HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEGATIVE DECLARATION 90-28 - ND 90-28 - various non-contiguo Pl1 ILKINNOT� I, CE I PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC N0,VLgW PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE I PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28
(Cumulative Environmental Assessment associated with a combined
project which represents the subdivision of 15 noncontiguous
parcels in the Seacliff Area)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council.. will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
:._:application described below.
.DATE/TIME: Monday, May 6•, 1991, 7 : 00 •PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28
APPLICANT:• City of Huntington_ Beach
LOCATION: Various non-contiguous parc-els in the Seacliff Area
(see attached map) .
ZONE: Various (Open Space-Recreation, Low Density
Residential, High Density Residential)
REOUEST: Determine as adequate staff ' s evaluation of the
cumulative environmental impacts associated with a
combined project which .represents the subdivision of
15 non-contiguous -parcels in the Seacliff Area .
Specifically, the .following are addressed:
Tentative Tract Maps No. 14042, 14043,, 14044, 14243 ,
14244 , 14277, 14296, 14318, 14319, 14320, 14321,
14326; and Tentative Parcel Maps No. 89-264, 89-265,
89-266; Zone Changes 90-8, 90-9, 90-11, 90-12, 90-13 ,
90-14 , .90-15, 90-16;. General Plan Amendment No. 90-7
and Coastal Development Permit No.. 90-36 and 90-40,
Conditional Exceptions No. 90-37, 90-38, 90-39 , 90-40,
90-41, 90-43, 90-46 . The twelve tract maps and three
parcel maps will allow for development of a total of
159' single family homes . The request includes 7
variance requests for reductions to minimum lot
frontage requirements for some of the lots . The
request also involves one General .Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Recreational Open
Space to Planned Development on a 2 .40 acre site and
nine (9) zone changes . The project sites are located
in the Seacliff/17,th Street vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 .covers
the cumulative environment impacts
associated with 15 non-contiguous parcels
and attendant entitlements .
COASTAL STATUS: Two subdivisions will .result in an
amendment to the City' s Certified Local
Coastal Program.
S
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the
Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the
public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
-a-s outlined above. If---th-ere are any furthez questions please call
Robert Franklin, Associate Planner at 53.6-5271.
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
CITY-.OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
J \. TT 14296
_ I
ZC 90-16 - ---
• C". i
a is
`• y TT14044 ---y
ZC 90-15
r.� TT 14277
��ttttrr� ZC 90-14 .........:.::....:.
GPA 90-7 TT14042
ZC 90-9
p TT 14043 �, I
ZC 90-11 �: `: C=-E
ZC 90-13
TT 14321
TT 14243
TPM 89=264 'i TT 14326+ \ CF-P. /
TPM 89.265 � TT 14320
TPM 89-266 •� ° l`f +x / '
�v TT 143194318
DRAFT - JJ
XTIPC, ArrTv1F7 nl�CT 'A u ArrTnXT XTn 0n 1Q
Authorized to Publish Advardsomonts of d kinds inducting
public natbss by Dome of the§uparior Court of Orange
Counq►.Caiioeria.Nun>bsr MM4;Seo n+bar 29. 1961.and .
A,24831 June 11.1963
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange
am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid: l am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the below entitled matter. I am a
principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY
PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,
County of Orange, State of California,, and that
attached Notice is a true and complete copy as
was printed and published in the Costa Mesa,
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain
Vailey, Irvine, the South Coast communities and
Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit
the issue(s) of:
April 26, 1991
I declare, under penaity of perjury, that the
foregoing is true and correct
Executed on April 26 , 199
at Costa Mesa. Californiia./�
Signature
y � J- 3
PROOF OF PUBUCATiON
RECEIVED
CITY
CLERK
CITY OF
Ht1NT!NCTOh,
tiCH.CALIF.
03
April 5, 1991
Mayor Peter Green
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear 2iayut Green,
We the residents of Huntington Seacliff request your prompt
action in following-up on recommendations made by planning
staff and unanimously approved by the planning commission on
April 2, 1991. The approved recommendations are contained in
the Draft Negative Declaration 90-28.
Specifically, we are requesting that you initiate and approve
a General Plan Amendment to the City's Recreation Element
that restores park designation in the Seacliff neighborhood.
As the Draft Negative Declaration recommends, a minimum area
of 0.55 acres in Upper Seacliff and 0.55 acres in Lower
Seacliff, both interior to the neighborhoods and centrally
located, needs to be so dedicated before any park may be
obtained.
Our Parks and Open Space Committee would appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this request with you at your earliest
possible convenience. I will telephone you to arrange an
appointment.
Thank you for your prompt consideration in this matter.
Sin erely,
Dominick A. Tomaino, President
Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Association
cc: Planning Commissioner Victor Leipzig
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
May 6, 1991
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Devel ent ��
Subject: DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28
Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Transmitted for your consideration is Draft Negative Declaration No.
90-28 which has been prepared by the Planning Division in order to
adequately address potential cumulative environmental impacts
associated with 15 non-contiguous tentative maps submitted by
Pacific Coast Homes . The proposed subdivisions are located in the
Seacliff/17th Street area on former "oil island" parcels where oil
production facilities have been abandoned.
RECOMMENDATION•
Motion to "Adopt Resolution No. 6 a"7 ® approving Negative
Declaration No. 90-28 with Mitigation Measures . "
Planning Commission Recommendation and Action on April 2, 1991:
ON MOTION BY LEIPZIG AND SECOND BY RICHARDSON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28 WITH MITIGATION
MEASURES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: LEIPZIG, KIRKLAND, SHOEMAKER, ORTEGA, NEWMAN, BOURGUIGNON,
RICHARDSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution
No. (0 2 7 Q approving Negative Declaration No. 90-28 with
Mitigation Measures .
PI O 5/85
ANALYSIS•
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes
2120 Main Street, Suite 260
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
LOCATION: Fifteen non-contiguous parcels located in the
Seacliff/17 the Street area generally bounded by 17the
Street, Palm Avenue, Goldenwest Street and Yorktown
Avenue (see area map - Attachment 1) .
Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 has been prepared by the City
of Huntington Beach in order to adequately address potential
environmental impacts associated with 15 non-contiguous tentative
maps in the Seacliff/17the Street area as submitted by Pacific Coast
Homes. The proposed subdivisions will result in a maximum of 159
lots and are located on former "oil island" parcels where oil
production facilities have been abandoned.
The 15 tentative subdivisions are low density development proposals
which are generally consistent with the City' s General Plan. Some
of the sites are currently zoned High Density Residential (R4) and
the applicant has submitted zone changes which redesignate the sites
to Low Density Residential (Rl) . Two of the zone change requests
will require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program which
is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission.
At the April 2, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, a number of
project related concerns such as drainage, water service, seismic
requirements, emergency response fire and local park needs were
discussed. The Planning Commission imposed the following mitigation
measures for the project :
MITIGATING MEASURES
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-28
Impact Mitigation
1. A Portion of the Project is 1. Prior to Subdivision
located within the Alquist- Committee evaluation, a
Priolo Special Hazards Study geology report shall be
Zone. submitted which addresses
Alquist-Priolo Special
Hazards Study Zone
requirements for Tentative
Tract 14296 .
RCA -2- (9286d)
Impact Mitigation
2. Development will result in 2. Prior to issuance of grading
alteration of existing permits for each tentative
drainage systems . map, drainage alterations
and improvements shall be
approved by the Department
of Public Works .
3 . Impact to arterial 3 . Prior to Subdivision
circulation in project Committee evaluation, access
vicinity resulting from to Tentative Tracts 14043,
proposed access design. 14243, 14319, 14320 and
14321 shall minimize
potential impacts to
existing arterials.
4 . Measurable impacts on fire 4 . Prior to recordation, the
emergency response time. Fire Department will verify
that all applicable measures
have been imposed on the
project in order to maintain
established emergency
response policy of 80% of
all calls completed within 5
minutes . Such measures
shall include but not be
limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of
building permits pay
fair share for:
1) future Springdale
Fire
Station and equipment.
2) "Opticom" traffic
control
systems.
3) 3 additional
paramedics
for Gothard Station.
4) improvements to City' s
water distribution
system.
5) completion of
cross-gap connector.
RCA -3- (9286d)
Impact Mitigation
b. Prior to issuance of
building permits provide
automatic fire sprinkler
protection in all
structures over 5,000
square feet in total
area and in all
structures with
substandard access
and/or insufficient fire
flow as determined by
the Fire Department.
c. Prior to issuance of any
building permits for
Tracts 14243 and 14277,
Seapoint Avenue shall be
completed and open to
the public.
5. Need for park and 5. Provide a minimum . 55 acre
recreational facilities greenbelt area in lower and
in lower and upper a minimum .55 acre greenbelt
Seacliff area. area in upper Seacliff .
Location, ultimate size and
function shall be analyzed
by means of a special study
or a General Plan Amendment
to the City' s Recreational
Element .
6. Potential impact to 6. Maintain current water level
existing level of service of service by complying with
for water pressure and water system improvements
delivery. contained in the City' s
Water Masterplan and
specific Water Department
recommendations . Compliance
shall be demonstrated prior
to occupancy of the first
unit of each tentative tract.
As each tentative map is processed, each mitigation measure and
standard conditions of approval shall be imposed in order to reduce
impacts to the existing neighborhoods and arterial street systems .
Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 addresses potential
environmental impacts relating to the 15 tentative maps and
associated zone change and a general plan amendment request. The
City Council has the ultimate authority to approve the zone changes
and the general plan amendment request therefore the following is a
discussion of potential impacts.
RCA -4- (9286d)
Zone Changes and General Plan:
The applicant is requesting eight (8) zone changes in order to build
low density, single family detached dwellings. Four zone change
requests, Zone Change 90-9, 90-11, 90-13, and 90-16 are to rezone
parcels from R4-01 (High Density Residential with oil production) to
R1 (Low Density Residential) . The existing General Plan Designation
is Low Density Residential therefor these 4 zone changes from R4 to
R1 will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan.
Three zone change requests Zone Change No. 90-15, 90-12, and 90-8
are to rezone parcels from OP-01 (Office Professional) to R1 (Low
Density Residential) , R2-PD (Medium Density Residential) to R1 (Low
Density Residential) and C1-01 (Neighborhood Commercial) to Rl (Low
Density Residential) These zone changes will bring the zoning into
conformance with the existing general plan designation of Low
Density Residential .
Zone Change No. 90-14 is a request to rezone an existing parcel in
the Seacliff Golf Course from R4 (High Density Residential) to
Seacliff Specific Plan (Low Density Residential) . This zone change
request requires General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 to change the land
use designation from Open Space Recreation to Planned Community to
permit residential development . Staff recommends no net loss of
recreation open space. Any conversion of recreation open space to
residential should be provided elsewhere in the area.
The remaining sites are currently zoned R1 (Low Density Residential)
and the existing General Plan designation is Low Density Residential
therefore, project processing may proceed. The entire entitlement
matrix is contained in Attachment 3 .
Lo al Park:
In regard to local park needs, the residents of Seacliff and the
Planning Commission feel that there exists a need for local park
space in both upper and lower Seacliff. The residents have
indicated that a minimum .55 acre site in upper and a minimum . 55
acre site in lower Seacliff would be satisfactory. The Planning
Commission revised mitigation measure number 5 to reflect a minimum
. 55 greenbelt area in both upper and lower Seacliff . Further the
Planning Commission requested that the necessary General Plan
Amendment to the City' s Recreation Element be initiated in order to
determine the precise location, size and function of both greenbelt
areas .
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Department of Community Development prepared and advertised
Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 for thirty (30) days and staff
received 121 letters . Staff has prepared a response to all written
comments which are on file in the Department of Community
Development.
RCA -5- (9286d)
The majority of the written concerns focused on density, traffic
circulation and the need for park space in both upper and lower
Seacliff . All comments have been addressed by staff and the
Planning Commission. Staff has determined that no significant
adverse impacts will result from the cumulative project and on April
2, 1991, the Planning Commission agreed. Staff, in its initial
study of the project recommends that a negative declaration be
issued. Prior to any action on the proposed tentative maps and
attendant entitlements, it is necessary for the City Council to
review and adopt Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 .
COASTAL STATUS:
Two of the zone change requests will require an amendment to the
City' s Local Coastal Program which is reviewed by the California
Coastal Commission.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not Applicable
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may modify Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 as
desired.
ATTACHMENTS.
1. Area Map
2. Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 with mitigation measures
3 . Entitlement Matrix
4 . Planning Commission staff report dated April 2, 1991
5 . Resolution No.
MTU:MA:RLF: lp
RCA -6- (9286d)
MJ
--- -- �—--- is
J TT 14296
F I �:r ZC 90-16
---- ,. ,,�• >
TT14044 ---y
ZC 90-15 /
TT14042
ZC 90-9
TT 14043
V TT 14244
" ZC 90-13
TT 14321
TT 14243 O _ '1 ��`�y '•O 3'.
ZC 90-12 - +
^.. TPMTPM 89-264-264 � TT 14326 ::,:e I `\ CF
t,• TT 14320
I
- �f cf'.;::;"r., C,� . ••�_ cam''`.' _,._.. 1—�_
TPM 89-266 T :.;, ma's.: r sf.:•;�''` \ z
TT 14319
_ . =, a
TT14318
\� GF—
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.90-28
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-28
(Revised April 2, 1991)
(Cumulative Environmental Assessment for 12 tentative tracts and 3
tentative parcel maps proposed for the Seacliff/17th Street vicinity)
1 . Name of Proponent Pacific Coast Homes
Address 2120 Main Street, Ste. #260
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Phone Number (714) 960-4351
2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review January 10, 1991
3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) Tentative Tract Maps No. 14042—14043. 14044
14243 14244 14277 14296 14318, 14319, 14320, 14321, 14326: and
Tentative Parcel Maps No 89-264 89-265 89-266 • Zone Changes 90-8._
90-9 90-11 90-12 90-13, 90-14, 90-15, 90-16: General Plan
Amendment No. 90-7: Conditional Exceptions No. 90-37, 90-38, 90-39,
90-40 90-41 90-43 90-46• and Coastal Development Permit No 90-36
and 90-40.
4. Project Location Fifteen non—contiguous parcels in the Seacliff/17th
Street Vicinity (See attached maps).
5. Project Description The applicant is requesting subdivision of 15
non—contiguous parcels for low density residential development. The
twelve tract maps and three parcel maps will allow for development
of a total of 159 single family homes. The request also involves
one General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Recreational Open Space to Planned Development on a 2.40 acre
site (TT 14277) and eight (8) zone changes, which consist of the
following:
Zone Changes No. 90-13 (TT 14244), 90-11 (TT 14043), 90-9 (TT
14042), and 90-16 (TT 14296), are requests to change the zoning
from R4-01 (High Density Residential Oil Production) to R1 (Low
Density Residential).
