Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear-Upheld PC approval CUP 91-45 w/Special Permits/ BAKER & MIQ KENZIE EUROPE PACIFIC ATTORNEYS AT LAW NORTH AND MIDDLE EAST BASIN SOUTH AMERICA AMSTERDAM BANGKOK TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER BOGOTA PALO ALTO _ BARCELONA BEIJING BUENOS AIRES RIO DE JANEIRO BERLIN GUANGZHOU TWENTY-FOURTH FLOOR CARACAS SAN DIEGO BRUSSELS HONG KONG CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO BUDAPEST MANILA SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3 9 0 9 DALLAS SAO PAULO TIJUANA FRANKFURT SHANGHAI TELEPHONE (415) 576-3000 LOSREZ ANGELES TORONTO GENEVA SINGAPORE MEXICO CITY VALENCIA LONDON SYDNEY CABLE ABOGADO • TELEX 278588 MIAMI WASHINGTON.D.C. MADRID TAIPEI NEW YORK MILAN TOKYO FACSIMILE (415) 576-3099 Moscow PARIS RIYADH ROME POSTAL OR MAILING ADDRESS OLM WARSAW P.O. BOX 7258 ARSA ZURICH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94120 _ December 3 , 1992 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Thomas Gwyn, Chairman .Y193 California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 . San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: Commission Appeal No. A5-HNB-92-340 Surfcrest North Project - City of Huntington Beach Dear Chairman Gwyn: On behalf of our clients, Surfcrest Partners, applicants for approval of the Surfcrest North Project, we wish to respond to the Commission's Staff Report and Recommendation on Appeal dated September 30, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Staff Report") . The applicants believe it is clear that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds for appeal, if, in fact the project is actually appealable to the Commission. I. BACKGROUND. Surfcrest North is a residential condominium project proposed for construction in Huntington Beach, within the coastal zone. The project consists of 252 residential condominium units located in six buildings and will include 50 units of affordable housing -- twenty percent of the total units to be constructed. See location map and site plan attached to this correspondence at Tab 1. The Commission's hearing of the appeal was originally (� scheduled for its October meeting, and a Staff Report was � J prepared and mailed to the commission -- a copy of which is attached to this correspondence at Tab 2 . In October, the applicants waived the 49-day period for Commission consideration of the appeal to the Commission's December meeting. � 5035752.WP �lJ BAKER & WKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 2 The applicants were recently informed by staff that the hearing on the appeal of their project will not, in fact, ,be held at the December meeting of the Commission -- a further postponement of the hearing to which the applicants strongly object. According to the published "Meeting Notice" for the December meeting, however, the matter has been scheduled for hearing on Thursday, December 10, 1992 as agenda item 16a. After bringing the publication of the Meeting Notice to the attention of staff, the applicants recieved a memorandum from the South Coast District Staff informing "interested parties" that the hearing on the appeal would not be held in December. However, the applicants were also informed by staff that Commission action will be required to postpone or otherwise continue the hearing on the appeal to another meeting date, as the notification of the hearing has already been published in the Meeting Notice. The applicants are understandably uncertain as to whether or not the appeal will be heard in December or what the Commission's "action" on their project might entail (for instance, could it involve the discussion of the merits of the appeal or whether a recommendation of approval would be made on de novo review?) . The applicants are hesitant to rely on staff's assertions that the matter will not be considered at the December meeting and possibly lose the opportunity to respond to the Staff Report which has been prepared for the appeal. To that end, the project applicants respectfully submit this letter for Commission consideration in response to the Staff Report and Recommendation on Appeal. II. SUMMARY OF APPEAL. The approved project has been appealed to the Commission on the basis of a number of contentions, only one of which -- "Inconsistency with the Certified Local Coastal Program" -- the Staff Report asserts provides grounds for appeal to the Commission. (Staff Report, page 13 . ) The Staff Report recommends a finding of "Substantial Issue" and, upon de-novo review, denial of the project, on the grounds that the proposed development does not conform with the City of Huntington Beach's certified LCP/Land Use Plan. Appellants contend that the project is inconsistent with Section 9. 4 . 3 of the City's Certified Land Use Plan which appellants assert "expressly incorporate" an affordable housing condition required under Coastal Development Permit A-349-79 -- a 5035752.wp 0 BAKER & Mq-KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 3 special condition which was specifically deleted in 1982 by the Commission prior to issuance of that permit. Although appellants state that " [a]ffordable housing requirements envisioned for this property . . . are not being met on site and no general plan amendment has been processed" , appellants' real intention with respect to the appeal before the Commission is to eliminate affordable housing from the project. rather than increase the number of units. See attached letters at Tab 3 from appellants to Huntington Beach City Council advocating elimination of affordable housing at Surfcrest North. If staff's recommendation is upheld and the project is denied by the Commission, 50 units of affordable housing will be lost. In response to the Staff Report, this correspondence addresses staff's incorrect determination that the appellants' contentions regarding " [i]nconsistency with Section 9.4. 3 of the Land Use Plan of the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan" provide valid grounds for appeal. This letter provides documentation that the City of Huntington Beach approved the applicant's revised Surfcrest North Project in full compliance with the standards set forth in its certified LCP. In addition, this correspondence is to bring to the Commission's attention the fact that only a small portion of the Surfcrest North project is appealable to the Commission as the property upon which the Surfcrest development is proposed is only partially located within the Commission's jurisdictional appeal area. This correspondence will first provide argument refuting the basis of Staff's determination of substantial issue and recommendation of denial of the proposed project on the basis of inconsistency with the certified LCP/LUP and secondly, will discuss the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction over this appeal. III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. • There is no inconsistency with the City's Certified Land Use Plan regarding the provision of affordable housing on the Surfcrest North property as affordable housing policies are no longer part of the LUP/LCP. • The LUP does not need to be amended to address the issue of appropriate density at the Surfcrest North site as the allowable density on the property -- which has been high for the past 26 years* -- does not have, 5035752.WP BAKER & M19KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3 , 1992 Page 4 and never has had, any relationship to any requirements for affordable housing on the project site. • Only a small portion, if any, of the Surfcrest North project is appealable to the Coastal Commission because the property is "bisected" by the appeal jurisdiction line and very little development is located within the appealable area. IV. DISCUSSION. A. THE STAFF REPORT'S FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CERTIFIED LUP IS IN ERROR BECAUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE LUP. Staff's determination on page 13 of the Staff Report, that " [t]he appellants have made contentions that are valid grounds for appeal based on Section 30603 of the Coastal Act" appears to be based solely upon the purported inconsistency of the proposed project with a single sentence in item 2 of Subsection 9.4. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "Item 211) of the City's Certified LCP. Item 2 states that " [t]wenty percent of the total units must be 'affordable' by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition". The Staff Report supports appellants' allegation that Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No. 5267 -- which removed all discussion of housing policies from the Coastal Element -- did not remove Item 2 because: • The item was not specifically "crossed-out" in a descriptive document (an excerpt of the LCP - Section 8, entitled "Housing") accompanying the resolution at the time of its adoption by the City and the Coastal Commission, and thus was not physically removed from the printed document; and • Subsection 9.4 . 3 and Item 2 represent "site-specific policies" concerning the Seacliff IV and Surfcrest properties which are somehow not affected by the unquestionably inclusive language of Resolution No. 5267. The Staff Report states, at page 14, that "Section 9. 4 . 3 of the Land Use Plan describes the land uses and allowable 5035752.WP BAKER & WKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 5 density levels on the subject property" and goes on to quote Section 9.4. 3 . At page 15, the Staff Report states that "the applicants argue that all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues were removed from the Land Use Plan pursuant to Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 and the related Resolution No. 5267. " The Staff Report erroneously states, however, that the Commission, when it acted upon LUP Amendment 1-84 on April 12, 1984, approved only the deletion of the "housing component" from the LUP. To the contrary, although the deletion of the "housing component" is identified in a. summary of issues before the Commission at that time, the amendment was not limited to the mere deletion of a single component of the LUP. Rather, in the revised findings made for the Commission's approval of City of Huntington Beach, Major Amendment (1-84) to Certified Land Use Plan dated June 29, 1984 (attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit H) the Commission made the following findings and declarations: Senate Bill 626 (Mello) removed housing issues from the jurisdiction of the Commission effective January 1, 1982, and imposed requirements related to affordable housing in the coastal zone on local jurisdictions. The City proposes to address these requirements on a case-by-case basis and proposes to amend their Coastal Element to delete housing policies. As housing policies are no longer required in LUPs, the Commission finds that the proposed deletion of Housing policies is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. With the aforementioned findings and declarations, the Commission definitely approved the elimination of all housing issues, requirements and policies from the Huntington Beach LCP -- whether or not individual references to housing were specifically "crossed-out" . Additionally, Staff is incorrect in its assumption that Item 2 remains a viable part of the LCP -- with which the 5035752.WP BAKER & MPKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3 , 1992 Page 6 Surfcrest North project should be required to be consistent for the following reasons: 1. Resolution No. 5267, which ultimately was approved by the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the Huntington Beach LCP, removed all references to affordable housing policies from the Coastal Element. This removal of all references to affordable housing .was obviously the City's intent in passing the Resolution. In fact, the Planning Commission's approval of an amendment to the Coastal Element which was limited to only the removal of "Policy 15f" from Section 8 "Housing" was disregarded by the City Council in favor of the removal of all reference to housing in the Coastal Element, an action which clearly demonstrates that the city intended that the removal of reference to affordable housing in the LCP was all inclusive. See attached at Tab 4: Request for City Council Action, dated May 2, 1983. Additionally, Councilwoman Bailey's statement at the City Council hearing on the adoption of Amendment 83-1 to the Coastal Element (of the LCP -- which resulted in the passage of Resolution No. 5267) that she believed that the [affordable housing] "concerns are met in the City's mobile home ordinance, redevelopment law and Mello Bill . " reinforces the argument that the City intended all housing policies to be provided for in ordinances other that the LCP. 2 . The "cross-outs" referred to in the Staff Report, are neither a part of the City's Resolution No. 5267, nor were they in any way referred to, incorporated by reference, or adopted by the Coastal Commission as part of the LCP amendment. In fact, although the cross-outs were an attachment to the City staff's Request for City Council Action, they were not referred to in the minutes of the Council meeting or, as previously stated, in any way incorporated into the final Resolution. It is settled law in California, that where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, external indicia of intent should not be searched for. Delancy v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 785, 791-801 (268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P. 2d 934] . 3 . Even assuming that, conceivably, there could be considered some ambiguity in the City's Resolution 5267, the law clearly states " [t]he object a statute seeks to achieve is of primary importance in statutory interpretation. " Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry (1992) 1 Cal.4th 976, 987 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 837, 824 P.2d 634] . See also, People v. Jeffers (1987) 43 Cal.3d 984, 997 5035752.ua BAKER & MIPKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3 , 1992 Page 7 (239 Cal.Rptr 886, 741 P.2d 1127) , Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Como. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 669 (150 Cal.Rptr. 250, 586 P.2d 564) . As discussed in 1, above, the City's intent was obvious. However, even contemporaneous extrinsic evidence -- such as the attachments to the Request for City Council Action -- if looked to for an indication of the City's intent, provides the unequivocal conclusion that no affordable housing requirement now exists as part of the Huntington Beach LCP. In addition to the facts described in 1 and 2, above, please note the following: a. The project descriptions contained in Item 2 were nothing more than part of what are referred to in the LCP as "Area-by-Area Discussion" (emphasis added) of various geographical areas of the city and explanations of "where changes to the existing General Plan have been made in the coastal zone . " (LUP § 9.4) . The descriptions reflect proposed projects within certain areas at the time the LCP was originally certified in geographic part by the Commission. Such discussion has no current legal effect when determining what constitutes "compliance with the standards set forth in the LCP" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30603 (b) (1) ) . b. Sections of the LUP (Coastal Element) shown specifically "crossed-out" as attachments to the Request. for City Council Action recommending the adoption of Coastal Element No. 83-1 (which was preceded by Resolution No. 5267) included in sub- section 8.2 - "Analysis" referencing at "Program 4, " the Coastal Commission's requirement that 196 low and moderate income units be provided in the Seacliff IV project on the Huntington Beach Mesa; and sub-section 10.5.7 - "Housing" at "Policy 15f" which required that 1120 percent of all new residential projects of 20 or more units be affordable to low and moderate income households . of These specific physical deletions -- both of which were directed expressly at the Seacliff IV development -- served to clearly and effectively delete any purported "site specific project descriptions" located elsewhere in the Coastal Element. C. When the Coastal Commission eliminated Special Condition No. 7 as a condition of approval for the Seacliff IV Coastal Development Permit, the Commission specifically revoked the requirement for low and moderate income housing on and associated with the Seacliff IV project. With the elimination of Special Condition No. 7 -- the underlying requirement for affordable housing associated with Seacliff IV 5035752.HP BAKER & MI"KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 . Page 8 -- the description of the Seacliff IV project in Item 2 referring to the Coastal Commission's requirement that " [t]wenty percent of the total units must be 'affordable' . . . " was no longer correct with respect to the requirement for affordable housing on the project site. 4. In contrast to staff's declaration that "it is unreasonable to believe that all reference to housing could be deleted from an LUP" (Staff Report, page 15, emphasis in original) , it is clear that the reference within Resolution No. 5267 to "housing" was explicitly related to affordable housing. First, the City's action was inspired by the passage of Senate Bill 626 (Statutes 1981, Chapter 1007) which related solely to the removal of mandatory affordable housing provisions within the coastal zone. In fact, the language of the bill without question describes "affordable" housing issues, in stating that " [n]o local coastal program shall be required to include housing policies and programs" (Cal. Pub. Res. Code S 30500. 1) . Additionally, both City and Coastal Commission staff used the terms "housing" and "affordable housing" interchangeably in reports prepared to implement amendments to the City's LCP and concerning the coastal permit issued for the Seacliff IV project. See attached at Tab 5: letter dated January 26, 1982, from Evelyn Lee, Commission Legal Counsel, stating that "permit No. 3- 49-79 was subject to a housing condition"; letter dated February 24, 1982 , from Jim McGrath, Coastal Analyst, providing that "the permit will be issued,. without the requirement to provide affordable housing"; and, at Tab 4: Request for City Council Action, dated May 2, 1983 , declaring that "Senate Bill 626 (Mello) , which became law on January 1, 1983, removed housing issues from the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, " and later in the same paragraph the report references "affordable housing." Lastly, the City of Huntington Beach, in encouraging affordable housing in new development within the City, proceeds under the authority of Government Code section 65590 (d) , which states in pertinent part that " [n]ew housing developments constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, provide housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income . . . " The City of Huntington Beach acted wholly within its own authority -- and clearly not inconsistently with any provisions of the LCP -- when it required the project applicants 5035752.WD BAKER & WKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 9 provide that 20% of the units to be constructed at Surfcrest North would be affordable housing. B. THE STAFF REPORT ERRONEOUSLY STATES THAT ZONING ON THE PROJECT SITE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT AMENDMENT OF THE LUP WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE THE PROJECT SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. The Staff Report states, at page 15, that "the affordable housing requirement placed on the off-site location (site of the current proposal) pursuant to CDP No. A-349-79 was expressly incorporated into the City's Certified Land Use Plan and was also used as a basis for determining the density on the project site. " The Staff Report claims that any project proposed at the site which does not provide affordable housing consistent with Section 9.4. 3 of the City's Certified LCP "cannot claim the density set forth in that section to accommodate such affordable housing" . The Staff Report states that "an amendment to the LCP must first be approved by the Commission which. defines the density when affordable housing is not provided. " This statement in the Staff Report is clearly erroneous. The existing density on the Surfcrest North project site as provided in the City of Huntington Beach zoning ordinance -- that of R4-29-0, "High Density Residential District combined with oil production, with a maximum of 29 units per acre" is a density which is not in any way conditioned upon the provision of affordable housing within the area so zoned, and requires no amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance to be applicable to the Surfcrest North property in the absence of a requirement for affordable housing. A review of the zoning history on the Surfcrest North property shows that for at least the past 26 years, the property has been zoned for medium-high and high density residential -- ranging in allowed density from 25 units to 35 units per acre. See attached, at Tab 6: Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 1186, February 26, 1966, (property zoned R3-0, "Limited Multiple Family Residence District combined with oil, " 25 units/acre and Cl-O, "Neighborhood Commercial combined with oil") ; Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 2482, May 4, 1981 (property zoned R4-0, "High Density Residential District combined with oil") ; and Huntington Beach Ordinance No. 2609, February 22, 1983, (property zoned R4- 29-0, "High Density Residential District combined with oil production, with a maximum of twenty-nine units per acre") . 5035752.YP BAKER & M19KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 10 The ordinances themselves clearly do not grant density bonuses on the Surfcrest North property, nor are they conditioned upon the provision of affordable housing. The law is clear that where a legislative enactment is clear on its face, there is no need for further interpretation. Delancy v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 785, 800-01 [268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934) , Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 (248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299) ; Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 182, 198 (137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148) . As noted above, in 1966, the density allowed on the Surfcrest North site was 25 units/acre. This density -- which is equivalent to the City-approved Surfcrest North development proposal of 26 units/acre -- existed before the adoption of the California Coastal Act in 1976 and the Act's associated affordable housing policies (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30213 as originally enacted) . The imposition of the Coastal Act did not change the density allocated on the property but rather added a low income housing requirement to development projects proposed in the coastal zone between the years 1977 and 1982 (when such requirement was repealed from the Act by Senate Bill 626, Statutes 1981-Chapter 1007) . Additionally, the findings adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council for Ordinances No. 2482 (1981) and 2609 (1983) do not indicate that a density bonus was provided by these zoning amendments to the Surfcrest North site. Specifically, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission's Notice of Action for the zone change made in 1981 to R4-0 (allowing 35 units/acre) included a finding that the zone change "is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the Local Coastal Program" as the Land Use Element of the Local Coastal Program identified the property as "High Density Residential. " See attached at Tab 7: Huntington Beach Planning Commission "Zone Change Notice of Action" for Zone Change No. 80-6, March 4, 1981. In 1983 , the zoning change promulgated by Ordinance No. 2609 reduced the allowable density on the Surfcrest North property from 35 units/acre by specifically indicating that a maximum 29 units/acre would be allowed on the site. This zone change resulted in the 1IR4-29-0" zoning (allowing 29 units/acre) currently present on. the property. While zoning ordinances (including the Local Coastal Program "implementing ordinances") are required to be consistent 5035752.YP BAKER & MII KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page it with general plans (including Land Use Plans) pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 65860, the two are separate and distinguished concepts and a zoning ordinance must be read on its own. As explained in O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 744, 780 (42 Cal.Rptr. 283] : While municipal planning embraces zoning, the converse does not hold true. They are not convertible terms. Zoning is not devoid of planning, but it does not include the whole of planning. Zoning is the separation of the municipality into districts, and the regulation of buildings and structures, according to their construction, and the nature and extent of their use, and the nature and extent of the uses of the land. Coastal Commission staff reliance on the alleged need to amend the Land Use Plan to determine the density allowed on the Surfcrest North site is wholly erroneous. The density is a part and parcel of the zoning designation and as explained above, the current zoning provides for 29 units/acre regardless of the provision of affordable housing. On May 16, 1983, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 5267 (Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1) in response to the passage of Senate Bill 626 which repealed the Coastal Act's mandatory provisions concerning affordable housing. The City's resolution stated that "all housing policies and all discussions of housing issues are removed from the Coastal Element. " Resolution No. 5267 clearly effected the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Plan. However, the implementing zoning ordinances within the City's coastal zone were not amended in a comprehensive fashion to reduce allowable densities. Such inaction on the City's part is conclusive evidence that the "R4" or "High Density Residential" zoning contained in the coastal zone -- and especially on the Surfcrest North property -- did not exist exclusively as receptor sites for affordable housing. Rather, the zoning designations are independent of affordable housing requirements. 5035752.HP BAKER & M1-KENziE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 12 In addition, state law enacted in 1979 specifically provides that density bonuses and other incentives are a separate means to encourage the provision of affordable housing. Cal. Govt Code $ 65915 et sea. The law envisions that a project that includes affordable housing units will be given density bonuses - - above that allowed by existing zoning. The City's most recent amendment of the Surfcrest North Property, in 1983, to reduce the density allowed by the R4 zone from 35 to 29 units per acre contradicts the state statutory scheme of allowing additional units if affordable housing will be provided within a project. Additionally, the City's approval of the Surfcrest North project that is currently the subject of the appeal to the Coastal Commission is a proposal containing a density of 26 units/acre -- even less dense than the already restricted zoning. As further indication that the density allowed on the Surfcrest North property is not tied to affordable housing is the fact that the zoning on the property has not been formally "qualified" or "conditioned" by the City of Huntington Beach. The current zoning designation of R4-29-0 allows for a residential density of 29 units per acre. The City of Huntington Beach, since 1977, has employed the concept of "qualified" or "conditional" zoning where it desires to further limit the zoning placed on a property, including parcels in the coastal zone. Conditional. zoning "describe(s] a zoning change which permits use of a particular property subject to conditions not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. " Scrutton v. County of Sacramento (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 412, 417 (79 Cal.Rptr. 872] . The City had the authority, in both 1981 and 1983, to explicitly enforce provision of affordable housing when it amended the zoning classification through the use of its "qualified" zoning designation. The City did not choose to conditionally zone this property; therefore, the density allowed on this site is not connected with requirements for affordable housing. As stated in the City's zoning ordinance section 9463 : (t]he purpose of the qualified classification (Q) is to provide a means of further restricting a base district when deemed necessary such that the property may not be utilized for all the uses ordinarily 5035752.WP BAKER & MIPKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 13 permitted in a district and/or that the development of the site shall conform to specific standards. Further, section 9463 . 1 of the City's zoning ordinance provides that the specific conditions placed on a "qualified" zone are mandatory for any subsequent development of a property so classified. See attached at Tab 8: an example of a "qualified" zoning decision done by the City in 1988. Here, the City obviously limited the generally allowed zoning by placing five conditions on the zoning designation. The Surfcrest North project site does not involve such a "qualified" zone. The property is currently zoned for 29 units per acre, with no qualifications as to additional affordable housing requirements. As such, no changes to the zoning are necessary and the current allowable density, with or without affordable housing, is 29 units per acre. In addition, the approved Surfcrest North project, which is being appealed, was approved by the City of Huntington Beach at a density lower than that allowed by current and past zoning on the property. For at least the past quarter century this property has been zoned for high density residential. In 1966, the zoning provided for 25 dwelling units per acre. In 1981, the zoning was amended to 35 units per acre. The zoning was changed in 1983 to provide for 29 units per acre. In 1992, the Surfcrest North project was approved at a density of 26 units per acre. This 26-year history of high density zoning on this site was unaffected by the State Legislature's and the City's actions in the early 1980s to remove affordable housing requirements from projects located in the coastal zone. Therefore, the allowable density on the Surfcrest North site has no relationship to requirements for affordable housing placed on the site by either the Commission (as eliminated in 1982) . or the City of Huntington Beach. C. ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE SURFCREST NORTH PROJECT IS APPEALABLE TO THE COMMISSION. The. Staff Report does not address the issue of the scope of the Commission's appeal jurisdiction over the Surfcrest North project, apparently erroneously assuming that the entire project is appealable to the Commission. In fact, only a very 5035752.WP BAKER & MI--KENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 14 small portion of the project site -- and little or no residential construction -- is subject to appeal to the Commission, according the City of Huntington Beach's Post-LCP Jurisdiction Map. The City of Huntington Beach's Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map ("Post-Cert Map") was adopted by the Commission in 1985. A copy of the applicable portion of the Post-Cert Map is attached to this correspondence at Tab 9. The Post-Cert Map designates areas in which projects approved by the City pursuant to its certified Local Coastal Program are appealable to the Commission based upon either the nature of the area (such as developed properties subject to the public trust) or the property's proximity to enumerated geographical features (such as wetlands or coastal bluffs) . . The Post-Cert Map is a visual interpretation of the Commission's regulations -- as set forth in Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code and Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations -- governing the extent of its jurisdiction over appeals from local decisions. The Huntington Beach Post-Cent Map depicts a shaded area -- referred to as "Appeal Jurisdiction" and identified as being 11300' from bluff" -- which appears to be partially located on the Surfcrest North property. Although it is not clear from the Post-Cert Map precisely where the appeal jurisdiction line bisects the Surfcrest North property, it is clear that the shaded designation only covers a small portion of the property -- possibly 5% or less -- of the 9.8 acre project site -- thus designating only that small portion as appealable to the Commission. The development proposed in that area includes a pad for a recreation area, landscaped site drainage, setback and open space area, a portion of the entrance driveway and possibly a small portion of one residential building. The jurisdiction of the Commission over appeals involving properties only partly located within an appealable area has been clarified by a note on the face of the Post-Cert Map which states that: [i]n areas where a parcel is bisected by the appeal jurisdiction boundary, only that portion of the parcel within the area defined as appealable is subject to the Commission's appeal jurisdiction. 5035752.WP BAKER & MCKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3 , 1992 Page 15 Hence, it is clear from the Post-Cert Map that only the portion of the Surfcrest North property -- that which is within the shaded "Appeal Jurisdiction" area -- is subject to the Commission's appeal jurisdiction. As further evidence that only a portion of the Surfcrest North property is subject to appeal to the Commission, the Commission Staff Recommendation on Map of Commission Post-LCP Certification Jurisdiction -- City of Huntington Beach -- dated May 15, 1985 ("Staff Recommendation") , addresses the issue of jurisdiction over "bisected" parcels and references the previously-described note. The Staff Recommendation states that: During the general review of the draft maps, the concern has been raised that the appeal jurisdiction boundary bisects parcels in some areas. While this has resulted in some initial confusion for certain jurisdictions, as stated at the onset, the Coastal Act and Commission regulations set forth the definitions and criteria for determining the location of both the continuing permit and appeal jurisdiction. The staff has consistently taken the position that where a parcel is bisected by the appeal boundary, only that portion of the parcel within the area defined as appealable (e.g. , within 300' of the inland extent of the beach) would be included in the appeal jurisdiction. A note has been added to the maps to make this as clear as possible. A copy of the Staff Recommendation referenced above is included in this correspondence at Tab 10. Although the applicants have raised the issue of the project's limited appealability to the staff and have brought the Staff Recommendation and note to staff's attention, the applicants have not received a response from staff -- other than the matter is "being looked into. " The Commission's Mapping Division is currently performing a boundary determination in order to determine how much -- if any at all -- of the project site is located within the appeal jurisdiction area and therefore subject to appeal to the Commission. The applicants have been 5035752.WP BAKER & MIPKENZIE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3 , 1992 Page 16 informed by staff that the possibility exists that none of the Surfcrest North project site is within the appealable area. In the absence of a determination of the appeal jurisdiction boundary from staff, and in light of the Staff Recommendation and note on the face of the Post-Cert Map, it appears clear to the applicants that the only portion of the proposed Surfcrest North development which is subject to Commission appeal jurisdiction is -- at the most -- a small portion of the property located at the northeastern corner. At the most, this "development" (consisting primarily of circulation and open space uses) is the entirety of the development over which the Commission may exercise its appeal authority -- pursuant to its regulations -- as depicted on the Post-Cert Map for the City of Huntington Beach. V. CONCLUSION. As described above, only a small portion of the Surfcrest North project appears to be appealable- to the Coastal Commission. With respect to the portion of the project appealable to the commission -- or with the project as a whole -- there is no inconsistency with the City's Certified Land Use Plan regarding the provision of affordable housing on the Surfcrest North property as affordable housing policies are no longer part of the LUP/LCP. The LUP does not need to be amended to address the issue of appropriate density at the Surfcrest North site as the allowable density on the property -- which has been high for the past 26 years -- does not have, and never has had, any relationship to any requirements for affordable housing on the project site. Even if it is determined that a portion of the Surfcrest North project is subject to appeal to the Commission, it is clear that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed. No further review by the Commission is necessary. On behalf of our clients, we hope that this information will help the Commission more fully understand the issues which. will be before it with respect to this appeal. We thank you for taking the time to review the materials and documentation which 5035752.WP BAKER & W-RENziE Mr. Thomas Gwyn December 3, 1992 Page 17 we have presented. If you have any ques Ions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Yo truly, oseph E. Petrillo JEP:LSS:pz 5035752.WP REQUESI FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION June 1, 199.2 Date Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Submitted by: Pw Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Prepared by: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL Subject: USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 Consistent with Council Policy. Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception , A./f Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Councilwoman Grace Winchell of the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, • a request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres, pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Uphold .the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 with findings and subject to conditions of approval . " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APRIL 7, 1992 : ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECONDED BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF NOES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO DENY FAILED. PIO 5/85 EST FOR CITY - COUNCIL ACTION . .j Date Ju ly 6, 1992 Submitted to: 30 rable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator l Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (SURFCREST NORTH) Consistent with Council Policy? J/J Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is staff ' s analysis and recommendation for action on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres . On June 1, 1992, the City Council continued action with direction to the applicant to prepare revisions as outlined on page 2 of this report. