.GS R3-17-0-CZ R2=P =0 G . 'w �.'=;;•. :.•c�: c, •rr fir• .',� 1i ,f. A Jr-1 — {C \ 2`0 S�oCjF 'C, A� �► i I S a i I jJ//'/7 I • 0 r a MAP I (ZMA WO, 91(o r • C-HAK(4E �>UBJ-E -r ::!W1'15 10 "RL 1 I Exhibit A, Page 6 Resolution No. 97--12 • ��Gcrn� No. ff� - 11 -r� CITY OF � HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA u r r� R_a Ji/f e Y �e w + ♦cM •� y ar. COA L M ` 4 � A qe �C } LAWP �C Fq� (J, 6E + .a (I?J-,7 FCr511-YNTJAL, , '70N1'r.'!� MFLA696) Exhibit A, Page 7 Resolution No. 97-12 Res. No. 97-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of February, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: Green City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/reso I ut ilresUm/9 7-1 1 Exhibit A, Page 8 Resolution No. 97-12 ......... NFO Y ............. F ............ N: V--R 1 ...-MAL 1. PROJECT TITLE: Occancrest Concurrent Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit No. 9 6-2 7/Zone Change No. 96-3/Tentative Tract 14135/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-11/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2/Gencral Plan Amendment No. 96-3 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Contact: Laura Phillips, Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Occancrest Partners, 520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Contact: Tom Zanic Phone: (310) 394-3379 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: RH-30 (High Density Residential-30 units per acre) Proposed: RL-7 (Low Density Residential-7 units per acre) S. ZONING: Existing - RH-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential, 29 units per acre, oil overlay, Coastal Zone) Propose - RL-O-CZ (Low Density Residential, oil overlay, Coastal Zone) 0 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a 9.9 gross acre parcel that is currently vacant, and generally flat. There is an approved project on the site consisting of 252 condominium units (of which 156 are designated affordable), comprised of six 3-story buildings with subterranean parking. The applicant's proposed project will reduce the density on the site and provide for 54 detached single family homes as a Planned Unit Development. The project is approximately 5.5 units per acre. The entry point is at Seapointe and Palm, which Exhibit A, Page 9 Resolution No. 97-I2 will be gated. There will be an emergency access gate located on Seapointe. The internal streets are to be private, and maintained by the Horne Owners' Association (HOA), as will the common interior and exterior landscaping. There will be 4 foot sidewalks on both sides of the private streets,with parking on one side. The proposed homes are all 2 story with 3 car garages and driveway pads;units have 3- 5 bedrooms, and range in size from 2650 square feet to 3230 square feet. The .affordable housing requirement generated by this project (20% or 11 units) is proposed to be met off site by rehabilitated apartment units on Talbert Avenue. This project includes the following proposed actions: General Plan Amendment from RH-30 (High Density Residential-30 units per acre) to RL--7 (Low Density Residential-7 units per acre). This would reduce the permitted density on the site from a maximum of 30 units per acre (297 units) to 7 units per acre (69 units). Zone Change from RH-29-0-CZ to RL-O-CZ. This would reduce the permitted density on the site from 29 units per acre (consistent with the currently approved project on the site) to 7 units per acre (maximum 69 units). Tentative Tract to subdivide the 9.9 acre parcel into 54 single family lots. Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit to permit the development of 54 detached single family homes as a Planned Unit Development. The PUD is requested to reduce to lot size in the proposed RL District from 6,000 square feet to 4,800 square feet, and to reduce the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet. Local Coastal Program Amendment to transmit changes in the City's Local Coastal Program (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) to the Coastal Commission for approval. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): Coastal Commission Exhibit; A, Page 10 Resolution No. 97-12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy &Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ eater ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION,,,,ill be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NNill be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project INIAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but that at } least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is ❑ required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. August 26, 1996 Signature Date Laura Phillips PLANNER Printed Name Title Exhibit A, Page 11 Resolution No. 97-12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant Ievel (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section I50G3(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XViI at the end of the checklist. G. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14, California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. .(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However,because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3. SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides orMudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) 0 Q 0 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Vote: This response probably would not require further explanation). t ply Exhibit. A, Page 12 Resolution No. 97-12 -ntially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ 191 ❑ (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ Z ❑ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Sources: 3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ❑ ❑x vicinity? (Sources: 1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ Z impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Sources: 3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Z established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3) Discussion: The proposed general plan amendment and zone change from high density residential to low density residential will not conflict with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. Existing projects to the south and southeast (Surfcrest, Seacliff) are medium and medium high density. The proposed project will be compatible with these residential uses. The proposed Harriett Wieder Regional Park is located to the north and east of the project. The park is primarily a native park, and the lowered density on the site will reduce potential impacts from noise and light. The project will include a block wall topped by wrought iron (or similar see-through material) between the houses and the park boundary to provide visual interest from the park side, and the homes will be set back a minimum of 15 feet. The property to the west of the site is currently used for oil operations and a heliport. The homes will be separated from the oil uses by an 8 foot high block wall, and any remaining noise impacts from oil and heliport operations can be mitigated to a level of insignificance (see Section X, Noise, below). The proposed residential project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development, which allows the Planning Commission to grant reductions in minimum required lot area and lot width. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the RL standard to allow a minimum lot area of 4800 square feet in lieu of 6000 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet. These reductions do not constitute variances pursuant to Section 210.06 of the HBZSQ. The proposed development complies with the provisions of the RL zoning district. There are no agricultural operations or resources that would be adversely affected by the project. The project does not proposed any elements that would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community and will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies of the City of Huntington Beach. Environmental Assessment 96-4 1 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 13 Resolution No. 97-12 _..:ntialiy Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources: 3, 5) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ housing? (Sources: 2, 5) Discussion: The project consists of a reduction in the planned number of units on the site from a maximum of 252 units as currently approved, to the proposed 54 units, or a 79% reduction in number of units. The population increase associated with the project is consistent with the General Plan, and will not result in a substantial increase in the growth rate of the City. The project will not induce additional growth in the area because major infrastructure is currently available at or adjacent to the site. The site is currently vacant, and no existing affordable housing will be displaced. The applicant will be providing 20 affordable rehabilitated apartment units off site to meet the 20% (11 units) of affordable housing that are generated by this project. The previously approved project on the site included 156 on site affordable units generated that project and by Seacliff IV. However, the provision of those units was tied to the high density on the site (RH-29-0-CZ, 29 units per acre). The applicant's General Plan Amendment request will eliminate the language in the Coastal Element of the General Plan that requires high density and affordable housing on this site. These units have been accounted for in past Housing Element programs. This reduction in density will reduce opportunities to meet some of the City's housing goals. M.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault nipture? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 91 (Sources: 7, 8) d) Seiche, tsunanu, or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ N EnNironmental Assessment 96-4 2 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 14 Resolution No. 97-12 _cntially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 7,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 8) ❑ Cl ❑x ❑ h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: 7, ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 8) Discussion: The project does not include any activities that will impact earth stability of geologic substructures. The site is primarily flat, and does not contain any unique physical or geologic features. Elevations range from approximately 34 to 38 feet above mean sea level. The site is located approximately 330 feet south of the bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa. Construction of the proposed homes will require grading of the site for the new structures, however, the project does not propose any significant change in grade. There will be approximately 7500 cubic yards of grading with a maximum cut and fill slope ratio of 2:1 and a maximum cut and fill slope height of 2 feet. There will be no import or export of soil as part of the grading operations, which are expected to last 3 months. Grading and site preparation during development may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of a grading plan and dust control measures. (See standard condition No, 3). No significant impacts are anticipated. The project site is not located within the Al.quist-Priolo Special Hazards Zone and is located approximately '/4 mile from the suspected trace of the Newport Inglewood fault . However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area, the site may be subject to ground shaking. Structures built in California are required to comply with standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code to minimize the structural risks from groundshaking. Based upon the City's Geotechnical Inputs Study (prepared by Leighton-Yen & Associates, 1974) the project site is located in an area of moderate clay content which can be indicative of expartsive soils. However, this is common in the City and a soil study is required as a standard condition of approval (see standard Condition No-7 in Attachment No. 3). The site is located on a portion of the Huntington Beach mesa that is considered to be regionally subsiding. Previous assessments of this area indicate that the subsidence rate in the vicinity has been declining; it is further indicated that the subsidence rate is extremely slow and that minor improvements my be resulting from fluid/steam injection methods being utilized by surrounding oil activities. Therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to pose a hazard to or to present substantial constraints on the proposed development. Impacts can be addressed through compliance with applicable soils, grading and structural foundation requirements, codes and ordinances (See standard conditions No. 1 and 7 in Attach. No. 3). Em-ironmental Assessment 96-4 3 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 15 Resolution No. 97-12 __4ntially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1V.WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ❑ ❑ ❑ the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ surface water quality (e.g_, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ body? (Sources: 1,7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water movement? (Sources: 1,7) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ ❑ ❑ 1] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources: 3,7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ [] (Sources: 7, 8) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ otherwise available for public water supplies? (Sources: 5, 7) Discussion:. The proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, etc.) on the property. However, the tract has been designed to collect runoff on site and direct it to streets and storm drains. Runoff will drain toward Seapointe Street, and will be accommodated by a new system connecting to an existing 78" outlet pipe crossing. The Department of Public Works has indicated the storm drain system will adequately accommodate runoff from the project. No runoff will drain toward the Harriett Wieder Regional Park area, and no significant impacts to drainage resulting from the project are anticipated. The project site is located in Flood Zone X and is not within the 100 year floodplain. The project does Em6ronmental Assessment 96-4 4 8126l96 i Exhibit A, Page 16 Resolution No. 97-12 Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources); Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact not propose any excavation or other activities that could impact groundwater quality. The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. The project is projected to use 29,160 gallons of water per day. This is a significant reduction from the estimated 179,000 gallons per day that would be used by the approved development on the site under high density zoning. The applicant will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring payment of Public Works fees (see standard condition No. 8), and no significant adverse impacts to the existing water supply are anticipated. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 10) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources. 6) d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources: 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The project will result in an increase in pollutant emissions in the area which may incrementally contribute to degradation of local air quality. However, the project is below the threshold for significant air quality impacts (as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District); therefore, the project's contribution is considered less than significant. Short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality may occur during construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. Grading activities are expected to last approximately 3 months. However, with the implementation of conditions of approval minimizing dust and emissions resulting from construction equipment, no > significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated. See standard condition No. 3. The project may expose residents to odors or airborne pollutants associated with adjacent oil operations. However, due to the City's regulation of such oil operations, any impacts should be minor and insignificant. The project will not emit objectionable odors, or alter ambient temperatures, moisture or airflow. Environmental Assessment 96-4 5 8/26196 n Exhibit A, Page 17 Resolution No. 97-12 —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources); Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (Sources: 6, 11) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e_g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 2, 4) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ (Sources: 2) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources: 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Discussion: Currently, there