Zone Change No. 90-14 is a request to change the zoning from
R4-01 (High Density Residenial — Oil) to the Seacliff Specific
Plan.
Zone Change No. 90-15 (TT 14044) is a request to change the
zoning from OP-01—CD (Office Professional—Oil—Civic District)
to Rl (Low Density Residential).
Zone Change No. 90-12 (TT 14243) is a request to change the
zoning from R2—PD-0—CZ (Medium Density—Planned
Development—Oil—Coastal Zone) to R1—CZ (Low Density Residential
— Coastal Zone).
Zone Change No. 90-8 (TT 14319) is a request to change the
zoning from C1-01 (Neighborhood Commercial—Oil) to R1 (Low
Density Residential).
Conditional Exceptions No. 90-37, 90-38, 90-39, 90-40, 90-41,
90-43 and 90-46 are requests for reduction in lot frontage
requirements for lots in Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-265,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-266, Tentative Tract 14042,
Tentative Tract 14043, Tentative Tract 14244, Tentative Tract
14326, and Tentative Tract 14318.
Although the requests are for non—contiguous developments the
proiects are all located in the Seacliff/17th Street vicinity. Due
to concern over the potential for cumulative impacts on the area, a
cumulative environmental assessment for all twelve (12) tract and
three (3) parcel maps has been prepared. For summary of each
pro-iect site, refer to attachment #5).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ X
Discussion: The proposed project involves the removal of approximately 20 oil wells. Removal of oil
equipment as well as previous oil activities may impact earth stability on the proposed project sites.- The
applicant has submitted a letter prepared by Stoney—Miller Consultants, Inc. (Geotechnical
Engineers/Engineering Geology) stating that there are no known constraints to development of the sites.
(see attachment 4). . Soil stability issues will be addressed through standard conditions of approval which
require submittal of soils studies. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —2= (8197d)
Yes Maybe . No
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over—covering of the soil? X
Discussion: Some landform modification is anticipated in association with the development of each site
which will inevitably result in disruption, displacement, compaction, and over—covering of soil . Each
project proposes between 1,000 and 20,000 cubic yards of grading. The maximum height after grading will not
exceed three (3) feet for eleven of the tracts (the twelfth tract #14318 will have a maximum height ranging
from 5 — 8 feet). Grade impacts will be addressed through standard conditions of approval which require
submittal of grading plans and hydrology studies. No significant impacts are anticipated.
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ X
Discussion: See lb
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X
Discussion: Minor short—term wind erosion may occur during site preparation and grading phases. However,
no significant impacts are anticipated with implementation of standard conditions of approval which require
dust control measures.
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ X
Discussion: The projects are located on a portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa which is considered to be
regionally subsiding. Tract 14296 is located within the Alquist—Priolo Special Hazards Study Zone. The
applicant has submitted a letter prepared by Stoney—Miller Consultants, Inc. stating that regional
subsidence is not considered to pose a hazard to development and that no significant geotechnical
engineering constraints are known to exist at the tracts which would preclude development. The letter also
states that their investigations have determined that the north branch of the Newport—Inglewood Fault Zone
is located to the north of Tract 14296 (See Attachment 4 ). However it should be noted that the letter does
not supercede California State law which requires submittal of geological investigations and reports to
provide evidence that no development can be located within 50 feet of an active fault. Subsidence and
seismic issues will be addressed through standard conditions of approval which require compliance with state
and local regulations which include submittal of soils and seismic studies and implementation of all
recommendations contained therein. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Mitigation:
1. Prior to Subdivision Committee evaluation, a geology report shall be submitted which addresses
Alquist—Priolo Special Study Zone requirements for Tentative Tract 14296.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X
Discussion: Short—Term: Minor short—term deterioration of local ambient air quality may occur during
construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. However, dust and equipment
emissions are not anticipated to be significant and will be addressed through standard conditions of
approval which require implementation of dust and emissions control measures.
Environmental Checklist —3— (8197d)
Maybe Nq P
r Long—Term: The Air Pollutant Emissions Projection Model (URBEMIS NO. 1), prepared by the California Air
Resources Board, was conducted to assess the cumulative air quality impacts for the project. The model
predicted that approximately 258 average lbs./day of Carbon Monoxide, 27 average lbs./day of Hydrocarbons
and 16 average lbs./day of Nitrogen Oxides would be emitted. Threshold levels (significant emission levels)
for pollutant emissions, as identified in the Air Quality Handbook, prepared by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, are the following: Carbon Monoxide 550 lbs/day, Hydrocarbons 75 lbs./day and Nitrogen
Oxides 100 lbs./day. Projected emission levels are less than 50% of threshold values and, therefore, are
not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X
Discussion: No objectionable odors will be generated by the proposed projects.
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? _ X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or
fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
-Discussion: Slight increases in surface runoff will occur due to the over—covering of the sites with
impervious surfaces. However, the tracts and parcel maps have been designed to direct the runoff onto
proposed and existing accessways and be conveyed into the existing drainage system. Drainage impacts are
not anticipated to be significant and will be addressed through standard conditions of approval which
require submittal of grading plans and hydrology studies.
Mitigation:
1. Prior to issuance of grading permits for each tentative map, drainage alteration and improvements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works.
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - _ X
Discussion: The project sites are not located in the vicinity of the floodplain.
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X
Discussion: Development of the sites will result in over—covering of vacant land with impervious surfaces
which may impact groundwaters. However, impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies? _ X
Environmental Checklist —4— (8197d)
YU Maybe No
Discussion: Development of vacant property will increase water usage on the sites. The proposed
developments are within parameters of water usage anticipated by the general plan but may result in
additional burden to the City's existing water system which can not meet peak hour water demand. However,
the City's Water Department has indicated that through implementation of standard conditions of approval
which require use of water conserving fixtures, drought resistant planting materials, and reclaimed water
for irrigation purposes as well as mitigation identified below, no significant impact is anticipated.
Mitigation: Maintain current water level of service by complying with water system improvements contained
in the City's Water Masterplan and specific Water Department recommendations. Compliance shall be
demonstrated prior to occupancy of the first unit of each tentative tract.
i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ X
Discussion (a—b): There are currently a total of 50 pine, eucalyptus and scrub myporum trees on the sites.
Development of the sites may require removal of the trees; however, impacts to vegetation will be addressed
by the entitlement process through standard conditions of approval requiring maintenance and/or replacement
of trees. No significant impacts are anticipated.
.b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ X _
Discussion: See 4a
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? _ _ X
d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? _ _ X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X
Discussion (a—d): The sites are primarily occupied by oil facilities and do not support any unique animal
species. No significant impact is anticipated.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _
Discussion: Short—term: During the construction phase, noise levels on site will increase. However, with
implementation of standard conditions of approval which restrict hours of construction activity, no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —5— (8197d)
t:
Yes-
Long—term: Projected generated traffic may result in a minor increase in noise levels in the project
vicinities. Oil equipment generated noises will be replaced with those generated by residential uses. No
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X _
Discussion: Five of the proposed tracts (14043, 14044, 14319, 14320, 14326) are located adjacent to
arterial highways and may experience noise levels greater than those allowed for residences by the
Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Future development will be required to comply with State and City
accoustical requirements. No significant impacts are anticipated.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X _
Discussion: Development of the project sites will result in new light sources on the sites. Due to
existing ambient light levels in the area, the slight increase in light and glare is not ancitipated to be
significant; furthermore, with implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring directing of
lighting away from adjacent properties, no significant impacts are anticipated.
B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? X _
Discussion: The proposed projects include a General Plan Amendment (No. 90-7) and eight Zone Change (90-9,
90-11, 90-15, 90-12, 90-13, 90-14, 90-16, 90-8) requests.
General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 and Zone Change No. 90-14 (for Tract 14277) will allow for development of 11
low density residential homes and will eliminate all oil production on site. Existing land use designation
and zoning are Recreation Open Space and R4-01, respectively. The project site is immediately surrounded
by the golf course. The proposed GPA and ZC will allow for residential development similar to single family
residences existing in the project vicinity. No significant adverse impact is anticipated.
Zone Change Nos. 90-9 (TT 14042), 90-11 (TT 14043), 90-5 (TT 14044), 90-12 (14243), 90-13 (TT 14244), 90-16
(TT 14296) and 90-8 (TT 14319), will bring the zoning on the sites into conformance with the existing
general plan land uses on the sites and will allow for low density residential development which is more
compatible with residences immediately adjacent to the sites than the existing R4-01, OP-01—CD, R2—PD-01—CZ,
or C1-01 zonings. No significant adverse environmental impact is anticipated.
The remaining tracts and parcel maps are in substantial conformance with existing general plan land use and
zoning designations and are not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in.:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ X
Discussion (a—b): The proposed project will result in increases of fuel/energy usage in the City; however,
anticipated energy demands created by the proposed projects are within parameters of the overall projected
demand which is planning to be met in the area. No significant increase in the rate of depletion or usage
is anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —6— (8197d)
Yes Maybe
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _ _ X
Discussion: The projects propose the removal of approximately 20 oil wells. Wells will be removed and
abandoned in accordance with City and State regulations which will require provision of such safety measures
as installation of a barrier wall to reduce noise and contain spills/debris; no significant impact is
anticipated.
The proposed project sites are located within the methane district. However, with implementation of
Standard Conditions of Approval requiring sampling and monitoring for methane, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? _ X _
Discussion: The proposed developments will increase population in the project areas; however, population
increases are within the parameters anticipated by the General Plan. No significant impact is anticipated.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ _ X
Discussion: The City's Traffic Division analyzed the impacts of development of the twelve (12) tracts and
three (3) parcel maps. Their analysis determined that development of the tract and parcel maps will
generate approximately 1,738 total trips per day and that streets and arterials in the vicinity have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional trips. No additional arterial or intersection
modifications will be required to serve the sites. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? _ _ X
Discussion: Parking for development on the proposed project site will be required to comply with the City's
parking code. All parking will be contained on site. No significant impacts are anticipated.
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X
Discussion: See 13a
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ X —
Discussion: Construction traffic and utility line installation resulting from development of the proposed
tract and parcel maps may result in some short—term interruptions to traffic circulation. Although the
interruptions are not anticipated to be significant, any impacts will further be reduced through
implementation of conditions of approval requiring Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control
plan, which specifies use of measures such as warning signs or flagmen, during construction phase and during
periods of traffic interruption. No significant impact is anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —7— (8197d)
Yes Maybe No
The proposed project will require construction of new roadways to access the sites. The City's Traffic
Division has analyzed the proposed accessways and has concerns regarding access and circulation for tracts.
Mitigation:
1. Prior to recordation, access and circulation shall be approved by the City.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ — X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X
Discussion: During the construction phase of the project, pedestrian and bicycle flow may be impeded from
time to time; however, with implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring adequate warning
signs for pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated.
14, Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ X
Discussion: The Fire Department has indicated that the project will result in measurable impacts on
emergency fire response and service and will result in response times in excess of 5 minutes in some areas.
However, the Fire Department has also indicated that these impacts can be reduced to a level of
insignificance through mitigation measures provided below.
Mitigation:
Prior to recordation, the Fire Department will verify that all applicable measures have been imposed on
the project in order to maintain established emergency response policy of 80% of all calls completed
within 5 minutes. Such measures shall include but not be limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits pay fair share for: 1) future Springdale Fire Station and
equipment. 2) "Opticom" traffic control systems. 3) 3 additional paramedics for Gothard Station. 4)
improvements to City's water distribution system. 5) completion of cross—gap connector.
b.. Prior to issuance of building permits provide automatic fire sprinkler protection in all structures
over 5,000 square feet in total area and in all structures with substandard access and/or insufficient
fire flow as determined by the Fire Department.
C. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Tracts 14243 and 14277, Seapoint Avenue shall be
completed and open to the public.
2. Provide automatic fire sprinkler protection shall be provided in all structures over five thousand
(5,000) square feet total area, and in all structures with substandard access or insufficient area fire
flow.
b. Police protection? _ _ X
C. Schools? _ _ X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ X _
Environmental Checklist —8— (8197d)
Yes Maybe No
Discussion: The Department of Community Services has reviewed the proposed tracts and has indicated that
the tracts could be served by Worthy Community Park and the City Gym and Pool as well as recreational space
available at Smith and Dwyer Schools. However, the Holly—Seacliff Master Plan relocated a neighborhood park
site originally identified in the Recreation Element in the lower Seacliff area to upper Seacliff.
Although, the proposed subdivisions and GPA will result in fees to be used for park and recreational
facilities, development of the subdivisions will eliminate potential sites for additional park development
in the Seacliff area.
Mitigation: Prior to issuance of building permits, provide a minimum .55 acre greenbelt area in lower and a
minimm .55 acre greenbelt area in upper Seacliff. Location, ultimate size and function shall be analyzed by
means of a special study or a General Plan Amendment to the City's Recreational Element.
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X
Discussion: The proposed project involves development of roads and improvements; some of which will be
maintained by the City. However, the project's contribution is not considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
f. Other governmental services? _ _ X
Discussion (b,c,e): No additional Police, School or other governmental service facilities will be required
to serve the proposed projects.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the
development of sources of energy? _ _ X
Discussion (a—b): See 9 (a—b)
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X
b. Communication systems? _ _ X
C. Water? _ _ X
Discussion: Development of some sites will require installation of adequate size water lines to serve the
sites. However these alterations are not anticipated to be substantial; no significant impact is
anticipated.
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X
e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X
f. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X
Environmental Checklist —9— (8197d)
Yes Maybe No
Discussion (a,b,d,e,f): Development of the proposed projects will require extension of public utilities and
services to the project site, including electricity, communication systems (telephone), water, sewer, storm
drains, and solid waste disposal service. However, all utilities are available to the sites and have
sufficient capacity to serve the 159 additional residences; no significant impacts are anticipated.
17. Human health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X
Discussion (a—b): The project sites have had a great deal of oil development. However, all oil wells on
site will be abandoned in accordance with state and city regulations; no significant impacts are anticipated.