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Uphold the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 and deny said applications with findings . " City Council action on June 1, 1992 : "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 for the purpose of modifying the site plan to have a 20 foot setback from the Linear Park, graduate building heights from the linear park setback, increase the width of the view corridor the full width of Palm Avenue, and reduce the density to be compatible with the surrounding project densities . AYES: Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, MacAllister NOES: Robitaille, Kelly ABSENT: Green ABSTAIN: None MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED. 1. REQUEA FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION June- 1, 1992 Date ^�a Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Submitted by: �lY J�w Michael Adams , Director of Community Development Prepared by: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL Subject: USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 Consistent with Council Policy? Ryes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Councilwoman Grace Winchell of the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 , a request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres, pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach -� Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to : "Uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 with findings and subject to conditions of approval . " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APRIL 7, 1992 : ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECONDED BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF NOES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO DENY FAILED. P5 Ila CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gabriella Restivo-Vegange - Community Development Department FROM: Connie Brockway, City C1erkeb SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 - SURFCREST PARTNERS DATE: August 3, 1992 Please confirm that the attached public hearing (CUP #91-45 - Surfcrest Partners) is to be set for August 17, 1992. Please provide the labels. 1362K <+ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HMRING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) NOTICE I-S 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 appli;cation described below. PATE/TIME: Monday, July 6, 1992, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No . 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm .Avenue. and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4=29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 . 8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; .2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS : APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. 0 ve R1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gommor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION _ SOUTH COAST AREA 1 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380G"Lfl/!/ P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802.4416 (310) 5M5071 FILED: 9/14/92 49th DAY: 11/02/92 180th DAY: N/A STAFF: MV-LB STAFF REPORT: 9/30/92 HEARING DATE: 10/13/92 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE LOCAL JURISDICTION: City of Huntington Beach DECISION: Permit granted with conditions by the Huntington Beach City Council APPEAL NO. : A-5-92-HNB-340 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners AGENT: Joseph E . Petrillo DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Ave. and Seapointe Ave. , Huntington Beach, Orange County. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Construction of six, three-story buildings consisting of252 condominiums on 9.8 acres. APPELLANTS: Amigos de Bolsa Chica Grace Winchell SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1 . City of Huntington Beach certified Local Coastal Program 2. Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 (Mansion Properties Inc. ) 3. Coastal Commission Revised Findings on Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 4. City of Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 Submittal . i A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE 1 . Appellants ' Contentions 4 II. Appeal Procedures 7 TII . Local Government Approvals 8 IV. Local Government Action 9 V. Staff Recommendation on Substantial Issue 9 VI. Findings on Substantial Issue 10 A. Project Description 10 B. Project History 11 C. Appellants ' Contentions That Do Not Provide Grounds 11 For Appeal 1 . Obstruction of Views 12 2. Obstruction of Physical Access 12 D. Appellants ' Contentions That Do Provide Grounds for Appeal 13 1 . Inc,onsistency with Certified Local Coastal Program 13 DENOVO HEARING 14 1. Staff Recommendation on DeNovo Hearing 14 I1. Findings on Coastal Permit 14 A. Incorporation of Substantial Issue 14 B. inconsistency with Certified i.and Use Plan 14 I.IST OF EXHIBITS A. Commission Notification of Appeal B. Appeal C. Applicant's Response to Appeal D. Relevant portions of 7/6/92 City Staff Report E. Relevant Portions of 8/17/92 City Staff Report F. City Resolution No. 5267 Regarding Deletion of Housing G. City of Huntington Beach, LUP Amendment 1-84 Submittal H. Coastal Commission Revised Findings on Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 I . Section 9.4.3 of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan, Amended Through February 1990 A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 3 SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 . Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on.which the appeal has been filed pursuant to PRC Section 30603. 2. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the proposed development on the grounds that. the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4.3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified Local Coastal Program which defines land uses and density consistent with those uses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicants propose to construct six, three-story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres. The proposed condominium complex is proposed as as private, locked gate community landward of . Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum height of the proposed development would be 35 feet. The density of the proposed project would be 26 dwelling units per acre. Proposed building site coverage is 35%. A view corridor along the northerly. side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest is proposed to.be 90 f..eet wide, the width of Palm Avenue. In 1980, the Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79. The project approved under that permit included 531 residential units, and is commonly known as Seacliff IV. As a special condition of that permit, the Commission required that 20% of the total units (106 units) be affordable pursuant to then existing Coastal Act Housing requirements. The Commission also approved the transfer of the affordable housing requirement to a parcel off the subject site. The location of the currently proposed project is on the site previously required by Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 to provide the affordable housing for the Seacliff IV project. The currently proposed project site was to provide approximately half the off-site affordable housing required by Seacliff IV. In order to accommodate the affordable housing required by Seacliff IV, the land use plan was certified allowing 450 high density residential units on the off-site affordable housing site (the site of the currently proposed project) . These 450 units were required to provide 20% of the total units (90 units) as affordable in addition to the 20% required of Seacliff IV. Therefore, the total number of affordable units required at the site was 196. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page_ 4 Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 was approved by the Commission in 1980 prior to the elimination of affordable housing policies from the Coastal Act. However the permit was not issued . until after affordable housing considerations had been .deleted from the Coastal Act. Because no agreement was executed or recorded on or before January 1 , 1982 and because the applicant had not yet performed substantial work on the development site, the applicant could choose to proceed without complying with the housing requirements contained in CDP A-349-79. The affordable housing requirement placed on the off-site location (site of the current proposal) pursuant to CDP No. A-349-79 was expressly incorporated into the the City's certified Land Use Plan and' was also used as the basis for determining the density on the subject site. Consequently, any project proposed at the site which does not provide affordable housing consistent with Section 9.4.3 of the City's certified I.CP cannot claim the density set forth in that section to'`accommodate such affordable housing. An amendment to the LCP must first be approved by the Commission which defines the density when affordable housing is not provided. Staff therefore recommends that the Commission find substantial issue and deny the proposed project because the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4.3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified local Coastal Program which defines land uses and density consistent with those uses. 1. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS: The City's action to approve the proposed development with special conditions has been appealed by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and :Huntington Beach City Councilwoman Grace Winchell (see exhibit B) . A summary of their contentions follows: A. Obstruction of Views 1 . The proposed development will obstruct views from public streets to the bluff top, coast and Bolsa Chica Wetlands due to the height and positioning of the proposed structures. Additionally, the proposed view corridor at the intersection of Palm and Seapoint streets will be obstructed by the security fence, guard house and gates at the main entrance and the pool and club house structures as viewed looking north along Palm Avenue. . 2. Views will be obstructed looking west along the proposed extension of Seapointe Street toward Pacific Coast Highway because the properties adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway will require some type of screening and security fencing. These properties are currently used for oil production and will continue to be screened for at least 30 years. 3. Views will be obstructed from adjoining developments. The proposed project's height of 35 feet will obstruct views from the proposed Seapoint South (to be located on the southwest corner of Seapointe and Palm Avenues) , existing development along Palm Avenue as well as views from development along Seapointe Avenue. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 5 4. The proposed development will have negative impacts to views from trails within. the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park. . Although the project's building setback and view corridor have been revised to allow for greater views, the appearance from the park will be a wall of development because there are no direct view corridors for that part of the development west of Palm. 5. Views from Pacific Coast Highway, (a scenic highway) traveling south looking across the wetlands will be degraded. Existing views from PCH are already significantly degraded due to the existing Seacliff IV development. The effect of the proposed project will be even more severe because it is at least 450 feet closer to Bolsa Chica. The proposed project would become the. most dominant view from PCH traveling south across the wetlands. B. Obstruction of Physical Access 1 . The proposed development will obstruct physical access to the bluff area because it is proposed as a private, gated community. The adjacent bluff top land is owned by parties affiliated with the project's applicant either through corporate ownership or a prolonged business relationship. 2. The land required to connect the proposed regional park to Pacific Coast Highway is not being dedicated along with the extension of Seapoint Street across lands of the affiliated party. 3. The City of Huntington Beach 's proposal to eliminate on-street parking along Seapointe Street because it will become a major arterial road will reduce the number of parking spaces available . to park-goers . The Coastal Commission permit for Seacliff IV was amended to allow the interior streets to be private with the understanding "that improvement and dedication of the public streets of 38th (Seapointe) and Palm will. add 211 parking .spaces to the inventory of available spaces. " 4. Trail access will be east of the development because there will be no public access through the development. 5. In an amendment to the Seacliff IV Coastal Development Permit, the Commission allowed the width of Palm Avenue to be reduced by 16 feet through the elimination of parking. Parking would, however, remain near 38th (Seapointe) Street to provide parking for the public. C. Incompatibility with the Physical Scale of Adjacent Areas 1 . The applicant has proposed an additional project which has been approved by the City. That project's density is 15 units per acre compared to the subject project's density of 26 units per acre. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 6 .2. Approval of this project places the most dense development adjacent to the passive, natural habitat area of the regional. park. 3. Under the Coastal Commission's permit for the Seacliff IV development, 2.0% affordable housing was required. The applicant was allowed to provide the affordable housing requirement off-site. The site approved for the transfer was a 22 .acre site which includes the subject site-. The approval of Seacliff IV included 531 units. The site approved for the off-site affordable housing was to be limited to a maximum of 450 units and was also required to provide 20% affordable housing. Therefore, .the total required affordable housing required at the 22 acre site was 196 units. 4. The Seacliff TV permit also required a land dedication to allow 212 units of affordable housing in the event the townhouse project in not undertaken. 5. The affordable housing requirement indicated that 2.5% of the units be priced for persons earning less that 50% of the median income and likewise for 60-120% of the median income. 6. The City Council approved a zone change from R3-0 (medium high density residential ) to R4-0 (high density residential)at the subject site. The City Council also approved a zone change at a portion of the adjacent site (a part of the 22 acre parcel described above) from Cl-O to R4-0. City records indicate the zone change was linked to the re.qui_remen•ts of the Coastal Development Permit: approved by the Coastal Commission.. 7. The Coastal Development Permit was amended by the Coastal Commission to allow the land dedicated to .affordable housing to be transferred from the property included in Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised) --Surfcrest North (the subject) property to land included in Surfcrest (South) . B. The City Council approved a zone change at the subject property (Surfcrest North) from R4-0 to R4-29-0 with a maximum of 29 units per acre and the Surfcrest (South) property to change from R4-0 to R3-17-0 with a maximum of 17 units per acre. 9. An amendment to the Coastal Commission 's Coastal Development Permit was approved to allow the change of product type (i .e. housing type at Seacliff IV) and to increase the number of units in Seacliff IV up to 769 units. 10. None of the affordable- housing units anticipated to be transferred to the subject property (Surfcrest North) from the Seacliff IV project are included in the project approved by the City. Only the affordable housing units required by the currently proposed 252 unit condominium project are proposed. A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 7 11 . The range of income levels is considerably more moderated under the currently proposed project than was required under the Coastal Commission.'s Seacliff IV permit. The proposed income range now proposed i_s 80--120%. of the median income rather than 50-120% required under the Seacliff IV permit. 12. The proposed project should not be permitted to be developed at R4-29-0 when at least 75% of the affordable housing . justification for that zone change does not apply now. D. Inconsistency with Section 9.4.3 f-and Use Plan of the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. 1 . The affordable housing required at this site is not being provided. No general plan amendment has been processed to change the requirement. 2. The justifications (discussed above) for allowing higher density zoning at the site have not, occurred. A general plan amendment should be required to address this inconsistency. E. Alternatives 1 . There are alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen the impacts of the project: a) Reduction of zoning, density, building height and change building configuration. b) Provide a public street around all or a portion of the project. This would provide view and access opportunities . It would also make police patrolling of the proposed park area easier. And it would provide additional setback from the proposed park. c) Purchase the property for inclusion in the proposed Rolsa Chica Regional Park. H. APPEAL PROCEDURES: After certification of Local Coastal Programs (t.CPs) , the Coastal Act provides for limited appeals to the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on coastal development permits. Developments approved by cities or counties may be appealed if they are located within the mapped appealable areas, such as those located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. Furthermore, developments approved by counties may be appealed if they are not designated "principal permitted use" under the certified LCP. Finally, developments which constitute major public works or major energy facilities may be appealed, whether approved or denied by the city or county. (Coastal Act Section 30603(a)) . y, A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 8 The City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program was certified in March 1985. This project is appealable because it is located within the mapped appealable area. The grounds .for appeal as stated in Section 30603(b) are: (1 ) The grounds for an appeal pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be limited to an allegation that the development does- not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program or the public access policies set forth in this division. Section 30625(b) requires a de novo hearing of the appealed project unless the Commission determines that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds for appeal (Section 30603) . If the staff recommends "no substantial issue" or the the Commission decides to hear arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have three minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue.. It takes a majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised. If the staff recommends Its issue" , and there is no motion from the Commission to find no substantial issue, the substantial issue question will be considered moot, and the Commission will proceed to a de novo public hearing on the merits of the project. If the Commission conducts a de novo hearing on the permit application, -the applicable test for the Commission to consider under Section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act is whether the proposed development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program. The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at any stage of the appeal process are the applicant, persons who opposed the application before the local government (or their representatives)., and' the local government. Testimony from other persons must--be submitted in writing. The Commission's administrative regulations , Sections 13110-13120, further explain the appeal hearing process. III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVALS March 17, 1992 Public Hearing by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit N6. 91-45, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, Negative Declaration No. 91-33. The hearing was continued to the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. April 7, 1992 Public hearing by the Planning Commission and approval with conditions on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, ..Tentative. Tract Map No. 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, Negative Declaration No. 91.-33. April 16, 1992 Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval with conditions. Appealed to the City Council by Co.uncilmember Grace Winchell . A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 9 June 1 , 1992 Public hearing by the City Council on appeal of the Planning Commission's approval with conditions of Conditional Use -Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-2.6 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33. The hearing was continued to the July 6, 1992 City Council meeting. July 6, 1992 Public hearing by City Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33. The hearing was continued to the August 17, 1992 City Council hearing (See exhibit 0) . August 17, 1992 Approval by the City of Huntington Beach'(see exhibit E) . IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION: On August 17, 1991 , .the Huntington Beach City Council denied an appeal by City Councilwoman Grace Winchell and approved with conditions Conditional Use Permit. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, and Negative Declaration No. 91733. The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Coastal Development Permit. The Conditional Use Permit was approved with 20 special conditions. The Commission received the notice of final local action on August 31 , 1992. The City's decision was appealed to the -Coastal Commission on September 14, 1992 by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Councilwoman Grace Winchell (see exhibit B) . The appeal was received within the required 10 working :day. appeal period established by the Coastal. Act and the appellantls have proper stand ng. as required by the California Code of Regulations Section 13111 (see exhibit A) . V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SUBSTANTIAL. ISSUE The staff recommends that the Commission find that Appeal No. A-5-HN8-92-340 of the City of Huntington Beach's action of approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit 91-2.6, raises a substantial issue with one or more of the grounds listed in Section 30603(b) of the Coastal Act. The MOTION is: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5-HNB-92-340 raises NO substantial issue as to conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Huntington Beach. A majority of Commissioners present is required to pass the motion. Staff recommends a NO vote which would result in the finding of substantial issue and the adoption of the following findings and declarations: A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 10 VI . FINDINGS ON SUBSTANTIAL_ ISSUE The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: A. Project Description The applicants propose to construct six, three—story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres. The proposed condominium complex is proposed as as private, locked gate community landward of Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum height of the proposed development would be 35 feet. The density of the proposed project would be 26 dwelling units per acre. Proposed building site coverage is 35%. A view corridor along the northerly side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest is proposed to be 90 feet wide, the width of Palm Avenue. The parcel of land between the subject site and the bluffs of the Huntington Reach Mesa is anticipated to become a part of the County. of Orange's proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. The building setback from the property line adjacent to the proposed park area ranges from 20 to 26 feet. To create a varied look as viewed from the park, each cluster wing would be offset along the rear (park boundary) property line. This accounts for the varied setback of 20 or 26 feet from the rear property line. Second and third stories are proposed to be stepped back from the first floor elevation along the park boundary and along Seapointe Avenue. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City with two special permits: Special Permit No. 3 for variation in building bulk requirements and Special Permit No. 5 to exceed the 5% paving restriction for the train recreation .areas. The building bulk requirement requires that 1/3 of-the units -be one story less in height. The City found that the intent of the bulk requirement was met through the stepping back of third story elevations . The City also found that exceeding the 5% paving restriction for the main recreationa-1 areas would allow full use of the pool amenities and recreational buildings . The subject site is on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, at 'the northwest corner of Palm and Seapointe Avenues . The site is near the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff, which is adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands . There is a separate parcel of land, approximately 300 feet wide, between the subject property and the upper edge of the bluff. That parcel is not a part of the proposed project and is not owned by the applicant. The project was approved by the City with a special condition regarding affordable housing. The special condition requires that 20% of the proposed units be available to persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of the median income) . A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 11 B. Project History In 1980, the Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79. The project approved under that permit included 531 residential units, and is commonly known as Seacliff IV. As a special condition of that permit, the Commission required that 20% of the total units (106 units) be affordable pursuant to then existing Coastal Act Housing requirements . The Commission also approved the transfer of the affordable housing requirement to a parcel off the su -. c site The location of the currently proposed project Is on the site previously required by Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 to provide the affordable housing for the Seacliff TV project. The currently proposed project site was to provide approximately half the off-site affordable housing required by Seacliff TV. In order to accommodate the affordable housing required by Seacliff TV, the land use plan was certified allowing 450 high density residential units on the off-site affordable housing site (-the site of the currently proposed project) . These 450 units were required to provide 20% of the total units (90 units) as affordable in add.it-ion to the 20% required of Seacliff TV. Therefore, the total number of affordable units required at the site was 196. Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 was approved by the Commission in 1980 prior to the elimination of affordable housing policiesJrom the Coastal Act. However the permit: was not: issued until after affordable housing considerations had been deleted from the Coastal Act. Because no agreement was executed or recorded on or before January 1 , 1982 and because the . applicant had not yet performed substantial work on the development site, the applicant could cho Seto-p-raceed_wi_thout complying with the housing requiremen s contained in COP A-349-79 pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30607.2. Both the maximum nuinber -of units and the affordab le housing requirement were then incorporated into into the City' s General Plan Coastal Element as a site specific development policy (see exhibit T) . .The Coastal and Land Use Elements were never amended to eliminate affordable housing site specific policy. (See 7/6/92 City staff report, exhibit D) . Nor was a zone change ever processed to define the allowable density where affordable housing was not provided (see exhibit D) . C. Appellants Contentions That Do Not Provide Grounds For Appeal The following items. are grounds for appeal raised by the appellants. The Coastal Act provides very specific grounds upon which appeals must be based. Although the items listed below may raise valid concerns, they do not provide valid grounds for appeals under the Coastal Act because they do not raise inconsistencies with the certified local coastal program or the access policies of the Coastal Act. A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 12 1 . Obstruction of Views The appellants contend that the proposed development will obstruct views from public streets, -from adjoining developments, from the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park and from Pacific Coast Highway. . Although the City's UP protects public views to the ocean and scenic coastal areas, the 1CP also provides for visual impacts to be mitigated by .site and design. Since. the City's approval does incorporate site and design limitations , the Commission finds -that With regard to obstruction of views, the appeal raises no substantial issue. 2. Obstruction of Physical Access - a) The appellants contend that the proposed pooject will obstruct physical access to the bluff area above the Bolsa Chica wetlands, an area anticipated to become a part of the County of Orange' s proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. The appellants argue that the private, .gated nature of the proposed project will afford no access to the regional park for 1100 feet from Pacific Coast Highway to Seapoint Avenue (the eastern edge of the proposed project) . However, the EIR prepared for the Bolsa Chica Regional Park indicates that access to the park will be provided along the entire length of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Garfield Avenue, approximately 3850 feet adjacent to the proposed project. Section 30212(a)(2) requires public access in new development except when adequate access exists nearby. The Commission finds that adequate access exists adjacent- to -the proposed project. b) The appellants further contend that the City's proposal to eliminate on street parking along Seapoint Street will limit access to the proposed r.egional .park because an amendment to Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79, allowing the interior streets of Seacliff TV to be changed from public to private was allowed "with the understanding that improvement and dedication of the public streets of 38th (Seapoint) and Palm will add 211 parking spaces to the inventory of available spaces for beach and linear park access. " However, the City' s proposal to eliminate on—street parking along Seapoint Street is not a part of the project in question. As such it cannot be a consideration when determining whether the City's approval of the project provides grounds for appeal or whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. Because it is not a part of the proposed project, the requirements of the previous permit issued for the Seacliff IV development also cannot be considered a factor in determining whether the project provides grounds for appeal or whether it raises a substantial issue. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 13 D. Appellants ' Contentions That Do Provide Grounds For Appeal 1 . Inconsistency with the Certified Local Coastal Program The appellants contend that the proposed project is inconsistent with Section 9.4.3 (Bluffs to Goldenwest Street) of the City's certified: Land Use Plan. That section. of the Land Use Plan expressly incorporates the affordable housing condition required under Coastal Development Permit A-349-79 and then redesignates the area as high density residential . "The 115-acre site. of the recently proposed "Seacliff IV" development has been redesignated to correspond to the permit for that project as granted by the State Coastal Commission. The project encompasses most of the land bounded by Palm Avenue, the golf course and 38th Street (staff note: 38th Street is now called Seapoint Street) . A total of approximately 531 dwelling units are to be developed in two low density areas (.of 94 ac"res combined) and a 20-acre medium density area at the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19-acre area to be developed with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981 . Twenty percent of the total units must be "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition. This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of Thirty-Eighth Street, has been redesignated high density residential . The Coastal Commission also required that an additional_ area fronting Pacific Coast Highway south of the high density residential site'be reserved for commercial recreational uses . This area is shown on the resource production overlay. " The proposed project. only provides the affordable housing required under the City's Housing Element (50 units) . Although the 106 units required as a result of development of Seacliff TV are no longer required under that approval , the appellants claim that the proposed project should not be permitted to be developed at R4-29-0, since at least 75% of the affordable housing justification for that zone change no longer applies. The language of Section 9.4.3 ties the redesignated density to the previously imposed Seacliff IV. affordable housing requirements. No density designation is defined if the Seacliff IV affordable housing is not provided. Pursuant to Section 30603(b)(1 ) , an allegation that a development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program is grounds for appeal . The appellants have made such an allegation. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed project raises substantial issue with respect to consistency with the certified Land Use Plan. The appellants have made contentions that are valid grounds for appeal based on Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, following are the findings and information necessary for the de novo hearing. A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 14 T. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE DE NOVO HEARING Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution: The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on the grounds that the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4.3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified Local Coastal Program which defines density levels allowed on the subject site. . II . FTNDINGS FOR DENIAL• OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The Commission finds and declares as follows: A. The findings and declarations on substantial issue are incorporated by reference herein. B. Inconsistency with the Certified Land Use Plan Section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act states: After certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency or the commission on appeal finds that the proposed development is -in conformity with the certified local coastal program. Section 9.4.3 of the Land--Use Plan describes the land uses and allowable density levels on the subject property: "The 115—acre site of the recently proposed "Seacliff TV" development has been redesignated to correspond to the permit for that project as granted by the State Coastal Commission. The project encompasses most of the land bounded by Palm Avenue, the golf course and 38th Street (staff note: 38th Street is now called' Seapoint Street) . A total of approximately 531 dwelling units are to be developed in two low density areas (of 94 acres combined) and a 20—acre medium density area at the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19-acre area to be developed with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981 . Twenty percent of the total units must be "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition. This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of Thirty—Eighth Street, has been redesignated high density residential . The Coastal Commission also required that an additional area fronting .Pacific Coast Highway- south of the high density residential site be reserved for commercial recreational uses. This area is shown on the resource production overlay. " " A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 15 The applicants argue that all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues were removed from the Land Use Plan pursuant to Huntington Beach LUP amendment 1-84 and the related resolution No. 5267. Huntington Beach Land Use Plan amendment 1-84 included a request, to delete the housing component (see exhibit F') . Resolution 5267 was adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council , in conjunction with the amendment request to remove the housing component (see exhibit E) . The Commission acted on LUP amendment 1-84 on April 12, 1984 and approved the deletion of the Housing Component. Revised Findings adopted July 1984 also reflect this action (see .exhibit H) . However, the City's submittal for I_UP amendment request 1-84 indicates that only the housing element is to be deleted (see exhibit G) . A recent copy of the City's land Use Plan, including amendments through February 1990 include the section in question, 9.4.3, #2.. It is unreasonable to believe that all reference to housing could be deleted from an LUP. Because housing does exist in the Huntington Beach portion of the coastal zone, reference to housing would have to occur in the Iand Use Plan. Because the City's submittal package for -the amendment request (see exhibit G) only called out the specific. housing component (not all reference to housing in the document) , and because only the specific housing component was visibly deleted as a result of the approval of the amendment, it appears that the applicant's argument is not valid. Section 9.4.3 is contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan section of the LUP. The Coastal land Use Plan section provides the text to describe the land use designations of the Land Use Plan map. Section 9.4.3, #2 incorporates the affordable housing requirement imposed on Coastal Development Permit A-349-79 for the Seacliff IV development. That permit allowed the development of 531 residential units .on 115 acres, known. as Seacl-Tff IV. The :Seacl.iff: IV. site is located at the southeast corner of Palm Avenue and "Seapoint Street (kitty-corner from the subject site) . The Seacliff I.V project was required to provide 106 units of affordable housing. The required affordable housing was allowed to be located off the Seacliff IV site and on the Surfcrest North (the current project) and Surfcrest South site. The Surfcrest South site is located directly across. Seapoint Street (to the south) from the subject site.. The proposed) project would provide affordable housing at a rate of 20% of the total units (50 units) , consistent with the City's Housing Element. However, none of' the 106 affordable housing units required as a result of the Seacliff IV project, and incorporated specifically into the City's certified Land Use Plan are provided. The affordable housing requirement placed on the off—site location (site of the current proposal) pursuant to CDP No. A-349-79 was expressly incorporated into the the City's certified Land Use Plan and was also used as the basis for determining the density on the subject site. Consequently, any project proposed at the Site which does not provide affordable housing consistent with Section 9.4.3 of the City's certified I.CP cannot .claim the density set forth i-n that section to accommodate such affordable housing. An amendment to the I.CP must first be approved by the Commission which defines the density when affordable housing is not p.rovided. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 16 The Commission staff recognize that in the course of the permitting process the applicants have made substantial modifications to the original design of the project. It has been reduced from 264 units to 2.52, the building bulk was reduced by the step-back design of the upper story, the width of the view corridor has been increased, and the building setbacks from the edge of the proposed park boundary have been increased by 10 to 15 feet. The site can support an approvable project. The recommendation of denial does not: stem from inappropriateness of any project at the site, but from the lack of conformance with the requirements of Section 9.4.3 of the certified Land Use Plan. An amendment to the Land Use Plan addressing appropriate density at the site would have to be submitted and approved by the Coastal Commission before any project: could be considered at the site without the 106 affordable housing units. The densities allowed on surrounding parcels are less than what currently exists on the site. To the east and north of the subject site the land is designated Open Space Recreational . This is the site of the proposed County regional park. To the south of the site i:he land is designated High Density Residential . This parcel is known as Surfcrest South and together with the subject site makes up the site designated to accomodate the Seacliff IV . affordable housing requirement. To the southeast of the project site is the site of the Seacliff IV development, which is designated Medium Density Residential . Seacliff IV is surrounded by a Low Density Residential designation. Considering the densities of the surrounding areas, it is reasonable to expect a lesser density at the subject site, if the affordable-�housing is not provided. However, the issue of appropriate density at the subject site would be analysed and addressed in the form of a land Use Plan amendment. As discussed earlier in this report, Section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act requires all permits issued by the local government or the commission on appeal must find that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program. Such a finding cannot be made for the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed high density residential project must be denied. 6327E STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY DFCEoVE nn PETE WILSON, Gorsmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION u U ry SOUTH COAST AREA S E P 17 4 J t�Q JZ s 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-"16 CITY OF HUf't I IINGTON BEACH (310) 590.5071 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Date: 9-14•-92 Commission Appeal # A5-HNB-92-340 COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL TO: City of Huntington Beach FROM: California Coastal Commission' Please be advised that the local coastal development permit decision described below has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30602 or 30625. Therefore, the decision has been stayed pending Commission action on the appeal . P.R.C. Section 30623. Locel. Permit # CDP 91-26 Name of Applicant Surfcrest Partners Project Description, Location : North of Seapoint Street and Southwest of East line of Palm Ave. ; 252. Condominium units on 9.8 acres. Local Decision: Approved with special conditions Name of Appellant Amigos de Bolsa Chica & Grace H. Winchell . Mayor Pro Tempore Date Appeal Filed September 14, 1992 The Commission Appeal # assigned to this appeal is A5—HNB 92-340 The Commission hearing date--substantial issue determination and possible vote--for this appealed item is tentatively set for October 13-16, 1992 Within 5 working days of receipt of this Commission Notification of Appeal , copies of all relevant documents and materials used in the local jurisdiction consideration of this coastal development permit must be delivered to the South Coast Area Office of the Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112) . Please include copies of the following: plans; relevant photographs; staff reports and related documents; findings, if not already forwarded; all correspondence; and a list, with addresses, of all who provided verbal testimony. A Commission staff report and notice of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the Area Office noted above. I cc: Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Surfcrest Partners & Grace H. Winchell , Mayor Pro Tempore 6086E MV/lm G-2. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Action: . After reading by title, approve introduction by roll call vote. G-2a. ORDINANCE NO 3183 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE // CITY OF HUNTIIdGTON BEACH A2I:ENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH TZO• z� 1✓UNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING :v= 7 C -.PTER 14 . 52 E'.�TITLED 'IT JATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREI:rNTS .." Prepared at the request of Public Works . (to provide a set of standards to be followed by developers and the City when designing and maintaining landscaped areas) rov£� / (�T� l7 a--,r,; iG t, >-)-iav l A-' 4-1v.^P—. c,- - c1CQ,)of7L-,, H. COUNCIL/AGENCY ITEMS S0 h see. how CA -f"- e_ 01,� H-1. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER EARLE ROBITAILLE: (�r�P 1'EPf On r+W D (,c�vr7i. 4r,-1 4�, A.jf) Ct4 fFi �l D d/f17 — 'i.��4J H-2. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMER/MAYOR PRO-TEM LINDA MOULTON-PATTERSON: H-3. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER/MAYOR GRACE WINCHELL: 1 . Establish Council Sub-Committee to develop City Code of Ethics . Sub-Ur��i j7e c - eocv�,cr/�e.�becs ltJiisch�//, 2 . Establish Council Sub-Committee for the revision of the Cit ' s campaign contribution/expenditure ordinance. su.,b-�o.»�»lltet-L�own�i/n,e�rrbe.�-s /yloa./�on- eN�S:/r.�� Lee�� 3 . Status Report of Surfcrest Proiect [NW corner Palm./ Seapointe) and Appeal to California Coastal Commission Transmittal of California Coastal Commission staff report and applicant ' s response.• /!1 or hJi�rc�e// aya H-4. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER JIM SILVA: /� tt �� P1 Cr'4 7�f' ( 14) ( 12/21/92) STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH_COAST'AREA = w 245;'W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-"16 (310) 590.5071 Date 9-03-92 Commission Reference # 5-HNB 92-61 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL PERIOD TO: City of Huntington Beach FROM: California Coastal Commission Please be advised that on August 31 , 1992 our office received a notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: Local Permit # CDP 91-26 Name of Applicant Surfcrest Partners Project Description: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story building consisting of 284 condominiums on 9.8 acres in the Coastal lone with Special Permits. . Location Northwest corner of Palm Ave. and Seapoint Ave. Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on September 15, 1992 . Our office. will notify you if an appeal is filed. Note: The notice of local action did not include written findings supporting the decision. So that we may complete our record of this decision, please forward a copy of the adopted findings to our office within 30 days. (This note is applicable only if a check mark has been entered.) If you have any questions, please contact us. cc : Surfcrest Paretners H2: 4/88 6017E MV/lm Alp G-2 ORDINANCES- FOR INTRODUCTION Action: After reading by title, approve introduction by roll call -Vote . G-2a. ORDINANCE NO 1183 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A:� LNDTNG THE HUNTINGTON BEACH �.ZO• 20 1 UNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING N-4 CHAPTER 14 . 52 \TITLED "61ATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. " Prepared at the request of Public Works . (to provide a set of standards to be followed by developers and the City when designing and maintaining landscaped areas) rOvFtJ r H. COUNCIL/AGENCY ITEMS S Oct 1c / C:4v► See. how C.�� stif� 011�A H-1. . SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY M BER EARLE ROBITAILLE: �rUP rF�f 01 c,W.b C,4l,1121'. H-2. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY ME20ER/MAYOR PRO-TEM LINDA MOULTON-PATTERSON: H-3. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY ME ER/MAYOR GRACE WINCHELL: 1 . Establish Council Sub-Committee to develop City Code of Ethics . Sub-urr�.ri�f e c - eo"er%eis� 2 . Establish Council Sub-Committee for the revision of the Cit ' s campaign contribution/ex enditure ordinance. SiG�7-�OA!/17/TfeG-C.owvt�i//t�CilrbClS /�O�t/�- ��Si/rt� Le.ejdt� 3 . Status Report of Surfcrest Proiect (NW corner Palm/ Seapointe) and Appeal to California Coastal Commission Transmittal of California Coastal Commission staff report and applicant ' s response. 7 A_- he a nd H-4 . SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBER JIM SILVA: iS ��r�hvL ac �c�J .-.:i ( 14) - ( 12/21/92) s� � mu_acdyl, r?� 1 9C' _ 41 .N as ..YWWI y cc o� • son "09-0•CZ i R4-29-0to Z p�• ;�:: R3 17 0 CZ '` R2::P�°b-C2 �1` :��• :�.A2-Po,,'r�-^fir i�• ,f..� R2-PD-O C 'c �oyki /• �•. I J \ I ,• i SURFCREST NORTH PROJECT LOCATION 5709.0 OPd ROPO SEJ PARK CO.W/ECTG•O Tif EX/s, GI 7J•.P.l/A/C.Ms9/NG TENTATIVE 2 336' SECURITY FENCE .) I ex/s/n�c nrecnve_ .. __ �--- 70°ERCGQ1d7ED , �� -- - = TRACT NO. 14135 �A•OPCSf.�GRADFO G L..cnc><D sw�E-- �' -� SWd/.E./!: MW. •YP.i M1�'{/IY�' �� E� IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, RH�� I/ i F ,y j O R� Pj4° I a I��_ a__Ir•.,&�= PALM AVENUE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA yBEING A s '•o.=`bra ! ql/tl'� 1Y :HE CITY (:IF M.Nrf:L?CN 9EACA1.GOIMry CCR04VGE. 5rATEl G OF ;AL71R.Y.:.�S SNC'WN ON THE MAP FLED N BOO:C 1�:G.PArc- IC 1•IC 11 Or PARCEL HJPS IV .•HE OFFICE Or TrE comrY RECORDER Or SAID CCY)NTY. Eir.'S7.'tiG SNP O J' 1, i� / 0 0 � FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SEC 7-/O^/ A-A / ( /� tI A/O st4[E \ --- - --y �i/ I � 1 V j�LOM�RDS 5f. V . � GAR/GP AKIN,[ p !! Gpr .� C el .W • u� ASSESSORS PARCEL NO:023-12I-11 TRACT NO. 14135 ACREAGE: gd AL. GROSS 8.8 AC.NET F S'o`, '24S jai I tss \ A� rcx[rown NO.Or PROPOSED LOTS: 6 . / �Q1 6 ice• + �. °, ~ti CC""AREA LOTS A A e SE C710" e-8 ,l �/ I✓ /—+ 4 NCJtESS�eUtrSs.P4RIWG.RECREATION AREAS AND LANDSCAPE 0 ' AREAS l0 BE PIMATE t mANTANED BY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AS COMMON NO SCAZE / �Gb / i re Y a Y^��- '` � WATER: REAS.NTNGTON BEACH ,GAS: SOUTHERN CALYORrtA CAS COMPANY TELEPHONE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY Or CALFORNIA a*cFvsFu cRd.�o � ' ',"Arr HAP SEWER: CITY Or HUNmGTON er4C41 S;!µme'/s S' • NO SCALE ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY /l.vlP J E10STNG ZONG: R4-24-0-CZ ow I .k •/- r L I I __-__ �x•.y� _ _l_ I /� t I ! -1 PROPOSED ZONING: R/-29-0-0Z EGROv,O uF .If• `\ t— �. SEcr-fo" C-C td� / J i 1\ ~ WIvW 100. ER/w 100 NO-',^AL-- 50, 50 50' 30' PALM AVENUE SEAPOINT AVENUE "FIGAL SEDDON-AL.S. EXISTING GxE 9ECTI _ O L PA .AVE. r LU I // jl ,�i / ! _ I i,'i• r NR/W 106. Sit" �'...... � A js aDEWALK EASEMENT ` , • 'P1/E. 2 • 5'Fla. C. / '•O. �"\. 3a.o T 15b�ti $TEWALK— . Num aae Baum awe •#L VARIES ° I i 5EAPOINT AVENUE (PROP05ED) PRfnV�ALTEGSSTREET5 T1TT IL SECTIp/ � I V\ RFfpRQ fiWNER: PA(AIG GOASi HOMES 2120 MINI STREET SLM 260 HLNTNGTON BEACH.CA g2646 F f SCALE:T• - n.-g60�353 2 f t 3 i R GO ` I I 1 SLXFUf�PARTNERS WALD�EN i ASSOCIATES FF ga,7 L 1 , 520 BROADW'Ar. SUTE 100 16012 COWAN SUTE 210 2e.7 SANfA MC".CA g0401 RVK n CA 42 . f7�''S F •g t 1 213-3ve-337g 711-G60-0I10 4 1 � A '--} LEGEND: REVISED 7/t+H2 GF -GARAGE FINISH noon „ a„6�,® MODIFIED rr .uar FNlsrf FLOOR ..4� ALDEN & �M TENTATIVE till—�• _ _ = SLOOPe f=•''s ;�` ASSOCIATES TRACT NO. 14135 LOT LINE XISiING REEN W �� 0•/5/o L'SAG 9rJe�3:.) 1,01s COMA".SUM 71Q ICE n ,RMJA I rM n Aeo-ale M M- 116 PACTS,pC MT S//ELL LEASE AREA DAne L WALDIN 03 I,ea oan HUNUq ELOU i d CC 7/,I1/9Z ALL-STALL LEGAL SUPPLY CO., 1-800222-MIO FD 11 N CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area 245 West Broadway, Ste 380 ' Long Beach, CA 90802--4416 (310) 590-5071 FILED: 9/14/92 49th DAY: 11/02/92 180th DAY: N/A _. STAFF: MV-LB STAFF REPORT: 9/30/92 HEARING DATE: 10/13/92 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL_ -- SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ^ LOCAL JURISDICTION: City of Huntington Beach DECISION: Permit grar+ted.with conditions by the Huntington Beach City Council APPEAL NO. : A-5-92-HNB-340 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners AGENT: Joseph E. Petrillo DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Ave. and Seapointe Ave. , Huntington Beach, Orange County. DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Construction of six, three-story buildings consisting of252 condominiums on 9.8 acres. APPELLANTS: Amigos de Bolsa Chic.a Grace Winchell SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1 . City of Huntington Beach certified Local Coastal Program 2. Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 (Mansion Properties Inc. ) 3 . Coastal Commission Revised Findings on Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1 84 4. City of Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 Submittal. A-5—HNB-92-3 40 Page 2 v TABLE OF CONTENTS , SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE I. Appellants' Contentions 4 II. Appeal Procedures 7 III. Local Government Approvals 8 IV. Local Government Action 9 V. Staff Recommendation on Substantial Issue 9 VI. Findings on Substantial Issue 10 A. Project Description 10 B. Project History 11 C. Appellants' Contentions That Do Not Provide Grounds 11 For Appeal 1. Obstruction of Views 12 2. Obstruction of Physical Access 12 D. Appellants' Contentions That Do Provide Grounds for Appeal 13 1. Inconsistency with Certified Local Coastal Program 13 DENOVO HEARING 14 I. Staff Recommendation on DeNovo Hearing 14 II. Findings on Coastal Permit 14 A. Incorporation of Substantial Issue 14 B. Inconsistency with Certified Land Use Plan 14 LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Commission Notification of Appeal B. Appeal C. Applicant' s Response to Appeal D. Relevant portions of 7/6/92 City Staff Report E. Relevant Portions of 8/17/92 City Staff Report F. City Resolution No. 5267 Regarding Deletion of Housing G. City of Huntington Beach, LUP Amendment 1-84 Submittal H. Coastal Commission Revised Findings on Huntington Beach LUP Amendment 1-84 1. Section 9.4.3 of the certified Huntington Beach Land Use Plan, Amended Through February 1990 A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 3 r SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 . Staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed pursuant to PRC Section 30603 . 2. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the proposed development on the grounds that the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4.3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified local Coastal Program which defines land uses and density consistent with those uses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicants propose to construct six, three-story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres . The proposed condominium complex is proposed as as private, locked gate community landward of Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum height of the proposed development would be 35 feet. The density of the proposed project would be 26 dwelling units per acre. Proposed building site coverage is 35%. A view corridor along the northerly side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest ii proposed to be 90 feet wide, the width of Palm Avenue. In 1980, the Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79. The project approved under that permit included 531 residential units, and is commonly known as Seacliff IV. As a special condition of that permit, the Commission required that 20% of the total units (106 units) be affordable pursuant to then existing Coastal Act Housing requirements. The Commission also approved the transfer of the affordable housing requirement to a parcel off the subject site. The location of the currently proposed project is on the site previously required by Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 to provide the affordable housing for the Seacliff IV project. The currently proposed project site was to provide approximately half the off-site affordable housing required by Seacliff IV. In order to accommodate the affordable housing required by Seacliff IV, the land use plan was certified allowing 450 high density residential units on the off-site affordable housing site (the site of the currently proposed project) . These 450 units were required to provide 20% of the total units (90 units) as affordable in addition to the 20% required of Seacliff IV. Therefore, the total number of affordable units required at the site was 196. A-5—HNS-92-340 Page 4 Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 was approved by the Commission in 1980 ' prior to the elimination of affordable housing policies from the Coastal Act. However the permit was not issued until after affordable housing considerations had been deleted from the Coastal Act. Because no agreement was executed or recorded on or before January 1, 1982 and because the applicant had not yet performed substantial work on the development site, the applicant could choose to proceed without complying with the housing requirements contained in CDP A-349-79. The affordable housing requirement placed on the off—site location (site of the current proposal) pursuant to CDP No. A-349-79 was expressly incorporated into the the City's certified Land Use Plan and was also used as the basis for determining the density on the subject site. Consequently, any project proposed at the site which does not provide affordable housing consistent with Section 9.4.3 of the City's certified LCP cannot claim the density set forth in that section to accommodate such affordable housing. An amendment to the LCP must first be approved by the Commission which defines the density when affordable housing is not provided. Staff therefore recommends that the Commission find substantial issue and deny the proposed project because the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4.3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified Local Coastal Program which defines land uses and density consistent with those uses. I. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS: The City's action to approve the proposed development with special conditions has been appealed'by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach City Councilwoman Grace Winchell (see exhibit B). A summary of their contentions follows: A. Obstruction of Views 1 . The proposed development will obstruct views from public streets to the bluff top, coast and Bolsa Chica Wetlands due to the height and positioning of the proposed structures. Additionally, the proposed view corridor at the intersection of Palm and Seapoint streets will be obstructed by the security fence, guard house and gates at the main entrance and the pool and club house structures as viewed looking north along Palm Avenue. 2. Views will be obstructed looking west along the proposed extension of Seapointe Street toward Pacific Coast Highway because the properties adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway will require some type of screening and security fencing. These properties are currently used for oil production and will continue to be screened for at least 30 years. 3 . Views will be obstructed from adjoining developments. The proposed project's height of 35 feet will obstruct views from the proposed Seapoint South (to be located on the southwest corner of Seapointe and Palm Avenues), existing development along Palm Avenue as well as views from development along Seapointe Avenue. 1 A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 5 4. The proposed development will have negative impacts to views from trails within the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park . Although the project' s building setback and view corridor have been revised to allow for greater views, the appearance from the park will be a wall of development because there are no direct view corridors for that part of the development west of Palm. 5. Views from Pacific Coast Highway (a scenic highway) traveling south looking across the wetlands will be degraded. Existing views from PCH are already significantly degraded due to the existing Seacliff IV development. The effect of the proposed project will be even more severe because it is at least 450 feet closer to Bolsa Chica. The proposed project would become the most dominant view from PCH traveling south across the wetlands . B. Obstruction of Physical Access 1 . The proposed development will obstruct physical access to the bluff area because it is proposed as a private, gated community. The adjacent bluff top land is owned by parties affiliated with the project's applicant either through corporate ownership or a prolonged business relationship. 2. The land required to connect the proposed regional park to Pacific Coast Highway is not being dedicated along with the extension of Seapoint Street across lands of the affiliated party. 3 . The City of Huntington Beach' s proposal to eliminate on—street parking along Seapointe Street because it will become a major arterial road will reduce the number of parking spaces available to park—goers. The Coastal Commission permit for Seacliff .IV was amended to allow the interior streets to be private with the understanding "that improvement and dedication of the public streets of 38th (Seapointe) and Palm will add 211 parking spaces to the inventory of available spaces. " 4. Trail access will be east of the development because there will be no public access through the development. 5. In an amendment to the Seacliff IV Coastal Development Permit, the Commission allowed the width of Palm Avenue to be reduced by 16 feet through the elimination of parking. Parking would, however, remain near 38th (Seapointe) Street to provide parking for the public. C. Incompatibility with the Physical Scale of Adjacent Areas 1 . The applicant has proposed an additional project which has been approved by the City. That project' s density is 15 units per acre compared to the subject project's density of 26 units per acre. A-5—HNB-92-340 Page 6 2. Approval of this project places the most dense development adjacent to the passive, natural habitat area of the regional park. 3. Under the Coastal Commission' s permit for the Seacliff IV development, 207E affordable housing was required. The applicant was allowed to provide the affordable housing requirement off-site. The site approved for the transfer was a 22 acre site which includes the subject site. The approval of Seacliff IV included 531 units. The site approved for the off-site affordable housing was to be limited to a maximum of 450 units and was also required to provide 20% affordable housing. Therefore, the total required affordable housing required at the 22 acre site was 196 units. 4. The Seacliff IV permit also required a land dedication to allow 212 units of affordable housing in the event the townhouse project in not undertaken. 5. The affordable housing requirement indicated that 2.59E of the units be priced for persons earning less that 507E of the median income and likewise for 60-120% of the median income. 6. The City Council approved a zone change from R3-0 (medium high density residential) to R4-0 (high density residential)at the subject site. The City Council also approved a zone change at a portion of the adjacent site (a part of the 22 acre parcel described above) from C1-0 to R4-0. City records indicate the zone change was linked to the requirements of the Coastal Development Permit approved by the Coastal Commission. 7. The Coastal Development Permit was amended by the Coastal Commission to allow the land dedicated to affordable.. housing to be transferred from the property included in Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised) --Surfcrest North (the subject) property to land included in Surfcrest (South) . B. The City Council approved a zone change at the subject property (Surfcrest North) from R4-0 to R4-29-0 with a maximum of 29 units per acre and the Surfcrest (South) property to change from R4-0 to R3-17-0 with a maximum of 17 units per acre. 9. An amendment to the Coastal Commission' s Coastal Development Permit was approved to allow the change of product type (i .e. housing type at Seacliff IV) and to increase the number of units in Seacliff IV up to 769 units. 10. None of the affordable housing units anticipated to be transferred to the subject property (Surfcrest North) from the Seacliff IV project are included in the project approved by the City. Only the affordable housing units required by the currently proposed 252 unit condominium project are proposed. A-5-HNS-92-340 Page 7 11. The range of income levels is considerably more moderated under the currently proposed project than was required under the Coastal Commission' s Seacliff IV permit. The proposed income range now proposed is 80-120% of the median income rather than 50-120% required under the Seacliff IV permit. 12. The proposed project should not be permitted to be developed at R4-29-0 when at least 75% of the affordable housing justification for that zone change does not apply now. D. Inconsistency with Section 9.4.3 Land Use Plan of the Coastal Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan. 1. The affordable housing required at this site is not being provided. No general plan amendment has been processed to change the requirement. 2. The justifications (discussed above) for allowing higher density zoning at the site have not occurred. A general plan amendment should be required to address this inconsistency. E. Alternatives 1 . There are alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen the impacts of the project: a) Reduction of zoning, density, building height and change building configuration. b) Provide a public street around all or a portion of the project. This would provide view and access opportunities. It would also make police patrolling of the proposed park area easier. And it would provide additional setback from the proposed park . c) Purchase the property for inclusion in the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park. II. APPEAL PROCEDURES: After certification of Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), the Coastal Act provides for limited appeals to the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on coastal development permits. Developments approved by cities or counties may be appealed if they are located within the mapped appealable areas, such as those located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. Furthermore, developments approved by counties may be appealed if they are not designated "principal permitted use" under the certified LCP. Finally, developments which constitute major public works or major energy facilities may be appealed, whether approved or denied by the city or county. (Coastal Act Section 30603(a)). A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 8 The City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program was certified in March 1985. This project is appealable because it is located within the mapped appealable area. The grounds for appeal as stated in Section 30603(b) are: (1) 'The grounds for an appeal pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program or the public access policies set forth in this division. Section 30625(b) requires a de novo hearing of the appealed project unless the Commission determines that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds for appeal (Section 30603) . If the staff recommends "no substantial issue" or the the Commission decides to hear arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have three minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. It takes a majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised. If the staff recommends "substantial issue", and there is no motion from the Commission to find no substantial issue, the substantial issue question will be considered moot, and the Commission will proceed to a de novo public hearing on the merits of the project. If the Commission conducts a de novo hearing on the permit application, the applicable test for the Commission to consider under section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act is whether the proposed development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program. The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at any stage of the appeal process are the applicant, persons who opposed the application before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government. Testimony from other persons must be submitted in writing. The Commission' s administrative regulations, Sections 13110-13120, further explain the appeal hearing process. III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVALS March 17, 1992 Public Hearing by the Planning Commission of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, Negative Declaration No. 91-33 . The hearing was continued to the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. April 7, 1992 Public hearing by the Planning Commission and approval with conditions on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, Negative Declaration No. 91-33. April 16, 1992 Appeal of the Planning Commission' s approval with conditions. Appealed to the City Council by •Councilmember• Grace Winchell . A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 9 June 1, 1992 Public hearing by the City Council on appeal of the Planning Commission' s approval with conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised), Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 . The hearing was continued to the July 6, 1992 City Council meeting. July 6, 1992 Public hearing by City Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised), Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33. The hearing was continued to the August 17, 1992 City Council hearing (See exhibit D) . August 17, 1992 Approval by the City of Huntington Beach (see exhibit E) . IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION: On August 17, 1991, the Huntington Beach City Council denied an appeal by City Councilwoman Grace Winchell and approved with conditions Conditional Use Permit 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised), Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 . The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Coastal Development Permit. The Conditional Use Permit was approved with 20 special conditions. The Commission received the notice of final local action on August 31, 1992. The City' s decision was appealed to the Coastal Commission on September 14, 1992 by the Amigos. de Bolsa Chica and Councilwoman Grace Winchell (see exhibit B) . The appeal was received within the required 10 working day appeal period established by the Coastal Act and the appellants have proper standing as required by the California Code of Regulations Section 13111 (see exhibit A) . V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE The staff recommends that the Commission find that Appeal No. A-5-HNB--92-340 of the City of Huntington Beach' s action of approval with conditions of Coastal Development Permit 91-26, raises a substantial issue with one or more of the grounds listed in Section 30603(b) of the Coastal Act. The MOTION is: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5--HNB-92-340 raises NO substantial issue as to conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Huntington Beach. A majority of Commissioners present is required to pass the motion. Staff recommends a NO vote which would result in the finding of substantial issue and the adoption of the following findings and declarations: A-5—HNS-92-340 Page 10 VI. FINDINGS ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: A. Project_Description The applicants propose to construct six, three—story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres. The proposed condominium complex is proposed as as private, locked gate community landward of Pacific Coast Highway. The maximum height of the proposed development would be 35 feet. The density of the proposed project would be 26 dwelling units per acre. Proposed building site coverage is 35%. A view corridor along the northerly side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest is proposed to be 90 feet wide, the width of Palm Avenue. The parcel of land between the subject site and the bluffs of the Huntington Beach Mesa is anticipated to become a part of the County of Orange' s proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. The building setback from the property line adjacent to the proposed park area ranges from 20 to 26 feet. To create a varied look as viewed from the park, each cluster wing would be offset along the rear (park boundary) property line.. This accounts for the varied setback of 20 or 26 feet from the rear property line. Second and third stories are proposed to be stepped back from the first floor elevation along the park boundary and along Seapointe Avenue. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City with two special permits: Special Permit No. 3 for variation in building bulk requirements and Special Permit No. 5 to exceed the 5% paving restriction for the main recreation areas. The building bulk requirement requires that 1/3 of the units be one story less in height. The City found that the intent of the bulk requirement was met through the stepping back of third story elevations. The City also found that exceeding the 5% paving restriction for the main recreational areas would allow full use of the pool amenities and recreational buildings. The subject site is on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, at the northwest corner of Palm and Seapointe Avenues. The site is near the Huntington Beach Mesa bluff, which is adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. There is a separate parcel of land, approximately 300 feet wide, between the subject property and the upper edge of the 'bluff. That parcel is not a part of the proposed project and is not owned by the applicant. The project was approved by the City with a special condition regarding affordable housing. The special condition requires that 20% of the proposed units be available to persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of the median income). A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 11 B. Project History In 1980, the Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. A.-349-79. The project approved under that permit included 531 residential units, and is commonly known as Seacliff- IV. As a special condition of that permit, the Commission required that 20% of the total units (106 units) be affordable pursuant to then existing Coastal Act Housing requirements. The Commission also approved the transfer of the affordable housing requirement to a parcel off the subject site. The location of the currently proposed project is on the site previously required by Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 to provide the affordable housing for the Seacliff IV project. The currently proposed project site was to provide approximately half the off-site affordable housing required by Seacliff IV. In order to accommodate the affordable housing required by Seacliff IV, the land use plan was certified allowing 450 high density residential units on the off-site affordable housing site (the site of the currently proposed project) . These 450 units were required to provide 20% of the total units (90 units) as affordable in addition to the 20% required of Seacliff IV. Therefore, the total number of affordable units required at the site was 196. Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79 was approved by the Commission in 1980 prior to the elimination of affordable housing policies from the Coastal Act. However the permit was not issued until after affordable housing considerations had been deleted from the Coastal Act. Because no agreement was executed or recorded on or before January 1, 1982 and because the applicant had not yet performed substantial work on the development site, the applicant could choose to proceed without complying with the housing requirements contained in CDP A-349-79 pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30607.2. Both the maximum number of units and the affordable housing requirement were then incorporated into into the City' s General Plan Coastal Element as a site specific development policy (see exhibit I). The Coastal and Land Use Elements were never amended to eliminate affordable housing site specific policy. (See 7/6/92 City staff report, exhibit D). Nor was a zone change ever processed to define the allowable density where affordable housing was not provided (see exhibit D) . C. Appellants Contentions That Do Not Provide Grounds For Appeal The following items are grounds for appeal raised by the appellants. The Coastal Act provides very specific grounds upon which appeals must be based. Although the items listed below may raise valid concerns, they do not provide valid grounds for appeals under the Coastal Act because they do not raise inconsistencies with the certified local coastal program or the access policies of the Coastal Act. A--5—HNB-92-340 Page 12 1 . Obstruction of Views The appellants contend that the proposed development will obstruct views from public streets, from adjoining developments, from the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park and from Pacific Coast Highway. Although the City's LCP protects public views to the ocean and scenic coastal areas, the LCP also provides for visual impacts to be mitigated by site and design. Since the City' s approval does incorporate site and design limitations the Commission finds that with regard to obstruction of views, the appeal raises no substantial issue. 2. Obstruction of Physical Access a) The appellants contend that the proposed porject will obstruct physical access to the bluff area above the Bolsa Chica wetlands, an area anticipated to become a part of the County of Orange' s proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park. The appellants argue that the private, gated nature of the proposed project will afford no access to the regional park for 1100 feet from Pacific Coast Highway to Seapoint Avenue (the eastern edge of the proposed project). However, the EIR prepared for the Bolsa Chica Regional Park indicates that access to the park will be provided along the entire length of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Garfield Avenue, approximately 3850 feet adjacent to the proposed project. Section 30212(a)(2) requires public access in new development except when adequate access exists nearby. The Commission finds that adequate access exists adjacent to the proposed project. b) The appellants further contend that the City's proposal to eliminate on street parking along Seapoint Street will limit access to the proposed regional park because an amendment to Coastal Development Permit No. A-349-79, allowing the interior streets of Seacliff IV to be changed from public to private was allowed "with the understanding that improvement and dedication of the public streets of 38th (Seapoint) and Palm will add 211 parking spaces to the inventory of available spaces for beach and linear park access." However, the City's proposal to eliminate on—street parking along Seapoint Street is not a part of the project in question. As such it cannot be a consideration when determining whether the City' s approval of the project provides grounds for appeal or whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. Because it is not a part of the proposed project, the requirements of the previous permit issued for the Seacliff IV development also cannot be considered a . factor in determining whether the project provides grounds for appeal or whether it raises a substantial issue. A-5-HNB-92-340 Page 13 D. Appellants' Contentions That Do Provide Grounds For Appeal 1 . Inconsistency with the Certified Local Coastal Program The appellants contend that the proposed project is inconsistent with Section 9.4. 