are no trips generated from the site. The proposed project will generate approximately 594 trips per day. The existing roadway segments and intersections in the area are currently operating within the City's standards for acceptable levels of service. These include LOS A for Seapointe Street and Palm Avenue. The project's overall contribution is not expected to result in a drop in the level of service, and is not considered significant_ Therefore, no significant modifications to the traffic system are required. The project will be required to revise street and traffic signal plans to match the proposed entry way. The project's contribution to traffic impacts is expected to be offset by the ,project's payment of its share of the traffic impact fees, which are utilized to fund area widq,traffic improvements. (See to Standard Condition No. 6) Construction traffic resulting from development of the project may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow. These potential impacts can be reduced through implementation of conditions of approval requiring Department of Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control plan. See standard condition No. 4. Upon build-out, the project will provide on site parking in compliance with the HBZSO, consisting of 3 enclosed garages plus a 3 car driveway pad on each lot, and on street parking totaling 34 spaces. The Environmental Assessment 964 6 8/26/96 r l• Exhibit A, Page 18 Resolution No. 97-12 _ —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact access point to the tract will be from the signalized intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street. With implementation of standard conditions of approval, including conformance of the proposed street systems to City standards, review and approval of street improvement plans and payment of traffic impact fees, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their ❑ ❑ El ❑ habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Sources: 5) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Sources: 5) c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g., oak ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources: 5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal ❑ ❑ Z ❑ pool)? (Sources: 5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ N 5) i Discussion: The project site has been highly disturbed by previous oil operations, dumping of soil and weed abatement activities. The site is currently vacant, and does not support any rare, unique or endangered plant or animal species, or any mature trees. Grading and construction activities are not expected to result in any adverse impacts to possible sensitive plant or animal species that are Iocated along the face of the bluff since the bluff is located more than 300 feet away. The project will also be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of an erosion control plan to insure that runoff during the construction/site preparation phases will not drain towards the bluff(see standard condition No. 2). No significant impacts are anticipated. , VIH.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ Cx7 inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 7) Enw7ronmental Assessment 964 7 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 19 Resolution No. 97-12 .,entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant 1VLitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Sources: 3, 7) Discussion: The project will result in increased fuel and energy consumption within the City. However, the level of development proposed by the project is less than the existing General PIan and zoning would allow, and the anticipated energy demands created by the project are within parameters of overall projected demand which is planned to be met for the area. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated. The development of the site will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 6, 7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 3, 7) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 hazards? (Sources: 6) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ grass, or trees? (Sources: 2, 6) Discussion: The proposed residential development will not involve the use of any hazardous materials and will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans. The project is located in the vicinity of oil pipelines and oil operations. In the event of an accident or leak at these facilities, hazardous substances may be released which may impact residences in the vicinity. In addition, the project is located adjacent to the future linear parkarea, which is a natural, brush covered area which could be susceptible to brush fires. However the applicant will be required to provide fire protection measures in accordance with City Fire codes, including fire hydrants and sprinklers where necessary. No significant impacts resulting from hazardous or flammable materials are anticipated, The project is located in the methane overlay district, and construction of new residences may expose occupants to fire/explosion hazards. However, compliance with city codes requires monitoring and testing, and no significant impacts are anticipated (see standard condition No. I). En-6ronmental Assessment 96-4 g 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 20 Resolution No. 97-12 _,.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I$$UES {and Supporting Information Sources}: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 2,7, ❑ ❑ ❑ 12) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ 1] ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1,2,7, 12) Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction with the use of heavy construction equipment. All construction will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and through the implementation of standard conditions of approval, no significant noise impacts during construction are anticipated (see standard condition No. 1). The project will result in higher noise levels on the site than currently exist, and long--term noise impacts may occur as a result of the increase in trip-ends and associated vehicular noise generated by the development. Due to the existing and projected level of traffic on Seapointe Street and the ambient noise from the surrounding developed uses, the project generated noise levels are considered negligible. No significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated. The project is located in the vicinity of an oil facility and an operating heliport and may periodically expose some occupants to high levels of noise. The applicant has submitted a noise study prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, 1996. The study concludes that the outdoor areas of the homes adjacent to the oil well operations will be protected by the existing block wall that separates the oil operations from the property. In addition, the helicopter noise will not exceed 55 dB at the nearest residential property line, which is five decibels below the exterior noise exposure standard. Therefore, no exterior mitigation will be required to meet the HB Noise Ordinance. The lots along Seapointe Street are subject to higher noise . levels at or above 65 dB CNEL due to traffic. The proposed 6 foot high block wall along the perimeter of the project will reduce this impact to acceptable levels (see proposed Mitigation Measure No. 1). No interior noise reduction measures are necessary since compliance with standard building codes will ensure compliance with the noise requirements. XY.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered . government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Fire ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ El ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Sources: School Districts) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Environmental Assessment 96-4 9 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page ' 21 R6solution No. 97-12 —en6ally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Sources: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Sources: City of ❑ ❑ ❑ Huntington Beach) Discussion: The proposed project has initially been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, Fire and Police, for compliance with all applicable City codes. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications, no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated (refer to standard conditions-Attachment 3). Pursuant to the Huntington Beach General Plan, the applicant will be required to negotiate with the affected school districts in order to mitigate any impacts on school services prior to the issuance of building permits. XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ d ❑ b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ Ll ❑ facilities? (Sources: 5, 7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,7) ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ d ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The project will require incremental extensions of public services and utilities on the site, which will be provided by the respective governmental agencies and utility companies. These connections are considered as minor improvements, and existing systems can accommodate the projected use. Water utilized by the development would be approximately 29,160 gallons per day. The project will generate approximately 12,420 gallons of sewage per day. Solid waste will be collected by the Rainbow Disposal Company, which can accommodate the demand. No adverse impacts to the City's utilities are anticipated. XM.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ 1,3) Environmental Assessment 96-4 10 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 22 Resolution No. 97--12 _ —critially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sign cant Mitigation Significant ISSUES {and Supporting Information Sources}: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (Sources: 1,2) c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Discussion: The project will be constructed on currently vacant land adjacent to the boundary of the Linear Park. Currently, there are views to the Bolsa Chica wetlands from the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street. Due to the proposed lot configuration of the tract, these views should still be largely available to the northeast of the intersection. Views to the entirety of the Bolsa Chica will be available to the public from the Harriett Weider Regional Park, to the north of the project. In order to ensure that the project is aesthetically pleasing from the point of view of the park, the staff and Planning Commission will review building elevations and fencing plans for the project. The proposed project is of lesser intensity and bulk than the approved project on the site, and will have less aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. The project will introduce new light sources on the project site that are typical of residential development. Given the scale of existing residential development in the area, along with street lighting on Seapointe Street, the incremental increase in ambient light due to the new buildings is not expected to be significant. With implementation of standard conditions of approval(See No. 5 on Attachment No. 3) requiring the directing of lights in a manner to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties, no adverse impacts are anticipated. XMCULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 15) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources: 5) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ z potential impact area? (Sources: 5) Discussion: The project site is currently vacant, and is not located within the City's historic district or in the vicinity of any identified archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or cultural resources. No impacts are anticipated. Environmental Assessment 96-4 i 1 8/26/96 r I Lam-, Exhibit A, Page 23 Resolution No. 97-12 tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ C! (Sources: 1) Discussion: Impacts to demand for recreational facilities are typically generated by introduction of additional users associated with residential development, or due to loss of recreational facilities or recreation designated property. The proposed project will add to the demand for local park use through the addition of new residents. There are no recreational facilities proposed as part of the project, and the nearest existing City parks are Central Park at Edwards Street and Central Park Drive, and Worthy Park at Main Street and 17t` Street. While monetary compensation for park impacts is often feasible, in this case, there are no nearby City parks that are considered feasible candidates for improvements with contributions from this development. City staff therefore recommends that an on-site recreation area be included in the project as mitigation for park impacts. (See proposed Mitigation Measure No. 2). XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 2, 7) Discussion: There are no significant wildlife or biological resource on the site, and the project will therefore not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ term, to the disadvantage of long-terra environmental goals? (Sources: 3) Environmental Assessment 96-4 12 8126/96 Exhibit A, Page 24 Resolution No. 97-12 _ ,,entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. It does not represent a significant negative impact to the environment or goals of the City. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3) Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above. d) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 2, 6) Discussion; See discussion of items No. I-XV above. Environmental Assessment 96A 13 8/26/96 1 Exhibit A, Page 25 Resolution No. 97-12 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: I Project Vicinity Map See Attachment 41 2 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment tt2 City of Huntington Beach Community 3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance cc 5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact " Report for General PIan Update 6 Project Narrative " 7 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Technical " Background Report for General Plan Update 8 Geotechnical Inputs " for City of Huntington Beach 9 F'EMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (April, 1996) " 10 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality " Management District 11 Trip Generation, 4th Edition " Institute of Transportation Engineers City of Huntington Beach City Clerk 12 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code office,2nd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 13 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Community CEQA Procedures Handbook Development Dept.,planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 14 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity " Map 15 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Location " Map Environmental Assessment 96-4 14 8/26/96 Exhibit A, Page 26 Resolution No. 97-12 o � no• p ar esr n x ADOtv4 + 4 Eo��ul � Nm lI'� � j1111I3333 '1rA1H11 I wa2an —SLAM - �'�� LailElf \ { » n R113 cax�uEo .µ ;\ 3 IrO exrcxN f. ` �'u.�7ua�fplis ''tuHi► PROD ECT 1 �iuwaraa 1••••s•ai••a••■1•i i i•1•�s •• Ia•• r�I �-V� 9S, f� G S' f • � f EA 96-7 � y HUNTWGTQN BEACH PLANNING D1Vi51QN WMNGTON BEACH 7 r R"A (N .Z�-f 1 I JL I r I I I 1:111 IFLI ,, 'I I IM . .. . . . . . Lhlaar Purk llllf z 0 Itj LL JAJ L 1 tjlo�41 I I ............ 04 1 J I 4 r IL iL 1 39 1.1 v Fe 0 ck 17 \O ft-3LI,V 4j 7w ... ...... 3� —— L To. I Xi (a it sibx Q) > pq z TA 'T r It MAIN ENT Fly Y.N 24 pO LANDSCAPED PARKWAY P( ........... Sur1crusl SCALE: V-30' Exhibit A, Page 28 Resolution No. 97-12 Attachment No. 3 Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to Public Works Department, S. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; C. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 4. Prior to issuance of building, permits, submit a construction vehicle control plan to Public Works for review and approval. 5. If outdoor lighting is included, energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. 6. Prior to issuance of building permit (or Certificate of occupancy, if determined appropriate by the Traffic Division and Planning Division) of the first phase of development, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department,Traffic Engineering Division. The study shall be used to determine the project's Traffic Impact Fee. The traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the Certificate of occupancy. 7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on- site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 8. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Proposed Mitigation Measures 1. A minimum six (6) foot high wall shall be constructed along the project perimeter at Seapointe Street to reduce exterior noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL. 2. A recreation area, to be reviewed and approved by the PIanning Commission, shall be provided within the tract to mitigate the impacts to local parks. Environmental Assessment 4964 Attachment No. 3 I Exhibit A, Page 29 Resolution-No. 97-12 REVISED NOISE ANALYSTS FOR OCEANCREST - TRACT 14135 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Report#96-125 August 19, 1996 Prepared for NEW URBAN WEST 520 Broadway Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Prepared by Paul Dunholter, P.E., Principal Theodore C.Lindberg, INCE MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7528 (714)760-0891 Exhibit A, .Page 30 Resolution No. 97-12 SUMMARY OF REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR OCEANCREST - TRACT 14135 EXTERIOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this updated report is to demonstrate compliance of the Oceancrest Development (Tract 14135) project with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. The site is in the City of Huntington Beach at the corner of Seapoint Avenue and Palm Avenue. Outdoor living areas of the units that will be adjacent to the oil well operations are protected by the existing 10 feet high wall that separates the oil well from the property. Cal Resources, formerly called Shell Oil, operates a heliport about 400 feet northwest of the proposed Oceancrest Development. The helicopter noise will not exceed 55 dB CNEL at the nearest residential property line, which is five decibels below the exterior noise exposure standard. Therefore, no exterior mitigations will be required to meet the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. The lots located along Seapoint Street will be exposed to the highest noise levels. The lots along this roadway are located 60 feet from the centerline. At these distances, the noise level at the property line will be at or above 65 dB CNEL. As a result, mitigation measures will be required for the lots located along Seapoint Street. A perimeter wall, 6.0' in height should be located along the top of slope between the units facing Seapoint Street and the roadway. The height of the barrier is relative to the elevation of the adjacent pad. According to the site plan, the project calls for the building of a 6' high community masonry theme wall adjacent to Lots 25 through 36. This barrier will reduce the first floor exterior noise levels to less then 60 dB CNEL. INTERIOR MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The maximum exterior noise exposure level is expected to be 64.5 dB CNEL, and the maximum exterior noise ordinance level is expected to be 60 dBA. This means the maximum exterior to interior noise reduction required would be 19.5 dB. Since most new homes built under the Title 24 energy requirements typically achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction of 20 to 25 dBA, no interior noise mitigation measures will be required for this project, which is the exterior noise exposure standard. MGA Page 1 Exhibit A, Page 31 Resolution No. 97-12 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR OCEANCREST - TRACT 14135 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LO INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the Oceancrest Development (Tract 14135) project with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. The site is in the City of Huntington Beach at the corner of Seapoint Avenue and Palm Avenue. The project calls for the construction of 54 single family detached 2-story homes. The project site is exposed to noise from oil wells near the project site as well as helicopter flights which originate near the project site. The vicinity map is shown in Exhibit 1, and the site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. This study addresses the future exterior and interior noise levels at the project site and possible mitigation measures required to meet the City's Noise Ordinance. 2.0 EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR NOISE CRITERIA The City of Huntington Beach General Plan specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land-uses. The standard states that for residential land use, the exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) shall not exceed 65 dB. CNEL is a 24 hour time weighted average noise level. Noise that occurs during the evening period(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise which occurs at nighttime(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weights were selectedto reflectpeoples sensitivity to noise during late-night and early morning hours. 3.0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOISE ORDINANCE The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise limits to protect residential areas from non-transportation related noise sources (such as the oil well operations). Tables 1 & 2 present the outdoor and indoor noise ordinance limits, respectively. The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance is important because it provides noise levels which are deemed to be acceptable in residential areas. By comparing the noise levels generated by the oil producing activities to the noise levels listed Noise Ordinance, the acceptability of certain noise generating activities can be determined. The Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds. 4.0 METHODOLOGY The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108,December 197 8). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer program has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Noise contours are found by iterating over distance until the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL contours are found. MGA Page 2 Exhibit A, Page 32 Resolution No. 97-12 TABLE I HUNTINGTON BEACH EXTERIOR NOISE ORDINANCE NOISE LEVEL NOT MAXIlvtU'M ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED DURATION OF EXCEEDANCE Daytime Standards (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 rninutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA 1 rninute/hour 75 dBA Never Nighttime Standards (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 50 dBA 30 minutes/hour 55 dBA 15 minutesJhour 60 dBA 5 minutes/hour 65 dBA 1 rninute/hour 70 dBA Never TABLE 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH RiTERIOR NOISE ORDINANCE NOISE LEVEL NOT MAX JUM ALLOWABLE TO BE EXCEEDED DURATION OF EXCEEDANCE Daytime Standards (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 5 rninutes/hour 60 dBA 1 rninute/hour 65 dBA Never Nighttime Standards (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 45 dBA 5 minutes/hour 50 dBA 1 minute/hour 55 dBA Never 4.0 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE The greatest traffic noise exposure for the proposed project will occur at the lots which are adjacent to Seapoint Street. The future traffic volume projections for the roadway in the project area was obtained from the City of Huntington Beach in August, 1996. The site plan for the project was prepared by Walden and Associates and dated April 3, 1996. The traffic volume and speed utilized are presented in Table 3. The time and traffic distributions utilized are presented in Tables 4. This data was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and are based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Xf GA Page 3 Exhibit A, Page 33 Resolution. No. 97-12 TABLE 3 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED ROADWAY (ADT) (MPH) Seapoint Street 13,000 40 TABLE 4 ARTERIAL.TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER THE OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Mediurn Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Utilizing the traffic data presented above along with the FHWA Model, distances to the 60 dB, 65 dB and 70 dB CNEL contours were determined. The values, which are listed below in Table 3, represent the distance from the centerline of the roadways to the contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers, topography, or buildings that may reduce noise Ievels. TABLE S DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS ROADWAY DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR (ft.) SEGMENT 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB Seapoint Street 29 62 134 The lots located along Seapoint Street will be exposed to the highest noise levels. The lots along this roadway are located 60 feet from the centerline. At these distances, the noise level at the property line will be at or above 65 dB CNEL. As a result, mitigation measures will be required for the lots located along Seapoint Street. 