The proposed project sites are located within the methane district. However, with implementation of
standard conditions of approval which require sampling and monitoring for methane, no significant impacts
are anticipated.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? _ X
Discussion: Views in the sites' vicinities are currently obstructed by oil pumps and equipment; the
proposed projects are not anticipated to create an aesthetically offensive site. The proposed project may
be considered an improvement from the existing oil equipment. No significant impacts are anticipated.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? _ X
Discussion: See 14d
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a .prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? _ — X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building, structure, or object? _ — X
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? _ _ X
Discussion (a—d): No known archaeological sites are in the project vicinity.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub—
stantially 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
Environmental Checklist —10— (8197d)
Yes Maybe ` No =`
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? _ _ X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of
long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will
endure well into the future.) _ _ X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid—
enable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant.) X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X
DETERMINATION
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 will 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 WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Sig ture
For: City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist —11— (8197d)
P
MITIGATING MEASURES
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 90-28
Impact Mitigation
1. A Portion of the Project is 1. Prior to Subdivision Committee
located within the Alquist— evaluation, a geology report
Priolo Special Hazards Study shall be submitted which
Zone. addresses Alquist—Priolo Special Hazards Study
Zone requirements for Tentative Tract 14296.
2. Development will result in 2. Prior to issuance of grading
alteration of existing permits for each tentative map,
drainage systems. drainage alterations and improvements shall be
approved by the Department of Public Works.
3. Impact to arterial 3. Prior to Subdivision Committee
circulation in project evaluation, access to Tentative
vicinity resulting from Tracts 14043, 14243, 14319,
proposed access design. 14320 and 14321 shall minimize potential
impacts to existing arterials.
4. Measurable impacts on fire 4. Prior to recordation, the Fire
emergency response time. Department will verify that all
applicable measures have been
imposed on the project in order to maintain
established emergency response policy of 80%
of all calls completed within 5 minutes. Such
measures shall include but not be limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits pay
fair share for:
1) future Springdale Fire
Station and equipment.
2) "Opticom" traffic control
systems.
3) 3 additional paramedics
for Gothard Station.
4) improvements to City's
water distribution system.
5) completion of
cross—gap connector.
Environmental Checklist —12— (8197d)
I
MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued)
Impact Mitigation
b. Prior to issuance of building permits
provide automatic fire sprinkler
protection in all structures over 5,000
square feet in total area and in all
structures with substandard access and/or
insufficient fire flow as determined by
the Fire Department.
c. Prior to issuance of any building permits
for Tracts 14243 and 14277, Seapoint
Avenue shall be completed and open to the
public.
5. Need for park and 5. Provide a minimum .55 acre greenbelt area
recreational facilities in lower and a minimum .55 acre greenbelt
in lower and upper Seacliff area in upper Seacliff. Location, ultimate
area. size and function shall be analyzed by means
of a special study or a General Plan Amendment
to the City's Recreational Element.
6. Potential impact to 6. Maintain current water level of service by
existing level of service complying with water system improvements
for water pressure and contained in the City's Water Masterplan
delivery. and specific Water Department
recommendations. Compliance shall be
demonstrated prior to occupancy of the first
unit of each tentative tract.
Environmental Checklist —13— (8197d)
SE ;L-IFF/l7TH STREET TRACT AND PARO
DEVELOPMENT MATRIX
PROPOSSED
FINAL NO. OF UNITS/ EXISTING PROPOSED
PROJECT APPROVAL ACREAGE LOTS ACRE LOCATION GP ZONE ZONE
TT 14042 CC 2.46 12 lots 4.9 Evening Hill LDR R4-01 R1
ZC 90-9
CE 90-38
TT 14043 CC 1 .86 11 lots 5.9 Goldenwest LDR R4-01 R1
ZC 90-11 (south)
CE 90-39
TT 14044 CC 2.26 12 lots 5.3 Goldenwest LDR OP-01—CD Rl
ZC 90-15 (north)
EA 90-37
TT 14243 CC 1 .76 10 lots 5.7 Palm/Cherry Hill LDR R2—PD-01—CZ R1
ZC 90-12
CE 90-40
TT 14244 CC 3.55 19 lots 5.4 Island Bay LDR R4-01 Rl
ZC 90-13
CE 90-41
TT 14277 CC 2.4 12 lots 5.0 Doral Dr. OS—R R4-01 Rl
ZC 90-14 (extension)
GPA 90-7
TT 14296 CC 2.31 10 lots 4.3 Lawn Haven LDR R4-01 R1
ZC 90-16
TT 14318 PC 2. 19 13 lots 5.9 Loman LDR Rl—01 No
CE 90-46 Change
TT 14319 CC 1 .58 8 lots 5.1 Palm/17th LDR C1-01 R1
ZC 90-8
TT 14320 PC 1 .97 10 lots 5.0 17th/Adams LDR R1-01 No
TT 14321 PC 1 .57 9 lots 5.7 17th/Ex LDR R1-01 No
TT 14326 PC 4.8 25 lots 5.2 Palm LDR Rl—Ol /R1-0 No
CE 90-43 Goldenwest Change
TPM 89-264 PC .56 3 lots Island Bay LDR Rl—CZ No
CDP 90-40 Change
TPM 89-265 PC .58 3 lots Ofelia LDR Rl—CZ No
CDP 90-36 (West) Change
CE 90-36
TPM 89-266 PC .35 2 lots Ofelia LDR Rl—CZ No
CDP 90-36 (East) Change
CE 90-37
30.2ac 159 lots
(1094D)
huntington beach department of community development
sraff
Ep®R
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: April 2, 1991
SUBJECT: DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28 (CONTINUED FROM
MARCH 19 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes, 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 ,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REOUEST: Approve Negative Declaration No . 90-28 with mitigation
measures and forward to City Council for adoption.
LOCATION: Negative Declaration No. 90-28 addresses potential
environmental impacts resulting from 15 non-contiguous
subdivisions located in the Seacliff/17th. Street area
generally bounded by 17th. Street, Palm Avenue,
Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue.
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 with mitigation
measures and forward to the City Council for adoption.
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 has been prepared by the City
of Huntington Beach in order to adequately address potential
environmental impacts associated with 15 non-contiguous tentative
tract maps in the Seacliff/17th Street area as submitted by Pacific
Coast Homes . The proposed subdivisions are located on former "oil
island" parcels where oil production facilities have been abandoned.
The applicant has requested that Zone Change No . 90-18 be withdrawn
from the overall project . The necessary environmental assessment
for Zone Change No . 90-18 will be processed at a later date.
The 15 tentative subdivisions are low density development proposals
which are generally consistent with the City' s General Plan. Some
of the sites are currently zoned High Density Residential (R4) and
the applicant has submitted zone changes which redesignate the sites
to Low Density Residential (Rl) . Two of the zone change requests
will require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program which
is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission.
AUX
A-FM-23C
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Department of Community Development prepared and advertised
Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 for thirty (30) days and staff
received 121 letters . Staff has prepared a response to all written
comments which are on file in the Department of Community
Development . All comments have been addressed and staff has
determined that no significant adverse impacts will result from the
cumulative project . Staff , in its initial study of the project
recommends that a negative declaration be issued . Prior to any
action on the proposed tentative tracts and attendant entitlements,
it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on
Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 and forward to the City Council
for adoption.
4 . 0 COASTAL STATUS:
Two proposed subdivisions are located in the City' s certified
Coastal Zone and will require an amendment to the City' s Local
Coastal Program.
5 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
The applicant has proposed Seacliff Specific Plan zoning for one of
the sites addressed by Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 .
6 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
Each individual subdivision will . be reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee when all environmental concerns have been addressed by the
Planning Commission.
7 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
At the March 19 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting a number of issues
were discussed and the Planning Commission directed staff to
re-evaluate potential impacts relating to seismic, drainage,
circulation, emergency response, park space and water demand. Staff
has revised Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 in order to expand
the discussion of potential impacts and applicable mitigation
measures .
Seismic
Tentative Tract 14296 is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special
Hazards Study Zone. The proposed mitigation measure has been
expanded to require, prior to Subdivision Committee evaluation, the
developer to submit a geology report which addresses Alquist-Priolo
Special Hazards Study Zone requirements .
Staff Report - 4/2/91 -2- (9186d)
Drainage
Drainage concerns have been addressed by requiring the developer to
submit all drainage alterations and improvements for approval by the
Department of Public Works .prior to issuance of grading permits .
Circulation
Staff has discussed the potential impacts to arterial streets and
the local streets with the Traffic Section in the Department of
Public Works . According to the Traffic Section, the proposed access
and trip generations will not create a significant adverse impact .
The access recommendations in Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28
addresses operational concerns and will be analyzed at the project
level .
The Traffic Section has analyzed the traffic impacts in context with
Holly-Seacliff and the Bolsa Chica build-out which includes the
cross-gap connector . The combined traffic impacts of this project,
Holly-Seacliff and Bolsa Chica will result in all intersections
operating at a level of "D" or better. This is an acceptable level
of service, therefore, no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated .
Emergency Resonse
Emergency response mitigation has been revised to state that prior
to recordation of each tentative tract, the Fire Department will
verify that all applicable measures have been imposed on the project
in order to maintain the established policy of 80% of all calls
completed within five (5) minutes .
Local Park
Staff has revised the mitigation measure regarding the need for park
facilities in the Seacliff area . Staff proposes that in order to
mitigate the potential loss of park space in lower and upper
Seacliff, a minimum . 5 acre park area should be provided in lower
and minimum . 5 acre park area in upper Seacliff . The precise
location, ultimate size and function shall be analyzed by means of a
special study as a General Plan Amendment to the City' s Recreation
Element .
Water
Clarification of the potential decrease in the level of service for
water pressure and delivery by the Water Department indicates that
the potential impact to water services is a City-wide concern.
Staff has composed the mitigation measure that prior occupancy of
the first unit of each tentative tract that the current level of
water service be maintained. According to the Water Department,
this can be accomplished by adhering to the Water Masterplan and
specific requirements required by the Water Department .
Staff Report - 4/2/91 -3- (9186d)
8 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Draft Negative
Declaration No . 90-28 with mitigation measures and forward to the
City Council for approval .
9 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify Draft -Negative Declaration No .
90-28 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area map
2 . Revised Checklist
3 . Planning Commission staff report dated March 19 , 1991
4 .. Traffic Review dated October 22, 1990
5 . LSA Traffic Study dated October 29, 1990
HS:RLF:kjl
Staff ,Report - 4/2/91 -4- (9186d)
TT 14296 -- -i I-
--:-
/l
TT14044 ---
3'' '"'�•h I i i I ZC 90-15
IT 14277
F
ZC 90-14 J -
` j j� UGC, TT14042 -- J
,�Y,.• G PA 90-7
�'. •' TT 14043 :.
ZC 90-11 CF-E
�:_ gyp- •- _ ..... -
ZC 90 TT �3
.... _
y -
1 TT 14321
TT 14243 �./ _ •1 '�(`�r ;�:� ,. . - Li
ZC 90-12 � � •�"• -
S TPM 89-264 _ TT 14326 \ CF-'
' I 1
y
TPM 89-265 „„``J a TT 14320 -�
TT 14319
:
DRAFT �."Iff
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.90-28
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HLINTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
y...
'4?r;,r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION
DATE: _
TO: Bruce Crosby, Civil Engineering Assistant
FROM: Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
The subject development application has been reviewed to determine the necessity of a traffic
impact study. The results of our review are presented below.
Estimated AM PK HR PM PK HR DAILY
traffic -D 1�
generation: b N AI)4
(This is only a preliminary trip generation estimate.)
This project will NOT require a Traffic Impact Study. Our review indicates that the
project generated traffic would represent ldss than 1 percent of the total cumulative
peak hour traffic entering key intersection and NO potential cumulative traffic
impacts are anticipated.
[ ] This project WILL require a Traffic Impact Study. The study shall analyze both a.m.
and p.m. peak hours including new existing peak hour counts at the key intersections
listed below
North/South Street East/West Street
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
at
Please forward this information to the Case Planner and the Applicant.
Traffic Engineering Ref. No. D U
w Bruce Crosby
INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
Page Two
Insufficient
Yes Maybe No N/A Information
Will the project result v
in traffic congestion? /`
Will the project create .
or experience access �(
problems as designed?
Does the circulation
within the development
provide an unacceptable
level of safety required
for the orderly flow of � X
people and their vehicles?
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: �s ,Se< i2 S l0 y'
�- r ps A j
a ,
s 0
1 J--
3 es s
4, s _awe e
Traffic Engineering Ref. No.
2520g
`. EA 90-3, 90-28, 90-39
COMMENTS NOTED BY PARCEL AND TENTATIVE TRACT NUMBER
Parcel A, TT 14227
Unusually long cul-de-sac. A <c-c3s \11A otiic �o���r y )4o-r "v)st�gg�E
Parcel B, TT 14253
Palm Avenue access not recommended. Sight distance, safety considerations suggest using
other alternates (extend Woodlands, take access from.Cherryhill).
Parcel C, TT 14244
No unusual conditions.
Parcel D, TT 14043
Golden West access not acceptable.
Parcel E, TT 14042
Double cul-de-sac not acceptable; too close to each other. "B" Circle is offset the wrong
way from Shady Harbor Circle.
Recommend "A" Circle be used and extended into parcel for access.
Parcel F. TT 14296
No comments.
Parcel G. TT 14044
No comments.
Parcel H. TT 14321
Access must be taken from a public or private street. Access is not allowed to a
subdivision from a parking lot.
Recommend using Seagull Lane in the adjacent private developement for establishing
access to this site.
Parcel I, TT 14326
The access shown on this map is preferred. Another map has been submitted to PW
showing access from Golden West, a less desirable alternative.
Calculation for the stacking length required must be submitted; the gate location appears
to be the same even though several units have been added.
Parcel J. TT 14319
Has option of extending interior Boardwalk Street been evaluated? If so, why can it not be
done?
Parcel K. TT 14318
Security-gates not apart of site design Retrofit will not be possible with this site layout.
Parcel L, TT 14320
Access as shown is not acceptable if access into Boardwalk is attainable. Tract 8224
shows an easement available along the 17th Street right—of—way leading to this parcel
which would provide adequate access.
If that access is not used, the entry shown will be restricted to right turns in and out only.
General Comments: Unless security entry has been designed and approved with site plan,
retrofit of security gates will not be permitted.
EA 90-3, 90-28, 90-39
TRIP GENERATION BY PARCEL
Parcel TT # Trips (24 hr.)