3 (Bluffs to Goldenwest Street) of the City' s certified Land Use Plan. That section of the Land Use Plan expressly incorporates the affordable housing condition required under Coastal Development Permit A-349-79 and then redesignates the area as high density residential . "The 115-acre site of the recently proposed "Seacliff IV" development has been redesignated to correspond to the permit for that project as granted by the State Coastal Commission. The project encompasses most of the land bounded by Palm Avenue, the golf course and 38th Street (staff note: 38th Street is now called Seapoint Street) . A total of approximately 531 dwelling units are to be developed in two low density areas (of 94 acres combined) and a 20-acre medium density area at the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19-acre area to be developed with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981 . Twenty percent of the total units must be "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition. This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of Thirty-Eighth Street, has been redesignated high density residential . The Coastal Commission also required that an additional area fronting Pacific Coast Highway south of the high density residential site be reserved for commercial recreational uses. This area is shown on the resource production overlay. " The proposed project only provides the affordable housing required under the City ' s Housing Element (50 units) . Although the 106 units required as a result of development of Seacliff IV are no longer required under that approval, the appellants claim that the proposed project should not be permitted to be developed at R4-29-0, since at least 75% of the affordable housing justification for that zone change no longer applies. The language of Section 9.4.3 ties the redesignated density to the previously imposed Seacliff IV affordable housing requirements. No density designation is defined if the Seacliff IV affordable housing is not provided. Pursuant to Section 30603(b)(1), an allegation that a development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program is grounds for appeal. The appellants have made such an allegation. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed project raises substantial issue with respect to consistency with the certified Land Use Plan. The appellants have made contentions that are valid grounds for appeal based on Section 30603 of .the Coastal Act. Therefore, following are the findings and information necessary for the de novo hearing. A-5-HNB--92-340 Page 14 I. STAFF_RECOMMENDATION ON THE DE_ NOVO HEARING Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution: The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on the grounds that the proposed development does not conform with Section 9.4. 3 of the City of Huntington Beach's certified Local Coastal Program which defines density levels allowed on the subject site. . II. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The Commission finds and declares as follows: A. The findings and declarations on substantial issue are incorporated by reference herein. B. Inconsistency with the Certified Land Use Plan Section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act states: After certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency or the commission on appeal finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program. Section 9.4.3 of the Land Use Plan describes the land uses and allowable density levels on the subject property: "The 115-acre site of the recently proposed "Seacliff IV" development has been redesignated to correspond to the permit for that project as granted by the State Coastal Commission. The project encompasses most. of the land bounded by Palm Avenue the golf course and 38th Street (staff note: 38th Street is now called Seapoint Street). A total of approximately 531 dwelling units are to be developed in two low density areas (of 94 acres combined.-)--and--"O--acre medium density area at the intersection of Palm ve+'rCie and 38th Street. The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19-acre area to be developed with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981. Twenty percent of the total units must be "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition. This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of Thirty-Eighth Street, has been redesignated high density residential. The Coastal Commission also required that an additional area fronting Pacific Coast Highway south of the high density residential site be reserved for commercial recreational uses. This area is shown on the resource production overlay. " A-5-HNB-92-.340 Page 15 The applicants argue that all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues were removed from the Land Use Plan pursuant to Huntington Beach LUP amendment 1-84 and the related resolution No. 5267. Huntington Beach Land Use Plan amendment 1-84 included a request to delete the housing component (see exhibit F) . Resolution 5267 was adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council, in conjunction with the amendment request to remove the housing component (see exhibit E) . The Commission acted on LUP amendment 1-84 on April 12, 1984 and approved the deletion of the Housing Component. Revised Findings adopted July 1984 also reflect this action (see exhibit H) . However, the City's submittal for LUP amendment request 1-84 indicates that only the housing element is to be deleted (see exhibit G) . A recent copy of the City' s Land Use Plan, including amendments through February 1990 include the section in question, 9.4.3, #2. It is unreasonable to believe that all reference to housing could be deleted from an LUP. Because housing does exist in the Huntington Beach portion of the coastal zone, reference to housing would have to occur in the Land Use Plan. Because the City's submittal package for the amendment request (see exhibit G) only called out the specific housing component (not all reference to housing in the document), and because only the specific housing component was visibly deleted as a result of the approval of the amendment, it appears that the applicant's argument is not valid. Section 9.4.3 is contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan section of the LUP, The Coastal Land Use Plan section provides the text to describe the land use designations of the Land Use Plan map. Section 9.4.3, #2 incorporates the affordable housing requirement imposed on Coastal Development Permit A--349 -79 for the Seacliff IV development. That permit allowed the development of 531 residential units on 115 acres, known as Seacliff IV. The Seacliff IV site is located at the southeast corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street (kitty-corner from the subject site) . The Seacliff IV project was required to provide 106 units of affordable housing. The required affordable housing was allowed to be located off the Seacliff IV site and on the Surfcrest North (the current project) and Surfcrest South site. The Surfcrest South site is located directly across Seapoint Street (to the south) from the subject site. The proposed project would provide affordable housing at a rate of 20% of the total units (50 units), consistent with the City' s Housing Element. However, none of the 106 affordable housing units required as a result of the Seacliff. IV project, and incorporated specifically into the City's certified Land Use Plan are provided. The affordable housing requirement placed on the off-site location (site of the current proposal) pursuant to CDP No. A-349-79 was expressly incorporated into the the City' s certified Land Use Plan and was also used as the basis for determining the density on the subject site. Consequently, any project proposed at the site which does not provide affordable housing consistent with Section 9.4. 3 of the City's certified LCP cannot claim the density set forth in that section to accommodate such affordable housing. An amendment to the LCP must first be approved by the Commission which defines the density when affordable housing is not provided. A-5-HNB-92•-3 40 Page 16 The Commission staff recognize that in the course of the permitting process the applicants have made substantial modifications to the original design of the project. It has been reduced from 284 units to 252, the building bulk was reduced by the step-back design of the upper story, the width of the view corridor has been increased, and the building setbacks from the edge of the proposed park boundary have been increased by 10 to 15 feet. The site can support an approvable project. The recommendation of denial does not stem from inappropriateness of any project at the site, but from the lack of conformance with the requirements of Section 9.4. 3 of the certified Land Use Plan. An amendment to the Land Use Plan addressing appropriate density at the site would have to be submitted and approved by the Coastal Commission before any project could be considered at the site without the 106 affordable housing units. The densities allowed on surrounding parcels are less than what currently exists on the site. To the east and north of the subject site the land is designated Open Space Recreational. This is the site of the proposed County regional park. To the south of the site the land is designated High Density Residential . This parcel is known as Surfcrest South and together with the subject site makes up the site designated to accomodate the Seacliff IV affordable housing requirement. To the southeast of the project site is the site of the Seacliff IV development, which is designated Medium Density Residential. Seacliff IV is surrounded by a Low Density Residential designation. Considering the densities of the surrounding areas, it is reasonable to expect: a lesser density at the subject site, if the affordable housing is not provided. However, the issue of appropriate density at the subject site would be analysed and addressed in the form of a Land Use Plan amendment. As discussed .earlier in this report, Section 30604(b) of the Coastal Act requires all permits issued by the local government or the commission on appeal must find that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program. Such a .finding cannot be made for the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed high density residential project must be denied. 6327E STATT Or CAUMINIA—THE RISOURM AG&Cf Pere WILSON, oe.ww� CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST ARM 245 W. LUMMAr, SM 7B0 I.O. Box 11A LONG VACK CA 908026M11 Date: 9-14-92 Commission Appeal # AS-HNB-92-340 COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL TO: City of Huntington Beach FROM: California Coastal Commission Please be advised that the local coastal development permit decision described below has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30602 or 30625. Therefore, the decision has - been'stayed *oending Commission action on the appeal. P.R.C. Section 30M. Local Permit # COP 91-26 ' Name of Applicant Surfcrest Partners Project Description, Location North of Seapoint Street and Southwest of East line of Palm Ave. : 252 Condominium units on 9.8 acres. Local Decision: Approved with special conditions Name of Appellant Amigos de Bolsa Chica b Grace H. Winchell. Mayor Pro Tempore Date Appeal Filed September 14, 1992 The Commission Appeal # assigned to this appeal is AS-HNB 92-340 The Commission hearing date--substantial issue determination and possible vote--for this appealed item is tentatively set for October 13-16, 1992 . Within 5 working days of receipt of this Commission Notification of Appeal, copies of all relevant documents and materials used in the local jurisdiction consideration of this coastal development permit must be delivered to the South Coast ' Area Office of the Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112). Please include -copies of the following: plans; relevant photographs; staff reports and related documents; findings, if not already forwarded;- all correspondence; and a list, with addresses, of all who provided verbal testimony. A Commission staff report and notice of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the Area Office noted above. cc: Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Surfcrest Partners 6 Grace H. Winchell, Mayor Pro Tempore 6086E MYtlm APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form. SECTION I. Appellant(s) Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s) : Amigos de Bolsa Chica P. O. Box 3748 Muntinaton Beach CA 92605 (714 ) 897-7003 Zip Area Code Phone No. SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed 1 . Name of local/port government:_ City of HuntinOton Beach 2. Brief description of development being appealed: 252 condominium units on 9.8 acres I 3. Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no. , cross street, etc.) : A P N 023-181-14 North of Seaooint Street (extended) and Southwest of East line of Palm Avenue f extended 4. Description of decision being appealed: a. Approval; no special conditions: b. Approval with special conditions: X C. Denial : Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable. TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: a APPEAL NO: ftu '9� 3 �r/ S— /��J q'Z—�7 DATE FILED• Rzcz � v D C DISTRICT: �. �n�,f SEP 1 4. 1992 CALIFORNIA H5: 4/88 COASTAL COMmISSIOr. 4ppe4 SOUTH '^'SST DISTRICT 1N 13 - 9z,_ 3g6) x APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 2) '. 5. Decision being appealed was made by (check one) : a. Planning Director/Zoning C. _Planning Commission Administrator b. y City Council of d. _Other Super v iis-ews-- 6. Date of local government's decision: August 17, 1992 7. Local government's file number (if any) : Conditional Use Permit 91-45 with special permits. Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised) Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, Negative Declaration 91-33 SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as necessary.) a. Name and mailing address of permit applicant: Surfcrest Partners ;70 Broadway_ Suite 100 Santa Mnnira_ CA 90401 b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s) . Include other parties which you know to be interested and should- receive notice of this appeal. r (1 ) David Sullivan 4162 Windsor Drive Htintingtnn RAarh rA Q7F14Q (2) Marcus Porte 19561 Topeka Lane Huntington Beach. CA 92646 (3) Victor Leipzig, PH.D. 17467 Skyline Lane Huntington Beach. CA 92647 (4) Shirley Dettloff 6812 Laurelhurst Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR ADDITIONAL NAMES SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal Note: Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page. EJ(lufJ� z APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3) State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master (� Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the. decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.) SEE ATTACHED APPEAL Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal ; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal , may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request. SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. r� Amigos de Bolsa Chica President: Sign ure of Appellant(s) or Authorized Agent Date SgptPmher iu_ i9g2 NOTE: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below. Section VI. Agent Authorization I/We hereby authorize to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal . r Signature of Appellant(s) Date APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Niease Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form. SECTION 1. Appellant(s) Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s) : rr �7 r'Q ���� VJ ► n ���. �1 , f'na.,�o r PraT2w� �o,�TC�� GT � �.. li - Zip Area Code Phone No. SECTION II . Decision Being Appealed 1 . Name of local/port government: 2. Brief description of development being appealed: 3. Development-Is location (street address, assessor's parcel no. , cross street, etc.) : 4. Description of decision being appealed: a. Approval; no special conditions: b. Approval with special conditions: C. Denial : Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable. TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION: APPEAL NO: DATE FILED• DISTRICT: HS: 4/88 APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3) State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.) Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal ; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal , may submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request. SECTION V. Certification The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge. . 'Y 1 Signature of Appellant(s) or Au razed Agent 1 NOTE: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below. Section VI. Agent Authorization I/We hereby authorize to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal . Signature of Appellant(s) Date ADDITIONAL TESTIFIERS: (5) Robert G. Fisher, Director Harbors, Beaches and Parks P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana,' CA 92702-4048 (6) Supervisor Harriett Wieder 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 (7) Ralph Bauer 16511 Cotuit Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (8) Gerry Chapman 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (9) John Rohring 19241 Seabrook Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (10) Jay Krietz 19781 Island Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (11 ) Dominick Tomaino 6812 Scenic Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Permit 91-26/Negative Declaration 91-33 Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised) will obstruct views of the coast, bluff top, Bolsa Chica Wetlands; will obstruct physical access to the view areas, bluff top and trails; will not be compatible with the physical scale of development of adjacent areas (26 units per acre to approximately 11 -14 units per acre); and will not be in conformity to Section 9.4.3 (Bluffs to Goldenwest Street) Land Use Designation - Item 2 on page 117 of Coastal Element— LCP Certified March 1985 (Amended through February, 1990) - City of Huntington Beach. This development adjoins the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park which will be a passive park and will serve as a buffer and upland habitat area for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. A. Obstruction of Views 1. From public streets (Seapoint Street - Scenic Route) For approximately 780 feet in front of Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised) the view of the bluff top, coast and Bolsa Chica Wetlands will be obstructed because the residential structures ranging to a height of 35 feet (measured at Seapoint Street) are positioned so that no direct views are available, and it is surrounded by security fences (the project is a private-gated development). Even the view corridor at the intersection of Palm and Seapoint will have obstructed views because of the security fence, guard house and gates at the main entrance, and the pool and club house structures. In fact, a view obstruction will exist from the intersection of the extension of Seapoint Street and inland side line Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the eastern edge of Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised), a distance of almost 1100 feet because the properties are adjacent to PCH and will require some type of screening and security fencing to be installed. These properties are presently involved in oil production and will continue to be screened for at least 30 years. 2. From adjoining developments Since the height of the proposed development, 35 feet, is similar to the height of other neighboring developments and the ground is generally flat, views from the proposed Surfcrest (South) development south of Seapoint Street will be severely limited. Views from the developments south along Palm will also be severely limited by the proposed development. Views from developments along Seapoint will experience varying degrees of view obstruction depending upon their position along Seapoint. . 3. From the Bolsa Chica Regional Park From the trails within the Bolsa Chica Regional Park this development will appear as one continuous wall of residential development extending over 800 feet. Although the revised tentative tract provides a greater setback of residential units from the park boundary, 20 to 26 feet and 55 feet at its most western edge and a wider view corridor at Palm, the appearance from the park - E)01� _ . will be a wall of development because there are no direct view corridors for that part of the development west of Palm. 4. From Pacific Coast Highway (Scenic Highway) in the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. The existing Seacliff development already has a significant impact on those traveling south along PCH into Huntington Beach. The impact of this new development will be significantly more prominent because its northern edge is at least 450 feet closer to Bolsa Chica than existing residences, it is closer to PCH, and it is generally 35 feet in height. This project will become the most dominating view one sees as they enter the city along the coast and from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands looking south. B. Obstruction of Physical Access Tentative Tract 14135 is a private-gated residential community and affords no access to the bluff area through the development. As in the case for obstruction of views, this obstruction of access will be extended approximately 1100 feet from PCH to the eastern edge of this development. All of this land is owned by parties affiliated with the project's applicant either through corporate ownership or a prolonged business relationship. Although the Bolsa Chica Regional Park is proposed to extend out to Seapoint at PCH to the west of this development, that extension is through an oil production area and will probably not be available for at least 30 years. The small area of land required to link the Bolsa Chica Regional Park and its trail system to Seapoint Street at PCH is not being dedicated along with the extension of Seapoint Street across lands of the affiliated party. The City of Huntington Beach's proposal to eliminate on-street parking along Seapoint Street because it will become a major arterial road will mean that the traveling public will only be able to park and access the Bolsa Chica Regional Park from a pocket parking area to the east of this development. Likewise, trail access will be east of this development because there is no public access through the development. When on September 16, 1981, the California- Coastal Commission allowed the interior streets of Seacliff IV to be changed from public to private, it did it with the understanding "that improvement and dedication of the public streets of 38th (Seapoint) and Palm will add 211 parking spaces to the inventory of available spaces" for beach and linear park access. The Commission further stated "that elimination of on- street parking or limitation of that parking to give priority to local residents would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act." On August 19, 1983, the Commission gave notice of an amendment to the coastal development permit which would reduce the width of portions of Palm by 16 feet through the elimination of parking. Parking would, however, remain near 38th to provide parking for the public park. C. lncomQatibility with the Physical Scale of Adjacent Areas The applicant has an additional proposed development which has been approved by the City of Huntington Beach of approximately 15 units per acre. Compare this to Surfcrest North's 2 � : revised density of 26 units per acre. Residences within the existing Seacliff developments are at even lower densities. There seems to be a reverse planning logic operating here that puts the most dense development immediately adjacent to the passive, natural habitat area of the regional park. In large part this incompatibility is an out-growth of the California Coastal Commission's decision in 1980 in connection with Seacliff IV. The approval for Seacliff IV included a requirement for 20% low income housing. At that time, 106 units were required because Seacliff IV was planned to have 531 units. Instead of meeting this requirement with the proposed developments, the Commission permitted the transfer of this requirement to an adjacent 8.9 ± acre parcel (included in the Tentative Tract 14135 area) which is part of a 22 acre parcel. Development on the 22 acre parcel would be limited to a maximum of 450 units and would also carry a 20% affordable housing requirement. The affordable housing requirement was for up to 196 units: 106 20% of Seacliff IV's 531 units 90 20% of adjacent properties' 450 maximum units 196 maximum units required for affordable housing. Although "Section 7 Paragraph a" makes reference to 196 units, "Paragraph e" requires a land dedication to allow 212 units of affordable housing in the event the townhouse project is not undertaken. The affordable housing requirement also indicated that 2.5% of the units are to be priced for persons earning less that 50% of the median income and likewise for 60% through 120% of the median income. On May 4, 1981, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2482 (Zone Case No. 80-6) changed the zoning for the Surfcrest (North) property from R3-0 (medium high density, residential) to R4-0 (high density, residential) and a portion of the Surfcrest (South) property from C1-0 to R4-0. As stated in the staff report dated March 27, 1981, "Zone Change No 80-6 is an outgrowth of the Seacliff IV Project." The report went on to further to discuss affordable housing requirements' impacts imposed by the California Coastal Commission. Testimony given before the Planning Commission also linked the necessity for this zone change to California Coastal Commission imposed conditions. On May 19, 1981, the California Coastal Commission amended the Coastal Development Permit to allow the land dedicated to affordable housing to be transferred from the property included in Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised)--Surfcrest (North)--to land presently included in Surfcrest (South). On February 7, 1983, Ordinance No. 2609 (Zone Case No 82-20) was adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council to allow the Surfcrest (North) property to change from R4-0 to R4-29-0 with a maximum of 29 units per acre and the Surfcrest (South) property to change from R4-0 to R3-17-0 with a maximum of 17 units per acre. On June 12, 1985, the 3 E_,Y Commission approved an amendment to the Coastal Development Permit to change product type and to increase the number of units in Seacliff IV up to 769. Section 9.4.3, Item 2 under Land, Use Designations of the Coastal Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, August, 1980, states that 20% of the maximum 981 units to be build at Seacliff IV and on the Surfcrest properties or 196 units were to be met on the Surfcrest properties and the area had been redesignated high density residential. Reference to this section of the Coastal Element was included in staff reports for the Planning Commission and City Council, except for meeting of August 17, 1992. On August 17, 1992, the City Council approved the alternate development plan of 252 units (instead of 284) and included a 20% affordable housing requirement for 50 units for households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels. Although their June 1 action was to direct the applicant to reduce the project density to the surrounding area and they were requested to return the zoning to R3-0 because the project did not include the number of affordable housing units (up to 196 units) which were 'the reason for the original zone change from R3-0 to R4-0 and the zone change to R4-29-0, the City Council voted 5-2 to approve the alternate project. Members of the Council expressed concerns about possible legal action or whether a taking would be at issue if the zoning were reduced. Regardless of whether you use the up to a maximum of 196 units of affordable housing or a higher figure derived as a result of the Coastal Commission's approval in June of 1985 of a revised unit total of 769 (154 units of affordable housing rather than 106 units), none of the units anticipated to be transferred to this property from Seacliff IV are being met on site. The only affordable housing units being met on site are as a result of the 252 units to be built on site (50 units). Also the range of income levels is considerably more moderate now, 80- 120% rather than that imposed by the Commission's 50-120%. However, these affordable housing units requirements have been met or changed, Tentative Tract 14135 should not be permitted to be developed at R4-29-0 when at least 75% of the affordable housing justification for that zone change do not apply to the project approved. There is every justification to accept a reduction in zoning now as the owner sought such an up-zoning when the conditions were much more. D. Inconsistent with Section 9.4.3 (Bluffs to Goldenwest Street) Land Use Designation - Item No. 2 on gage 117 of the Coastal Element, Huntington Beach General Plan. As stated above, the affordable housing requirements envisioned for this property and Surfcrest (South) are not being met on site and no general plan amendment has been processed. As also stated above the reasons for the redesignated zoning are not being met on site. Therefore, any general plan amendment should return this property to R3 or one compatible with adjacent properties. �� N6 aI • 3c/a 4 �x -� L 4 f� ; E. Alternatives Most of the problems concerning views and access are a result of the up-graded zoning and the fact that the project is a private-gated community. Some alternatives that may reduce these impacts on our rare and valuable coasta; area are: 1. Reduce the zoning, the density, the building height, and change building configuration. 2. Provide a public street around all or a portion of the project. Such an exterior public street would provide view and access opportunities from either on-street parking or pocket parking areas. Since this street would not be a major arterial road it would be safer for visitors to the area who want to enjoy the view or access the Bolsa Chica Regional Park's trail system. Such a road would also provide greater safety to users of the park because police patrols could see the park area previously screened from view by the Surfcrest (North) development. There would be improved safety to owners or renters of units in Surfcrest (North) because they would enter the development from a minor residential street not a major artery. The depth of the access entrance up to the guard house on the present project could present back-up problems at a major intersection. Such an exterior road would also provide for additional setback of new development from the Bolsa Chica Regional Park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Such an exterior street would also provide greater setback from the heliport. The addition of a public exterior street could permit the project to remain a private-gated community without many of the other drawbacks as previously stated. 3. And, of course, the most desirable alternative would be to use the remainder of the $1.5 million from Prop. 70 together with any other moneys required to purchase the entire property for inclusion into the Bolsa Chica Regional Park for all of the residents and visitors to enjoy into perpetuity. F. Summary The views from the proposed Linear Park (Bolsa Chica Regional Park), only the second regional park proposed for the urban 2nd Supervisorial District of Northwest Orange County, are extraordinary. Also the habitat values of this proposed park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands are exceptional. There will be a number of developments which will be proposed next to both the Bolsa Chica Regional Park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and we must establish a precedent that these developments are to respect this proximity and the biodiversity needs of the area. Although it is unclear why a developer was offered significantly higher density for diverting affordable housing away from its prime development, it is clear that those reasons no longer apply. A benefit was bestowed upon a developer that is no longer necessary or justified. 5 It is also unclear why high density was placed so close to environmentally important and scenic view property, it is clear that the prime justifications are not being met on site. The project should be redone and the zoning reduced to medium density in conformity with the surrounding area. The project should permit more public benefits to occur not obstruct them. BAKER & MPIKENM Q,spr� PAane ATTORNEYS AT LAW AiN AND missa[[An AAor SWM AmCMA ArsTsso.r sAro�Os TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER 80""A AALOA,.TO WPj�OW ss►urs suc"Os AInn me*DC JAN 100 99MUN TWENTY-FOURTH FLOOR wAC" SAN OICOO slluSo" wpq■OHO a1CJ10O SAN n*,N04= suo.rssT wwaA SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA 94111.39909 oALLAs SAOMULO MA UM MAA s TELEPHONE(415)576.3000 LOS&AGCL s +Toso"To GCMCVA LONDONs. CABLE ABOGADO•TELEX 278588 rueCcrTT 0uM Q.D.C. r Tiplir0 FACSIMILE(415)576.3089 "sw o ■Osmw AAsls laa POSTAL OR MAILING ADDRESS STOM"06" P.O. BOX 7288 BUNCH SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA 94120 September- 25, 1992 ' p L5 0 nn, L'l C VIA FACSIMILE EP 2 u 1992 Ms. Theresa Henry CALIFORNIA Ms. *deg Vaughn COASTAL COMMISSIOt` Ms. Ann Cheddar California Coastal Commission SOUTH " I ST DISTR9C 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90802-4416 Re: Response to Appeal of the Surfcrest North Project (A-5-HNB-92-340) City of Huntinaton Beach Dear Theresa, Meg, and Ann: We appreciated the opportunity to meet with all of you on Wednesday to discuss the appeal of the Surfcrest Partnership project. It was a very informative and productive meeting. As indicated in our discussions, we do not believe that the appellants have any valid reasons for this appeal. . Based on Coastal Commission Appeal jurisdiction maps, the grounds for appealing Surfcrest North are limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the certified Local Coastal Program ("LCP") . In this instance, the City Approved the applicant's revised Surfcrest North project in full compliance with its certified LCP. In addition, it is important to emphasize that the applicant's revised project reflects the input of the concerned public when the public's concerns did not involve a question of meeting LCP requirements. (See Attachment I. ) Based on a review of the appeal application, we are enclosing our detailed responses to the appellants' contentions. 5028192.YP 1 r' BALER & WKEmiz Ms. Theresa Henry Ms. Meg Vaughn Ms. Ann Cheddar California Coastal Commission, Long Beach September 25, 1992 Page 2 (See Attachment II. ) As our outline indicates, the project approval by the City conforms to the certified LCP. There is no factual basis for the Commission staff to recommend substantial issue on this appeal. Again, we appreciated the oppo unity to meet with everyone. If you have any additional concerns,. questions, or information needs, please call Tom Zanic at (3 394-3379. Si rely, /Os eph E. Petrillo JEP:cvm attachments 5ote19t.w 300 EX1�; f C� ATTACffi = I SURFCREST NORTH PROJECT CONSMTENCY ITEM * ALLOjW PROVIDED - • PRcwnxo- + * P.C. O t M619MEbFEAM s s PLAN iifi#•iiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiitiiititiiiititittiiititiiiiiiit+iff;iiHiii#i#•ii UN[TS + 284 * 234 • 232 s ! # DENSITY # 29 UNITSIAC # 29 UNITS/AC * 23.7 UNITS/AC UNIT SIZE # 630-19100'SF MIN + 7Yj-1,60o SF • E00-1,60o SF # ♦f # ! # MAX BLDG. HT. + 33 FEET • 33 FEET • 33 FEET SETBACK FROM • # # PARK • 10 FEET ! 10 FEET+ * 20 FEET + BLDG. COVERAGE • 30 % # 41 % * 33 % # ! # OPEN SPACE + 400 SF/UN1T * 400 SF/UNIT * 300 SFIUNrT REC AREA + 109000 SF MAIN + 12,000 SF MAIN ! 18400 SF MAIN * + 6,000 SF SECONDARY + 2400 SF SECONDARY # # # REC BLDG. + 11982 SF • 2,000 SF • 2,000 SF. PARKING • COOE REQ. ' MEETS REQ. + MEETS REQ. ! PEA UNIT • ! ! i i ! i i •if ti is•i+siss�ssisisiiisiiififliiiiffi�#ii�iiiiiiiiiiltiiif!!i#f fif iff itfi• PRESENTED TO COUNCIL 8/I7/92 - Nib- 9 E7 �, ; .� C �' 3 ATTACHMENT II SURFCREST APPEAL RESPONSE TO APPEAL CONTENTIONS Coastal Act Appeal Provisions Under Public Resources Code Section 30603 (a) , an action taken by local government after LCP certification can be appealed to the Coastal Commission based on the type and location of the development. Based on a review of the Coastal Commission Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction map for Huntington Beach, the project is appealable (S 30603 (a) (2) ) since it is located within 100' from wetlands and within 300' of the top of the Seaward face of the bluff. In this instance, the grounds for the appeal (S 30603 (c) ) are limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the certified LCP. The grounds for appeal under Section 30603 (b) pursuant to paragraph 1 of subdivision (a) are not applicable to this project. Even though many of the appellant's allegations are not applicable to this project, the following responses are outlined to address the appeal contentions: Resiponses to AvReal Contentions The certified LCP provides for the protection and enhancement of visual resources through the regulation of the location and design of new development. The LCP requires preservation of public views to and from bluffs, to shoreline and ocean, and to wetlands; encourages residential clustering; and prohibits developments along the bluffs rising up to Bolsa Chica mesa that alter landform or threatens bluff stability. The project was approved by the City in conformance with the certified LCP visual policies. A. Obstruction of Views 1. From Public Streets (Seapoint Street - Scenic Route) • The project is located adjacent to existing development and is inland of Pacific Coast Highway. It does not therefore impact public views to and along the coast. There are existing 1. 5027%2.WP unobstructed views of the ocean from PCH which will not be impacted by the project. • There are no existing direct views of the coast from Seapoint Street and Palm Avenue. Standing in the center of future Seapoint Street and facing the project, the views of the blufftop and Bolsa Chica area are to the north and away from the ocean. Views toward the ocean are blocked by an existing blockwall on a berm located 400' inland of PCB. • As for the view corridor at the intersection of Palm and Seapoint, the applicant has provided a 90-toot building setback corridor along the eastern side of the project which encompasses the total street width of Palm Avenue. • The property is setback 300+ feet from the top of the existing bluff. This setback area is planned to be maintained as open space .by incorporation into a regional park and accessible to the public. • By extending Seapoint Street to PCH, the project will create a new view corridor to the ocean by opening. up the existing wall. 2. From Adjoining Developments • The present LCP allows 35-toot building heights. Other existing developments in the project vicinity are 35 feet in height. The project is proposed to be 35 feet in height. In -addition, views from private developments are not an LCP issue. Therefore, the appellant's allegation is not a valid basis for appeal. 