5.0 OIL WELL NOISE Noise is generated by the extraction of oil on the south and west sides of the project site. Three noise measuxements were made of the oil well pumping operations along the existing 10 feet high wall separating the proposed project site from the oil well facility. The measurements were taken at a height of 5 feet so the mitigation effects of the wall would be included,and they were taken on August 5, between 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Exhibit 2 shows the monitoring locations, and the measurement data are listed in Table 3. The measurements were made with a Bruel& Kjaer Type MGA Page 4 Exhibit A, Page 34 Resolution No. 97-12 2231 Sound Level Meter; The system was calibrated before and after the measurement series. The neatest oil well to the project is located more than one hundred feet away from the existing wall The measurement data in Table 3 shows that the measured noise levels did not exceed either of daytime or nighttime limits specified in the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. These noise levels that exceed the noise ordinance standards are shown in bold type. The noise sources measured included automobile and truck drive bys on Seapoint Street and on Shell property, oil well operations to the south of the project, and aircraft over flying the site. The oil well pumping noise itself was almost inaudible when observed on the west side of the wall. There is a helicopter pad located approximately 400 feet northwest of measurement Site 3. During the measurement survey, there was a helicopter sitting on the pad, however it was not operated the entire time the noise levels were taken. Table 3 OIL WELL NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA (dBA) SITE NUMBER Leq Lmax L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50 L90 Lmin Microphone @ 5' above pad(below top of wall) 1 50.7 59.3 58.0 54.0 50.5 48.5 47.0 46.1 2 47.1 57.0 53.5 48.5 47.5 46.0 45.0 44.3 3 49.5 55.6 54.5 52.0 50.0 48.5 47.5 46.2 Outdoor Daytime Noise Ordinance Standards 75 70 65 60 55 Outdoor Nighttime Noise Ordinance Standards 70 65 60 55 50 According to previous noise levels measured in the same area, a helicopter landing on the oil well site generated noise levels that exceeded the noise ordinance standards. Also, during the previous noise measurements, at the 10 feet high microphone locations, on-site truck and automobile drive- bys and aircraft and helicopter flybys caused the noise levels at these sites to exceed the noise ordinance standards. By placing the microphone above the existing 10 feet high wall, the noise levels from traffic on Pacific Coast Highway added to the ambient noise levels measured. The actual oil pumping noise levels are low, and since the noise sources causing the noise levels to exceed the noise ordinance standards are attributable to operations around the oil wells and transportation related sources (i.e. aircraft and helicopter flybys), the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance will not be violated with respect to oil well noise. 6.0 HELICOPTER NOISE As previously mentioned, Cal Resources operates a heliport about 400 feet northwest of the proposed OceancrestDevelopment in the City of Huntington Beach. This heliport is used by the oil companies to transport workers and supplies to off-shore oil platforms. These helicopter operations occur only in the daytime hours and average three (3) trips a day on Monday through Thursday, approximately six (6) round trips in a year on Fridays, and only in the case of emergencies on the weekends. This information was obtained from Tony Devito of Cal Resources MGA Page 5 Exhibit A, Page 35 Resolution No. 97-12 on August 19, 1996. The type of helicopter is an Aerospatiale AS 350C Astar, which is comparable to a Bell Jet Ranger 206L, one of the quietest helicopters in the fleet. The City of Huntington Beach had developed noise standards to minimize the impacts from transportation noise sources such as roadways, airports and heliports onto residential land uses. The City exterior noise standard is 65 dB CNEL and the interior noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. The EIR on the project(80-1, November 1980) addressed the issue of helicopter noise onto the project site. The results of the noise contour analysis showed that the 65 dB CNEL contour for the helicopter operations does not extend beyond the helipad. The 55 dB CNEL contour does not extend beyond the boundary of the Shell property. The noise levels generated from helicopter operations is compatible with the City Noise Standards for residential land uses. The project would not be exposed to helicopter noise in excess of the City Noise Standards. The City Noise Standards axe based upon the CNEL scale(as is the case with all of the cities in Orange County) which does not always adequately predict adverse community response from helicopter noise. CNEL is a 24-hour energy average sound level. In these instances, it is useful to also examine the single event noise levels from these operations. The previous noise measurement survey recorded peak sound levels from a helicopter overflight of nearly 80 dBA. This level is sufficient to result in occasional single event disturbances. (Note that this level would exceed the City Noise Ordinance level, however the ordinance can not be applied to helicopter noise in that it's operations are preempted by federal law. This would also apply to any aircraft flying overhead or a vehicle on a public roadway, where noise levels are commonly greater then the noise ordinance levels) However, these operations occur only occasionally. In terms of total time that helicopters would be audible on the site, the noise would be audible less than 15 minutes per day. There are no operations during the nighttime. In terms of community response data, these single event sound levels and frequency of operation are not of sufficient level to result in significant adverse community response. Although the single event noise levels are of sufficient level to result in occasional single event disturbances to noise sensitive individuals, these levels are not of sufficient frequency to warrant special noise mitigation. A possible mitigation measure is to list occasional helicopter overflights in documentation to prospective home buyers. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is broken by the barrier. The greater the distance the sound must travel around the wall to reach the receiver, the greater the noise reduction. 7.1 Exterior Noise Mitigation Outdoor living areas of the units that will be adjacent to the oil well operations are protected by the existing 10 feet high wall that separates the oil wells from the property. The loudest noise levels measured during the recent survey was less than 60 dBA, which does not exceed either the daytime or nighttime noise ordinance standards. The helicopter noise will not exceed 55 dB CNEL at the nearest residential property line, which is five decibels below the exterior noise MGA Page 6 Exhibit A, Page 36 Resolution No. 97-12 exposure standard. Therefore, no exterior mitigations will be required to meet the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Aperimeter wall, 6.0' in height should be located along the top of slope between the units facing Seapoint Street and the roadway. The height of the barrier is relative to the elevation of the adjacent pad. According to the site plan, the project calls for the building of a 6' high community masonry theme wall adjacent to Lots 25 through 36. This barrier will reduce the first floor exterior noise levels to less then 60 dB CNEL. This barrier will not, however, reduce the noise level exposure at the second floor building face. 7.2 Interior Noise Mitigation The proposed project must comply with the City's interior noise exposure standard of 45 dB CNEL as well as the interior noise ordinance limits. To comply with the interior noise limits, the homes must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements which make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent on the transmission loss of each element and the area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Detailed engineering calculations are only necessary for homes requiring an outdoor