A 14277 139
B 14243 117
C 14244 214
D 14043 128
E 14042 139
F 14296 117
G 14044 139
H 14321 106
I 14326 277
J 143Q9 95
K 14318 150
L 14320 117 /
2579g/7&8
Ti
OIL ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE: TRIP GENERATION
AVERAGE WEEKDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES
10-5-90
24 HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
TW0-WAY
LAND USE SIZE VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 12 DWELLING UNITS A 139 3 9 9 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 10 DWELLING UNITS 8 117 3 7 8 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 19 DWELLING UNITS e 214 5 13 14 8
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 11 DWELLING UNITS b 128 3 8 9 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 12 DWELLING UNITS E 139 3 9 9 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 10 DWELLING UNITS P i17 3 7 8 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 12 DWELLING UNITS G Q9 3 9 9 5
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 9 DWELLING UNITS H i06 2 7 7 4
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 25 DWELLING UNITS ► 277 6 17 19 11
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 8 DWELLING UNITS J 95 2 6 6 4
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 13 DWELLING UNITS IC 150 3 9 10 6
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 10 DWELLING UNITS & 117 3 7 8 5
TOTAL 1738 39 108 1.16 68
Note ; A zero rate indicates no rate data available
Lsa
SEACLIFF TRACT AND PARCEL SITES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The following issue paper has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. ,
(LSA) to assess potential circulation impacts associated with development of 12
tentative tract map and 3 parcel map locations in the general vicinity of the
Seacliff area of Huntington Beach. The location and tract/parcel number for
each project site are illustrated in Figure 1 .
Three issues have been examined as part of this analysis. The first is a
comparison of the current City of Huntington Beach General Plan and zoning
ordinance land uses with the land use intensities proposed for each of the
sites.
The second analysis is a trip generation comparison for all the map
sites, comparing the current City of Huntington Beach General Plan and zoning
ordinance land use trip generation with the proposed land use trip generation.
The purpose of this analysis is to document the changes in trip generation,
hence changes in overall study area peak hour traffic volumes, associated with
the changes in land use intensities for the 15 sites.
The third issue examines access opportunities and project site interface
with the arterial street system particular to each site.
LAND USE INTENSITY COMPARISON
Table A presents a list of the 15 undeveloped sites in the general vicin-
ity of the Seacliff area and their gross acreage. .The current City of Hun-
tington Beach General Plan land use designation, the current land use zoning,
and proposed land use designation and intensity for each of the proposed pro-
ject sites are identified.
As indicated in Table A, the current allowable General Plan development
intensity for the proposed project sites is 192 residential dwelling units.
Under the City`s zoning ordinance, a maximum development intensity of 493 resi -
dential dwelling units, 40,000 square feet of professional office, and 16,000
square feet of neighborhood commercial is allowed. The proposed land use
intensity request is presented in the final column of Table A. As the Table
indicates, 172 residential dwelling units are currently proposed. This is 20
dwelling units less than the current General Plan and approximately 320 dwell -
ing units less than the allowable development intensity under the current
zoning ordinance.
10/29/90(PCH002%1SSUE.PPR)
o
a
w �,P
GARFIELD
B
CLAY
E
N
0 D YORKTOWN
A�( X g
M
R F
P.M. L
89-264 :G -
C 89-265 ADAMS
CO
89-266
ti� ?
cti�y oo`` AB
STREET LEGEND:
�■� Major
�- Primary 0
a
Local
et`
FIGURE 1
SCALE IN FEET
0 1000 2000 TRACT & PARCEL SITE
LOCATION MAP
"sa C310/17/90:K
TABLE A
SEACL1Ff TRACT AND PARCEL SITES LAND USE COMPARISON Lsa
CURRENT GENERAL PLAN VERSUS ZONING ORDINANCE VERSUS PROPOSED LAND USE
PROPOSED TRACT AND
PARCEL SITES GENERAL PLAN ALLOWABLE G.P. ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWABLE ZONING PROPOSED PROPOSED LAND
IN HUNTINGTON BEACH GROSS ACREAGE LAND USE INTENSITY LAND USE ORD. INTENSITY LAND USE USE INTENSITY
------------------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- ---------------------- ---------------- ------------------- -----------------
PROJECT D (TT #14042) 2.50 it LOW DENSITY RES. 16 D.U. II HIGH DENSITY RES. 85 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 12 D.U.
PROJECT S (TT #14043) 1.90 II LOW DENSITY RES. 12 D.U. II HIGH DENSITY RES. 64 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 11 D.U.
PROJECT E (TT #14044) 2.30 II LOW DENSITY RES. 15 D.U. I OFFICE PROFESIONAL 40 T.S.F II LOW DENSITY RES. 12 D.U.
PROJECT X (TT #14243) 1.80 I LOW DENSITY RES. 11 D.U. I MEDIUM DENSITY RES. 27 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 10 D.U.
PROJECT R (TT #14244) 3.60 I LOW DENSITY RES. 23 D.U. I LOW & HIGH DENSITY RES. 88 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 19 D.U.
PROJECT N (TT #14277) 2.00 II REC. OPEN SPACE 0 D.U. I HIGH DENSITY RES. 70 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 12 D.U.
PROJECT B (TT 014296) 2.30 II LOW DENSITY RES. 15 D.U. II HIGH DENSITY RES. 70 D.U. III LOW DENSITY RES. 10 D.U.
PROJECT AB (TT #14318) 2.20 it LOW DENSITY RES. 14 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 14 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 13 D.U.
PROJECT T (TT #14319) 1.50 II LOW DENSITY RES. 10 D.U. NEIGHBORHOOD COW. 16 T.S.F II LOW DENSITY RES. 8 D.U.
PROJECT l (TT 014320) 2.00 II LOW DENSITY RES. 13 D.U. LOW DENSITY RES. 13 D.U. III LOW DENSITY RES. 10 O.U.
PROJECT F (TT #14321) 1.60 II LOW DENSITY RES. 10 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 10 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 9 D.U.
PROJECT G (TT #14326) 4.80 II LOW DENSITY RES. 31 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 31 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 25 O.U.
PARCEL MAP 89-264 0.56 it LOW_DENSITY RES. 3 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES- 3 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 3 O.U.
PARCEL MAP 89-265 0.45 II LOW DENSITY RES. 3 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 2 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 2 D.U.
PARCEL MAP 89-266 0.35 LOW DENSITY RES. 2 D.U. LOW DENSITY RES. 2 D.U. I LOW DENSITY RES. 2 D.U.
SEACLIFF DISTRICT LOTS --- I) LOW DENSITY RES. 14 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 14 D.U. II LOW DENSITY RES. 14 D.U.
ss:saaza:asaaazaasaxrxassaaaaaas=assvaasxaaxaxaaraazzass:sszrszaxzzsaazasssaa:sasxax=xax=a===sas=aeeaxaa====a==x=zsszzxxxasxxaxzzsaxzxaz=z=zs=zaazzza Samsun
aaaaosa
II SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN INTENSITY II SUMMARY OF ZONING ORDINANCE INTENSITY IISU MARY OF PROPOSED LAND USE INTENSITY
III RESIDENTIAL: 192 D.U. II RESIDENTIAL: 493 D.U. II RESIDENTIAL: 172 D.U.
OFFICE: 40 T.S.F
II II COMMERCIAL: 16 T.S.F II
azzar_=aaaxsazzzaaza:raasazazazxaxasascxxssx=srr_aa=araaa==c=s=xrzxaxvaca=a=r_==accvaanaacaa==c====v=vaxasazrazas:aaass:i.•.,:- -
NOTE: City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance intensities assume maximum density:
1. Low Density Residential at 6.5-Dwelling Units per acre.
2. Medium Density Residential at 15 Dwelling Units per acre.
3. High Density Residential at 35 Dwelling Units per acre.
Lsa
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table B presents a trip generation comparison for the current General
Plan, current zoning ordinance, and proposed land use intensity for the 15
undeveloped sites in the general vicinity of the Seacliff area. The proposed
project sites are currently vacant; therefore, the existing trip generation is
zero. Under the current General Plan allowable density trip generation, ap-
proximately 1,900 daily, 150 AM and 200 PM peak hour trips are -forecast on the
arterial street system. The proposed land use intensity is forecast to gener-
ate approximately 1,700 daily, 130 AM and 180 PM peak hour trips. Therefore,
the proposed land use generates approximately 200 less daily, 20 less AM and 20
less PM peak hour trips on the arterial street system than the current allow-
able General Plan density.
Daily and AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates used in this analysis
are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual , 4th Edition, 1985. The rates for low, medium, and high density resi-
dential land uses are based on representative rates for single family detached
housing, planned residential developments, and apartment dwelling units, re-
spectively. The following table represents the ITE trip generation rates used
in the analysis:
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
LAND USE ADT IN OUT IN OUT
Low Density Residential 10.06 0.20 0.55 0.63 0.37
Medium Density Residential 7.44 0. 11 0.39 0.41 0.21
High Density Residential 6.10 0.10 0.44 0.46 0.22 .
Office Professional 17.25 1 .98 0.30 0.37 1 .93
Neighborhood Commercial 141.12 2.55 1 .09 7.36 7.66
(Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual , 4th Ed. , 1985)
As Table B indicates, the proposed land use trip generation for each of
the tentative tract map and parcel map sites is less than or equal to the
General Plan and the allowable zoning ordinance trip generation. The overall
trip generation for the total sites is- significantly less than the General Plan
and the allowable zoning ordinance tr.i p�generat i on. ..Therefore; the- t-r-ip-_-gener-- --- -
ation comparison indicates that fewer total daily and AM and �PM peak hour trips
will be generated by the proposed land use intensities, hence fewer trips on
the local arterial street system.
10/29/900CH002A SSUE.PPR) 4
TABLE B
SEACLIFF TRACT AND PARCEL SITES TRIP GENERATION COMPARISONS
CURRENT GENERAL PLAN VERSUS ZONING ORDINANCE VERSUS PROPOSED LAND USE Lsa
PROPOSED TRACT AND ALLOWABLE G.P. TRIP GEN. ALLOWABLE ZONING TRIP GEN. PROPOSED LAND USE TRIP GEN.
PARCEL SITES ALLOWABLE G.P. AM PK. HR. PM PK. HR. ALLOWABLE ZONING AM PK. HR. PM PK. HR. PROPOSED LAND AM PK. HR. PM PK. MR.
IN HUNTINGTON BEACH INTENSITY ADT IN OUT IN OUT ORD. INTENSITY ADT IN OUT IN OUT USE INTENSITY ADT 1N OUT IN OUT
----------------------- --------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -------------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- ---------- ----------
PROJECT D (TT #14042) II 16 D.U. 161 3 9 10 6 II 85 D.U. 519 8 37 39 18 I� 12 D.U. 121 2 7 8 4
PROJECT S (TT #14043) 12 D.U. 121 2 7 8 4 ` 64 D.U. 391 6 28 29 14 `I 11 D.U. 111 2 6 7 4
PROJECT E (TT #14044) II 15 D.U. 151 3 8 9 6 I 40 T.S.F 690 79 12 15 77 II 12 D.U. 121 2 7 8 4
PROJECT X (TT R14243) II 11 D.U. 111 2 6 7 4 27 D.U. 201 3 11 11 6 I� 10 D.U. 101 2 6 6
PROJECT R (TT #14244) II 23 D.U. 231 5 13 15 9 88 D.U. 537 8 38 40 19 �I 19 D.U. 191 4 10 12 7
PROJECT N (TT A14277) II 0 D.U. 0 0 0 0 0 II' 70 D.U. 427 7 31 32 15 I� 12 D.U. 121 2 7 8 4
PROJECT B (TT 014296) II 15 D.U. 151 3 8 9 6 II 70 D.U. 427 7 31 32 15 I� 10 D.U. 101 2 6 6 4
PROJECT AB (TT #14318) (' 14 D.U. 141 3 8 9 5 II 14 D.U. 141 3 8 9 5 ,j 13 D.U. 131 3 7 8 5
PROJECT T (TT #14319) II -10 D.U. 101 2 6 6 4 II 16 T.S.F 2,258 41 17 118 123 8 D.U. So 2 4 5 3
PROJECT L (TT 1114320) II 13 D.U. 131 3 7 8 5 II 13 D.U. 131 3 7 8 5 II 10 D.U. 101 2 6 6 4
PROJECT F (TT #14321) II 10 D.U. 101 2 6 6 4 I, 10 D.U. 101 2 6 6 4 II 9 D.U. 91 2 5 6 3
PROJECT G (TT #14320 II 31 D.U. 312 6 17 20 12 II 31 D.U. 312 6 17 20 12 II 25 D.U. 252 5 14 16 9
PARCEL MAP 89-264 II 3 D.U. 30 1 2 2 1 II 3 D.U. 30 1 2 2 1 II 3 D.U. 30 1 2 2 1
PARCEL MAP 89-265 II 3 D.U. 30 1 2 2 1 I 2 D.U. 20 0 1 1 1 II 2 D.U. -20 0 1 1 1
PARCEL MAP 89-266 II 2 D.U. 20 0 1 1 1 2 O.U. 20 0 1 1 1 II 2 D.U. 20 0 1 1 1.'-
SEACLIFF DISTRICT LOTS II 14 D.U. 141 3 8 9 5 I 14 O.U. 141 3 8 9 5 II 14 O.U. 141 3 8 9 5 ...
rarrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr■rrrrrrarrrrrrrwrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrrr■■rrrrrrrrrrwr■rrrr:rrrrrrrrrraarrrrrrwwrrrrr------rr■:rrwwrrrrr rwwwwrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION (SUMMARY OF ZONING ORDINANCE TRIP GENERATION 11SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USE TRIP GENERATION
I I ADT AINPKOUTR. PIN PK.OUT•I I ADT AIN PK.OUT. PIN PK.OUT'I I ADT AIN PK.
OUT. DIN PK.O..
II192 D.U. 1,932 39 106 122 71 II 493 T 3,37 57 79 224 240 10 II 172 D.U. 1,730 35 95 109 64
40 T.S.F 9 7 II ------ -- -------II 16 T.S.F 2,258 41 . 17 118 123 �I
------ ---- - ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------- : :
„ TOTAL: 1,932 39 106 122 71 TOTAL: 6,345 177 253 372 320 TOTAL: 1,730 35 95 109 64 `
ss:zaa=zsszzzxzsxzxxsx=xxsaxxaasxxaaaxxxaszxzaaaxsz:xa::xae=z=zxxx=zxxxxvccxxv==vsxx=========ccxxxx==xxac=c=x====xxx=v=_xxzzzaszzzrzs:r:r:•'t:-•
NOTE: ALL trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, 4th ed.
q
lsa
ARTERIAL ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES/CONSTRAINTS
The evaluation of access opportunities/constraints is limited to an
analysis of those parcels with street access onto arterials of regional sig-
nificance (i .e. , arterials included in the City's Circulation Plan of Arterial
Streets and Highways) . These parcels were selected because they have the great-
est possibility to impact the -major -arteries of regi_on.al__travel . Ingress/
egress locations were identified, and opportunities and constraints to access
documented. In the event that the proposed project may create a conflict to
the arterial street system, appropriate engineering measures, consistent with
the City of Huntington Beach access design and roadway standards, are recom-
mended to mitigate these conflicts to best maintain the current integrity of
the arterial street system.