3. From the Bolsa Chica Regional Park • There are no trails in the proposed park since the "park" area north of the project is still in private ownership and no park development .has occurred to date. • The Certified LCP Coastal Element Section 9.2 provides generally for three stories and also states that: The bulk and siting of structures shall be controlled to protect public access and scenic and 2. s027%2.w P' Ne - 9- ;t - 3qa J visual resources. A number of approaches may be used to achieve this, such as a step approach to building heights, staggered building envelopes, limits on the site coverage and building orientation and use of view corridors. The applicant has conformed to these LCP section provisions And thus minimized bulk and siting impacts by the following: • Building site coverage has been reduced to 35% of the property which is below the allowable City standard of 50% building coverage. • There is now a minimum building setback of 20 feet from the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and in some areas the setback varies from 26 feet to 55 feet. • There are six-foot offsets between each cluster along the rear property line to create a varied view. • The second and third stories have been stepped back along all edges of the project. • The City's open space requirements are 400 square feet per unit. The applicant is providing 500 square feet per unit. • There are six building clusters instead of seven that were originally proposed by the applicant. The building clusters are separated by landscaping. • The design of the project provides strong architectural articulation to make it visually pleasing. 4. From PCH in the Bolsa Chica Lowlands • The project is not impacting views to and along the coast. The project has been approved with elevations and landscape designs that will be visually pleasing. As you travel south on PCH, you must look to the south or right to view the coast and must look away from the ocean to see the project area. From PCH, the inland view towards the project site is blocked by an existing fence, landscaping and a Shell oil tank facility. The northwest corner of the project is over 700 feet 3. 5027%2.w E . from PCH and is separated by fences, slopes, and landscaping. B. Obstruction of Physical Access • The bluff area north of the project site is over 300 feet wide and is privately owned. Even if it were public land, access is possible immediately east of the project site across City-owned parkland and a public street (Seapoint) . Obstruction of physical access offsite will remain between the westerly edge of the project and PCH for approximately 400 feet since this area is still being used for oil and gas production and is not public land. • The City has not proposed to limit parking to "residents only" as asserted. The County has planned adequate offstreet park parking as part of its Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park General Development Plan. The project conforms to all the City's parking requirements within the confines of the property and does not impact any public access parking. • Palm Avenue is designated in the LCP as a primary arterial highway. It is an existing road with four lanes and a parking lane. C. Incompatibility with the Physical Scale of Adjacent Areas • Density of this project is consistent with the certified LCP Land Use Plan/Zoning Designation. Although the site allows a maximum of 29 units/acre, the City approved the applicant's revised project with only 26 units/acre. The Surfcrest North property has been planned and zoned for high density residential development for over 26 years. Further, as described above, the project is compatible with area due to its architectural design, larger setbacks, similar perimeter landscaping, walls, and height. • The City in its approval required affordable housing which is also provided for in the Coastal Element of the General Plan. This requirement did not provide for bonus densities, but merely required that 20% of the allowable units under the LCP designation be affordable. Neither the Coastal Element of the General Plan or Government Code Section 65590 provides for bonus densities. what is required in this case is a 4. 5027%2.YP A5- - 14N 13 - Vk - 3 +1� percentage of the existing allowable density for affordable housing. This is further reinforced by the City's affordable housing condition as follows: An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% . of the 252 housing units (50 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through two (2) housinq types: 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom-den units, shown on the technical site plan dated July 27, 1992, as plans A, B, C and D. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters. The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. • Condition No. 7 of the Seacliff IV project was removed by the Coastal Commission. D. Inconsistent with Section 9.4.3 (Bluffs to Goldenwest Street) Land Use Designation Item No. 2 on Page 117 of the Coastal_ Element. Huntington Beach General Plan. • As stated above, the applicant has met the LCP affordable housing requirements. There is no LCP conformance issue that warrants any change 'to the project or to the property designation. E. Alternatives 1.. As discussed above, the present City-approved project is consistent with the LCP requirements for zoning, density, building height and design criteria. 2. Providing a public street around all or a -portion of the project is not an LCP conformity issue. The certified LCP Coastal Element on page 93 has provided for arterial alignments in the Seacliff Bolsa Chica Area. The project is in conformity with the LCP provisions. It states as follows: _ There is limited circulation in the area inland of Pacific Coast Highway northwest of Goldenwest 5. 5o27M.WP Street on the Huntington Beach Mesa. As part of the Seacliff IV project, limited access into this i area will be provided by the developer. Thirty- eighth Street (Seapoint Avenue) will be built between Garfield Avenue and the resource production zone fronting Pacific Coast Highway. The City's Master Plan of arterials shows Thirty- eighth Street ultimately extending through the resource production area and connecting to Pacific Coast Highway. Palm Avenue will be extended between Goldenwest Street and the new Thirty- eighth Street extension. Further improvements to the circulation in this area will be needed to accommodate future traffic. The City is currently preparing conceptual alignments for extensions of Edwards, Ellis, Garfield and Thirty-eighth Streets. These street extensions, particularly Thirty-eighth Street, will provide needed access to coastal recreation areas, including the beach and the proposed Bolsa Chica linear park. The City's coastal policy supports the extension of the above named streets. In addition, the County has prepared an alignment for Bolsa Chica Street which would improve access onto the Huntington Beach Mesa and the proposed Bolsa Chica linear park. 3. The project site is adjacent to the proposed Park but has never been designated by the City or the County as proposed park area. It has been planned for residential development for years. The certified LCP map has designated this property for high density residential development. F. Summary The Surfcrest North project approved by the City does not impact the proposed Linear Park or the Bolsa Chica wetlands. The design of the project minimizes any visual impacts on the park through clustering, minimal site coverage, setbacks, building offsets, stepped back second and third stories, and open space areas. In addition, the project is located approximately 300-400 feet from any potentially restorable habitat within the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park area between the potential habitat and the project site. This buffer area is much larger than the requirements of the certified LCP. Policy 9b on page 142 of the Land Use Plan requires that "new development contiguous to wetland or environmentally sensitive habitat areas to include 6. s027%2.w buffers which will consist of a minimum of one hundred foot setback from the landward edge of the wetland where possible." The applicant has = been bestowed any special benefits. The project approved by the City conforms to the LCP requirements and land use designation, including the affordable housing provisions. 7. soZ�tt.w 7 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date July 6, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator 1 Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (SURFCREST NORTH) Consistent with Council Policy? Yes ( j New Policy or Exception D a c a R Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, - achments: U �cP 2 u 1992 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: CALIFORNIA COASTAL CO�,+r�11SS( Transmitted for your consideration is staff ' s analysissgkaH Off: recommendation for action on Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 witRIST,g1CT special permits , Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 , request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres . On. June 1 , 1992, the City Council continued action. with direction to the applicant to prepare revisions as outlined on page 2 of this report . RECOMMENDATION• Motion to : "Uphold the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 and deny said applications with findings . " City Council action on June 1. 1992 : "Continue Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 for the purpose of modifying the site plan to have a 20 foot setback from the Linear Park, graduate building heights from the linear park setback, increase the width of the view corridor the full width of Palm Avenue, and reduce the density to be compatible with .the surrounding project densities . AYES: Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, MacAllister NOES: Robitaille, Kelly ABSENT: Green ABSTAIN: None MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED. 5185 {.^ Background City Council ' s action on June 1, 1992, for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits , Tentative Tract Map 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 92-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 was to continue the project with the direction to revise the project as follows : 1. Provide a 20 foot linear park setback along rear property line. 2 . Step back buildings from the 20 foot linear park setback. 3 . Provide the view corridor along the easterly property line the full width of Palm Avenue. 4 . Reduce the project density to the surrounding average. The Council also requested a report pertaining to affordable housing requirements on the site and an explanation of affordable housing options. Discussion• The applicant has indicated in the attached letter that they are seeking a definitive action by the Council on their Surfcrest North Project . Their intent is not to modify the project as required by the City Council . Therefore staff has changed its recommendation to denial . It is staff ' s opinion that reducing project densities , modifying the linear park setback and the building mass and widening the view corridor will result in a substantially modified project from which new development and design considerations may arise . At a minimum, the modified project will necessitate a review by City staff and should, as a normal course of action, be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, Staff ' s recommended action is to deny the nroiect recognizing that the applications as presented to Council have been rejected based on a determination that environmental and aesthetic impacts will result to the coastal bluff linear park and coastal zone view corridor as well as the project being profoundly out of character and incompatible with surrounding development based on building mass, bulk and form, and out of scale with surrounding coastal park resources. Affordable Housing Discussion: As the previous report to the City Council indicated, the affordable housing requirement was placed on the site by the Coastal Commission as a condition of approval of the Seacliff IV residential project . The maximum number of permitted units was increased on both Surfcrest sites to 450 units . These two development requirements , the maximum number of units and the affordable housing requirement were then incorporated into the City' s General Plan Coastal Element as a site specific development policy. RCA 7/6/92 -2- (3708d) Io courses of action are required to reduce the project density and eliminate the affordable housing requirement on site. First, the Coastal and Land Use Elements of the General Plan would need to be revised to reflect the desired density. Second, a zone change would be required to reduce the allowable buildout density to be consistent with the amended General Plan. Staff ' s primary concern with the above courses of action is the loss of affordable housing units within the Coastal Zone, and its impact to the City' s Housing Element affordable housing plan. Although Coastal Act policies no longer require affordable housing, state law requires new construction within the coastal zone to provide affordable housing where feasible or at another location within the same city either within the Coastal Zone or within three miles thereof. Therefore, a general plan amendment which would reduce site densities and remove the affordable housing requirement should include a plan to provide affordable housing off-site equivalent to the number of units lost through the general plan amendment . To avoid a total loss of affordable units , staff recommends that the affordable housing requirement remain on the site regardless of a reduction in site density. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits , Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, and direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment and zone change to reduce site densities and retain the requirement for affordable housing on the subject site. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Revised Findings for Denial 2 . Alternative Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval for CUP 91-45/TT14135 Revised/CDP 91-26/ND 91-33 3 . Area Map 4 . Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5 . Letter from Urban West Communities dated June 24, 1992 regarding June 1, 1992 City Council Action. 6 . June 1, 1992 City Council Report . MTU:MA:GR: lp RCA 7/6/92 -3- (3708d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 1 9 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members re Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator S)EP 2 8 1992 Prepared by: Michael Adams , Director of Community Development AIIFORNIA APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COND; rett�A1ISS1 Subject: PERMIT 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/TENTATIVE TRACT � 135'"'."5T DISTR (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-33 (CONT. FROM JUNE 1, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Consistent with Council Policy? ( ] Yes ( ) New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE This item was continued from the City Council meeting of June 1, 1992, with direction to the applicant to revise the proposed 284 unit condominium project located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint to reflect the following project characteristics : 1 . A minimum 20 feet wide setback along the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park; 2 . Increase the width of the view corridor from Palm Avenue north; and 3 . Reduce project densities to be more environmentally and architecturally compatible with surrounding .properties . The applicant has responded by submitting revised drawings reflecting a 252 unit project. It should be noted that although the applicant has responded, their position remains that the 284 unit project as presented and approved by the Planning Commission conforms to the City' s ordinances and General Plan and therefore, should be approved. RECOMMENDATION• Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised)/ Coastal Development Permit 91-26/Negative Declaration 91-33 by approving the project as revised with 252 units with revised findings and conditions of approval, with Condition l .g. addressing affordable housing revised to read as follows : 1 . The site plans, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 29 , 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout . l .g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 252 housing units (50 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through two (2) housing types : 1 bedroom, and 1 bedroonVden, units, shown on the modified technical site plan dated July 27, 1992 as plans A, B, C, and D. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted revised plans as directed by City Council . The revised plans feature the following project charcteristics : 1. The number of units has decreased from 284 units to 252 units for a density decrease from 29 du/ac to 26 du/ac; 2 . Six building clusters are proposed . rather than seven; 3 . Building site coverage has been reduced from 41% to 35%, a 6% difference (this increases project open space) ; 4 . The main vehicular entrance has been relocated to the Palm Avenue/Seapoint intersection; 5 . The view corridor along the northly side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest has been expanded from approximately 50' to 90 , to include the total street width of Palm Avenue; 6 . There is a minimum building setback of 20 feet in lieu of . the original 1Q feet from the Bolsa Chica Linear Park along the rear property line; 7. There is a six foot offset between each cluster wing along the rear property line to create a varied view from the Bark (this increas s the setback from the linear park to 26 feet for 1/2 of th cluster face) ; 8 . Second and third stories have been stepped back from the first floor elevations to minimize the building bulk along the linear park and Seapoint Avenue. "Step backs" vary along the face of the clusters . Most notable are the third Y.. 4). story setbacks which range from 7. 5 feet to 21 . 5 feet from the first floor balcony edges . pisposition of Special Permits Previously, special permits were required for the following : 1. reduction in building separations between clusters, 2 . reduction in building separations within clusters, 3 . variation in building bulk requirements , 4 . reduction in ground floor private open space, 5 . to exceed the 5% paving restriction for the main recreation areas, 6 . reduction in the access width for the main entrance., 7 . no trash enclosures to the exterior of the buildings . With the revised plans, all of the special permits are no longer required with the exception of special permits 3 and 5 for building bulk and parking of the main recreational area . However, these two remaining special permits are supported by staff . Discussion• Staff has reviewed the revised plans with the assumption that the clusters constitute one building rather than three separate buildings, the first level of residences are above grade and require balconies rather than patios, and that the permanent trash enclosures in the subterranean garages meet the intent of the code. The only special permits remaining are those for building bulk - requirements and to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreational areas. .The plans have been revised to include 2 types of clusters (A and B) . Cluster A has all 3 story elements . Cluster B is also 3 story with 2 story elements at the center of the longest wing of the cluster (facing Seapoint and the linear park) . This does not meet the building bulk requirement that 1/3 of the units be one story less in height. (as a note, the previous plans included 2 story elements at cluster corners) Staff is making a finding that the intent of the building bulk requirement is met through the stepping back of third story elevations . The third story setbacks are greatest at cluster entrances and corners ranging from 15 feet to 21. 5 feet from first floor balcony edges . This emphasizes the two story element and creates building bulk variation. RCA 8/17/92 -3- (4118d) . �j Staff supports exceeding the 5% paving restriction for main recreational areas to allow full use of the pool amenities and recreational buildings. Affordable Housina The applicant has requested that the affordable housing condition be amended not to require two bedroom affordable units (Plan D and Plan E units) . Through revised floor plans, Plan D has become a two bedroom corner unit making it infeasible to include as affordable. Plan E has been deleted from the proposal. The new condition would only offer 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom-den units as affordable. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. "Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 revised, Coastal Development Permit 91-26 and Negative Declaration 91-33 as presented to the Planning Commission for 284 units . " B. "Approve the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 revised, Coastal Development Permit 91-26 and Negative Declaration 91-33 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Findings for Approval and Suggested Conditions of Approval 2. Alternative Findings for Denial 3 . Area Map 4 . Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5. Applicant Narrative dated July 29, 1992, regarding revised project and disposition of special permits . 6. Letter from Urban West Communities dated August 5, 1992 regarding affordable housing condition 7. Public Comment Letters MTU:MA:GR: lp RCA 8/17/92 -4- /AttCAN c . All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid . d . Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development . e. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials . f . The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction . g . An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% " of the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with . an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through three (3) housing types : 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units , shown on the technical site plan dated March 5, 1992 as plans A, B , C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenenat for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer . 6 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : ; . a . Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building code Standards . Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. c. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings ill be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following : 1) Manual Pulls 2) Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection 3) 24 hour supervision 4) Smoke Detectors 5) Annunciation b) Graphic Display 7) Audible Alarms . ti L v ! RESOLUTION NO. 5267 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING COASTAL ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 83-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN ,WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adopting of Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on April 199 1983, and approved for recommendation ti the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider said Coastal Element Amendment No . 83-1 ; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, that Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following change, is hereby adopted: That all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues are removed from the Coastal Element. �w L c� ADL:ps PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day. of May 1983. Mayor / ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ci Attor REVIEWED A APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Development Services 2 . Rea. No. 5267 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE I CITY OF H1JftTINGTON BEACH ) Wei r•yr i, ALICIA M. wENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16t_ h_ day of +MAY , 19- B3_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas , Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Exl� L 3 ; CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ,; P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISION(7141 53Ba241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536.5271 December 9, 1983 REcF_ rvED UEC 141983 Michael Fischer, Executive Director , California Coastal Commission CA Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street , Fourth Floor San Francisco, California 9410S Dear Mr. Fischer: In November of 1982' thet_California Coastal Commission certified the Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan or Coastal Element constitutes the General Plan for that portion of the City which lies within the coastal tone boundary. For the past year, our staff has been working on the ordinances to im- plement the Land Use Plan. These ordinances have now been adopted by. the City Council, and, together with the Land Use Plan will comprise the City's L.C.P. or Local Coastal Program. This letter and its attachments constitute the City's official sub- mittal of its implementing ordinances , which fulfills our Phase III contract under Grant No. LCP 3S4-136. The submittal consists of two parts : 1) the implementing ordinances and 2) re__guests _for ch&DZW to the-Land, Use Plan to keep it in con_fQrma "e with recently adopted General Plan Amen ments and zone chances . The implementing ordinances which will be used to carry out the Land Use Plan are the following: 1 . Downtown Specific Plan 2. Visitor-Serving Commercial District 3. Coastal Conservation District 4 . Water Recreation District S. Shoreline District 6. Coastal Development Permit 7. Coastal Zone Suffix 8. Office-Residential District The City was funded by the Commission to develop an implementing or- dinance for the Office-Residential Land Use Designation. This district was prepared and adopted, but will not be placed on any real property at this time. All of the area designated Office-Residential on the Land Use Plan lies within the boundaries of the Downtdwn Specific Plan and will be implemented in that way. The district may, however, be • /ProranciscO , Fischer, Lxeeuti,ve Director California 1 ember 9% 1983 go Two i / /utilized' ih the future, so we have included it in our submittal for Coastal Commission approval. The second part of our submittal is composed of the following requests for amendments to the Land Use Plan: 1. A change in land use designation on S .7 acres located north -of Warner Avenue between Sceptre and Edgewater Lanes from recreation- open space to mixed development subject to conditions . This land use change was part of Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 to the City's General Plan. The mixed development designation will be implemented by a specific plan. 2. Removal of the sections of the Coastal Element text addressing housing pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30500.1. These changes were the result of Coastal Element Amendment 83-1. 3. Redesignation of 1.6+ acres located at the southeast corner of Ban- ning Avenue and Magnolia Street immediately north of the Orange County Flood Control Channel from Industrial Resource Production to Open Space. This land use change was part of Land Use Element Amendment No. 83-3. 4. Changes in the land use designations of three areas within the Downtown Specific Plan as discussed in City Council Resolution No. 5329. The City is requesting that the Commission certify these changes subject to the City processing a Coastal Element Amendment to effect the changes in the Land Use Plan. Coastal Element Amendment 83-2, which would accomplish the changes , has been approved by the Planning Commission and will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on January 3, 1984 . Included with this submittal are the adopted resolutions pertaining to the above changes , pertinent staff reports, and the minutes of the public hearings which took place before the City Council. Any relevant environmental documents are also included, as are written comments received. If your staff needs any additional information, please contact Jeanine Frank at (714) 536-5271. I look forward_to continuing the fine work- ing relationship our staffs have enjoyed in the past. Sincerely, r James W. Palin, D rector Department of Development Services JWP:JAF:sar cc: Tom A. Crandall, District Director, South Coast District 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5267 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING COASTAL ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 83-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN .WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping With changing community reeds and objectives; and A public hearing on adopting of Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1983, and approved for recommendation to the City Council; and Thereafter, the City Council after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider said Coastal Element Amendment No . 83-1 ; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, that Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following change, is hereby adopted: That all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues are removed from the Coastal Element. w ADL:ps 5/9/83 1 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May 1983. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ci Attor REVIEWED A APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator irector of Development Services 2. ,J f J Jt ✓ V ! / +, I Res. No. 5223 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1 = . 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February 19 83 by- the following vote: AYES: Councilman: Pattinson, MacAllister, Mandic. Finley. Bailey, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. Attest 19 T- MJCU . WENTWORTH Citj Clerk and Ex-officio Clark of the City Council of the Clty of Huntington Beach, Ca By 1 � Deputy oao©®®® Im CJCJ ap per® - J o . o a D EFINMONS FFLUENT: althy. AFF DABLE HOUSING: Housin for which the monthly mortgage or Pont payments do not exceed 23 percent of the ho @hold Income tow Income familtts and 10 percent of moderate income famatts. BUILD-Oil Compttte ds lopment or an crea to the maximum densities allowed under the general COMMUNITY D ELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT: Federal program ministered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban @velopment that provides funds to c: es and companies far improving housing conditions, elimina g slum and blight, and tmproving econo c opportunity for low and moderate income households. CONSTRAINTS: Restriction: environment physical,economic and legal factors which It t land uses or aetivUles. DETERIORATE: To lower to quality or value:do elate. "FAIR SHARE" ADJUSTMENT: A Ctty's additional housing reap blltty for regional housin market needs w develdlmd by the regional council of gov@rnm@nts. .it based an the City's p xtmity to jobs, its ability to provide public services and facilities, the Pet tonnship of the local ncome distribution to regional income distribution, and expected community LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Households in which earnings or@ less than 80 cent the areawide median income. MEDIAN INCOME: Income level at which there is an equal number households having tneomts of higher and lower values. MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: Households in which earnings are 80 to 120 accent of th eawide median income. REHABILITATE: To restart or put back in good eondit SLAG: Southern California Amoeiati of Governments; the council o rnments established by local govomments In Los Angeles, ange, Ventura, San Bernardino, R side and Imperial Counties to facilitate regional planning f w area. "SECTION 8 NEW CONST CTION PROGRAM': Federal program odmtn trod by the Department of Housing and Urban ewlopm@nt that provides eawtrvettot and Ian term financing for elderly or family housing acts and also provides tang-terns subsidy gu anttts for these projects. SUBSIDIES A grant or gift f money or other assistance by a government to a private per company to aid on tnterprtat dered of benefit to the public. SUBSTAN RD. Not our tly meeting adopted toning or building codes. TEN V L. The ght or manner of holding land and housing,Including renting,owning and Joint tenancy. i COA ACT POLICY 30213. Housing tunities for persons of tow moderate Income shall be protected, en aged, and where tea ' e, provided . . . New housing in the coastal zone 11 be deveI d in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals o c ousing elements adopted in accordance with the requirements o vision (c) of Section 6S302 of the Government Code. � f 8. Housing 8.1 BACKGROUND Housing in the coastal zone of H nt gton Beach includes some of the newest and most expensive homes in th City well as areas of very old, deteriorated and substandard housing. in ny areas, small summer homes, a legacy of the City's early heyday as a each resor adjoin modern apartment units. Similarly, the coastal popu Lion ranges fro affluent families to young, single apartment dwellers pref ring a beach orien Lion, to senior citizens on fixed incomes in older dwel ' gs or mobile home Some neighborhoods are very homogenous; other h e several different co-ex, ing uses. In January, 19791 here were 7,274 dwelling unit in the coastal zone. This represents 11.68 ercent of the total housing stock 'n the City. The mix of housing types similar in the coastal zone to that of the whole City (See Figure 8.1), w' h about half the dwelling units being sin family and the other half apartm ts, condominiums and mobile homes. There a approximately 16,168 persons residing in the oastal zone, an averag of 2.2 per household. This is below the City-wide verage of 2.81 pens s per household. The median household income in the astal zone in 197 was $22,321, nearly identical to the City median of S22, 87 and well a ve the County median of $19,500. These averages mask a large variation in edian household income among different areas of the coastal one (See 1 The figures cited in this section are taken from a special censti. conducted in Huntinqton Beach in 1979. Figure 8.4.) For example, median yearly income in the census tracts with' the Downtown area ranged from only $8,100 to $15,600. In the newer nd more affluent Huntington Harbour area, median income ranged from $2 .000 to over $64,000. Median rents or mortgage payments also vary by area, nging from a low of $124 per month in a Downtown census tract more th n $700 per month in parts of Huntington Harbour. Appr imately 1,888 persons aged 65 or over reside in the c stal zone, repres ting 11.4 percent of the total coastal population. Thi is a higher content tion of elderly than in the City as a whole, where t percentage is 8.2 perce Although mo Ile homes represent only 12 percent of the tal housing in the coastal zone, is 947 units comprise almost a third (29% of the total mobile homes in the C y. In the coastal zone these areas are oncentrated between Lake and Newlan streets north of Pacific Coast High ey. This area has the highest proportion f elderly residents in the City (51 and a very low median Income. The month median mortgage payment i also very low, indicating that mobile homes e a significant source of ow and moderate income housing. f The vacancy rate is gene Ily higher in the astal zone than the City as a whole. This is primarily d to higher vac ncy rates in the Downtown and Oldtown areas which may be tributable t a combination of new construction awaiting sale, rental turnovers d deterior tion of older units. Housing supply in the coastal zone is d' ectly linked to the total housing supply of the City. An 4ppraisal of tren in type of housing tenancy since 1970 reveals an increase in the percenta f renter-occupied units from 29 percent to 43 percent and a corresponding d.cre. a in owner-occupied units. In the older areas of the City's oastal zo a many units have .problems of aqP, deterioration and substandard conditions. The Community Analysis Report conducted by the City's De p rtment of Hou ng and Community Development in June 1977, identified 1.8 substandard units 'n the City by housing type and degree of deterioration. Of these, 1,260 uni were concentrated in the Downtown and Oldtown a eas, both of which lie pa ly within the coastal zone. 8.2 ANALYSIS Projected populate for the City by the year 2000 is petted to be 210,600 persons, with t . number of dwellinq units estimated t 90,700 (Southern California Asso cation of Government's SLAG '78 Growl Forecast Policy). This reflects a 5 percent increase in population, but a 50 p rcent increase in the number o dwelling units and implies an intensification of he recent trend to smaller useholds. The coastal land use plan reflects the need for additional using units by designatinq sufficient acreage In the coastal zone for low, ediurn and high density residential development. The astal Act requires that housinq opportunities for persons of ow and mod ate income be protected, encouraged and where feasible p vided. A ssment of housing need by income level consists largely of determine the n ber of households who are presently occupying unaffordable housing, lus he number of such additional households the area might ressonahl/inq petted to accommodate. SCAG makes estimates of the number of t i me households in need of housing assistance in its Re ion21 Ho All stion Model, updated in December 1978. SLAG also estimates "fair share adjustment for each city based on regional relationships in incnmP distribt ion, the city's prnximity tn jobs, its Ability to prnvirlis piihli sprviriss and fac i des. and expected community growth. According t SCAG there are presently 7.575 low income househ ds in need of assistance i Huntington Beach. SCAG identifies an a ditional 1,931 hmischolds to a included as the City's fair sharp, allocatio . fog a total of 9,527 low incom households needing assistance citywide. The Federal Depar ment of Housing and Urban Develo ment (HUO) defines lower income househ Ids as those earning less than 80 rcent of the areawide median income and m derate income households as ose naming 80 to 120 percent of the areswi median income, both ad'fisted for household size. HUD has established 519, 00 as the median into a for a family of four in Orange County in 1978. A ord ing to estimates m the 1979 Special Census. 21.5 percent of all househal in the coastal t have low incomes and 12.2 percent have moderate income (See Figure 8 .) . The State Department of Hmisi and Co munity Development has defined affordable housing as having mont y mor gage or rent payments which do not exceed 25 percent of the househo ome in the case of lower income households. In the case of moderat- income households, the City's Housinq Element considers that 30 percent of shoold income can be spent on housinq that is affordable. The number of households in th coastal z e overpaying for shelter has been estimated based on responses to questions "n the 1979 Special Census of Huntington Beach. it should a noted that t "no response rate" on these questions was quite high. A tual numbers presen ad are adjusted to include an appropriate proportion of ose not responding. A ong low income households. 