to indoor noise reduction greater than 20 dB. The maximum exterior noise exposure Ievel at the second floor building face is expected to be 64.5 dB CNEL, and the maximum exterior noise ordinance level is expected to be 60 dBA. This means the maximum exterior to interior noise reduction required would be 19.5 dB. Most new homes built under the Title 24 energy requirements typically achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction of 20 to 25 dBA. Subsequently, no interior noise mitigation measures and no building upgrades will be required for this project. This project will meet the interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL assuming the windows remain closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided as per the Uniform Building Code. Since the outdoor-to-indoor noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dBA when the windows are open, any buildings within the 57 dB CNEL contour line will meet the 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed, therefore requiring mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all units directly adjacent to Seapoint Street. This includes buildings on Lots 25 -36. Air conditioning is often an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as the system is of sound attenuating construction. MGA Page 7 r �U Ws- rtx[tY-ro+-'StAl R rulum r.IA t i�I 1 tl. _x°' S7•_sly , " _�4 J1%,�. 4"+Y*�f 191Y}r~••n r 'Ywc1 Tl]�� 5 Illllr�s�r srcrl. 'uwA S rISi.9lL 3gi3�/ 3 J ON [I dJt,t7�I1'>f .,-. ,�r��/' r'' �� ♦a� {lr c'- F lddts oa a 3 3 y�S}1 p tl� .�]1�17-T• _.a6_iu5 aw �11.. � r'!.'. TE IER DR Ez rii rGS, lull 1 ' ` • ` �dh yea '.' ulicre �I j!4 � =+tr'=-'OR °� ,-e- g w.rw J albIG I I Jt'tk�'r� i�t aja�jg �'C � IiN q�j' rP�a runic r I4NffMilU1 y}'INr x 1 • \_ 111 rt B01 SA AM ua a P - __ CNICA'— - LIES AY L1 AY S fmrn 6111711 1 OR 001 7 '1T [ [ `. STATE BEACH LOCATION Or PROJECT SITE IRA aV S[iAM„ y g p EANEST AY q { 414RFf LR AY GAR IELD 1 •• I 6761 t 7 EA 11�}a� �Gy >v tur 1.Y-A 31561 Ar yr� 6� (D X Swull {) ~�� a' to =r St 1 YIIIA" • _ ` CIX)tR � \ 0 µ• •n ; . . _. ._._ ..____._..�__—,.___.._ •.' + SEE J1.G6 YORKT(Yldi l AY AY E-f Cr LWirr4(IN J. 1.a „yr oa�t alrl ra ua yla11A Q• 51 a• 3 Pal f.IrI l'A u Cl ,1�- G 1 IlACN �!� r, MICE r •"}• 1 tea.__ a dr i AY E ICA s i r!f ffo- g 261 6 Q �, � /� ',y aHUIVINGTON n�rlr v f Yltl Il AY �716E � �i �'�' CITY A. r �aa lei * ��° {E M16 l]nI 0 3 1 11 Y^ _ AY SE Exhibit 1 MEsrRE cREvE gssocIAres Location of Project Site ' rtwosf4— t'w AffA ;` _, `wPITY g6tl�axr �•. —••�ti�_�. 1 n- >rl, 10' )0' b.••• ".7D' ea »' !T >D' _Tar et1' b 30' '. +' ,r y r eY1 ter.,. to ee so 3v ao fy ar, 47 ala) d b ® a . 37' + (, .l• I :lJ� J� 1' - 'r"` - � •'• �! Ins"'1" jq .50 48 51 EgEsm �,. 35 ' LNwq W. •"�. fie.' ' dl�P.X� 8, �. 'A,�.. � .4ts'� ® ; � ,' + r IL A 32 a r 1 11 7`J LTJ 11Sf ARf•l �y5. ` '� y :=l.Y. Sl. '��U� - . �-• •'` `r (Un 9�C.• .\ '�_� r.�n n 4 �' • N' �•.�-� +LS. '� `>'•/' I \r.1�� ,iG� 1`h Irt _ ' 0 I �Cr �. I CCrii f' k „�'.'1' �'..'.y.{• .• 1.. �� `� O A) ..y t•+�.+ � ,� r .' .. . :_ ._. +fir ..! i,.'F• �'` \ '1 raw •.„ •. ,• 4i, }� ..' r ! 1{l� til.• + - L-0 co Exhibit 2 Site Plan MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit A, Page 39 of 39 Resolution No. 97-12 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board Date:October 6, 1996 To: Planning Commission From: City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board Subject: Negative Declaration 96-4 At their September 26, 1996 meeting, the Environmental Board reviewed the Negative Declaration No. 96-4 for the Oceancrest Project at the Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street in Huntington Beach. Our comments are the following: The proposed housing project abuts Harriett Wieder Regional Park along the north and east sides that would create adverse visual impacts on the visitors to the park. The Board recommends that adequate buffer for maintaining open space between the proposed Linear Park, and the project be provided. To reduce this impact, the project includes a block wall topped with wrought iron between the houses and the park boundary, which may not be aesthetically compatible with the adjacent native vegetation. We, therefore, suggest that a minimum 15-25 ' strip of native vegetation be planted along the park boundary and it should be subject to future maintainance by the home owners association for the life of the project The Board would concur with the Negative Declaration, if the above recommendations are included as conditions of approval for this project. FsEan Lal for Huntington Beach Environmental Board cc:Allen Macenski, Chairperson h Exhibit B , Page 1 of 1 Resolution No. 97--12 4,90=XHI S P4r S ()ZOO.-*:77-/Z-) 7 C-1-AN~ 1-1-Ij !) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA r� COA L LAWP U6E PLAKI R'3 of �Y cogs f 1,ti, E � 4 A �y o� E + (9L -`T = 4,OW t7&N51 r`f 9X-S1MNr1AL.- 7 ONI r$ PAIL A699) Exhibit C, Page 1 of 7 Resolution No. 97-12 ORDINANCE NO. 3346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANIENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT INIAP 4 (SECTIONAL NNIAP 4-6-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNIER OF PALM AVENUE AND SEAPOINTE STREET FROi\1 RH-29-0-CZ (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-29 UNITS PER ACRE- OIL OVERLAY-COASTAL ZONE) TO RL-O-CZ(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-OIL OVERLAY-COASTAL ZONE) (ZONING NIAP AMENDitIENT NO. 96-3) \VHEREAS, pursuant to the Califomia State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public bearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-3,which rezones the property generally located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street, from RE-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 units per acre-Oil Overlay-Coastal Zone) to RL-O- CZ (Low Density Residential-Oil Overlay-Coastal Zone); and After due consideration of the findings and reconu-nendations of the Planning Corrunission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The zoning designation of the real property hereinafter described in Section 2 hereof, and shov.'n on District ivlap 4 (Sectional District Map 4-6-11) is hereby changed from RH-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 units per acre-Oil Overlay-Coastal Zone) to RL-O- CZ (Low Density° Residential-Oil Overlay-Coastal Zone). l a 96,,TJinawccs irjjQ6-, rlc ;(,-:,pia Exhibit C, Page 2 of 7 Resolution No. 97-12 SECTION 2. The real property subject to this ordinance is generally located northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapointe Street, and is more particularly described in the Iegal description attached hereto as Exhibit A. SFCTIONT 3. District Map 4 {Sectional District Map 4-6-11) a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-3 as described herein. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended neap. A copy of said District Map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21s tiay of San, 1997. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Connie Brockway , City Clerk ®r" City Attorney G 4 BREW!�! INI I TED AND APPROVED: City A �inistrator it for of Con iunity ev ient ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A: Legal Description EXHIBIT B: District Map 4 .A.96ordinances zma46-3 rls 4 q6-903 Exhibit C, Page 3 of 7 Resolution No. 97-12 OR-IS34458 , TITLE OFFICER- GO%1EZ DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF ORA.N'GE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRJSED AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED TRACT NO. 14135, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF: THAT PORTION OF FRACTIQNAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 1 I WEST, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF SEAPOINT STREET (SEAVIEW AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 166, PAGES 10 AND 11 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY), SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT COURSE SHOWN AS "NORTH 200 51' 46" WEST 336.59 FEET" FOR THE MOST EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP;THENCE NORTH 20' 51'46' WEST 336.59 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, THENCE NORTH 89° 38' 49- WEST 846.30 FEET ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE TO A POINT ON A LINE 12.00 FEET WESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE SOUTH 11' 32' 26" EAST 150.83 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1522.