In general , vehicles entering or leaving the access locations may disrupt
the flow of traffic on the arterial street, causing potential delays and acci-
dents. General engineering principles dictated that since the primary purpose
of major urban streets is to facilitate the movement of traffic along the
arterial , direct residential access should be discouraged along these facili-
ties. All access locations should be designed for safe, orderly traffic flow
and restricted to locations where movement into and out of them will cause as
little friction to the arterial streets as possible.
The City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 960: Off-street
Parking and Landscaping, requires that vehicular access to and from the pro-
posed project sites be conditional upon the facility where the access is taken.
Article 960 of the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code states:
"When a lot abuts an arterial highway and a local street, access to
on-site parking shall be from the local street. When a lot abuts
an alley, access shall be from the alley unless a different access
is approved by the planning commission. When a lot abuts two arte-
rial highways, access shall be subject to the approval of the
director of public works."
-The majority of the proposed tract sites and all three parcel sites
access onto local and/or residential streets -prior-to -connecti-ng to-the—arteri--.
al street system. Therefore, development of these proposed project sites will
not create an adverse impact on the arterial street system. In addition, the
majority of the proposed tract s-ites generate low daily and peak _hour. traffic
volumes and, as such, do not impact the orderly flow of traffic along these
streets.
10/29/90(PCH002%J SSUE.PPR) 6
lsa
However, as the tract site location map indicates, five project sites
propose access streets onto a Major or Primary arterial . Table C presents a
list of the tract sites that have been examined in this analysis . The project
site, current zoning designation, proposed access street name, arterial desig-
nation, and access opportunities and constraints are identified in this Table.
The following discussions address the opportunities and constraints
associated with the proposed access locations for each of the five tract sites:
Project S (TT #140431. The current tract site proposes street access on
Goldenwest Street, designated as a Major arterial . As indicated previously,
street access onto an arterial street is discouraged due to the impact it
creates on the flow of traffic. Therefore, it is recommended that this project
tract site examine alternative access potentials, specifically, through the
Quiet Bay Drive cul -de-sac. Such an effort has been undertaken by the appli-
cant, however, this alternative access opportunity has not come to fruition.
Therefore, access on Goldenwest Street should be limited to right-in/out only.
Currently, there are approximately 1,400 AM and 1,800 PM peak hour volumes
along Goldenwest Street. The proposed project is forecast to generate approxi-
mately 8 AM and 11 PM peak hour trips, or less than one percent of the peak
hour volumes along Goldenwest Street. These nominal traffic volumes are not
considered significant to disrupt the arterial street operation.
Project X (TT #142431. The current tract site proposes street access on
Palm Avenue. Although this street is designated as a Primary arterial in the
City's Circulation Plan, access opportunities currently exist along Palm, Ave-
nue. As a result, the proposed access may be preserved and should be located
in a manner to coordinate with future median openings and in accordance with
the City of Huntington Beach's design standards. Currently Palm Avenue experi-
ences approximately 300 AM and 400 PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed
project site access. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximate-
ly 8 AM and 10 PM peak hour trips, or less than three percent of the peak hour
volumes along Palm Avenue. As a result, the proposed project access along Palm
Avenue may be preserved and is not forecast to impact the arterial street
operation.
Project T (TT #143191. The current zoning ordinance for this tract site
proposes a neighborhood commercial land use. As such, arterial street access
has been taken directly on Palm Avenue. . This project is located at the inter-
section of two primary arterial streets. Based on Article 906, access shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. However, current
access opportunities along Palm Avenue are not restricted or limited. As a
10/29/90(PCH002%ISSUE.PPR)
TABLE C
SEACLIFF TRACT AND PARCEL SITE ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Lsa
PROPOSED TRACT AND CIRCULATION PLAN
PARCEL SITES ORDINANCE OF ARTERIALS
IN HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING PROPOSED ACCESS ST. DESIGNATION ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
--------------------- ----------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT S (TT #14043) R4-01 GOLDENWEST STREET MAJOR Proposed access through Quiet Bay Drive cul-de-sac
was examined, and determined to be unfeasible. There-
fore, right-in/out access is recommended on Goldenwest.
PROJECT X (TT #14243) R2-PD-01-CZ PALM AVENUE PRIMARY Proposed access on Palm Avenue may be preserved
as there are several residential driveways that
currently take access along Palm Avenue.
PROJECT T (TT #14319) C1-01 PALM'AVENUE PRIMARY Proposed access on Palm Avenue may be preserved
and located in a manner consistent with the
department of public works design standards.
PROJECT L (TT #14320) R1-01 SEVENTEENTH STREET PRIMARY Opportunities to consolidate the proposed access
on Seventeenth Street should be examined to limit
the number of access points along the arterial.
PROJECT G (TT,#14326) RI-01/R1-0 GOLDENWEST STREET MAJOR Proposed access to Presidio Drive was examined, and
determined to be unfeasible. Therefore, right-in/
right-out access is recommended on Goldenwest.
ZONING CODE LEGEND:
---------------------
R1 Low Density Residential District
R2-PD Medium Density Residential/Planned Development District
R4 High Density Residential District
C1 Neighborhood Commercial
01 Combined With Oil Production �•
6.
Zr
Lsa
result, street access to Palm Avenue may be preserved. Projected traffic
volumes for this project are 80 daily trips .and 5 inbound PM peak hour trips.
These traffic volumes are significantly lower than the commercial zoning ordi-
nance trip generation and, as a result, do not impact the orderly flow of traf-
fic along Palm Avenue.
Project L (TT #1432 Q . The current tract site proposes to take street
access on Seventeenth Street, a Primary arterial in the City's Circulation
Plan. No other local or arterial street access is currently available. Pro-
jected daily and peak hour volumes of approximately 100 daily trips and 6
inbound PM peak hour trips are not significant to disrupt street operation. As
a result, no potential impacts are forecast by locating the access along Seven-
teenth Street. However, it may be desirable to consolidate the proposed street
access with other access locations along Seventeenth Street, such as the pro-
posed street access for Project F, Tentative Tract # 14321, located as the
eastbound approach to the intersection of Seventeenth Street and Adams Avenue.
Project G (TT #14326) . The current tract site is located at the north-
east corner of the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue.
Goldenwest Street is designated as a Major arterial , while Palm Avenue is
designated as a Primary arterial in the City's Circulation Plan. Since resi-
dential street access is discouraged along arterial streets, it is recommended
that alternative access potentials, specifically, through Presidio Drive and
Shorecliff Lane, be examined. The applicant's attempts to establish access
opportunities on Presidio Drive in the Sandcastle Estates have not come to
fruition; forcing access on Goldenwest Street to be limited to right-in/out
only and located approximately 300 feet from the Goldenwest/Palm intersection.
Currently, there are approximately 1,400 AM and 1,800 PM peak hour volumes
along Goldenwest Street. Projected peak hour volumes of approximately 19 AM
and 25 PM peak hour trips, or less than two percent of the peak hour volumes
along Goldenwest Street, are not considered to be significant to disrupt the
arterial street operation.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the proposed land use intensity, trip generation, and access
opportunities and constraints analysis for the proposed development of 12
tentative tract and 3 parcel map sites, no impacts to the arterial street
system in the general vicinity of the Seacliff area of Huntington Beach are
forecast.
The majority of the proposed tract sites and all three parcel map sites
have land use intensities less than the current General Plan and the maximum
10/29/90(PCH002%ISSUE.PPR) 9
Lsa
allowable development intensity under the current zoning ordinance. As a
result, fewer total daily and AM and PM peak hour trips will be generated by
the proposed land use intensities, hence fewer trips on the local 'arterial
street system. In addition, the majority the tract and parcel sites access
onto local and/or residential streets and will not adversely affect the flow of
traffic on the arterial street. There are, however, five project sites that
propose access streets onto a Major or Primary arterial . These five tract
sites are #14043, #14243, #14320, #14319, #14320, and #14326. Recommendations
are provided, however, to facilitate ingress/egress to these lots without
creating any adverse circulation impacts.
10/29/90(PCH002-,1SSUE.PPR) 10
_i
ATTACH_ MENT .�4.2-
\\ ..
\\ ZOt`11NG INDEX MAP
S 5-11 10-_5-H .I
Ua. 5 Or. n •\
! LEGEND
-1--- 1 19-6-10-5ECT ION-TOV.'NSHIP-= -
_� DM 22_-DISTRICT MAP 22 �
24-5-12 19 5 11 j 20-5-11 21111 22-5-1I 25-5-1i 24 rn'il
DI.1 ?_cam, ! DM 21 I C:•.✓ U.`.124 Dh 25 p S D1,4 27\\ e
3!,'-5-1! i 2=-5-II '� 2e's:11 , 27-5_11 20-5-11 25---11 --
."! 35 \''. UM 34 l�.D,' 33 DM32 C;1.:31 D.V.30
V.
�c-32-51.11 �3-5-I1 34=„!I - 5 II 36-�5 11 1
D�1�6\ � ,OL1 37 t-!-_-',Ib,-33 7!A 39= DM 40
ij
5-6-II '-6-I1�--' *3-6-11 2-i6-III 1-6-II 6-6-10 5-6-10
D1.14 DMA s D 2 �Dhf I Oh 6 DM
9-6-II 0-6-II II- -11 12-I-II 7-6-10 8-6-10
DM 10 DM I DM 12 DM 13 DM 7 DM8
IS 6 II 13-6-II 18-6-10 F 17-6-10
Of�1+11 DM?CITY OF 14� DMI20 OM 19
HUNTINGTON BEACH
�J I
ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 4
24-6 I 19- -10
DM29 D 22/
VICINITY MAP
'A--':LLL
I I-
J \ ...... TT 14296 I _I -
F ZC 90-16
,,,..:..�.,.. J
A i vaT
:i°•..�': 1 TT14044 - --
I i�� r{ % ZC90-15 %
TT 14277
ZC 90-14
TT14042
GPA 90-7 —�
s: ZC 90-9
R 7"'
;� TT 14043 yQ�
\ - 1 .".. ZC 11 C-, E
� 1 1
TT 14244
�' • ZC 90-13
iii TT 14321 j
TT 14243 ` II
\ZC 90-12
�. D
S TPM 89 264 _ _ TT 14326 C=-R
TPM 89-265 �� TT 14320
Off -•. - .�40 F' : \." :�-•1..�
TPM 89-266 � `° :'\;�• l`:�- !/�/(�V,, .' �`,+,:. _'
KE
\ � TT 14319 '
/ `tip f�. / �. /y��,:/��: .� .,.._::. ^yn • .
!>:t`:::.� �•" ( Cr
\?
EA 90-28 :y `:
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTFNGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION `'
TENTATIVE -
SHEET 1 of 1 PARCEL MAP N0, 89-264
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 80 AND 81 TRACT NO. 8904 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.AS SHOWN ON THE YAP RECORDED IN BOOK 270, PAGES 23-29.
INCLUSIVE OF MISELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WALDEN & ASSOCIATES
DAVID L. WALDEN, L.S. 3347
RECORD OWNER: ENGINEER: SUBDIVIDER:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 023-223-05.023-223-06
HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY WALDEN k ASSOCIATES PACIFIC COAST HOPES NET ACREAGE: 0.58 AC.
2120 MAIN STREET SUITE 260 18012 COWAN SUITE 210 2120 MAIN STREET SUITE 260 NO. OF PROPOSED LOTS: 3
HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA 92648 IRVINE CA 92714 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
714-960-4351 714-680-0110 714-960-4351
SEWER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
WATER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
TELEPHONE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
5' 50'
4 40- EXISTING ZONING: RI-O-CZ
7' 10. PROPOSED ZONING: R1-0-CZ
PALM AVENUE ISLAND BAY LANE
TYPICAL SECTION -N.T.S. TYPICAL SECTION - N.T.S.
54•
ao• s
y
MORNING TIDE DRIVE
TYPICAL SECTION - N.T.S. 1 VO
6; 04
PALM SIT AVENUE I%C
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
Qil
o: Z CENICC BAY
,ECG 2 .�•-•1
LME
- -..-�--.--- ' " NOr -AL Olt WEGLSAAO
/"rEs ro aE
77
A". _ _1 Q- R HO✓EO
^,O
• 3 I
SCALP: 1--30•
I
f I i
PALM AVENUE ,
- _ - -
TENTATIVE -
SHEET OF 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 89-265
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 05 TRACT NO. 0904 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.AS SHOWN ON THE YAP RECORDED IN BOOK 270. PAGES 23-29.
INCLUSIVE OF YISELLANEOUS YAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WALDEN & ASSOCIATES
DAVID L. WALDEN, L.S. 3347
RECORD OWNER: ENGINEER: SUBDIVIDER: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 023-231-02
HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY WALDEN k ASSOCIATES PACIFIC COAST HOPES NET ACREAGE: 0.45 AC.
2120 MAIN STREET SUITE 260 I8012 COWAN SUITE 210 2120 MAIN STREET SURE 260 NO.OF PROPOSED PARCELS: 2
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 IRVINE CA 92714 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
714-960-4351 714-SSO-0110 714-980-4351
SEWER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Q
HATER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
4060,0' GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COYPAI.Y
7'
i TELEPHONE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALJFORNIA
Q I EXISTING ZONING: RI-O-CZ
PROPOSED ZONING: R1-0-CZ
PALM AVENUE OFELIA LANE
TYPICAL SECTION -N.T.S. TYPICAL SECTION -H.T.S.
50'5. Y D 40'
MORNING TIDE DRIVE
TYPICAL SECTION- H.T.S. O
p 5�
1\
SITE
PALM AVENUE .
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
ORryING TID
_ .D E
�3 ,fi 1 •,I z ' I
G� Q 111 wI t
NQTEt ALZ a/G WE[GS 1 Z1
,wv IneT
SCALE: 1'-30' TO LE RfNOYEG
s �U ✓ 3,v r ticns
i J 1
2
. J r
IJw I
OIL
/ I
p lc-
1
SHEET 1 of i TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP N0, 89-266
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBOIVISION OF TAT 88 TRACT NO. 6904 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. COUNTY
OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA• AS SHOWN ON THE YAP RECORDED IN BOOK 270• PAGES 23-29.
INCLUSIVE OF MISEILLNEOUS YAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WALDEN & ASSOCIATES
DAVID L. WALDEN, L.S. 3347
RECORD OWNER: ENGINEER: SUBDIVIDER: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:023-239-03
HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY WALDEN k ASSOCIATES PACIFIC COAST HOMES NET ACREAGE: 0.35 AC.