1,140 are overpaying (78 renters and 321 owners% ile 264 moderate income households are overpay' g (119 renters and 145 own rs), for a total of 1,368 households overpaying n the coastal zone. (See Figure 3.) Constraints on th production of new housing within t e coastal zone are similar to those ithin the entire City. These include the igh costs of land. construction a financing, governmental constraints and the scarc itv of available site These are discussed fully In the Housing lement of the Huntington ach General Plan, adopted in November 1979. As menti ad previously, the Coastal Act declares existing low a moderate income ousinq to be a coastal resource that should be protected, reserved and if easible, expanded. Yet much of the present affordable housi in the coa I zone is deteriorated and needs rehabilitation. As these un s are rec led, the- tendency will be to replace them with higher cost housin . To of set any reduction in low and moderate income housing, the City's cos tal licy requires the inclusion of low and moderate cost housing in n residential projects of 10 units or more that are not rental units. This reflect r, 1• 1 � oastal Commission interpretation of the housing requirements of the Coast I t. The City may wish to consider in lieu fees for small projects or o er m hods of implementing Coastal Act requirements while reflecting ocal can ms. Two p grams currently address the housing needs of persons with low and moderat incomes in the coastal zone. These include the following: 1. Secti 8 assistance to households occupying existing rent units. This p rag ra is presently utilized by approximately 30 low Inc a households residing ithin the coastal zone. 2. Participati in the Orange County Fair Housing Cou it Program which includes: . housing discrimination response, b) landlord-tenant counseling, c low income housing advocacy d) publication of the semi-yearly .1 rum Newsletter" and e) corn nity awareness and education act ivi • s. In 1978, 1,018 individuals residing in Huntington Beach were assists by the Fair Housing Council The following new program will also address housin needs: 1. A mixed-use developme in the Downtow area on the old Civic renter site, which will feature 1 studio, one- two-hedroom units for senior citizens. The project is b ing finance through the California Housinq Finance Agency's Section 8 w Con ruction Program which offers tow Interest mortgage financing. One ndred percent of the project will have rent subsidies. The City wil also fund construction of a U3,000 square foot senior recreation activity center and is considering rehabilitiation of an existing hborhood library on the site. The project is scheduled for comple ' i June 1992. 2. The provision of 75 low and mo rate income apartments in a condominium project curre tly under c nstruction by W and B Builders located west of Beach B levard and so th of Atlanta Avenue. These units are for household utilizing Section New Construction subsidies and were required by th Coastal Commission s a permit condition. 3. The provision of low and moderate i ome apartments in a condominium pro] currently under construct by Homes by Ayres located west of ach Boulevard north of Atlant Avenue. These units are for househol s utilizing Section 8 subsidies and re required by the Coastal Comm sion. 4. The provIsI of 196 low and moderate income units I the Seacliff IV project on Huntington Beach Mesa. These units were quired by the Coastal mmission. No specific program has yet been s cted for the prov isl of these units. 5. A f r-year program to provide low Interest rehabilitation loans to own r, of residential properties in designated areas. The ty has alli sated $850,000 in Community Development Block Grant fu s for t is program. Two of the four areas designated for ass is nce. owntown and Oldtown, are partially within the coastal zone. Tw ty applications are currently being processed. Five projects w completed last year. - �-` ' L 1.?��'�� -r'{ ^ - 2 n -_------ = -_ : - - . � `IC ! . �_ s► I �,. , Approximately 480 low and moderate income households in the coastal zon are expected to benefit from the new programs listed above. New construction for elderly 157 Conditioned by Coastal Commission 301 Rehabilitation in process 20 TOTAL 478 If these rojects are completed as planned, 38 percent of the a sting need for coastal sing assistance will have been satisfied. The will still be approximat ly 790 households in the coastal Zone overpayi for shelter. To satisfy the maining need for affordable housing, the C stal Element will pursue the go s and policies contained in the City's Hou ng Element. This is in conformity w' Coastal Act policy requiring that me housing be developed in accordance wi the policies and goals of local hou ' g elements. The goals of the housing prog m outlined in the Housing Eleme are: 1) The attainment f decent housing within a tisfying living environment for households all socioeconomic, r cial, .and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. ' 2) The provision of a ve iety of housin opportunities by type, tenure and cost for households of a sizes throu out the City. 3) The development of a ba nced esidential environment with access to employment opportunities, c nity facilities, and adequate services. More specific policies and progra imed at the special problems of housing in the coastal zone have been dev ope as part of the coastal plan. 8.3 CONCLUSION The aim of coastal plan Ing is to baian many competing interests and priorities. In this contex , the importance of ousing must be weighed against the other major cc erns In the Coesta Element--sensitive habitats, visitor-serving and r eational facilities, natu resources, energy--in ways that consider public ell-being and economic feasib ity. The goals and pal ies contained in the City's Housin Element are specifically incorporated in the coastal plan in order-to addre the needs of low and moderate i households in a comprehensive a balanced manner. Additional c stal policies aim to achieve the following: - Pro v Sion of affordable housing in new residential develo eats. - I ill of vacant lots with low and moderate income housi units where osaible. USING UNITS BY TYPE IN THE COASTAL ZONE Single 2-4 5« Mobile XT AL Family* Units Units Homes 0 S # % # W n % 11 % Coastal Zone 3,732 51.3 558 7.7 2,037 28.0 947 1 .0 7,27 100. CITY TOTAL 33,003 53.0 10,663 17.1 15,320 24.6 3,26 5.3 62,25 100. % OF TOTAL 11.3 5.2 13.3 .0 11.7 NOTE: "Condominiu \sare not counted as single family units. SOURCE: Huntington Bpecial Census 1979. Figure 8.1 HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME IN TH COASTAL ZONE ' Income` Number f House ds % of Total Low (S12,480) 1, 7 21.5 Moderate ($12,480 - $18,720) 8 12.2 High ($18,720) ,818 66.3 TOTAL 7,274 100.0 NOTE: ; Income criteria from UD definitions of 1 d moderate Income using the 1978 county median a adjusting to the averag household size of 2.2 persons for the coastal zone SOURCE: City of Huntingt Beach,Development Services De rtment. Figure 8.2 HOUSEHOLDS OVE AYI NG IN THE COASTAL ZONE Overpaying Overpaying Total Total verpaying Renters Owners Overpaying Households useholds '� of Low Inco a 783 321 1,104 1,567 7 1% Moder to Income 119 145 264 689 29.7 T AL 902 466 11368 2,456 55.7% OURCE: Huntington Beach Special Census, 1979. Figure 8.3 E"AN INCOME, RENT AND MORTGAGE PAYMENT BY COASTAL DIVISION L Area Population Dwelling % of Pop. Pop. Per Range Range ge �. (Figure 4.1) Units Elderly Household of of of Median Media Median Incomes Re s Mortgage Pmt. Huntington Harbor $23,000 $320 to $375 to Area 7.592 3,417 8.7. 2.3 $64,5 $550 + $700 + Warner Avenue to Huntington $25,00 to $262 to $270 to, Beach Mesa Bluffs 3,156 1,012 4.2 3. $35.600 $550 + $700 + Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs to $40,000 to $270 to Goldenwest Street 198 58 4. 3.4 $41,000 $499 $389 Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard Townlot 471 342 8.0 1.4 $16,800 $277 :624 8,100 to $192 to $124 to Downtown. Oldtown 2,400 79 28.0 1.6 S1304T $296 $240 { Beach to Z 9,600 $176 to $262 to 1 Septa Ana River 2,3 966 15.8 2.4 $29,300 :484 :424 'X r TOTAL 16,168 7,274 11.4 2.2 t- NOT *Area ranges are the high and low medians for the census tract areas included. OURCE: Huntington Beach Special Census, 1979. ") Figure 0.4 ESTI TED DWELLING UNITS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY COASTAL !VISION' Existing Projected ;ts o' ted 1979 Census Development elopment General Plan staI Plan Units Population Units Population Units Population Huntington Harbour Area \3, 7 7,592 4,064 11,126 4,154 11,338 Warner Avenue to Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs 1,012 3,156 1,7 5,028 1,653 4,915 Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs to Goldenwest Street 58 1 1,746 4,529 1,746 4,529 Goidenwest Street to Beach Boulevard 1,821 z 871 ,657 10,276 6,286 14,151 Beach Boulevard to Santa Ana River 966 7,351 91 2,336 2,697 6,531 TOTAL 7 74 16,168 13,080 3,295 16,536 41,464 NOTE: ;See Coss Division Figure 4.1 SOURCE: City of untington Beech, Development Services Depart ent. 14. Promote compatibility of oil and other energy-related activities with surrounding uses to the maximum extent feasible. 14s. Review and modify the Oil Code, if necessary, io include measures such as additional requirements regarding fencing, planting and landscaping to ensure aesthetic and environmental compatibility between oil activities and other uses. 14b. Pursue strategies with the State and the oil companies to improve the appearance of existing oil wells and related facilities on• the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. 14c. Before permitting any expansion of the Edison power plant, require development of a comprehensive screening plan with appropriate landscaping which meets the standard of State agencies having jurisdiction over such expansion. 14d. Encourage comprehensive- planning for new uses on large oil . parcels; discourage piece-me.al recycling of all parcels. 14e. Encourage dual-uses of oil field surface areas so-long as (1) new uses and all activities are compatible, and (2) access to underground zones can be accommodated by the new use. 14f. Encourage the conversion of the rotary mud dump on Hamilton and Magnolia to new uses if the contents of the dump are found not to be dangerous to public health, safety and welfare, or if all harmful deposits are decontaminated. 14g. As part of the existing environmental review process, require a chemical analysis of the contents of the rotary mud dump, a geological study of the site and necessary mitigation measures before allowing new uses on the rotary mud dump. .. 14h. Encourage screening of existing Edison power plant facilities via planting of trees and shrubs; pursue strategies to this end with Southern California Edison. 10.5.7 OUSING The Ci ' adopted Housing Element to the General P identifies Md documents h g needs and establishes a program t dress such housing needs. It is the document which guides hous development throughout the city, Including the c al zone. However, the Housing Elemen not automatically meet all the requirements of the Coastal Act. u , ore specific policies related to the coastal zone have been includ n this plan ' e the Housing Element policies which established overall ction have been inco ated by reference. 15. Promote adequate housing opportunities within the coastal zone for 1 Income groups. lea. Incorporate the City's Housing Element as representing a major portion of the housing component of the LCP an adopt the following additional policies which shall apply to a Huntington Beach Coastal Zone: 15b. vestigate the feasibility of implementin an expanded grant pr ram for low- and moderate-income ousing rehabilitation, incl Ing mobile homes. 15c. Coordin a with the Orange Count ousing Authority and local housing p .onents (builders, rea estate board members, lender, consumers) o develop a pr ram to provide for continued affordability all low and oderate income units resulting from Inclusionary an eplaceme policies. 15d. Encourage the rete I of existing numbers of mobile homes and investigate areas fo tential new mobilehome zoning. 15e. Unrestricted nversion f mobile home parka to other uses diminshes m Ile home stoc and space availability. The City will develop o inances which wi include, but not be limited to, ensuren that any displaced mo 'le homes within the coastal zone will accommodated within the ity of Huntington Beach; that th onversion will not result in th displacement of low income I ivlduals or households; that such c version will not result in a shortage of housing opportunities and ch ices; and that there be a mechanism for reimbursement of relocatio costs. 15f. Require that 20 percent of all new residenti projects of 20 or more units be affordable to low and moderate in me households as defined by the City's Housing Element. The deve er shall have the option to provide the affordable units within outside the coastal zone. New residential developments of less t n 20 units may pay a "per-unit" fee in lieu of 20 percent of the p 'act being affordable to low and moderate Income households; rental its are excluded from the requirements of this policy; smaller proj is of ten or less units will be excluded from the provisions of this poll 10.5.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES A prerequisite to any development in the coastal zone Is the provision of adequate community facilities. Public works facilities in the coastal zone are for the,most part adequate to service the level of development proposed in the coastal land use plan. Some deficiencies, however, have been identified as discussed In Section 9. x CA COASTAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :46 No .011 P .08 • Statt of California,George Deukmejian,Gnrar*Or • California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway,Suite 380 Date of Commission Action: April 12, 1984 P.O. Box1450 Date of Findings Report: June'7 1984 Long Beach,California 90801.1450 Meeting of: Jul 10-13, 1984 (?13)S90-5071 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: TOM CRANDALL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR ROBERT JOSEPH, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR LIZ FUCHS, LEAD PROJECT PLANNER SUBJECT: REVISED FINDINGS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, MAJOR AMENDMEN7_ri1-84 TO CERTIFIEL) LANO USE PLAN. (REVISED FINDINGS on approval 1n part, denial in part and certification with suggested modifications. For public hearing and commission action at the meeting of July 10-13, 1984). : STAFF NATE: The actions taken on April 12. 1984 were as follows: 1) To certify in part. Vote 12-0. Commissioners voting "yes": Franco, Grossman, King, MacElvaine, Malcolm, Slates, McMurray, McNeil , Shipp, Wornum, Wright, Nutter. 2) To deny in part. Vote 0-12. Commissioners voting "No": Franco, Grossman, King, MacElvaine, Malcolm, Slates, McMurray, McNeil , Shipp, Wornum, Wright, Nutter. 3) To certify if modified. Vote 12-0. Commissioners voting "yes": Franco, Grossman, King, MacElvaine, Malcolm, Slates, McMurray, McNeil , Shipp, Wornum, Wright, Nutter. Revisions to the findings from the previous report dated March 30, 1984 are noted on pages 8, 9, 11 and 12, and are underlined. ^ C ���� •:. : +,a' CA C0A'STAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :47 No .011 P ,09- 02- SYNOPSIS Background The City's Land Use Plan was originally submitted and acted on by the Commission in September 1981. The Commission denied the Plan and adopted suggested modifications. The City adopted some of the Commission's suggested modifications and resubmitted the LUP, On November 17, 1982 the Commission certified the LUP in geographic part. The Commission denied in geographic part three separate geographic areas containing wetland, resources (as indicated in Exhibits 3a and 3b of the Commission's findings of 11-17-82)� and at the request of the City did not adopt suggested modifications for those areas I denied. The LUP which was certified in part was effectively certified on March 15 , 1984. The City held public hearings in February - October 1983 on the Implementing ordinances portion of the LCP which included two Specific Plans. The City submitted , the Implementation Program on December 14, 1983 and it was filed on March 2, 1984. i Commission review of the Implementation is scheduled to follow consideration of the proposed LUP amendments. As part of the submittal , the City submitted a major amendment to its certified LUP which included proposals for four land use designation i changes and deletion of the housing component of the Coastal Element. STANDARD OF REVIEW For the Proposed LUP amendment, the standard of review, pursuant to Section 30512(c) of the Coastal Act, is that the plan or any amendments thereto meets the requirement s of, f and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. II Summnary of Issues 1 Housing: The amendment proposes to delete the housing component. Visitor Serving Uses: The amendment proposes to modify land use designation to relocated the same acreage of visitor serving uses along Pacific Coast Highway in the Townlot area and change a General Commercial site in downtown to Office/Residential . Recreation Uses: The amendment proposes to modify the land use designation on the Huntington Harbour Bay and Racquet Club site from "Recreation" to "Mixed Use" which would commit a portion of the waterfront site to residential uses and maintain a portion of existing recreational uses. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval in Dart and denial in art of the LUP amendment as submitted. The staff is reconmen ing denial in part-777he redesignation of the area north of Warner between Sceptre and E gewater (Huntington Bay and Racquet Club) from "Recreation" to "Mixed Development", and certification with suggested modifications which would further restrict the mixed use designation to ensure provision and protection of public recreation area. Additional Information Further information on the City's LUP amendments or copies of the documents may be obtained from Liz Fuchs, California Coastal Commission, 631 Howard Street-- 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 543-8555 or' Bob Joseph at the South Coast District Office, Long Beach, CA (213) 590-5071. CA COASTIAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :48 N0 .011 P . 10 -3- 1 . SUMMARY OF MAJOR AMENDMENT The major amendment proposes land use designation changes on four areas and deletion of the housing component pursuant to PRC 30500. 1. The proposed land use designation changes are as follows (See Exhibits 112): a) Redesignation of the 5.7 acres located north of Warner Avenue between Sceptre and Edgewater Lanes comprising the existing private Huntington Bay and Racquet Club from "Recreation/Open Space" to "Mixed development" for specified uses of 42 residential units and recreation uses with limits on building and open space areas (Exhibit 3). b) Redesignation of a two half-block area between 16th and 18th Streets and a one-block area between 8th and 9th Streets. .from Pacific Coast Highway inland to the alley, from "High Density Residential" to "Visitor-Serving Commercial". c) Redesignation of a three half-block area between 11th and 14th Streets , from Pacific Coast Highway inland to the alley from "Visitor Serving Commercial" to "High Density Residential". d) Redesignation of 8 acres in the downtown area north of Pecan and South of Hartford, between Main and Lake Streets from "General Commercial" to "Office/Residential". 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -. Approval in Part The Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings for certification in part as submitted: MOTION I: I move that the Commission certify the Land Use Plan amendment in part as submitted by the City of Huntington Beach for deletion of the housing component; redesignation of residential designations between 16th and lath Streets and 8th and 9th Streets; redesignation of visitor-serving uses between 11th and 14th Streets; and redesignation of the downtown general commercial site north of Pecan between Main and Lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a YES vote, and the adoption of the following resolution and findings An affirmative vote�y a majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY: The Commission hereby certifies in part the amendment to the Land Use Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and r--Minas for the reasons discussed below that the amended Land Us Plan meets the requirements of and is in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 (conm ncing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basis state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; that the amended Land Use Plan contains a specific access component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act; that the amended Land Use Plan is consistent with the applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c) of the Coastal Act; and that the certification of the amended Land Use Plan meets the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i ) of the -4- California Environmental Quality Act, as there are no further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which could substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment. III. Findings and Declarations for Certification in Part The Commission finds and declares as follows: A.Deletion of Housing Component Senate Bill 626 (Mello) removed housing issues from the jurisdiction of the Commission effective January 1, 1983, and imposed requirements related to affordable housing in the coastal zone on local jurisdictions. The City proposes to address these requirements on an case-by-case basis and proposes to amend their Coastal Element to delete housing policies. As housing policies are no longer required in LUPs, the Commission finds that the proposed deletion of housing policies is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. B.Land Use Designation Changes I(b) and I(c) Pacific Coast Highway Townlot Sites. The City proposes to redesignate two areas from"high Den'sityKes'1dentia7� to "Visitor Serving Commercial" and one area from "Visitor Serving Commercial" to "High Density Residential" (Exhibit 2). These land use designation changes are proposed in the area inland of Pacific Coast Highway west of downtown known as the "Townlot" area. This area is inland of Pacific Coast Highway opposite 6olsa Chica State Beach. The existing LUP proposes to designate sufficient acreage to provide for a wide range of visitor support uses located near visitor - drawing attractions such as the beaches and Pier, and major inland access routes. Within the area from Goldenwest to 6th Streets , the existing LUP designates about 8 acres of visitor serving commercial uses at two nodes - Goldenwest to 21st streets and llth to 14th streets. These sites are intended to provide inland visitor support uses for Bolsa Chica State Beach. The proposed LUP amendment would shift the location of these visitor serving commercial nodes , creating three nodes instead of two. The sites would be Goldenwest to 21st sheets 16th-18th streets and 8th to 9th streets. The area from 11th to 14th streets would be redesignated to High Density residential . The redesignations would result in approximately the same acreage of area designated for visitor serving uses (8 acres) but change the locations to more closely correspond to new access opportunities at the State Beach. Section 30213, 30220, 30221 and 30227 of the Coastal Act provide for the reservation and protection of sites suitable for recreation and visitor serving facilities and upland support sites, and sets a priority for such uses over private residential , general industrial or general commercial but not over agriculture of coastal dependent industrial development. Section 30250 further provides that development not have adverse impacts either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources. The proposed LUP amendments would not result - in any substantial changes to provision of visitor facilities in that there is no reduction in acres designated for such uses. CA COASTAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :49 No .011 P . 12 Further, locating the visitor commercial areas in three sites instead of two will not likely increase traffic generation since the overall intensity is the same. Circulation access on Pacific Coast Highway will not be impacted since the proposed nodes are at sites of existing traffic signals and at sites of proposed cul de sacs designed to reduce vehicular cross-traffic and improve local circulation. The Commission therefore finds that as proposed the redesignation is consistent with Sections 30220,30221, 30222 and 30250 of the Coastal Act. 1(d) Downtown Commercial Site The City proposes to redesignate 8 acres in the downtown area north of Pecan street from "General Commercial" to "Office/Residential". . The existing Land Use Plan proposes a "General Commercial" use on the site to preserve a neighborhood commercial area in close proximity to an adjacent senior housing projec- and buffer the housing from more intense development in the office/residential area. (LUP at page 12a) Under the proposed "Office/Residential" Land Use designation in the LUP, limited ancillary retail commercial and service uses are also conditionally allowed, however the emphasis is on office/residential mix (LUP at page 111). Section 30252 of the Costal Act provides in part that: The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by.. . (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads. .. Section 30254 provides in part that: . :.Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land pse, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. This area presently exhibits mixed commercial and business uses. The proposed LUP amendment would shift emphasis of land uses from general commercial for neighborhood support to office/residential . However, under the Land Use designation Office/Residential , ancillary commercial uses are- permitted as conditional uses. Therefore, the opportunity for neighborhood support commercial is not precluded and the Commission can find that the redesignation is consistent with Section 30252 of the Coastal Act. Further, this site is located at the far inland end of the Main Street-Pier Corridor in an area proposed generally for downtown redevelopment. The key visitor-Support and recreation areas are located at the Pier/Pacific Coast Highway area. The changes in .land uses from general commercial to office/residential would not result in any loss of visitor-serving support uses. And, according to the Draft EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan, trip generation figures are generally lower for office/residential than commercial and circulation impacts will not significantly increase. Further, the LUP policy 16a requires that adequate capacity be provided prior to the issuance of the development entitlement. The Commission therefore finds that the change in land use is consistent with Section 30254 of the coastal Act. L.Vn VI 111 V V __— UL V Iry V y y 1 J IV. Staff Recommendation: Denial in Part The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings for denial in part of the LUP amendment as submitted. Motion II: I move that the Commission certify the portion of the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan amendment which applies to the redesignation of the area north of Warner between Sceptre and Edgewater from "Recreation" to "Mixed Development". Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends a No vote, and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote-6y a majority of the appointed Commissioners is needed to pass the motion. Resolution for Denial in Part: The Commission hereby denies certification of that portion of the• City .of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan amendment applicable to the geographic area shown in Exhibit 3,north of Warner between Sceptre and Edgewater Lanes for the reasons discussed below and because the Land Use amendment as so applied, - fails to meet the requirements of and does not conform to the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act. - does not contain a specific public access component as required by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act. - is not consistent with applicable decisions of the Commission which shall guide the local government in their future actions under Section 30625(c) of the Coastal Act. - does not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the land use plan may have on the environment. V. Findings and Declarations for Denial in Part A. Land Use Designation Changes I_(a Huntington Bay and Racquet Club Site (Exhibit 3): The City proposes to redesignate the 5.7 acres located north of Warner between Sceptre and Edgewater Lanes comprised of the private Huntington Bay and Racquet Club from "Recreation/Open Space" to "Mixed Development" conditioned to allow only recreation uses and a maximum of 42 residential units with limits on building and open space areas. Presently the 5.7 acre site is occupied by a clubhouse, a private beach, four tennis courts, two commercial office buildings, a 150 slip marina and approximately 235 parking spaces. The site presently provides private recreation opportunities for Huntington Harbor residents and marina slips which may be leased by the public. 5 CA COASTAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 .92 11 :51 No .011 P . 14 -7- This site is part of Huntington Harbour, a waterfront residential Community, and is located about 1/2 mile up Warner Ave, from the State Beach. A few visitor serving and general conmercial areas are provided primarily located along Pacific Coast Hlghway.A few parks and pocket beaches are also located within the Harbour. Presently, except for the Visitor Commercial areas, there are only a few locations within the Harbour which provide any public walkways or public piers along the boating-oriented waterfront (Exhibit 4). These existing access opportunities are constrained by a lack of adequate signing and public parking and by the adjacent development which inhibits unrestricted physical and visual access to existing public facilities. There are also few remaining opportunities to maximize public access to this waterfront area. As noted in the LUP, approximately 95% of the land area in the Harbour is developed. A few vacant lots remain. However, residential developments occupy most of the land area adjacent to the channels and building patterns are such that most of the views of the waterways are reserved for residents. This site presently supports private recreational facilities and under the present LUP is designated for Recreation uses, such as athletic and boating clubs,passive and active recreational uses, and commercial recreational uses (such as recreational rentals). It It at present one of three sites designated Recreation within the Harbour (the others are a City park on Countess Drive and a public boat launch site down Warner Ave. from this site). Other areas designated for Recreation in the City's LUP includes areas adjacent to the Bolsa Chica and the Seacliff IV Golf Course. The Coastal Act provides for maximizing public access and recreation opportunities. Section 30210 states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California constitution, maximum access, which shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30213 provides, in part: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. Section 30251 provides1 in part: . . .Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean. . -�� And, a priority is given to provision of recreational opportunities. The recreational policies of the Coastal Act states in part: Section 30220 Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot be provided at Inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30221 Ocean front land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already acequately provided for in the area. t-H l,UHbIHL i.UMM 54UU Oct .1 ,92 11 :51 No .011 P . 15 -8- .• Section 30222 The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shalt have priority over private residential , general industrial , or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. Section 30223 Upland areas necessary to support• coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. The Coastal Act also protects and maximizes recreational boating. Section 30224 states: Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors , limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. The Coastal Act clearly places a high priority on provision and protection of recreational opportunities. The Commission in' its previous action certifying the City's LUP, acted to adopt policies which would maximize access opportunities within the Harbor especially to sandy beach areas. Furr"! ier;the City's LUP notes the increasing recreation demand: "The Coastal Act requires the amount of coastal land designated for recreational use be adequate to meet present and future demand. Pressure on Huntington Beach recreational sites have been increasing steadily as beach attendance increase each year." The LUP proposes to address this demand in part by protecting the extensive public beaches and other sandy beach area , providing adequate support facilities, providing additional access, improving public awareness of access, encouraging boating opportunities and protecting existing parking (LUP pages 19-24). As proposed, the LUP amendment would result in a reduction of some existing recreation area and a commitment of land to low priority residential uses in an area with limited opportunities to provide additional recreation and support uses to meet expected demand. Although adjacent to a marina with slips available by lease to the public, the site Presently provides no public access and the marina competes with other uses on the site for the parking. The existing LUP policies require provision of lateral and vertical access to and along the shoreline and all sandy beach area. In additional to these access requirements the existing "Recreation/Open Space" designation as presently exists would allow development of additional recreation uses and the potential for expansion of the Marina and support uses resulting in maximum public access to and use of the Harbour area. -As proposed, the amendment would result in a partial loss of views from Warner Avenue but LUP po id es requirM ra'teral access would assure visual access. CA COASTAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :52 No .011 F . 16 • -9- The Coastal Act requires that oceanfront- land suitable for recreational use be protected, and that recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential . The proposed LUP amendment rather than protecting and encouraging recreational opportunities would reduce existing opportunities and preclude future expansion of access and recreation opportunities in the Harbor. Therefore, rather than maximizing such opportunities, the proposed residential development would further commit the area to private residential use. Further, public trust maps indicate that a portion of the site may be state lands or su ect o the public trust, and as 2roposed the LUP amendment does not adeSuately protect access to and along the shoreline where such lands ma„y, be involved. The Coastal Act also requires that increased recreational boating be encouraged. As noted above, the LUP amendment would preclude further provision of public support uses for the marina. In other actions in the Harbour area (e.g. Appeal No. 372-80 MacGuire/Huntington Partnership) the Commission. found deletion of a priority use under the Coastal Act (visitor -Serving) could only be found consistent with the access and recreation policies of the Act if it was replaced with other priority uses (i.e. public recreation facilities or visitor-serving uses). In the previous action on the City'-s LUP, the Commission, in addressing provision of visitor serving facilities, acknowledged that in .some. cases residential uses could support the provision of lower cost visitor facilities in urban areas , but denied the visitor serving designation since it did not strictly limit such uses to assure that public uses would predominate. Subsequently, the City adopted and the Commission certified limits to such non-priority uses within- visitor designations and. policies to assure that the public visitor uses were provided prior to occupancy of the residential uses. This proposed Mixed Use land use designation presents the same type of concern that the Commission addressed in its original action on the City's LUP visitor serving land use designation. Due to limited sites available for provision of recreation uses in the Harbour, the long term residential use on remaining recreation parcgls would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Absent distinct limits on non-priority uses on portions of the site and protection of the public use areas of the site, development pressures could result in amendments to change the entire mixed use to private residential . In past instances the Commission has seen such requests, usually strongly supported by the new residents of the area. As presently proposed, the LUP amendment lacks sufficient standards to assure that recreational and public areas are provided for and protected in this "Mixed Use" designation. As proposed the "Mixed Use"designation does not assure maximum access and recreational opportunities consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Given the expected recreational demand, the limited number of sites, the location within 1/2 mile of the State Beach and adjacent to the waterfront, the Commission finds that conversion of the land use designation from one which provides priority recreation uses to one which would result in lower priority residential use is not consistent with the Access and Recreation policies of the Coastal Act. CA COASTAL COMM 5400 Oct 1 ,92 11 :53 No .011 P . 17. -10- ' Therefore, as submitted, the Cormission finds that the LUP amendment as submitted to redesignate the Huntington Bay Club area from "Recreation" to "Mixed Development" with uses limited to recreation and residential is not consistent with Section 30210, 30213, 30220, 30221 , 30222, 30223 and 30224 of the Coastal Act. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS WHICH, IF ADOP P0UL0'Kt5UL1 IN CERTIFICATIUR VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a YES vote to the following motion and adoption of the following resolution and findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is necessary to pass the motion and resolution. "I move that the Commission certify the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan Amendment 1-84 if it is modified in conformity with the suggested modifications and findings set out in the Staff Report on this item." Resolution for Adoption of Suggested Modifications The Commission hereby certifies the City of Huntington Beach Amendment (1-84) following modifications and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that, if modified as suggested below, the Land Use Plan will meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of Chapter 3 commencing with Section 30200 of the California Coastal Act to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act; the Land Use Plan will contain a specific access component as requirec by Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act; the land Use Plan will be consistent with the applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to Section 30625(c); and the Land Use Plan will meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there would be no further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives which could substantially lessen significant adverse impact on the environment. The suggested modifications to the submittal are necessary to achieve the basic state goals set forth in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act. The Commission further finds that if the City of Huntington Beach adopts and transmits Its revisions to the Land Use Plan amendment in conformity with the suggested modifications, then the Executive Director shall so notify the Commission. VII. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS The LUP Amendment shall be modified to require that the "Mixed Use" designation includ the following specific requirements for the Huntington Bay Club site: A. A maximum of 1.9 acres shall be devoted to residential uses including residential parking and residential open space: I Lh L_uri� IHL COMM 74u0 Oct 1 .92 11 :54 N0 .011 P . lo w -11- B. All recreational facilities (excluding the open space requirements for the residential uses) shall be open to the public and public access shall be assured prior to occupancy of any of the residential units. C. Adequate public access and support facilities including parking shall be provided onsite. D. Prior to the transmittal of a eermit, the ap licant shall submit to the Director, Development ervices a determination from the 5taEe Lands Commission that: a. No State lands and/or lands subject to the public trust are Involved in the eve opment ana all necessar auttho izatio_ns reg rem'_ y_ the State an_ s"" Commission have een o tained; or b. State lands and/or lands subject to the public trust are involved in the development and all necessar authorizations required b tSa State ands ommission have been obtained; or c. State lands and/or lands subject to the public trust may be involved in the eve o ment, but en in`a final determination, an agreement as been Me with the btate Lands Commission_ for the project to proceed without pre�u ice to tat determination.' ' -"" VIII. Findings and Declarations for Certification if Modified The Commission finds and declares as follows: As the Commission found in Section V of this report, a Mixed Use land use designation, absent restrictions limiting residential uses onsite, would not assure that public access and recreational opportunities would be provided and protected consistent with the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. As modified, the LUP amendment would provide a mixed use designation with limitations similar to the City's Visitor-Serving Commercial designation except that the public uses onsite would be of a lower intensity recreational nature rather than the full range of visitor serving uses. Modification A would strictly limit the amount of area on the site which could be committed to non-priority land uses. The 1.9 acres represents less than 30% of the site. By requiring a limit to maximum site coverage, this assures that the remainin open space areas are tec�om'i'u`r her evelopment.' o?if cat1F a would provide that the predominate use on the site would be pub7ic recreation. While the existing facilities are private, provision of public access to the recreation facilities would mitigate for allowing a portion of the site to be converted to private use. Only with assurances that the remainder of the site be public could the Commission find the Mixed Use designation consistent with the Coastal Act. Provision of such access prior to occupancy of the residential units would assure that such uses would not be precluded at some future time. Modification C would assure that public access to facilities would be maximized. Absent adequate parking for public uses in a mixed use area , the public recreation facilities would compete with private residential uses for available parking and access may thus be adversely affected. Therefore, Modification C is necessary to assure that private residential uses do not predominate. In addition, in combination with other certified LUP policies , adequate parkin2for eac use on the site is require consistent with City parking standards. """ 1 � � CA COASTAL COMM 5400 OCt '1 ,92 11 :55 No .011 P . 1S. Modification 0 would assure that uses and development on the site are consistent with t e protection _of the pu tr!st. As modified, the Commission finds that the predominate use of the Mixed Use designation would be public recreation, and as modified the proposed amendment is consistent with the priorities of the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. LF:rlw/Mk1 199 Cpq Cq�/� 2 Aw COM job A OA �CO r I` L7LEL U L LCP CERTIFIED MARCH 1988 Amended through February 1990 i j � tom all. . _ 0 OV 0 n--n c 0 0 a a A O-Ot A 5T:: 7 , - 1. The golf course has been changed to recreation to reflect its actual use. 2. The 115-acre site of the recently proposed "Seecliff IV" development has been redesignated to correspond to the permit for that project as granted by the State Coastal Commission. The project encompasses most of the land bounded by Palm A venue, the golf course and 38th Street. A total of approximately 531 dwelling units are to be developed in two low density areas (of 94 acres combined) and a 20-acre medium density area at the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19-acre area to be developed with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981. Twenty percent of the total units must be "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition. This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of Thirty-Eighth Street, has been redesignated high density residential. The Coastal Commission also required that an additional area fronting Pacific Coast Highway just south of the high density residential site be reserved for commercial recreation uses. This area is shown on the resource production overlay. (See Figure 9.1 J 3. The Coastal Commission permit for Seacliff IV requires a 100-meter buffer area along the Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs to protect the low-lying Bolsa Chico. Parts of this buffer area are in the City's jurisdiction end, therefore, have been designated conservation, the most restrictive category. 4. The Coastal Commission permit for Seacliff IV also requires any development be setback 100 feet from the upper edge of the buffer zone. In addition, the City and County have been planning for the development of this blufftop area for a "flnear park." The park would afford views of the wetlands, shoreline and ocean and would provide a direct link between Huntington Central Park and the beach by completing a system of trails along Edwards and 38th Streets. This blufftop area has been designated recreation, which would accommodate both the linear park and the setback requirements near Seacliff IV. 5. The area between Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street, now used for offices and some oil facilities, has also been redesignated medium density residential. The separation of this site from the Pacific Coast Highway by the resource production area reduces its ability to support commercial and recreational uses. Additional factors affecting development of this area include the bisecting effect of the proposed Orange Avenue street extension from Goldenwest Street to Palm Avenue and the location of the Chevron administrative offices on approximately 12 acres along Goldenwest Street. The new designation on this 48-acre area would allow a maximum of 720 units, a portion of which are to be affordable to low and moderate income individuals and families. The medium density designation is compatible with the medium and high density area to the east across Goldenwest Street. ALL-SIAIELEGAI SUPPIYGO.. 1-800-YYI-D510 ED 11 W i • Ub 11 +: ll: ib p;to J7 4 u5 u r C H % H B CO --- U.W.C. HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS, ASSOCIATION 19781 Island Bay Lane Huntington 4each, CA 92648 July 26 , 1992 C C, Alto, 40 Communi city tHuntingtoant pt• of n Beach 2000 Main Street o� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Surfcrest, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 Tentative Tract No. 14135 Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 Negative Declaration No. 91-33 Dear Sirs: we strongly support the recommendations made by Mayor Pro-Tam Grace winchell, and passed by the City Council on June 1, 1992 . The recommendations are: 1. Reduce the project density to attain compatibility with surrounding developments. 2. Provide a full view corridor from Palm to the Bolsa Chica. 3 . increase the buffer zone to a minimum of 20 feet, and NOT allow parkland to become part of the buffer. 4 . Require the design of the structure to be terraced back to avoid a castle wall look. It is important to remember that this parcel was rezoned to R4 ONLY due to Coastal Commission requirements for affordable housing. With the Coastal Commission requirement void, and ALL the affordable housing requirements for Seacliff Iv SATISFIED off-site at Pacific Ranch, there is NO need for affordable housing requirements on such a prime piece of property. An extremely high density project (30 units per acre) certainly does not belong in an area with densities of f 12 units per acre. P ATTACHMENT NO. �!. •08�1�!92 il:s9 Q714 '74 O320 P C H H B CO ....+.+ U.W.C. ®oii�oii j L We urge the planning staff to recommend the right thing for the city, and we urge the City Council to stick to their decision of June 1, and eliminate the need for affordable housing via a change to the General Plan. Sin er y, J z :� c r IL Jcnt cc: Mayor Jim Silva Mayor Pro-Tam Grace Wincheil Councilman Peter Green Councilwoman Linda Moulton-Patterson Councilman Jack Kelly Councilman Earl Robitaille Councilman Don MacAllister City Administrator Michael Uberuaga City Attorney Gail Hutton Domminick Tomaino, HSHA ATTACHMENT NO. 7 A't,IC - 1,7 - 92 MON 51'^159 TOYO USA THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF SURFCREST NORTH August 16, 1992 Jack Kelly, Councilman City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Surfcrest North, Tentative Tract 14135 Dear Ms.. Restivo, . The Committee for Responsible Development of Surfcrest North, Comprised of organizations, associations, and individuals, has been formed with -one intent: the responsible development of the parcel at Palm and Seapointe known as Surfcrest North. We concur with the City Council's motion of June 1, 1992 requiring the applicant to resubmit plans that; 1. Reduce density to be compatible with surrounding densities (12-14 units/acre) . 2. Provide a minimum 20 foot on site set back from the Linear Park. 3. Provide set backs, or terraces to the building's successive floors to lessen the "bulk" of the structures. 4. Increase the width of the view corridor to the full width of Palm Avenue. As to density, it seems in 1981, the zoning on this parcel(s) was bumped up to R4 from R3 as a DIRECT RESULT of a Coastal Commission mandate for 20% affordable units. It is obvious, then, the easy way to reduce density at Surfcrest North is to remove the requirement_for_ affordable hous_ina. This process should be relatively painless as: 1. The Coastal Commission no longer requires the units, 2 . Correspondence between City personnel and Pae ! e Coast Homes indicate an agreement to credit affordable units at Surfcrest for affordable units sold at Pacific Ranch. The.. agreement in 1986-88 seems to leave only a few if any affordable units required, and 3. More importantly, affordable housing does not belong on one of the choicest parcels in the city with views or v�3 AUG - 1 7 - 92 MON 9' M9 TOYO USA P 1 0 the ocean, Catalina Island and the Bolsa Chica. DENSITY must be made compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant's "preferred" plan, which is the same seen at the June 1 Council meeting must not be approved. The applicant's submission of a revised plan indicates a reversal of their initial REFUSAL to make changes in response to the June 1 Council direction. The revised plan is encouraging as it does meet the park set back requirement, and increases the width of the view corridor. Density has been reduced to 27 units/acre, which is still roughly TWICE THE DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. This cannot be construed as attaining compatibility. The revised plan density must be reduced. " The revised view corridor, according to submitted plans, seems to provide little view if any at all. Note that the access gate for vehicle traffic is within the corridor, and recreational areas may also restrict view. Care must be taken to preserve the view as intended. Upper floor set backs or terracing of the building from the second to the third floors seems to meet the council's intent. Little or no terracing has been provided between the first and second floors which needs to be corrected. In summation, the applicant's original and preferred plan is completely inadequate as resolved by Council June 1. The revised plan, though a slight improvement, still fails to meet three of the lour mandates required by the June 1 motion. Why then is staff supporting the revised plan?? The August 17, Request for City Council Action prepared by planning staff seems to be mediocre in its thoroughness. For instance: 1. Under Statement of Issue, the three points supposedly requested by the Council are not what was said at the June 1 meeting and do not even follow the minutes from that meeting. No comment is made at all about terracing the building, the increase to the view corridor is not spelled out, and the density issue is not correctly worded. 2. Staff continues to push the affordable housing element despite the obvious intent of council to have it M O N i.^ 0 0 T O Y O U S A _ P . 1 1 removed. Has staff reviewed the Coastal Commission requirement, or the agreement between the city and Pacific Coast Homes? 3. Under ANALYSIS, staff recognizes the high density (26 units/acre) , and notes the second to third floor set backs, but does not mention the lack of set backs from first to second floor. Also not mentioned is the plans for what is to be in the view corridor. 4 . Special permits required have been reduced from 3 to only two. For some unknown reason, staff has elected to use an assumption that "the clusters constitute three buildings rather than three separate buildings". This is a thinly veiled excuse to bypass restrictions to bulk. We reiterate that the project must conform to ' the requirements set forth at the June 1, 1992 City Council meeting to assure the project- is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and does not adversely impact the Linear Park which was designed as a passive buffer for the Bolsa Chica. Sincerely, The Committee for Responsible Development of Surfcrest North (Amigos de Bolsa Chica The Committee of 400 HOME Council Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington SeaCliff Homeowners' Association SeaCliff on the Greens Homeowners' Association (Estates, Masters, Club Series) ) �/�r1crZ� r r 4 A my OS P.O. Box 3748, Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3748 • (714) 897-7003 B61sa Chica August 17, 1992 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) " Bolsa Chica Linear Park After much planning and public input the Linear Park project on the Huntington Beach Mesa will begin soon its process of obtaining various governmental approvals with hopefully construction and planting activity starting in 1993. This park will represent only the second regional park to be placed in the Second Supervisorial District of Orange County. With equestrian trails, walking and riding trails, observation sites and other amenities the primarily passive Bolsa Chica Linear Park will provide views of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands as restoration proceeds, Bolsa Chica State Beach, Long Beach, and . Catalina. It is important that we establish a precedence that this very unique and special park resource in Huntington Beach not be adversely impacted by developments that may adjoin its boundary. The design and planning of these developments should compliment or at least not disrupt the passive nature of this linear park that has taken so long in coming to its present planning stage. Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) does impact adversely the Linear Park and some of our specific concerns and comments are as follows: 1. First preference would be to have this property included in the Bolsa Chica Regional Park. Since the very beginning the acreage for the park has continually declined. It has even declined from the 113 acres recently approved by the City Council to 106 acres. There are continually plans that would reduce it even more. 2. The most dense residential development in the area (approximately twice the density of Seacliffs highest density) should not be immediately adjacent to a passive park which also provides a buffer to one of the regions most significant wetlands and as a habitat area for wildlife that uses the wetlands. 3. Good planning would dictate the dew and bulk of the developments should increase as you move away from the park and not vice versa. 4. To maximize view and public access to the park it would be preferable to have the he of the development less than the housing developments around it and to have public streets in the development. Preferably the ublic streets should be along the perimeter of the development to provide public access to the regional park and greater separation between the buildings and the regional park. V Huntington Beach City Council Page 2 August 17, 1992 5. Consistent with the Council position of June 1, the densi of the project should be reduced. One way is to return the zoning on the property to at least R-3. In 1981, the Council changed the zoning from R-3 to R-4 (Zone change 80-6) to accommodate an affordable housing condition imposed by the Coastal Commission on the Seacliff IV project. The Coastal Commission's 20% affordable housing condition for Seacliff IV (531 units) was transferred to the 21 acre parcel that includes the subject project. These 106 units along with affordable units required in conjunction with any project on the 21 acres would amount to approximately 150 to 196 affordable units being built on the 21 acres. Shortly thereafter, the Coastal Commission's requirement was eliminated by action of the Legislature but the zoning action to assist the owner was not reversed. A eeversal at this time seems appropriate and justified because the very significant Coastal Commission affordable housing condition no longer exists and no longer impacts the developer. ,6. The setback from the buildings and the regional park boundary should be at least 20 feet as desired by the County of Orange. Larger setbacks would be preferred. None of the regional park land should be used as buffer for the project. None of the regional park land should be maintained by the home owners' association. 7. The second and third floors of the residential structures should be set back to minimize the impact on the project on the regional park. The vertical 35-foot high affect should be modified. .8. The vieworridor at the end of Palm should be expanded to include the full width of Palm extended. 9. The project design should be changed to lessen the residential wall appearance of the project from the park. Further, the importance and value of public input and comments should not be diminished because they occur at the end of the planning process. This fact is not the fault of the public. If integration of public input is desired at earlier stages, then the current process needs to be reviewed to find an improved process that does not frustrate the public, planners, and developers. The alternative 252 unit project is moving in the right direction but the impact of the density of the project is still incompatible with its proximity to the regional park and not even closely consistent with the surrounding densities. As stated before, the zoning should be returned to at least R-3 because the condition behind the change to R-4 was removed and the size of the regional park and its importance have changed over the past 11 years. Sincerely, CY�. Terry ton President TAD.vm i ALL SI ATE I CGAL SUPPIYCO. 1 222-0510 F.O iI �I REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 2 . 19 A 3 submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 8 3-1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: f STATEMENT OF ISSUE : At the Council ' s direction, staff initiated a Coastal Element Amendment to remove the inclusionary housing requirements from the Coastal Element. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1 by the following vote: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY MIRJAHANCIR AYES : Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: Livengood, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Erskine PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: After a public hearing, adopt Coastal Element Amendment 83-1 by the attached resolution. ANALYSIS: Senate Bill 626 (Mello) , which became law on January 1 1983 , removed housing issues from the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission . At the same time, the bill imposed requirements related to affordable housir.n in the coastal zone which must be implemented by all local governments, even charter cities. These requirements call for the provision of affordable housing in new projects in the coastal zone where feasible. An analysis of Senate - Bill 626 and Assembly Bill 321 (which further clarified the new requirements) was provided to the Planning Commission on March 9, 1982. The Planning Commission subsequently requested that City Council appoint a Housing Committee to study the new requirements and make recommendations on how they should be implemented in the City. May 2, 1983 _ Page 2 I The Housing Committe has been meeting since July, 1982 and brought i=-c recommendations to the Planning Commission on November 2 , 1982 in the form of an interim. policy4. The Planning Commission approved the pol :;/ . with some changes and forwarded it to the City Council . On February 42 , 1983, the Council considered the recommended policy and determined not to adopt it, but to direct staff to review each proposal in the coastal zone on a case-by-case basis for compliance with new housing requirements. In addition, staff was directed to remove the inclu- aionaiy' fious ng requirements from the Cmss"I Land Use Plan. Coastal Element Amendment 83-1 was prepared by staff in response to this direction. At thesame time, staff recommends that the entire housing section be deleted from the Coastal Element, as housing polices are no longer required in Land Use Plans. This would leave the City ' s Housing Element as the policy document on housing for the entire Cit.... . and would allow the General Plan to be internally consistent. The prc:;s, deletions are shown on the attached pages . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: i The proposed modifications do not constitute a project under CEQA. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not adopte Coastal Element Amendment 83-1. This would leave housing policies and inclusionary requirement intact. 2. Remove only some of the housing policies, leaving others as par= of the Coastal Element. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Text of Coastal Element pages 76-86 and 150-151 2. Resolution adopting Coastal Element Amendment 83-1 JWP:JAF:dw DEFINITIONS FFLUENT: althy. AFF DABLE HOUSING: Housin far which the monthly mortgage or rent payments do not exceed 25 percent of the ho ehold income low Income families and 30 percent of moderate income families. BUILD-OU Complete de lopment or as area to the maximum densities allowed under the general COMMUNITY D VELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT: Federal program ministered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban evelopment that provides funds to ci es and companies for Improving housing conditions, ellmino g slum and blight, and improving econo c opportunity far low and moderate income households. CONSTRAINTS: Restrictions; environment ,physical,economic and legal factors which It t land uses or activities. DETERIORATE: To lower in Quality or value: de ciate. "FAIR SHARE" ADJUSTMENT: A City's additional housing respon bility, for regional houstn market needs as deveidbed by the regional council of governments. it based an the City's p ximity to jobs, Its ability to provide public services and facilities, the rot lonship of the local ncome distMbutian to regional income distribution, and expected community gr th. LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS: Households in which earnings are less than 80 cent the arsawide median Income. MEDIAN INCOME: Income level at which there is on equal number households having Incomes of higher and lower values. MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. Households in which earnings are 80 to 120 cent of t eowtde median Income. REHABILITATE: To restore or put back In good coedit SC AG: Southern California Aseoctatt o/ Governments: the counca o vernments established by local governments in Los Angeles, ange, Ventura, Sal Bernardino, R side and Imperial Counties to fccattat@ regional planing f the area. "SECTION a NEW CONSI' CTION PROGRAM": Federal program dOn by the Department of.Housing and Urbon "lopment that provides constructian and t arm fhtvtatng for elderly or family housing Bets and also provides long-term subetdy tea for these projects. SU B2D1E8: A grunt or gi/t / money or oiler assistance by a government to a private per company to aid an enterprise sidered of benefit to the public. SUBSTAN AD: Not curr tly meeting adopted toning or building codes. TSNV E: The ght or manner of holding land and houd ng,including renting,owrnbq and joint tenancy. :y 7^ � � .�r- � � r ,. _,�� �Trs _ .. =-C�7....1■ ��I�1111�. • • � • - � • n . COA ACT POLICY 30213. Housing tunities for persons of low moderate income shall be protected, en ged, and where f ea e, provided . New housing in the coastal zone 11 be devel d in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals o c using elements adopted in accordance with the requirements o vision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code. i 8. Housing 8.1 BACKGROUND Housing in the coastal zone of nt gton Beach includes some of the newest and most expensive homes in th City well as areas of very old, deteriorated and substandard housing. In ny areas, small summer homes, a legacy of the City's early heyday as a each resor adjoin modern apartment units. Similarly, the coastal popu tion ranges fro affluent families to young, single apartment dwellers prof ring a beach orion tion, to senior citizens on fixed incomes in older dwel ' gs or mobile homes Some neighborhoods are very homogenous; others h e several different co-ex ing uses. In January, 19791 here were 7,274 dwelling unit in the coastal zone. This represents 11.68 ercent of the total housing stock 'n the City. The mix of housing types ' similar in the coastal zone to that of the whole City (See Figure 8.1X h about half the dwelling units being sin family and the other half apartm ts, condominiums and mobile homes. There a approximately 16,168 persons residing in the oastal zone, an averag of 2.2 per household. This is below the City-wide verage of 2.81 pers s per household. The median household Income In the astal zone in 197 was $22,321, nearly identical to the City median of 522, 87 and well a ve the County median of $19,500. These averages mask a large variation in edion household income among different areas of the coastal one (See 1 The figures cited in this section are taken from a special censti. conducted in Huntington Beach in 1979. Figure 8.4.) For example; median yearly income in the census tracts with• the Downtown area ranged from only $8,100 to $15,600. In the newer nd more affluent Huntington Harbour area, median income ranged from $2 ,000 to over $64,000. Median rents or mortgage payments also vary by area, riging from a low of $1.24 per month in a Downtown census tract more th n $700 per month in parts of Huntington Harbour. Appr imately 1,888 persons aged 65 or over reside in the c stal zone, repres ting 11.4 percent of the total coastal population. Thi is a higher content tion of elderly than in the City as a whole, where th percentage is 8.2 perce . Although mo Ile homes represent only 12 percent of the tal housing in the coastal zone, a 947 units comprise almost a third (29% of the total mobile homes in the C y. In the coastal zone these areas are oncentrated between Lake and Newlan streets north of Pacific Coast High ay. This area has the highest proportion f elderly residents in the City (51 ) and a very low median income. The month median mortgage payment i also very low, indicating that mobile homes e a significant source of ow and moderate income housing. The vacancy rate is gene Ily higher in the astal zone than the City as a whole. This is primarily d to higher vac ncy rates in the Downtown and Oldtown areas which may be tributable t a combination of new construction awaiting sale, rental turnovers d deterior Lion of older units. Housing supply in the coastal zone is d' ectly linked to the total housing supply of the City. An appraisal of tren in type of housing tenancy since 1970 reveals an increase in the percenta f renter-occupied units from 29 percent to 43 percent and a corresponding d cre se in owner-occupied units. In the older areas of the City's oastal zo a many units have problems of aqP. deterioration and substandard conditions. The Community Analysis Report conducted by the City's De p rtment of Hou ng and Community Development in June 1977, identified 1,8 substandard unite 'n the City by housing type and degree of deterioration. Of these, 1,260 uni were concentrated in the Downtown and Oldtown a as, both of which lie ps ly within the coastal zone. 8.2 ANALYSIS Projected populati for the City by the year 2000 is petted to be 210,600 persons, with t number of dwelling units estimated t 90,700 (Soutl er California A ation of Government's SCAG '78 Grow t Forecast Policv'. This reflects S percent increase in population, but a p rcent increase the number dwelling units and implies an intensification of he recent tro-1 to smaller useholds. The coastal land use plan reflects the need '�r additional using units by designatinq sufficient acreage in the coastal ,one for low, edium and high density residential development. The astal Act requires that housing opportunities for persons of ow and mod ate income be protected, encouraged and where feasible p v.ided. A ssment of housing need by income level consists largely of determini the n ber of households who are presently occupying unaffordable housing, lus USING UNITS BY TYPE IN THE COASTAL ZONE Single 2-4 5+ Mobile T TAI_ Family* Units Units Homes % I! ^� Coastal Zone 3,732 51.3 558 7.7 2,037 28.0 947 1 .0 7,274 100. CITY TOTAL 33,003 53.0 10,663 17.1 15,320 24.6 3,26 5.3 62,251 100. % OF TOTAL .11.3 5.2 13.3 .0 11.7 NOTE: *Condominiu s are not counted as single family units. SOURCE: Huntington Beac Special Census 1979. Figure 8.1 HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME IN TH COASTAL ZONE Income* Number f House h ds % of Total Low ($12,4 80) 1, 7 21.5 Moderate ($12,480 - $18,720) 8 12.2 High ($18,720) ,818 66.3 TOTAL 7,274 100.0 NOTE: * income criteria from UO definitions of 1 d moderate Income using the 1978 county median a adjusting to the averag household size of 2.2 persons f or the coastal zone SOURCE: City of Huntingt Beach, Development Services Oe rtment. Figure 8.2 HOUSEHOLDS OVE AYM IN THE COASTAL ZONE Overpaying Overpaying Total Total verpaying Renters Owners Overpaying Households useholds % of Low Inc o a 783 321 1,104 19567 '% Mod ZT9; to Income 119 145 264 889 29.7 902 466 1,368 2,456 55.7% E: Huntington Beach Special Census, 1979. EDIAN WCOME, RENT AND MORTGAGE PAYMENT BY COASTAL DIVISION Area Population Dwelling % of Pop. Pop. Per Range Range le (Figure 4.1) Units Elderly Household of of of Median Medij Median Incomes Re Mortgage Pmt. Huntington Harbor $23,000 $320 to $375 to Area 7,592 3,417 8.7 2.3 =64,5 $550 + :700 + Warner Avenue to Huntington $25,00 to $262 to $270 to Beach Mesa Bluffs 3,156 1,012 4.2 3. $35,600 $550 + $700 + Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs to $40,000 to $270 to Goldenwest Street 198 58 4. 3.4 $41,000 $499 $389 Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard Townlot 471 ;/791 28.0 1.4 $16,800 $277 $624 8,100 to $192 to $124 to Downtown, Oldto 2,400 20.0 1.6 $ $296 $240 Beach to $ 9,600 $176 to $262 to Santa Ana River 2,3 9" 15.8 2.4 $29,300 $484 $424 TOTAL 16,168 7,274 11.4 2.2 ' NOT "Area ranges are the high and low medians for the census tract areas included. OURCE: Huntington Beach Special Census, 1979. i Figure 8.4 he number of such additional households the area might reasonably i ted to accommodate. SCAG makes estimates of the number of to �r e households in need of housing assistance in its Re Tonal I-+o in Alme Model, updated in December 1978. SCAG also estimates "fair share adjustment for each city based on regional relationships in incnmP distriht ion, the city's proximity to jobs, its Ability to provide n+thli sPrv;�t±c and faci ies, and expected community growth. Accordinq t SCAG there are presently 7,575 low income househ ds in nneci of assistance i Huntington Beach. SCAT identifies an a ditional 1,93? households to a included as the City's fair shamp a l locat io , for a tntn l of 9,527 low incom households needing assistance citywide. The Federal Depar ment of Housing and Urban Develo ment (HUO) 6p fines lower income househ Ids as those earninq less than 90 rcent of the nreawirle median income and m derate income households as ose eaminq 80 to 120 percent of the areawi median income, both ad' lsted for household Si7.P. HUD has established $19, 00 as the median into a for a family of four in Orange County in 1978. A ording to estimates om the 1979 Special census. 21.5 percent of all househol in the coast.31 z have low incomes and 12.2 percent have moderate income (See Figure 8. .) The State Department of Housi and Co munity Development has defined affordable housing as having mont y mor gage or rent payments which do not exceed 25 percent of the house m ho ome in the case of lower income households. In the case of nod income households, the City's Housinq Element considers that 30 percent of sehold income can be spent on hnuSinq that is affordable. The number of households in th coastal z e overpaying for shelter has been estimated based on responses to questions 'n the 1979 Special Cena)s of Huntington Beach. It should a noted that t "no response rate" on these questions was quite high: A tual numbers p 'se ed are adjusted to include an appropriate proportion of ose not responding. A onq low income households. 1,140 are overpaying (78 renters and 321 owners). ile 264 moderate income households are overpay' g (119 renters and 145 own rs), for a total of 1.)6R households overpaying n the coastal zone. (See Figure 3.) Constraints on th production of new housing within t e coastal zone are similar to those ithin the entire City. These include the igh► costs of land. construction a financing, governmental constraints and the scarcity of available site These are discussed fully in the Housing lement of t`+P Huntington ach General Plan, adopted in November 1979. As menti ed previously, the Coastal Act declares existing low a mor' income ousing to be a coastal resource that should be protected, re -el and if easible, expanded. Yet much of the present affordable housi • ,e coa I zone is deteriorated and needs rehabilitation. As these un a are rec fed, the tendency will be to. replace them with higher cost housin To o set any reduction in* low and moderate income housing, the City's coa al licy requires the inclusion of low and moderate cost housing in n residential projects of 10 units or more that are not rental units. This reflect ESTI TED DWELLING UNITS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY COA/IVISICC)N* I I Existing- Projected ;Dr7le o' ted 1979 Census Development lopment General Plan oast alp lan Units Population Units Population Units Population Huntington Harbour Area \3, 7 7,592 4,064 /1111 26 4,154 11,338 Warner Avenue to Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs 1,012 3,156 1,7 5,028 1,653 4,915 Huntington Beach Mesa Bluffs to Goldenwest Street 58 1 1,746 4,529 1,746 4,529 Goldenwest Street to Beach Boulevard 1,821 /,871 ,657 10,276 6,286 14,151 Beach Boulevard to Santa Ana River 966 2,351 91 2,336 2,697 6,531 TOTAL 7 74 16,168 13,080 \3,295 16,536 41,464 NOTE: 'See Cone Olvielon Figure 4.1 SOURCE: Clty of .untington Beach, Development Services Depart ent. oastal Commission interpretation of the housing requirements of the Coast I t. The City may wish to consider in lieu fees for small projects or o er m hods of implementing Coastal Act requirements while reflecting Deal con ms. Two p grams currently address the housing needs of persons with low and moderat incomes in the coastal zone. These include the following: 1. Secti 8 assistance to households occupying existing rent units. This progra is presently utilized by approximately 30 low inc a households residing ithin the coastal zone. 2. Participati in the Orange County Fair Housing Cou it Program which includes: housing discrimination response, b) landlord-tenant counseling, c low income housing advocacy d) publication of the semi-yearly " rum Newsletter" and e) com nity awareness and education activi ' s. In 1978, 1,018 individuals residing in Huntington Beach were assiste by the Fair Housing Council The following new program will also address housin needs: 1. A mixed-use developme in the Downtow area on the old Civic renter site, which will feature 1 studio, one- two-hedroom units. for senior citizens. The project is b ing finance through the California Housinq Finance Agency's Section 8 ew Con ruction Program which offers low interest mortgage financing. One ndred percent of the project will have rent subsidies. The City wil also fund construction of a 10,000 square foot senior recreation activity center and is considerinq rehabilitiation of an existing hborhood library on the site. The project is scheduled for complet' n i June 1982. 2. The provision of 75 low and mo rate income apartments in a condominium project curre tly under c nstruction by W and B Builders located west of Beach B levard and so th of Atlanta Avenue. These units are for household utilizing Section New Construction subsidies and were required by th Coastal Commission s a permit condition. 3. The provision of 0 low and moderate i come apartments in a condominium proj t currently under construct by Homes by Ayres located west of ach Boulevard north of Atlant Avenue. These units are for housahel a utilizing Section 8 subsidies and re required by the Coastal Comm sion. 4. The provbi of 196 low and moderate income units i the Seac li ff Iv project on a Huntington Beach Mesa. These units were equired by tha Coastal mmission. No specific program has yet been s cted for tl,n provisi of these units. 5. A f r-year program to provide low interest rehabilitation loans to own rs of residential properties in designated areas. The 'ty has all ated $850,000 in Community Development Block Grant fu s for t is program. Two of the four areas designated for assis nce, owntown and Oldtown, are partially within the coastal zone. Tw ty applications are currently being processed. Five projects w completed last year. Approximately 480 low and moderate income households in the. coastal zon are expected to benefit from the new programs listed above. New construction for elderly 157 Conditioned by Coastal Commission 301 Rehabilitation in process 20 TOTAL 478 If these rojects are completed as planned, 38 percent of the a sting need for coastal using .assistance will have been satisfied. The will still be approximat ly 790 households in the coastal zone overpayi for shelter. To satisfy the maining need for affordable housing, the C stal Element will pursue the go s and policies contained in the City's Hou ng Element. This is w in conformity " h Coastal Act policy requiring that ne housing be developed in accordance wi the policies and goals of local hou ' g elements. The goals of the housing prog m outlined in the Housing Eleme are: 1) The attainment f decent housing within a tisfying living environment for households all socioeconomic, r cial,. and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. 