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 536.37 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20° 11' 30' TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 34° 47' 33' WEST; THENCE EASTERLY 353.03 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25° 17' 02" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1100.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 09° 30' 31- EAST; THENCE EASTERLY 233.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°08' 37"; THENCE NORTH 680 20' 52" EAST 124.38 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 20° 51' 46" WEST 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 680 20' 52" EAST 100.01 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SEAPOINT STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BENEATH THE SURFACE THEREOF (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE "SUB-500 PORTION-), ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL OTHER FISSIONABLE MATERIALS WITHIN ORTHAT MAY BE PRODUCED OR EXTRACTED OR TAKEN FROM THE SUB-500 PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY, WHICH SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, HYDROCARBONS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY CALLED "SUB-500 MINERALS', WITHOUT HOWEVER, ANY INTEREST IN THE SURFACE OR IN ANY PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED(500)FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY DOWNWARD FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY,AS RESERVED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY IN DEED RECORDED DECE,MBER 8, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-679852 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-0384812 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit C, Page 4 of 7 ZONING Resolution No. 97-12 DM 4 IONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-- -11 & 5-6-117. - NOT , CITY FMARCH ,t •-Jt a�8PTf0 �[OR0. ; IIEO . .ENaL.. CITT COUNCIL ORg:HIk[E MC- T» LEGEND: 20 OR O. OME C40 i.P+L+,ESL PiSI+ACT potml fo CA S k0. ax to OfO <SE w0. �] .t;v,p[•sn•[sa.+,.L DE+-4r ;I��TII TT I�} �-�•T Imo` R ,� .[w++r. Gt•Blr waaot vnay PP'w:l �.L 1 JL. 1 \� �J J� O J�-! � 1i-3-sZ tel.=� s 3 e T -c-ttrs+r�[scc+,w o-s+•cr 2 u ca s+e rlaE i, I J �•l�Gltr.rt]e cp-rc.a.L aL,r�c. ,ols-TO >C-�0 T•2•TS T2-7s less a:a.ra.L o•[.w.cc oLr,Kr s-r-el eD6 2sex s-c,[:v dn,xT 2•IE-e2 EI-N 26 1 ♦' tT� COUNTY, /t T I7 CALIFORNIA /"+ J1y T R �T 7 (ly I-22•el 02.70 260v 11 G E V O V Y 1 C A L it 1 5 1 11 9-:E•E3 PP13.1 ?6.1 g h�,.[p K+K.G.r�M MST.C[ T•2.64 E4-T 210E I•IT'E3 Tl OCO 2CN 25Ca ,ACC-.--G OIL P,P,•,.rclge P ST.[I 'p-�C V•�•+•G dL r.0'hiC 1�0.[S+,Cl !p=•LPr�r.9 P.L frP6:LT.[,pi^2• !�i rl.MtaLir d1. -[ - .��Tr, ROC6 20.t SS Y I � (-TAW_i`��i�� srl La .Y 0� 9c'fi 6!TZ •,�, ..:,r .a•�:at '.emu c1 I ,CC-C2 P .O•sr1 I .orcti _ J I�-.,err. ,[sF -' +' �G•Lti coo- .I .. - �Q: g: R4-29 ��• � ••� � Ste•:. 8:'`.. � I`�•'� cl 14 R ;'FO—O CZ%� C _ �0/ I MAP I i I C� Y _ A Exhibit C , Page 5 of 7 Resolution No. 97-12 OR-IS34458 TITLE OFFICER- GONIEZ DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN T14ESTATEOF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF ORANNGE, CITY OF HUNTItiGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCR]BED AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED TRACT NO. 14135, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF. THAT PORTION OF FRACTIQNAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE I I WEST, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF SEAPOINT STREET (SEAVIEW AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 166, PAGES 10 AND 11 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY), SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT COURSE SHOWN AS 'NORTH 200 51' 46' WEST 336.59 FEET' FOR THE MOST EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP;THENCE NORTH 20° 51'46' WEST 336.59 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, THENCE NORTH 89° 38' 49- WEST 846.30 FEET ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE TO A POINT ON A LINE 12.00 FEET WESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE SOUTH 11° 32' 26" EAST 150.83 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1522.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 536.37 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 200 11' 30" TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 34' 47' 33' WEST; THENCE EASTERLY 353.03 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25° 17' 02' TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY,HAVING A RADIUS OF 1100.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 090 30' 31" EAST; THENCE EASTERLY 233.14 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 08' 37"; THENCE NORTH 680 20' 52" EAST 124.38 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 20° 51' 46' WEST 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PALM AVENUE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SEAPOINT STREET; THENCE NORTH 68' 20' 52" EAST 100.01 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SEAPOINT STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET BENEATH THE SURFACE THEREOF (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE -SUB-500 PORTION"). ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND ALL OTHER FISSIONABLE MATERIALS WITHIN OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED OR EXTRACTED OR TAKEN FROM THE SUB-500 PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY, WHICH SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, HYDROCARBONS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY CALLED 'SUB-500 MINERALS% WITHOUT HOWEVER, ANY INTEREST IN THE SURFACE OR IN ANY PORTION OF SAID REAL PROPERTY LYING WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED(500)FEET MEASURED VERTICALLY DOWNWARD FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY, AS RESERVED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH COINIPANY IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 8. 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-679852 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY AND RECORDED SEPTE�iBER 1, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO, 95-0384812 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Exhibit C , Page 6 of 7 ZONING Resolution No. 97-12 DM 4 TONAL D I S T P f C T MAP 4-6-11 & 5-6-11 ..r - �OTE IT �� +6ov TEo vn Rtw T. CrTT [OUhLI� LnY21tMCE CE H4. T76 LEGENO: CY I orEE Cap. IO,f ono Tc r,D„f* — Pn,rer •f+Eh:[7 [a1F ho. 1>.I h0E0 t5 hq -U-� KlN L[rfn•[�•-x ps+•.cr UNTINGTON BEACH 0.9 :7Q.10 17s r c.DL:TY MAL.*4 o-e+•cr j-2166 Sa3 1V66 '= KP••o,•cP0 [Dw•[•t•L pf„Lr p.i9-)O Tp-r0 V605 ,'� sLs'M r+�u hl Qti*4,sL p[++K+ T.2.73 Tj-5: IB57 •[L•G,2-40 ,VtiE Dlf"•,[r rIB-E2 81.+ 1556 G_sfVK 2}j sW r.y 9 A N G E COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ;:'q:t; PP s° 26a7 R '`:*:fCpD[vf_Y��bf'•CS 7.2-D4 B.-T 27 06 I-1 T-l7 f10002CNE 2" _�-J c°r••r..G Del r+°h•[r,cw D•fi•K. .'Ci [Oh6�,° OIL .•9i.L+•Cr ps^L' •��l.w r'.GC6 jPC Sx !• v� T2�)2 7E• '�Lw ' V� Cam:c\ I �� W.+�� Y •+ ' SF�:.1. .:5;•..N- CZ ti• rr,a �..-r � R4-29-0 1 ,t :;--' �3 R3-17 0-CZ ;,P[�S o CL; :.. '9:•;:•. : .�.: -. r r~`•� :.a "~ �,;-�-aim} `� --" � •_-'- , A c) 'C `i'`J, 4ZC) NIM6 MAP o E �>06�yEZ-r :fl-rC -to "'RL -0-C-7-' I i I I ' � V I I j i Exhibit C , Page 7 of 7 Resolution No. 97--12 Ord. No. 3346 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of tine City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th of Januarv, 1997, and tivas again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st January, 1997, and v.-as passed and adopted by the affinnative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. .-AYES: Julien, Turman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: None ABSE\T: Green ABSTAIN: Nolte 1,Connie Brock,.av CITY CLERK ofihe Ci,, of iiun;in_ton Beach and e�:-officio Clerk of the Cis} Council,do hcrchp certif.v that a sNnopsis afl`tis ordinance has�ccn published in the Indcpendcnt on 19 Connie Brockway City Clcrl--md eti-offlcio Clerk In accordance %pith the Cite Chancy of said Ci,y of the Cite CoIllncil of the City Connie Brocl:%Nav Cit. C1 rl of]luntington 13t,3c31, Califortnif Ur iP t, Css� .rk By Deputy City Clerk 1s u, Res.No. 97-12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of February, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: Green �ir9u,G City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Ghesoluti/resbkpg/97-11