2120 MAIN STREET SUITE 280 18012 COWAN SUITE 210 2120 MAIN STREET SURE 260 NO. OF PROPOSED PARCELS: 2
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92848 IRVINE CA 92714 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 82848
714-980-4351 714-600-0110 714-980-4351
SEWER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
WATER: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
GAS: SOUTHERN CA11FORNIA GAS COMPANY
4 40 TELEPHONE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
7. I 10,11
EXISTING ZONING: RI-O-CZ
PROPOSED ZONING: RI-O-CZ
PALM AVENUE OFELIA LANE
TYPICAL 5 CHON - N.T.S. TYPICAL SECTION -N.T.S.
s
q y`
_ 6
J "mac IT t
PAL AV yU 1
M
SITE
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
MORNING TIDE RIVE
I -II. 1 r'ZI ' NOTE'ALL 0/�ELL5 AVM .
_ AC/L/T/ES TO GE
r1 -
SCALE: 1"=30'
LL
-,J
�:. I♦
1
SHEET I OF I VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT NO. 14042
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
C04UNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CAUFORNIA
Li i
SITE
WELL ISLAND D'
EVIEPMOHILL, DRIVE
z
41
& 45
nmwxp.1141 �Rpa
cn
tun)
y4l
Tw
........... c TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT NO. 1404
2
PACIFIC COAST momEs
MUK!"INGTON BEACH._CA
sNnT . or . VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT NO. 14043
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
GOkMTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
on a.��w��:����,�"o... �•ate.��...a„a �I`r_ITE
WELL ISLAND "S^�
f S 6 7 O
r '�' •:i�Y• ` � mans .�.�rnn..a m..n��-�.
�.� .' � ' _ e _ � .•-o, room�. .-
ice`—ow[r eAr oanE ••-- 'J'1r � / - _ _
..i \ I i
_ — mac'—., � , : �IJ �• _ ��-,
74
_ _ — I ••' , _ yYY�..��yyy,, �Q� 'ems ,.
-��' __ -' -. [VYIp1�R1014 .YY �yta,lp•
RaLDENWEST STREET --�`
A%X2 ALDIEN k r
'� SSOCUTif TENTATIVE MA►
TRACT NO. 14043
\•`�! /�C. T! 3•t 3.1. ►ACIFIC COAST HOMES .
••��+ -•• NUNRNGTON BEACH. CA
SHEET 1 OF I VESTING
TENTATIVE NAP
TRACT NO. 14044
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.
COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CAUFORNIA
I F6y
ixe
I
V3,
SITE
Dap'` ISENVIC?ARDE lE
- I I
•• - �I I CW .. �
.. .. F
' � ', '�i� 'b '} rr —rc`` • •fT l�s 4 • ��' - i I' I I w.or rwoem u-+.m-r,-.,
jlI I �I d--.--F. -- " 14 0 •g , }4
I:I.I ! T II II .. •:� ' � v �( 11\ ��'�,�" Y/ � �il.l!- I I '�,
` \,o' io __i.f �� i •-A}; - ,Ir;•aLs"—'c�6�s= / ` f i Ir it ;;Pt+i
to
-
! GARDEN CIRCLEo�h 'K STREET
IEe, �rr—
�L_
r dy,
.f
SSEN k TENTATIVE NAP
SSDCU ES
TRACT H0. tw.. _
o �� ~!J � ➢ACIFIC COAST HONES
HUNTIHGTON BEACH, CA
scrn i o. , VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT NO. 14243
COZY
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.
COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ldj
' t7
•w.K
ti 1 :U
_�—
y.
�' S 4 5 Y ; o-_' 4 1� I 4Y�ro1m,!ersmu u.m.Pu, Oa-s` cmO nun.be auNln
\�
i f
� r
a ,.r
wo•r�.< ,nnnsmw...a
cap -^-
•
iin uu mar aum.,.
VENUE _
—�i PALM
EN SSOCZATis TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14243
uu
...rrr�r M.. •
tnf. PACIFIC COAST HOMES`
.�•.-� HUNTINGTON BEACH. :A
-
—,
3wr7 I or I VESTING
TENTATIVE YAP
TRACT NO. 14244
IN THE CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA
ox s awr.. v+miKr i�•.i Nu
ora,ir.'•••ooHIw'w"'i .
�a ey. •r
�v.
G \
Cr - ,��Q� PALM AVENUE � I
VICONTY MAP
00
O O
—10
LAaW
ZO
tc
-76
1515—
IQ
ly
6909
16
L�
1
ALDCH • TpRATIVE MA/ �.
\ I a -OOC1ATES TUCT 000. 1 u4 x:af,
1�f _
�v �y--7��•(4(�_ r J•�F 1. PACIFIC COAST HOMES c:"
.......� IIUHTIHOTON BEACH. CA - .
sHErT 1 or VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP
��. TRACT NO. 14277
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6610H,
� � ...:., •,.•/ t.Tf� / ,, �.,. \ �'. COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CAL4FORNIA
rEf
1 S
� F
I p
M. 1N
VICIlMTT YA►
l DORgLFj pgWSED) DORAI� rnON)
0 X.- 11 1
-53M
TA MAP
r TRACCT\ . •i•. . A6B¢N fc
,•. +� l/ a _ _ �� _ T NO. 14277
• � �{.�O--C. �_r.x�. PACIFIC COAST.HOPES '.
HUHTI40TON BTACH. CA
SHEET t OF t VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT NO. 14296
IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 x
I'
SF:AC
(:Ott'C"O:i R ItS!:
-
�TT
S�
o
9 I Y
b <
l
.. - `. .-..
LAIMV HAVE
- _ DRIVE
fRACf
tDEN /` TENTATIVE MAP
SSOCIATES
TRACT NO. 14296-
"�• •W "• PACIFIC COAST HOMES
..-• BEACH, CA.•..�..•.- :� HUNTINCTON 'i
IMR11-T.16\ITT LI 7MR,
.!311" TEO CRTY QT HTY-113TEMOTOW BEACH. COUKVTT 31r
'VENUE
L
$7
"to
XDTIJ,
W. at
, mil I
te,
14.
4,
19AP 14 OTMB
NOT-- rzormUt"owwl—• MLAP DATA
777:77, 1
—c-
IEAA 1
—1.c—
w.role G"!
-7 7 L..L.-.RlrTION• T.
-w-
-lK
Em THE (CHIT 07 Iffi4ThY'Il'IIRiQ;TOM BEACH. couklilr " (DIP, (G>JFd/h)"1302, CA) IIIb"OIR iIIA
HAP FdOTSB '
nontrr 0--. rlclxT 29"
[�•.i..o-.X
i.r o.'r�;'r.'�..:... ` 1 :t �r .3. ..? S. �`.,?I•it;•�• '__ p ....{` '%il,, . � �.,
[i,•i a-. iw - • . 7 ``t �.' - •x ` `�!,�' r 'C _.t�'"L'',�1 .'Inu• .
K. D.T.. I.. '_! '/ ,t __. ^ • .>• ~irli�. "i, •...�
a.
u - u aat o .�I'41�' �',r y rl ,.�•. ''+. :'4'�'
[off o�%•c� s� f �� �i• �.� •, a � 1 ! � I
•[w.:-siwlu-� •[l.oiHir , �ns.ri wows[,ISKK[�•.w `. ej Y \ :�u I
DTifrTT.o..�r>veI. auaK>orr/OTY• •y'� :�.�- ^..I.•.� '� ; �1 •'�7� .y': _
I 4
r7
civO00,,.c�o.r'K.c'+.cws.i..e J u•..ao�eo ux.K.�o
,DJCAIO�rv.ra� •rs. •,i•c vr':n':u�s- p :sJ. .sTt I
.ti 4 I*I • I r ..7 C
•u.
�-
• tw.l.D�eaD-non• I It i _+olI iRm-94A_ ioo:MO•o. coven i.ti �r`.-.1.,»K... au•r �i.[.�...,mo os a sw
Ld ,_I I�,•,_I .13' __ `� ti' ...,,.� .-.v' .iY�� :I;.•,v ..°J
LtHYfI YD7[f[ K �t.�4 ..�-� Itv ti., •JL -- ,.I' 4:to
^
•,..w,w,,,..ur,.r tie.,•n r• ��.�.�_� �__ is ... .....__/_... r4rl'
I k'r fp
4�
l
71 FM K'IT All\U 7 On T BOR,A c R 'All 23 2 a
M ME CRU7 017 BEACH, U(L))U.WjPT' ma:
MA?HOTM
BT
14 j
1 la FRIVATI ENTRY 921YI AND GATE DETAIL
-v
VTn-.rr PMM—
A
.I A
cl,
41 A 7
&EPARAL sells
4
. = T..
-z
11FLAVATIll Of DETAILS
SCALE: 1-011'
][,,�7 `lI'18[]H• CUT-7 CT 18i10'R'li'iI.kJ'CS3TI M ]BRAMBI, COUPIT." OLD' ®iZ'AMISM. cA al[)TORH1In
nor�an O.W.E. nc»nrT xIT• � �_ AINdI SurAS� --
SCALE! 1-00'
�-�----
•VIDITID71
x<r DATA
MAr--
MAP DT .I.). -••` a ,'• ���'•.:,,,
Ito♦ ,• fac I _ �r�----__--_--�-_� 1•yy�y"�s
..J. , 1: ��l Ste• ` -�'i
4. Fir /
I, o; __ 'r__ .r-._-_d _)•I�: j 11PUNATIU■ 8( DETAILS.
DT,LITT—y vxu. wamr>.ora• ..�� aP Its l - ;'_ .... _�' i r,'_._'T _ 1 �� ./ 0--.".��"_.r��
17-1
LfD41 DYCLITTioxZIT • I' 1 "��.. 1 �,'jr 1 Y•` �_ _ -`� -
TD1LL -.•.C.vw- !mM n
1•
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 1432FD
IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA
771
m..0 VACINfTY MAP
— RA
�^ N0. 9600
Li
CNN`IT STREET
/I NOTES,
i r ter w�/•1 �.( ! • / * r 1 - I •iuiRl.:rooei�wwi.R Ar.00.r
4�'rvrto�rt .1 r L\ w t.Nrtaw•w[m�ItID n IC
1 • n r��iui rlincl.rta s.ro r.nw
.or•I ( 1 � �r.P•/ ��i.1 .� � mow•�� ,1" ---- a. vlrtlw rtvn/o/wt n r ee.0.
W . r�'F j wr w /L - rry_M /1VrJ•/r�E r...r.r.,.v�.�+':.,•.s.
W r /I /rI rALA ♦bf Mr./«r M'R4'w wtl.ran
LLI
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
w.,. .
W NO. 14326
O ` - LECAL DESCAIFTION.
Ur\mil //� ` /R[!ID/O DRESIDEFITE FCOL•ITTCEL OF O- IN 7)C CI y OF IFORNIATI �A5 410Y11
l DRIVE - ON A HAP FILED IN BOOK 40. FACE 40 OF PARCEL - -
!! /: / , .•� / RAPS. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. E%CEFTINO THERE
FROM ALL OF TMCT NO. 90M A6 SHOWN ON A MAP
• !'. �•-ems t -1• / // - FILED IN BOOK 427. FACES 9-12 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS.
5 -•.NI► ` // FO. RECORDS OF ORANCE COUNTT.
�Z TRACT NO. 9600
HUNTINGTO+BEACH CCrlPANT
!�T %.rt41n I• I /)a .y}(I 't HUNT MIN ST.. SUITE 220
914)6T0-1755EACN. CA 926w
VA IYIDER,
PAC]FIC COAST 11O B _
aa.Ir rla L= 'w�l I •�•'� "I INCTON MIN SBEACH.SUITE
92640
V 14 DW_a917 -
Il4F Iw lAoar _
- - - 501L0 ENGINEER.
1'{I�—__— —_ AARO CEOTEL»I[CAL ENO. WN6ttTANTB INC.
• — II tjJ�r rry ..- 2/03 E. ORANCETNORFE AYE.
FULLERTON. CA 926]1_5'
C7141773-12M 04
THE
xEITx "
FislCOMAN I ES
Mrt.Ava.•f.t tM.A••.VY/Of.V.•�t M -.
huntington beach depaftment of community development
STA f f
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: March 19 , 1991
SUBJECT: DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes , 2120 Main Street, Suite 260 ,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REQUEST: Approve Negative Declaration No . 90-28 with mitigation
measures and forward to City Council for adoption.
LOCATION: Negative Declaration No . 90-28 addresses potential
environmental impacts resulting from 15 non-contiguous
subdivisions located in the Seacliff/17th. Street area
generally bounded by 17th. Street, Palm Avenue, .
Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue (see area map) .
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 with mitigation
measures and forward to the City Council for adoption.
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 has been prepared by the City
of Huntington Beach in order to adequately address potential
environmental impacts associated with 15 non-contiguous tentative
tract maps in the Seacliff/17th Street area as submitted by Pacific
Coast Homes . The proposed subdivisions are located on former "oil
island" parcels where oil production facilities have been abandoned.
The 15 tentative subdivisions are low density development proposals
which are generally consistent with the City' s General Plan. Some
of the sites are currently zoned High Density Residential (R4) and
the applicant has submitted zone changes which redesignate the sites
to Low Density Residential (R1) . Two of the zone change requests
will require an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program which
is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission.
A-F M-23C
f
[[ 1
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The Department of Community Development prepared and advertised
Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 for thirty (30) days and staff
received 121 letters . Staff has prepared a • response to all written
comments and these comments are included in Attachment No . 4 in this
report . All comments have been addressed and staff has determined
that no significant adverse impacts will result from the cumulative
project . Staff, in its initial study of the project recommends that
a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the
proposed tentative tracts and attendant entitlements, it is
necessary for the Planning .Commission to review and act on Draft
Negative Declaration No . 90-28 and forward to the City Council for
adoption.
4 . 0 COASTAL STATUS:
Two proposed subdivisions are located in the City' s certified
Coastal Zone and will require an amendment .to the City' s Local
Coastal Program.
5 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
The applicant has proposed Seacliff Specific Plan zoning for one of
the sites addressed by Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 .
6 . 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
Each individual subdivision will be reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee when all environmental concerns have been addressed by the
Planning Commission.
7 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff has prepared Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 in order to
address the cumulative impacts resulting from the development of 15
non-contiguous subdivisions . Staff has determined that the
cumulative project will not result in any significant adverse
impacts . Attachment No . 2 is a summary of the proposed
subdivisions and attendant entitlements . In responding to comments ,
the following are frequent concerns included in the written
comments , thus , staff feels that the following three concerns should
be addressed in more detail .
Density:
The applicant has proposed development of 15 non-contiguous "oil
islands" consistent with Low Density Residential (R1) zoning
standards . Most of the concerns received by staff indicate that the
proposed subdivisions should conform to the existing neighborhoods
in terms of architecture, lot size, setbacks and density. Staff
concurs and has maintained that the "in-fill" development must
conform to the greatest extent feasible to the density,
architecture, setbacks and lot size of the existing Low Density
Residential neighborhoods . The applicant has submitted zone changes
to change the High Density
Staff Report - 3/19/91 -2- (8995d)
Residential Zoning (R4) on some of the parcels to Low Density
Residential (R1) . The balance of the parcels currently are zoned
Low Density Residential (R1) .
Parks :
The City' s Subdivision Ordinance states that in order to require the
dedication of land for public park purposes, the General Plan must
designate a park site in the subdivision and the subdivision must be
50 lots or greater . The City' s General Plan does not designate a
park site in the Seacliff tracts nor does not single subdivision
exceed 50 lots . Therefore, the City cannot require the dedication
of land for local park purposes .
Staff has received numerous comments regarding the lack of public
open space in the original Seacliff Area (upper and lower
Seacliff) . Staff has identified the absence of public open space as
a potential adverse impact unless additional analysis is conducted
regarding the recreation needs of this area . Staff has conducted
preliminary studies regarding the recreation needs of both upper and
lower Seacliff .
Staff has determined that there may be a need for public park space
in the Seacliff Area . Although there may be a need for a 3-5 acre
park in the area, staff has received information from many of the
residents that an approximately . 5 acre site in upper Seacliff and a
similar size green-belt area in lower Seacliff would be
satisfactory. Staff recommends that these "mini-parks" be centrally
located with adequate visibility from public streets .
The applicant has indicated that the land necessary for two (2)
mini-parks may be dedicated if the City supports the rezoning of two
parcels from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential in
the Seacliff area . If the proposed low density development is
approved, land will be provided in Seacliff for park space and the
absence of local park space in Seacliff will be mitigated .
Traffic/Circulation:
Staff has received numerous comments regarding traffic and
circulation impacts . Many of the residents feel that the additional
traffic generated by the development of the parcels will create
significant impacts . The Traffic Engineer has conducted a traffic
study which concludes that although there will be a minor change to
existing traffic patterns ( less that 1 percent increase) in the
area, no significant impacts are anticipated. A total of 1, 738
average daily trips (ADT' s) will be generated and distributed over
several arterials including Goldenwest, Palm, Seapointe and 17th
Street . All of these arterials are operating within acceptable
levels of service and service levels will not deteriorate as a
result of the tracts . The General Plan Designation for the entire
Seacliff residential area is Low Density Residential . When the
original Seacliff tracts were approved, traffic patterns were
analyzed for low density residential development which included the
"oil islands" .
Staff Report - 3/19/91 -3- (8995d)
The ingress and egress for each proposed subdivision has been
reviewed by staff . In some cases staff will recommend that proposed
access be shifted and modified and provide alternate layouts and
access points . Staff has encouraged the applicant to explore all
possible means for access and overall circulation patterns prior to
scheduling for public hearings .
8 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Draft Negative
Declaration No . 90-28 with mitigation measures and forward to the
City Council for approval .
9 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify Draft Negative Declaration No .
90-28 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Area map
2 . Summary of the proposed subdivisions and attendent entitlements
3 . Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28
4 . Response to comments
5 . Traffic analysis prepared by Huntington Beach Traffic Division
date October 22, 1990
HS:RLF:kjl
Staff Report - 3/19/91 -4- (8995d)
L _
a
-
..
.._-.,
-....
1
1
fi :,
- Rh { -
_ - - 5 y - -
.
j - - _ - _ --
{ i. .. �w�
a�,,- ,e - y yam .:. _ _
. r.c. .� i.. s _
7�. _
K
�.
�.
c
A.Y - i - - -
`t
<-
• - r . -
4
.
.
..-. „
I.-.,--
-. r ..-. .. .
. . .
..[ -�..: - -.. - --. - --. .
S
f _ SS - -
fC
.
_:
: . .
z --
1- �•
�,
,r [ 1[
�, F , [
:: s_
}
l . C
r z
x f
t f
#i
- ' . -- -- -
��P?� .fix.F,� �•- .#^ }s.<ni._� ;� Sc'wt b..- { - - x
a.-,. ,>�.�+arel7�vh'�e�^F_.x_Ja. .,.cam- '�r•'•a its[}teY43�.ds .}sa'Ftfli&5::t,�1._.+S�.ai,-+.hs.» aiRa _xe.,z•_.. ..,. -.� _ , ._icf.t _..._n .s.-._.:;.e..,-,- .. , ._..,,...,.. ... .,_......
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach =�
pP1 ": .. ,
�.,Q 5
3ti�
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 �`r . ` l.; "
1
4 AETL N
T�
`.
_ ,f � yin I '>ti;i
1 ��,-
KEVIN & PATTI MCGUINESS � `� ,!;
19472 SURFDALE
"j�' .
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
11,1!!!:Iflllltl:lillllilfAlilliff11,iIIAf!lllillAII
.
!;-- -Tom-.-n,»-A-- ;�.:rrn-�-`----�'---m,* .. ,.,,.r`�-.�-'�..,. .-e., ,,a.- t-_, .:.;.-r-',:•?.-'-• _ _ - _ -.
-. :.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON LEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To All Parties on Distribution List .& From Connie Brockway
City Administrator & City Attorney City Clerk
Subject Letter from Huntington Seacliff Date March 12, 1991
Homeowners Association
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 3/19/91
Attached is a letter from Dominick A, Tomaino, President
of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association, which
he requested this office to distribute.
��6 � 0 13
Huntington Beach City Council March 12, 1991
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Council/Commission Members:
We, the residents of Huntington Seacliff, are requesting your involvement and assistance
in resolving two major issues:
(1) The long standing issue of "zero" open space within our community.
(2) Assurance that development of the oil islands within Huntington Seacliff will be
done in a manner compatible with our existing homes, including lot size,
frontage, footprint, style, and density.
Huntington Seacliff homeowners have been voicing concern about nonexistent open
space in our community for two decades. Our community is an island of homes isolated
on the east by Goldenwest, a major traffic artery, and on the west, by the Huntington
Seacliff golf course, a private club. On the south, we are bounded by Palm Avenue and
the production facilities of Shell Oil; and on our northern border, Clay Avenue, a street
which will carry a major traffic load with development of the Holly-Seacliff project.
Access to any open space greenbelt is nonexistent for the children of Huntington
Seacliff, especially those age twelve and under.
On Friday, February 22, 1991, our Homeowners Association Parks and Density
Committee held a meeting with Pacific Coast Homes, a real estate development division
of The Huntington Beach Company. The purpose of this meeting was to address
development of the oil islands and attempt to resolve the "zero" open space problem. At
the beginning of the meeting we outlined a summary of our requirements, jointly agreed
upon by those present at our Homeowners Association meeting on February 11, 1991.
They are as follows:
(1) DENSITY: Lot size, housing footprint, setbacks, style, etc. should conform
with existing housing in Huntington Seacliff. New homes should be compatible
with the existing neighborhoods.
(2) OPEN SPACE: A minimum of two sites are required. One in Lower Seacliff
and one in Upper Seacliff.
A. Type: Open space should be an aesthetically pleasing greenbelt type, a
"mini" park, with no playground equipment or athletic fields.
B. Location: Open space should be interior and centrally located within each
area, with no direct access from major streets, e.g. Goldenwest. Open space
should be clearly visible from adjacent streets and homes.
C. Size: Open space should be functional and large enough to allow picnics,
playing frisbee or catch, taking a stroll or letting the kids run off some
energy. These sites should ideally be the acreage due a housing tract the size
of Huntington Seacliff, soon to be over 400 homes.
D. Maintenance: Open space should be owned and maintained by the city of
Huntington Beach.
c
7
Following our summary, Pacific Coast Homes' representatives, Russ Lines and Dennis
O'Conner, verbally presented their plan which stated they would reduce the original 85
home proposal for Huntington Seacliff by approximately 8 homes to 77 and provide two
neighborhood open space areas as follows:
UPPER SEACLIFF: A site off Garden Circle in the southwest corner of Oil
Island E, TT 14044, "approximately two to three lots" in size.
LOWER SEACLUT: Oil Island TPM 89-265, located at Ofelia Lane and
Morning Tide Drive, .58 acre in size.
Reference Attachment A for an overview of proposed open space.
Pacific Coast Homes verbally stated they would conform to our density requirements.
However, we request you carefully review the revised density plan to insure there is no _
lot downsizing in the development of Huntington Seacliff. The proposed development
appears to be too dense for the existing Seacliff community. Conformity in terms of lot
size, style, frontage, footprint and density, is crucial to the homeowners of a mature,
established neighborhood.
Pacific Coast Homes also made it very clear that this was their best and final open space
offer and it was not negotiable. To date, we have not received any written proposals
from Pacific Coast Homes.
Pacific Coast Homes verbal open space offer was a move in the right direction and we
are willing to continue working with them. However, their stated final offer falls far
short of our requirements, specifically in the areas of central location, visibility within
the community, and size. It is now time for the city to get involved in resolving this
issue.
During this past month, several members of our community have devoted many hours
surveying the homeowners within Upper and Lower Seacliff regarding their position on
the open space issue. Survey results were presented at our Homeowners Association
meeting on March 11, 1991, with the overwhelming majority of those present fully
supporting the following positions:
(1) No oil island development should take place until the open space issue is resolved.
(2) The offer from Pacific Coast Homes is unacceptable. It falls far short of our
requirements in the areas of central location, visibility within the community, and
size.
(3) For Upper Seacliff, we are requesting the city establish an open space area (green
belt) on the Evening Hill side of Oil Island D, TT 14042. The minimum size of this
area should be .55 acre (100 x 240 square feet).
(4) For Lower Seacliff, we are requesting the city establish an open space area (green
belt) using the entire area of the oil island located on Scenic Bay Lane, across from
Quiet Surf Circle, lot numbers 4, 5, and 6, an area approximately .60 acres in size.
Page 2
Reference Attachment A for an overview of the open space areas requested by our
Homeowners Association.
By this letter, we are requesting the immediate involvement of the city planning staff,
Planning Commission, and City Council to assist us in obtaining suitable open space
neighborhood park areas and insure that development of the oil islands within
Huntington Seacliff will be done in a manner compatible with our existing homes.
Please give us your support! .
Sincerely,
Dominick A. Tomaino, President
Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association
Enclosed: Attachment A
cc: Peter Green, MAYOR
Jim Silva, MAYOR PRO TEM
Don Mac Allister, COUNCILMAN
Grace Winchell, COUNCILWOMAN
Jack Kelly, COUNCILMAN
Earle Robitaille, COUNCILMAN
Linda Moulton-Patterson, COUNCILWOMAN
Victor Leipzig, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Kirk Kirkland, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Jan Shomaker, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Geri Ortega, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Susan Newman, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Ken Bourguignon, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
TRoy Richardson, PLANNING COMMISSIONER
Ronald Hagen, COMMUNITY SERVICE DIRECTOR
Mike Adams, HB City Planning Department
Bob Franklin, HB City Planning Department
Russ Lines, Pacific Coast Homes
Page 3
ATTACIDEW A
TT 14296
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28 ZC 90-16
�l H[JNTINGTON SEACL= OPEN SPACE ISSUE
f. TT14044 --
J� ZC 90-15
TT 14277
ZC 90-14
GPA 90-7 TT14042
-r--
J.
• TT 14043
ZC 90-11 •�
C T TT 14244 '•
ZC 90-18 ZC 90-13 -
v W.hlr.w7`l.# 71::=yI CI.A.:r• .•Jt ICA-` :�,yiS/ ••� 1
•••••• ��
r Huntington Seacliff
TPM 89-264 Homeowners Association Request
• � T
,_; ,•' Pacific Coast Hanes
TPM 89-265 _.•-" Verbal Proposal
March 12, 1991
TPM 89-266 '
1 �
NOTICE OF PUBLIC. HEARIN�
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28
(Cumulative Environmental Assessment associated with a combined
project which represents the subdivision of 15 noncontiguous
parcels in the Seacliff Area)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington
Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on
the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME: Tuesday, March 19 , 1991 , 7 : 00 PM
APPLICATION_ NUMBER: Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: Various non-contiguous parcels in the Seacliff Area
(see attached map) .
ZONE: Various (Open Space-Recreation, Low Density
Residential , High Density Residential)
REOUEST: Determine as adequate staff ' s evaluation of the
cumulative environmental impacts associated with a
combined project which represents the subdivision of
15 non-contiguous parcels in the Seacliff Area .
Specifically, the following are addressed :
Tentative Tract Maps No . 14042 , 14043 , 14044 , 14243 ,
14244 , 14277 , 14296 , 14318 , 14319 , 14320, 14321,
14326 ; and Tentative Parcel Maps No . 89-264 , 89-265 ,
89-266 ; Zone Changes 90-8 , 90-9 , 90-11, 90-12 , 90-13 ,
90-14 , 90-15 , 90-16 , 90-18 ; General Plan Amendment No .
90-7 and Coastal Development Permit No . 90-36 and
90-40 , Conditional Exceptions No . 90-37 , 90-38 , 90-39 ,
90-40 , 90-41, 90-43 , 90-46 . The twelve tract maps and
three parcel maps will allow for development of a .
total of 159 single family homes . The request
includes 7 variance requests for reductions to minimum
lot frontage requirements for some of the lots . The
request also involves one General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Recreational Open
Space to Planned Development on a 2 . 40 acre site and
nine (9) zone changes . The project sites are located
in the Seacliff/17th Street vicinity.
At .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
(Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Draft Negative Declaration No . 90-28 covers
the cumulative environment impacts
associated with 15 non-contiguous parcels
and attendant entitlements .
COASTAL STATUS: Two subdivisions will result in an
amendment to the City' s Certified Local
Coastal Program.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the
Community Development Department , 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648 , for inspection by the
public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library
(7111 Talbert Avenue) after March 15 , 1991 .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above . If there are any further questions please call
Robert Franklin, Associate Planner at 536-5271 .
1� Mike Adams
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
(8869d-8 , 9)
.:
-
-_
,: . . -
4
} �r z
j
- t
11.
�. .. _ -
- .. y f k j
f
..._...i:.. t
...I 4 fah _ if a 4 d �
- `rk �-9_i - * Y' 5Fe-{+t ari,� .s, '�{,tE.) t -"ic } x '
s - _ L r ��r� s k )� r ,- ' .' is=a t �, "' y � t t_t -'t t l to ..
-. - - - •r' 1_ 1 __ �. c- .s c �- c_ -- ��,r--_-.'' t 1 i y�, - i �; - r;
s - y _ t-an t cF t� -�'.s ; r'yRowsviw ti .1 ;_„� si --z4,� x - r w. - 4- {
f
-
-
-
r�F_ a ,
. I t- -
. I
.... -' .- J
S;-.. i
- ), �
.. 3 )c -' - ..
-. _ r
. ::
VIS
1 y
{ �1j �
.. - - ._
_e -. - .._ .._ r
... .:.
- -..-, -
. .: —- _.. . — . .
i.
T
_ -_ .
- - - ;
- ..1 - - '- _ _- - _
.. .
-�.... .
. .
3
S ti £
a..
r
.
N.
Y
C y
:: .t C _ -
c
1
...
F ,
i r
r.'r` - - _4 r1
f y I L 1 x,f{c- .ice - __
_ . ram-) __._._ ."
c is, { -.,,,y::—__ ..- -
......__'..'-au.::«..:F«.a,:;`s.y..ces.,=w':-sx'rt_i_..r.. ..y:a: .L.m�.: ..�
.. ......... ......:' _ ) _',�
-
Office ofthe City Clerk _ � ' .I 1. r:::::x_= _
r �t__"_.� ,.
E 4 � �'I -'
City of Huntington Beach x .. .-.v - x = '�:
4x f 7 11 ,
/ L i
P.O.BOX 190 CAUFORNIA 92648 ' S i .1 S -' -
.
-C,;! " ) 1
V'$;t"_ :
Mr. & Mrs. Warrgle2 Gatehi 11 CO.i r �
( (p( ! Huntington Beach, CA i
F,p l' f'
/q{
�:3 .
!:1
��!I!WI!i!III!IIIIIIIII!!I!III
- 1..� _ ,..:,. . : . � . . ��;i:2.�.!�;��:—:���-:i-':�:�.:�i:'-:.-- -- j
" ' - ::: � ;* �: : ; : � :
:.
.
.
. -.
.._. ....
_.. _
.. ., I--....
-,_
,.. ,.. .
....
>:
. =.
__ 11
_ -
._.
_ ..
_.,
t.
:.....
_ . ..:.._. - ..
_ _
,_ s ;__ -
_ _.,
._..-
.......
�� S : �'`
... _
-
.. -
"-i...-.,..'-�.---..--.'��--�:97 ���:� : -' .: .--1.--1.-��i., - . - ---�,
:::..: -
.- ....._ :.. ... .- ...
-:..o
.. -. ::-
..
.
,.,
..
. .
.
- ;_ _.
:�. . .-.:...:'-�.......�..:...:i.::..:I:�.'::.-::;....�-::�..-....:..;..�-:-:.�-i:...::....--.:.::."-...%.....�':..�.,�-..-1-'.:---.��.�:..-..�.:��"-�:-:,.-:...-:,.:-:-::..-..-.�.��-..���,�.-I..�-.*..-...----��.'.-.m-.x5-:.4�:-.,:,,-.-'-f�.�-..--.:..��-�:....�..b..I�:'..-..:..-.--.;'--_.....-:.��:..-.�.:.--..:...���.-:..--..�.--'-�-...-'..--.�`-:A::..i
:.
:.::,:...:.).��-.II.�:..-
:.;..
, "
lr-
r
. . I
L W: 1 /
j
f
. .
." .
:,.
( - 7 4 -- 1- _ - -
t-- 3- - -- --- - { --:.
1 -
... ...i. . - - 1, L
:
:C..--Z'-.,..'- ,.'--..-.r--YM�:..:...:.—...{�v-fv -.. -,--ir _u.—..... ._a. 5 _ -.:.
Office of the City Clerk .. r-.- -..-_.__ .._-.,_----._ - =_ ,,-- -
�, '� , 1I
I City of Huntington Beach y'u ; ; r' 6e\ `
ICALIFORNIA 92648 0 q 4:.%f)3 `� ft ± L _`.s,— , : " %
P.O.BOX190 j. :i
Fr�
sp O 0
O
Kevin & Patti Mc6ui ness -y* ti�>Fl
. 19762 Surfdale G*6
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fy
Office of the City Clerk
City '-��f,-,.Juntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
KEVIN & PATTI MCGUINESS
✓ 19472 SURFDALE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
OCCUPANT
19462 SURFDALE
HUNTINGTON BEACH.. CA 92648
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
OCCUPANT
19472 SURFDALE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
: .
.,....:�..:. _
<.
:: •'. ,
-
_ 4
„:. .:. ._- .::.::.:..:. -
. ..
.
,.. - .. ,... -.
...;.,y -
.. . ..
.. .
::: -
. _-
.- _ : - ..
: ... ._ .-
: ....- ... : _. .
> a t �,1 x �'s�7
a s - x' - - h r- :^c. - .
r
1'.
-.- .. ... -
� -,
-
-
r
. . ...
a - - . -
. .:... -.... . .-... ;.
- i:t.r.:::.: - .... ..._.. - - . . ..y _ ..-
. . -
- _ . ... ... -a _..: . - . - . .. . -.... .. ... : -
ri'
..
-. . ... -
.-: -. - ::
Ii
�.
_.. .
._ -.-... - ... --.: _
-<: - .-. - -- : .
- ... --
+ t - - -
1 i - - + -_ _ _-- .� -. -
1
'
Office of the City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
Kevin & Patti McGuiness
19462 Surfdale
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
/_ P/L f
L. 71
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28
(Cumulative Environmental Assessment associated with a combined
project which represents the subdivision -of 15 noncontiguous
parcels in the Seacliff Area)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will
hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the
date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the
statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
DATE/TIME: Monday, May 6, 1991, 7: 00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: Various non-contiguous parcels in the Seacliff Area
(see attached map) .
ZONE: Various (Open Space-Recreation, Low Density
Residential, High Density Residential)
REQUEST: Determine as adequate staff ' s evaluation of the
cumulative environmental impacts associated with a
combined project which represents the subdivision of
15 non-contiguous parcels in the Seacliff Area .
Specifically, the following are addressed:
Tentative Tract Maps No. 14042, 14043, 14044, 14243,
14244, 14277, 14296, 14318, 14319, 14320, 14321,
14326; and Tentative Parcel Maps No. 89-264, 89-265,
89-266; Zone Changes 90-8, 90-9, 90-11, 90-12, 90-13 ,
90-14, 90-15, 90-16; General Plan Amendment No. 90-7
and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-36 and 90-40,
Conditional Exceptions No. 90-37, 90-38, 90-39, 90-40,
90-41, 90-43, 90-46. The twelve tract maps and three
parcel maps will allow for development of a total of
159 single family homes . The request includes 7
variance requests for reductions to minimum lot
frontage requirements for some of the lots . The
request also involves one General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Recreational Open
Space to Planned Development on a 2 .40 acre site and
nine (9) zone changes . The project sites are located
in the Seacliff/17th Street vicinity.
( OVE -T
f r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
(Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 covers
the cumulative environment impacts
associated with 15 non-contiguous parcels
and attendant entitlements .
COASTAL STATUS: Two subdivisions will result in an
amendment to the City' s Certified Local
Coastal Program.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the
Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the
public.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call
Robert Franklin, Associate Planner at 536-5271.
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
(9479d)
l i,•,414 -•;:.it i__-_-_ .-_
IilrT -n
-I TT 14296
..........
� -
l, ZC 90_16
nT-
ZC 90-15
t
IT 14277 I.I I ,.......... .
`;:• GPA 90 7 TT14042
?T> TT 14043 5
nn� 11r,?;�: ZC 90-11 /:' C=-E
T 'I T 14244
, iII 143211
TT 14243 1.1 �` _•D
TPM 89-264 - TT 14326 ::. C=-R
- �• --, - r.^� ��' �:r,
TPM 89-265 -
1
N � ,
( l TT 14319 "=`d
TT 14318
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.90-28
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
Seacliff
(1106D)
Gloria Hemsley Paul & Fran Kaluzny Curt & Nancy Hodding
6902 Seaway Cir 6851 Evening Hill 6882 Seaway Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gerald & Farideh Ruva Shirley Rosik Pete Wachob
19782 Quite Bay Lane 6852 Evening Hill 19412 Surfdale Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunt. Beach, CA 92648 Hunt. Beach, CA 92648
Marilyn Rowe Erdie Deathes Nancy Howard
19791 Scenic Bay 6811 Scenic Bay 6551 Moring Tide Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Myron Howard Mr. & Mrs. Tom Emery Mr. & Mrs. Sam Ray
6551 Morning Tide Dr. 1981.2 Scenic Bay Lane 6842 Bar Harbor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mrs. G. Smith Mr. & Mrs. Dan Cole Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Blurton
6892 Little Harbor Dr. 6862 Bar Harbor 6882 Little Harbor Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mr. & Mrs. Robt. Borns R. Lingaue Hennenfent
19841 Sea Canyon Cir. 6671 Morning Tide 19761 Island Bay
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ralph Williams Mr. & Mrs. Al Broussard Mr. & Mrs. Henry Ying
6622 Morning Tide Dr. 6711 Morning Tide Dr. 6642 Morning Tide Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gene Chlebick Dominick & Bonnie Tomaino Lee & Dianne Denton
6691 Country Cir. 6812 Scenic Bay Lane 6941 Garden
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Seacliff
(1106D-2)
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Vackar Ridgely Keeley Mr. & Mrs. Warren Engle
6852 Bar Harbor 6742 Morning Tide 6222 Gatehill Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gordon Smith Anthony J. D'Asaro Tim M. Wilson
6832 Bar Harbor 6872 Bar Harbor 19691 Quiet Bay Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bob Leavelle James Kraus Spencer Sheldon
19772 Sea Canyon 19361 Manor Point Circle 6871 Evening Hill Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Jean Metzel Sue Wuchner Pat Shackleford
19391 Shady Harbor Cir 19812 Quiet Surf Cir. 19831 Sea Canyon Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dave Fennell Alan Rogers Susan Hardy
6731 Harbor Key Cir 6771 Morning Tide Dr. 19381 Shady Harbor Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Richard & Marion Ruess Bob & Zini Cole Bob & Celeste Brady
19431 Surfdale Lane 6822 Bar Harbor 6832 Silver Beach Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Shig & Maya Shiwota Marvin & Sue Johnson Lou & Gloria Baca
6761 Morning Tide - 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 6822 Silver Beach Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Larry & Kay Baugh Stan & Jan Krom Gerald & Nancy Tanaka
19822 Quiet Surf Circle 19441 Surfdale Lane 19872 Ocean Bluff Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Seacliff
(1106D-3)
Bob & Diane Finer William J. Byrne Dennis M. Taylor
6721 Country Cir. 6692 Gate Hill Cir. 19632 Quiet Bay
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Larry C. Anderson K. W. Evans Kathy Hinshu
6822 Scenic Bay 6562 Morning Tide Dr. 6781 Evening Hill Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
John & Karen Hart Fred & Manya Nikitin Valerie & Bill Brasher
19772 Island Bay Lane 6731 Gatehil•1 Cir. 19661 Quiet Bay Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bob & Zoni Cole Asta & Werner Puttner David & Mary Bottino
6822 Bar Harbor Dr. 6672 Gatehill Cir. 19882 Ocean Bluff
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
John Davis Martin Leavelle
19652 Stern Lane 19631 Quiet Bay Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SEACLIFF
(11340) 3/5/91
Mr. & Mrs. Konovalov Jeffrey Metzel
6862 Evining Hill Dr. 19391 Shady Harbor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Robert & Rhonda Mueller Leslie Taylor
19342 Manor Point Cir 19322 Shady Harbor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Eileen Druiff Jennifer, Mary E. & Clifford Loftis
6961 Church Circle 6811 Silver Beach Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Calvin Lowe Dana Mari Evors
19761 Island Bay Lane 6811 Silver Beach Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mildred E. French CaroleSchutz
19801 Island Bay 19321 Shady Harbor Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gene & Dorothy Farrell Helen & Peter Kudenov
19341 Shady Harbor 6902 Little Harbor Dr.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Lai Kwan Lee Neal & Sally McGinn
19781 Island BayLane 19481 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Jay & Audry Kreitz Frank Cracchiolo
19781 Islan Bay 19721 Quiet Bay Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Kenneth & Sharon Cain Cathy Bush
19512 Surfdale 6581 Morningtide
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
1
Seacliff (1134D) Page 2
J. R. Fowler Kristen Brewer
19762 Sea Canyon Cir 19802 Scenic Bay
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
June Dugmore Rick & Beverly Fenzl
19441 Summer Breeze 19822 Island Bay
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
DJ & Carolyn Pritzl David Wilson
6542 Moringtide . 6872 Seaway Cir
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Harry K. Carlson Herb & Drue Blayock
19581 Summer Breeze Lane 19812 Sea Canyon
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
R. D. Schutz Lucy Lee
19652 Quiet Bay Lane 19821 Sea Canyon Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gilbert Nixon Shirley Fleming
6861 Lawn Haven Dr. 6591 Morning Tide
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
James Masters Helen Wheeler
19851 Ocean Bluff Cir. 19821 Quiet Surf
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Karen Jackle Mr. & Mrs. Robert Pestolesi
6702 Lawn Haven Dr. 6702 Gatehill Cir.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Sidney & Eunic Gilbertson Ervin & Delores Miller
6592 Morningtide 19762 Island Bay Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
i
SEACLIFF (1134D) Page 3
William Dermudy Robert
6841 Silver Beach 19461 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mike & Mary Mokler
6701 Harbor Key Cir. 19582 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
i
I
i
Louis & Pamela Mannone Catherine Carlson
19821 Ocean Bluff Cir. 19581 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Annabelle Cristichta R.A. Burg
Box 855 19562 Summer Breeze
Sunset Beach, CA 90742-0855 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
J.A. & Virginia Kloos Kevin & Patti McGuiness
6901 Garden Lane 19762 Surfdale
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Scott & Marjorie Flanagan Paul Rosenow
19702 Quiet Bay 19501 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Albert Abajian Natalie Hearn
19751 Quiet Bay 19451 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
David Cox Seanna Washer
19771 Island Bay 19502 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Robert Enned Georgetta Wolff
19802 Island Bay 19472 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SEACLIFF (1134D) Page 4
I
Gerald Gallehor
19462 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Anai Tahashi
19791 Quiet Bay.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j
i
i
. i
Romona Ezpinoza
6791 Morningtide
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Joan & Jack Dotson
19701 Quiet Bay
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Joann Gibson
19382 Shady Harbor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
I
Mary Zant
19532 Summer Breeze
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
i
i
i