2) The provision of a va iety of housin opportunities by type, tenure and cost for households of a sizes throu out the City. 3) The development of a ba need esidential environment with access to employment opportunities, c nity facilities, and adequate services. More specific policies and progra imed at the special problems of housing in the coastal zone have been dev ope as part of the coastal plan. 8.3 CONCLUSION The aim of coastal plan ing is to balan many competing interests and priorities. In this contex , the importance of ousing must be weighed against the other major co erns in the Coasta Element--sensitive habitats, visitor-serving and re eational facilities, natur resources, energy--in ways that consider public ell-being and economic feasib ity. The goals end po lea contained in the City's Housin Element are specifically incorporated In the coastal plan in order to addre the needs of low and moderate Inc households in a comprehensive a balanced manner. Additional c stal policies aim to achieve the following: Pro v sion of affordable housing in new residential develo ents. I ill of vacant lots with low and moderate income housi units where ossible. 14. Promote compatibility of oil and other energy-related activities with surrounding uses to the maximum extent feasible. 14a. Review and modify the Oil Code, if necessary, to include measures such as additional requirements regarding fencing, planting and landscaping to ensure aesthetic and environmental compatibility between oil activities and other uses. 14b. Pursue strategies with the State and the oil companies to improve the appearance of existing oil wells and related facilities on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. 14c. Before permitting any expansion of the Edison power plant, require development of a comprehensive screening plan with appropriate landscaping which meets the standard of State agencies having Jurisdiction over such expansion. 14d. Encourage comprehensive planning for new uses on large oil parcels; discourage piece-meet recycling of oil parcels. 14e. Encourage dual-uses of oil field surface areas so,long as (1) new uses and oil activities are compatible, and (2) access to underground zones can be accommodated by the new use. 14f. Encourage the conversion of the rotary mud dump on Hamilton and Magnolia to new uses if the contents of the dump are found not to be dangerous to public health, safety. and welfare, or if all harmful deposits are decontaminated. 14g. As part of the existing environmental review process, require a chemical analysis of the contents of the rotary mud dump, a geological study of the site and necessary mitigation measures before allowing new uses on the rotary mud dump. 14h. Encourage screening of existing Edison power plant facilities via planting of trees and shrubs; pursue strategies to this end with Southern California Edison. 10.5.7 OUSING The adapted Housing Element to the General P identifies arld documents needs and establishes a program t dross such housing needs. It is the document which guides hous development througriout the city, including the c at zone. However, the Housing Elemen not automatically meet all the requirements of the Coastal Act. u ore specific policies misted to the coastal zone have been includ n this plan s the Housing Element policies which established overall ction have been into ated by reference. 15. Promote adequate housing opportunities within the coastal zone for 1 Income groups. 15s. Incorporate the City's Housing Element as representing a major portion of the housing component of the LCP an adopt the following additional policies which shall apply to a Huntington Beach Coastal Zone: 15b. vestigate the feasibility of implementin an expanded grant p ram for low- and moderate-income ousing rehabilitation, incl ing mobile homes. 15e. Coordin a with the Orange Count ousing Authority and local housing p onents (builders, rea estate board members, lender, consumers) o develop a pr ram to provide for continued affordability all low and oderate income units resulting from lnclusionery an eplaceme policies. 15d. Encourage the rete i of existing numbers of mobile homes and investigate areas fo ential new mobile home zoning. 15e. Unrestricted aversion f mobile home parks to other uses diminshes m it e home stoc and space availability. The City will develop o inances which wi include, but not be limited to, ensuran that any displaced m 'le homes within the coastal zone will accommodated within the ity of Huntington Beach; that th onversion will not result in th displacement of low income 1 ividuals or households; that such c version will not result in a shortage of housing opportunities and c ices; and that there be a mechanism for reimbursement of relocatio costs. 15f. Require that 20 percent of all new residenti projects of 20 or more units be affordable to low and moderate in me households as defined by the City's Housing Element. The deve er shall have the option to provide the affordable units within outside the coastal zone. New residential developments of less t n 20 units may pay a "per-unit" fee in lieu of 20 percent of the pr 'act being affordable to low and moderate Income households; rental its are excluded from the requirements of this policy; smaller proj is of ten or lose units will be excluded from the provisions of this poll 10.5.8 COMMUMITY FACILITIES A prerequisite to any development in the coastal zone is the provision of adequate community facilities. Public works facilities In the coastal zone are for the most part adequate to service the level of development proposed in the coastal land use plan. Some deficiencies, however, have been identified as discussed in Section 9. ? 5 ? . RESOLUTION NO . 5267 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING COASTAL ELEMENT AMEND- MENT NO. 83-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives ; and A public hearing on adopting of Coastal Element Amendment No . 83-1 to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1983, and approved for recommendation to the City Council ; and Thereafter, the City Council after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code Section 65355, held at least one public hearing to consider said Coastal Element Amendment No . 83- 1 ; and v At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pursuant to provisions of Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code, commencing with Section 65350, that Coastal Element Amendment No . 83-1 to the General Plan, consisting of the following change, is hereby adopted: That all housing policies and all discussion of housing issues are removed from the Coastal Element. )L:ps "9/83 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May 1983. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: of City Clerk Cil6r Attor REVIEWED A APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator irector of Development Services 2 . Res. No. 5267 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) so: ICITY OF HUNrINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic. NOES: Councilmen: None r +i ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City The foregoing !MhMat is a correct copy of Huntington Beach, California of the original on file in this office. Attest 19g�M ' a City Cierk and Ekcfficio Clerk of the City CounCA of the City of Huntington Beach, Cal. By.. ...Deputy nl H.B. Planning Commission April 19, 1983 � 11 11. A plan for t control for all storm noff from the property during construc n and during init' operation of the project shall be submitted the Depar nt of Public Works for review. 12 . All previously imposed co i 'ons of CUP 82-19, where applicable, shall be a part of thi approva AYES : Higgins, W"inchell, Erskine, Schum r, Mirjahangir NOES : None ABSENT: LiveAgood ABSTAIN: Porter COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment to the General Plan which will remove Policy 15f which re- quires that 20 percent of all new residential projects larger than 10 units in the coastal zone be affordable to persons of low and moderate income. The public hearing was opened. Seeing that no one wished to address this matter, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine stated he would be abstaining from the voting on this matter. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR RESOLUTION NO. 1305 WAS APPROVED ADOPTING THE COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 AND WAS RECOM- MENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Livengood ABSTAIN: Erskine C DE AMENDMENT NO. 83-7 Ini ted by City of Huntington Beach A request amend Articles 990 and 993 pertaining to tentativ arcel map requireme This establishes a procedure to waive r fired par. cel map. Commissioner Mirjahangir d concerns about ins ces where property owners having to locate the ' ht-of-ways. public hearing was opened. Seeing no one was pres to ad ss the Commission on this matter, the public hearing was clos ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND ERSKIN ODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-7 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL R ADOPTION BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins inchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumac , Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: ' engood ABSTA None Page 4 - Council Minutes - 5/16/83 AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Finley PUBLIC HEARING - CODE AMENDMENT 83-7 - APPROVED - ORD NO 2622 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REQUIREMENTS f Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a pu/el con 'der Code Amendment No. 83-7, initiated by the Development Oepar nt, to amend Articles 992 and 993 pertaining to tentatirequirem ts. This code amendment establishes a procedure to w parcel map. The City Clerk a ounced that all legal requirements for pub cation and posting had been me and that she had received no coem uni ations or written protests to the matte . The Director of Development rvices presented a st f report regarding the matter. Discussion was also held regarding an chec ees. The Mayor declared the hearing open. There being no one present to speak the ma er and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the eari ng was osed bye the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Ordi ce No. 2622 for Cou it consideration - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNC OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGT BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 992 AND 993 OF THE HUNTIN ON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY A NOING SECTIONS 9920 AND 9930.2 THEREOF AND DING NEW SECTIONS 9920.1 AND 992 2, TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR THE W ER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARCEL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS." On motion by P inson, second Mandic, Council approved Code Ame ment 83-1, and of ter re ing by title, approved introduction of Ordinance No. 622 by the following ll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic NO . None A ENT: Finley PUBLIC HEARING - COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83-1 - APPROVED - RES NO 5267 - A - ADOPTING COASTAL ELEMENTM N N N PLAN The. Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Coastal Element Amendment No. 83-1, an amendment to the Coastal Element of the General Plan. Said amendment will remove all housing policies -� and all discussion of housing issues from the Coastal Element. Copies of said amendment are on file in the Development Services Office. The Director of Development Services presented a staff report regarding the matter. Page 5 - Council Minutes - 5/16/83 The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Resolution No. 5267 for Coucil consideration - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-1 TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN." Councilwoman Bailey stated that she believed the concerns are met in the City's mobilehome ordinance, redevelopment law, and the Mello bill , if it comes back with the recommendations, as well as, the Housing Element and the General Plan. She stated that it was not that Council is not still sensitive to the issues and the needs in the City. On motion by Pattinson, second Kelly, Council approved Code Amendment 83-1 and adopted Resolution No. 5267 by the following roll call vote: AYES: PATTINSON, THOMAS, KELLY, MAC ALLISTER, BAILEY, MANDIC NOES: NONE ABSENT: FINLEY JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Mac)kll.ister announced that a joint meeting of the City C ncil and the Redevelopment Agency had been called. ROLL CALL Present: Pattinson, Thomas, lly, MacAllister, iley, Mandic Absent: Finley (excused absen PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATING TO CITY/REDEV 0 ENT AGENCY ITEMS No one was present to speak. MINUTES The Clerk presented /miespril 18, 1983 for nsideration by the Redevelopment AgencyOn motion by Pattinsy, the Redevelopment Age approved and adopted the minutes eetings of April 18, 1983, written and on file in the Offfee of the City Clerk. The motion carried una imously. ALL STAIE LEGAL SUPPLY CO.. 1-000-222-0510 EG11 h • I V, State of California. Edmund G. Brown Jr., GoL'ernor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street,4th floor ` San Francisco,California 94105 (415)543-8555 January 26, 1982 Dave Eadie Mansion Properties, Inc. 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Permit No. 349-79 Dear Dave: I have received and reviewed the Deed Restriction and Offer to Dedicate to satisfy the Commercial Recreation and Recreational Dedication conditions of the above permit which you sent me about a week ago. I note that on Page 1 of the Deed Restriction, Huntington Beach Company recites that it conveyed the property subject to Permit No. A-349-79 in exchange for the conveyance to it of other like kind property, and as part of the exchange, Huntington Beach Company agreed to place a limitation of the use of the Restricted Property, title to which has been retained by HB Co. The Restricted Property is to be described in Exhibit B, which was not attached to the Deed Restriction, so I was not able to confirm that the Restricted Property was that area shown in Exhibit 6 to the staff recommendation for approval. This is my only reservation about the Deed Restriction. You probably can dispel this when the Exhibits are appended to the Restriction. You should also indicate the property on which the residential units are to be constructed in an Exhibit A. The Offer to Dedicate is acceptable to the Executive Director. The amounts of title insurance appear to be reasonable. I would appreciate it if, after the policy to insure the recreational open-space parcel has been obtained, I could receive confirmation of this from the city manager or planning director of the City of Huntington Beach. Also, a copy of a preliminary title report on the deed restricted area must be forwarded for my review. Dave Eadie Page 2 January 26, 1982 One additional item: Permit No. 349-79 was subject to a housing condition. Due to changes in state law, your project is exempt from that condition. However, you must seek an amendment to your permit to delete that condition before your permit may be issued. I believe that Jim McGrath, the staff permit analyst would assist you in that regard. Thank you for all of your cooperation in this matter. Please don't hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, C.L EVELTN C. LEE Legal Counsel ,. .: State of California. Edmund G. Br(- Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor ' San Francisco, California 94105 1415) 543-8555 February 24, 1982 Mr. Dave Eadie Mansion Properties Inc. 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Permit No. 349-79 Dear Dave: I am returning your check for an amendment to delete Condition 7 because an amendment is not necessary. Under the provisions of AB 321, no amendment application of Commission action is required once the appropriate local government has made a determination under Section 65590. Thus, given the receipt of the determination from the City of Huntington Beach, Condition No. 7 is no longer of any force or effect, and once the other conditions are complied with, the permit will be issued, without the requirement to provide 106 units of affordable housing. As regards the changes in the offer to dedicate, Clause 6 should be modified to make it clear that no above-ground structures are allowed in 'the easement. Deleting the words "on" and "over" from the last sentence is one way to accomplish this. If you think you need alternative language, call Evelyn Lee or me. Very truly yours I 6ames McGrath Analyst I ALL-S-h LEGAL SUPPLY CO.. 1-500-292-0510 ED11 i I 40, e _. ORDINANCE No. 1186 AN OR.DINANCfi OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RELATING.TO ZONE CASE 545 i . A MID- ING'THE HUNT13GTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE B? RECLASSIFYING_Ali-2(SECTIONAL DISTRICT ASAP 2-6_11), 24-3(SECTIONWDISTRICT MAP 3-6-11.), $ SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 4- DM- 6-11) MaO(SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 10-6-111 and EM-12 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 11 -11). The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. That the real property in the City of Huntington Beech, County of Orange, State of California, generally bounded by the City Limits and Garfield Avenue on the north, Goldeawest Street, Clay Street, Main Street, Seventeenth Street, Pals Avenue, and Twenty Third Street on the east, Highway #1 on the south and the City Limits on the west as depicted on Exhibit W Twenty Third Street Project on file in the Plana'"g Department office, is hereby reclassified from: R-1-0 Single Family Residence District combined with oil, B,.l•PD5-0 Single Family Planned Development con- _bind with oil, 8-2-.0 Two Family Residence District combined with oil, R-3-0 Limited Multiple Family Residence District combined with oil, C-1-0 Neighborhood Commercial District combined with oil, and M-2.0 Industrial District combined with oil •• Orcl._ce No. llt�6 To B•-1-0 Single Family Residence District combined with oil, . R-3-0 Limited Multiple Family Residence District coubined with oil, "0 Multiple Family Residence District combined with alit . C-1-0 Neighborhood Commercial District combined with all with setback provisions, and C-2-0 Community Business District combined with oil with setback provisions. Section 2. IM-2 (Sectional District leap 2-6-11) , M::j (Sectional District Ns p �76-11) 9 L� Sectional District Sap -6-11 DH-10 Sectional District Hap 10-6-11j , and DES-12 Sectional District lisp 11-6-11) are hereby amended, mad es amended, shall reed in words and figures as follows 2. Ord IZIA"ce No. 1186 Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the pass- age and Adoption of this'ordimmnce and shall cause the same to be published by one insertion in the Huatlagton Beach Mews, a weekly newspaper, printed, published and circulated in the City of Huntington Beach, California, and thirty (30) days after the adoption thereof, the same shall take effect aad be in force. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beech, California, this ..fit day of February , 1906. Tar4Pro-Term�X� ATTEST: City—CAPrIc APPBGYED AS TO 7��' : G City Attorney PLmm" zmme 0 M 2 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2-6-t t ' F ..� s R• "ors: OT. Chi aw~•nt r ifs .w s ram. •�r � "�'71! �'! . .r ... ra►w ns e...w �w �: _ rrr vGTON BEACH �" " _ ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �� m .d..... N-.Nt on .����art...•.r ems." ova �n�aw.s.iw.w.asr, rsrs •r. 'w' rti �. ..e�� im,R/Kia •.M.a� .warn r.r.u. M-N N-M0 •M •d•Y .� �t-.•., t.-e r.•1w-ww an.e• Cal R3 I I` R5 ; C2 RA-0 RA-0 PA-al R3 R2 i mot mmillloot R3 R2 . R2 C4 R3 R2 Mi R2 R 3 L '1 c2-0 �� DrZ � R2 19 a2R2 C2-0 RI-0 '.. s all R2 i a a RFO R2-0 M2-0 M2-0 R2 Rz cz r:� a oro R• R=-O o e et e o RI-0 �O Rt M th RI RI o a O Rt� 0 4 4 e e R2-0 C4 rc it r r ,i• i• `mod aj Rf Rf m RI RI a a s Rro 4 ? Q e e m . . o� Rho Rs-o i Ri � IouRrn sows K mar � ZONP4 0M 3 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 3-6-11a" arlmm smoomm" as CITY OF �.Q aas �... ..... fic 1 GTON BEACH �� ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA caum Ave" _L t C1-0 y R4-0 °j M2-0 use 1 /•� �+ ; :I-0 rV R, ;0. RI-0 R4-0 RI-0 4-0 R4-0 R3-0 R3-0 R 1-0 _ R5-0 e \y Z R4-0 \ R4-0 5 R I-O R4-0 �....R4-0 • R4-0 R4-0 R 1-0 R4-0 R 1-0 cl-0 •+ M2-0 1-0 • M2-0 y �� PLANW G zomma OM 4 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-6-11 & 5-6-11Nair i + o f �w0 Gomm&EdamL wsommumnr 3 w'o r A•r .. :..:... GTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA .r000 W zas CAM: ,= maim ra o r. W / •1. � I 1 . � R3-0 R3-0 cl-0 •� RI-0 I R4-0 M2-0 g � 0 i y o� y 1 PIJWNING ZONING 0m 10 9-6.11 a SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 10-6-H . . CITY OF _- Yr,O Y.•1 T.tiY ,.. .- . an mmuCM6 a ummret K w. • -w — u°am HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA •WSM W ZOW east. _,.... .."«....... G ♦a 0 RI-0 o ry o ! C40 M ZM !� O !'� A •a r'1. O 7 ti E � ° c.R° � i0 !!i0 !•a• I � r ` !J� ++ O CEO ♦O O 7 C�0 oe I j PI.ANNOA MN114G OM 12 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP II-6-II CITY OF ufv eo1N1L fso�f.ott .ft rbf 6cccmo lRNiN 6016 MUM 21111i � ....a r.w.rarr.•.wr +r►•w__ww"r HUNTINGTON BEACH on —�- ��-..f w..•. f.n.o f.r•fo fM —r�r fwrr ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WLY fY �•.r rrwr r��r�.r•.y wrwr NIOaO S72Oil[Chit: fwwa foo �®wr r ...•o uu .&1n.111l.tl.au.n&nL N& w7.46 15 supra 6999W t•aM V Z iY 7 .�.r.r s.♦ y 1 a I UU ULJ ULJ r A• Rs R•1 Rr/ R.4IR= �� ! R! CZ -j +�.`• I ID RI RI RI pot-lot! Lot RTQ CZ-0 w O J 1 1 RI RI RI RI Rli R i!•O a I rr �r .ry +• a RI-0 R, pit it ¢i R7 R]•O •e o t w w w vs a RS s R5-0 .p a a RI Ott *I a� O.. Q •` RL RI t .�rt� a fl w 0111-0 R7-0 R /♦O + 1 1 Rt i 2 3 ~ 1 +'ti + Ott t •*•. " R2-0 0 Q O O O Q O O O �-• O �~ Ott RI RI RI R.2 Ott i R 2.0 i a a a s a s a s R3 � C4 ti +• Rt RIB, a a pzll 4 4RI R2OttRI s s a a s O !ti • O I no 'R 2-0 =O O O O O O I O O 1 a a s IOjI Poll C R2 R2-0 I 19 w i1 y ~Pti Q'C tiA R! R2 R2 Ita a a2 W C+1 p� ;O Per '��J • R3 Poll 1 nl R2-0 Q Q o 0 o OI R _ 42-0 a a s a s a t 2 O �� •` A t'! D Rom± R2.0 O OI OR 0 Q 7 Q R2-0 P to2.0 a a Q i3R R •' t: P 7 � tiA 0' 0 not-coQ Q 9 pti �` O ' Op w� 0 R S•O onesill a e ~ + : M 43-0 0 i a" + O Oto 3-4 fag R 7-0 r� —1 : a s R 5-0 Of 3-0 e O A ON 3-0 CCU CJ t: 7 4� R3.O O 9 p w ct-o T , 4 c• o �A .rt♦rTa aIt C. o 0 • 0 1. No. 1186- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified, and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington -Beach is five; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the _day of February , 19 66 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2_day of February , 19_,, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Gisler, Stewart, Lambert NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Welch, Shipley ity Clerk ex-officio Clerk of the City council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ORDINANCE NO. 2482 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIS- TRICT,. COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY AT -THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF PALM AVENUE (ZONE CASE NO. 80-6) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 80-6 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, ' and after due con- sideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consis- tent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property, located at the southwesterly extension of Palm Avenue, is hereby changed from R3-0, "Medium High Density Residential District, " combined with oil production, and C1-O, "Neighborhood Commercial District," combined with oil production, to R4-0, "High Density Residential District," combined with oil production: In the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of .California, being a portion of Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S.B.M. , as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county, more particularly described as follows: /ahb 3/2/81 1, R3-0 to R4-0 Parcel: Commencing at the south- west corner of the north half of the northwest quarter of said Section 4 as shown on a map filed in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 of Records of Surveys; thence south 89038149" east, 97.35 feet along the boundary line between the city of Huntington Beach and the unincorporated territory of Orange County to the true point of beginning; thence continuing along said boundary line south 89038149" east, 834.04 feet; thence south 20*51146" east, 336.59 feet; thence south 68°20' 52" west , 22.55 feet; thence north 10005143" west, 8. 89 feet to a nontangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 1,500.00 feet through which a radial line bears north 10*05143" west, said point hereinafter referred to as Point "A; " thence south- westerly 492.15 feet along said curve through a central angle of 18047' 55" to a point of compound curvature with a curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 2, 000.00 feet, a radial line through said point bears north 28°53 '38" west; thence southwesterly 289.75 feet along said curve through a central angle of 8018104" to a nontangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 1,510.00 feet a radial line through said point bears south 59°OT129" west; thence northwesterly 535.91 feet along said curve through a central angle of 20°20'05" ; thence north 11*32 ' 26" west 148 .30 feet to the point of beginning. C1-0 to R4-0 Parcel: Beginning at hereinbefore de- scribed Point "A; " thence south 10005143" east, 17.00 feet to a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 600.00 feet; thence southeasterly 246 .74 feet along said curve through a central angle of 23033143" to a point on said curve through which a radial line bears south 56020'34" west; thence south 50022123" west, 658.11 feet to the northeasterly line as shown in Book 6598,' .page .58, Official Records , said point being on a curve con- cave northeasterly having a radius of 1510.00 feet, through which a radial line bears south 40059110" west; thence northwesterly 451. 68 feet along said curve, and said northeasterly line as shown in said Book 6598, page 58, through a central angle of 17008119" to a nontangent curve concave south- easterly having a radius of 2000.00 feet through which a radial line bears north 37"11142" west; thence northeasterly 289.T5 feet along said curve through a central angle of 8018 ,04" to a point of 2. compound curvature with a curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1500.00 feet, a radial line through said point bears north 28053 '38" west; thence northeasterly 492.15 feet along said curve through a central angle of 18047'55" to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director is .hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061, District Map 4 (Sectional District Maps 4-6-11 and 5-6-11) , to reflect Zone Change No. 80-6, de- scribed in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district map, as amended hereby, is available for inspection in the office o.f the City Clerk. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of May 1981. Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City -Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : City Administrator irector bT Development Services 3• PLA4MG ZOMNG OM 4 r SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-6—I1 &- 5-6—IICITY OF — •�i r r••• w-•••w M s 3��•jarw • r.•uw•• QA OIL OommmCt wa TM �GC14 �I•.•Y► MA•r am 9�lQQ i!L!� !/QQQ V&S �anw•t �s ••arnr ar.s. �•w0�.wf u-s.arsa ••c H GTON BEACH ��� a" ,_ =.a.... im �comma •w.•i•r f.t-n yY 11 m•rim uiaa+aa.•.ram. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA tr.mar,m6rtM cs yya•�- a ••rtrrr+�oKr.cr .'6f'e�•a r•••rr•rr-—rtr u . 9 ma ,i I i �✓ s9 I 1 4 7C 1 swwrf R3-0 � f i I 1 � "4a R2-PO-0 ca _ lk � 4 R4-0 �I i I i i RZ-PO-0 I c M 2-02 I y 7�1L �I�dAAILi� �� — La Ord. No. Z482 STATE OF CALIImuu ) Caum OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HMI=DN BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWOITTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of Aoril 19_&L, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th_ day of May 1981 and Was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: MacAllister. Finley. Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas 00002 J. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 1,Alkia M. we"r&wjh CITY CLERK of-the Cny of Mundnoon 8eeett and a-0fflWo Clerk of the City Cam. do hw eby ewWy that a synows of this ?'a= been Oeolat+ed in the h:untington Beach Indepa,Wow on 19 In aceatdanp tf+e C:.y Chartc:of said • city Clerk _ 04wnr city Clark ORDINANCE N0. 2609 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM HIGH DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUC- TION, WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWENTY-NINE UNITS PER ACRE, AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, WITH A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN- TEEN UNITS PER ACRE, ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION OF PALM AVENUE (ZONE CASE NO. 82-20) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 82-20 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due cons dera- tion of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Ccm�,iss:cn and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council _finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with to general plan., NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington. Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property, generally located at the southwesterly extension of Palm Avenue, is hereby changed from R4-0, "High Density Residential District," com- bined with oil production to R4-29-0, "High .Density Residential District," combined with oil production, with a maximum of twenty- nine (29) units per acre on approximately 10.439 acres : That portion of Parcel 4 in the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on the map filed in Book 166, pages 10 and 11 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder /ahb .2/3/82 I ' of said county. Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; thence south 11032126" east 148.30 feet along the westerly line of said Parcel 4 to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 1510.00 feet ; thence southeasterly 649 .80 feet along said curve and said westerly line through a central angle of 24039122" to the beginning of a non- tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1500.00 feet, a radial to said curve bears north 41044124" west; thence north- easterly 525.90 feet along said curve through a central angle of 20005'16"; thence north 68*20152" east 153. 86 feet to the easterly lire of said Parcel 4, said line also being the westerly line of Palm Avenue as shown on said map, 100.00 feet in width; thence north 20*51146" west 50. 00 feet along said westerly line to the northerly line of Seaview Avenue, 100 .00 feet in width; thence north 68020152" east 100.01 feet to the easterly line of said Parcel 4; thence north 20051,46" west 336. 69 feet to the northerly line of said Parcel 4; thence north 89°38149" west 834.04 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of approximately 10.439 acres . SECTION 2. The following described real property, generally located at the southwesterly extension of Pala Avenue, is nerety changed from R4-0, "High Density Residential District ," com- bined with oil production, to R3-17-0, "Medium Density Residen- tial District," combined with oil production, with a maximum of. seventeen (17) units per acre on approximately 9.249 acres : That portion of Parcel 4 in the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State _ of California, as shown on the map filed in Book 166, pages 10 and 11 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county. Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; thence south 11032'26" east 148.50 feet along the westerly line of said Parcel 4 to the beginning of a tangent curve 2. concave northeasterly having a radius of 1510.00 feet; thence southeasterly 649.80 feet along said westerly line through a central angle of 24°39123" to the• true point of beginning, said point being on a curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 1500.00 feet, a radial to said curve bears north 41044124" west; thence north- easterly 525.90 feet along said curve through a central angle of 20005,16"; thence north 68°20' 52" east 153. 86 feet to the easterly line of said Parcel 4, said line being the westerly line of Palm Avenue as shown on said map, 100.00 feet in width; thence along said easterly line and said westerly line of Palm Avenue the following courses: south 20051146" east 127.73 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 850 .00 feet, southerly 248.97 feet along said curve through a central angle of 16046' 55" to the beginning of a reverse curve concave easterly having a radius of 950-00 -feet, southerly 696.00 feet along said curve through a central angle of 41"58' 37" to the southerly line of said Parcel 4; thence south 43056' 32" west 67.02 feet to the westerly line of said Parcel 4, said point being on a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of. 1540.00 feet , a radial to said point bears north 35056,43" east; thence along said westerly, line the fol- lowing courses : northwesterly 158.75 feet along said curve through a central angle of 5054, 22", north 59*57139" west 385.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave north- easterly having a radius of 1510.00 feet, north- westerly 626.29 feet along said curve through a central angle of 23045' 51" to the true point- of beginning. Containing approximately 9.249 acres. SECTION 3. The Development. Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061, District Map 4 (Sectional District Maps 4-6-11 and 5-6-11) to reflect Zone Case No. 82-20, described in Sections 1 and 2 hereof. A copy of said district map, as amended hereby is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect . thirty days 3. after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of February , 1983. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ity Clerk City 'Attorney C REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administra or rector of Development Services 4. r• ' No. 2609 SPATE OF CALIIr MU ) COMUT OF OBANGB ) ss: CITY OF HON 1=0N BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. wENTWORm, the duly, elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February 19_a _, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of February , 19 83 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: Mandic ABSENT: Councilmen: None NOT VOTING: Thomas , City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California FW&M M CM? cumpt of the city of eaelt and q. Mtn Clerk of the City M aby cnttfy tat a synopsis of this s been Fub tshed M the Huntington Beach la'::-: -&:t v 19 in aeeor'a. n•~"h t-e r.'Y Charter: of raid City. AUCIA m. WENTWORTH .. ._. _......_........_................ City Clark Oeputy City Clerk / n I I I N U.1 Ot SU lLL.fN�H.i 00 AI-IS IV-1 J-S-11V iF� Euntington Beach Manning Commission ,% P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 ZONE CHANGE Cate: March 4 , 1981 RECEIVED NOTICE OF ACTICN '` 51�;;� Applicant : Mans-inn Properties, Inc . Subject : Zone Change No . 80-6 (EIR 80-1) Your application to change the zoning classification upon sub]ect prope=_;- was acted on by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at its public hearing on March 3, 1981 and your request was recommended for : X ApprovalRECO-MMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A?PROVAL WITH FINDINGS (SEE ATTACHED) Conditional Approval (See attached. ) Denied OR Continued until withdrawn Pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, a recommendation for approval or conditional approval by the Planning Commission will be transmitted to the City Council to be acted on at a public hearing. A recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission will allow the City Council to deny the reclassification of property without holding a public hearing unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail its action and grounds by and upon which the party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of $150 . 00 dollars and submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten (1C; days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is March 13, 1981 V ry truly yours, . L L James W. Palin Secretary —,- f unwiaton Leac(i i•iunninb Ummissiorl P.O. Box 19C CALIFORNIA 9264E ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-6 Applicant: i:ansion Properties Inc . 2110 Alain Street Huntington Leach, California 92648 Request: To permit a change of zone from C1-0 (Neighborhood Commercial combined with Cil) and R3-0 (Medium. High Density Residential combined with Oil Produc- tion) to R4-0 (Multi-Family Residential combined with Oil) . Location: Subject property is generally located southwesterly of the proposed extension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future alignment of 38th Street. )ate of Approval: March 3, 1981 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zone change from Cl-O and R3-0 to R4-0 is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Planned Community. 2. The proposed zone change to R4-0 is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the Local Coastal Program. 3 . The project resulting from the proposed zone change will be con- sistent with the goals- and policies of the Housing Element for the City's Gent al Plarv..` . 4 . The proposed change of zoning will result in a project that is consistent and compatible with the future surrounding land uses . I hereby certify that Zone Change No. 80-6 was approved,for recommenda- tion to the City Council for adoption,by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on March 3., 1981, upon the foregoing findings. Very truly yours, Jame Palin Secretary JWP:df 17N huntington beach development services depar:­::A1rt STAf f T TO: Planning Corur.ission FROM: Development Services DATE: march 3, 1981 LONE Ch1t GE No. IP'.P:=1 REPORT ?.O EC-1 / r'Pam- - _ - - h'.anSl^. Prcr�rties, Inc . 2110 Tin Street February 1= , 1 - Huntingtcn Beach, Ca . 92648 M%N'Dr%TOPY PR --- ENGIN='R: ;:alden & Associates, Inc. May 2, 1981 4002 .•:est Carry St. , Ste. B Santa Ara, Ca . 92704 ZONING: C1-0 and* =3 REC',ES :o per:-it a charge of zone GENERAL PLAN -DES IGI;AT from C1-0 (Neighborhood Ccm- High Density Resice,t___ n,ercial combined with Oil) and =3-0 (Medium High Density Res-- ACRE:=E: 15 . 235 _c= _� dentizl combined with Oil Production) , to R4-0 (multi_ EXISTING USE: Vacn-nz Family Residential combined with Oil. ) LOC?.:IG .1 Subject property is generally � located southwesterl,., cf the proposed extension of Palm Avenue and the proposed future alignment of 38th Street. 1 .0 SUGGESTED ACTION: The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission certify Envircn mental Impact Report No. 80-1 and to approve Zone Change No. 80-6, a request to change- tbe zoning on a 15.2 acre site located at the south- west extensibn� of Palm- Avenue from its existing zoning of R3-0 and C1-0 to R4-0. - The staff is further recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of said EIR and said Zone Chr nge. 2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Zone Change No. 80-6 is an outgrowth of the Seacliff Phase IV Project. The California Coastal Commission conditionally approved Seacliff Phase IV in December, 1979. Among the conditions imposed by the Commission on the Seacliff Phase IV Project was the requirement that affordable housing for low and moderate income persons be provided ' ••F M-2_. ZONE CHANGE' 80-6 Page Two l on a 21-acre site located at the southwesterly end of the extension ofi� Palm Avenue. The 15.2 acre parcel identified as the subject property of this zone charge is a portion of the overall 21 acre site to be used for the affordable housing project. 1 Zone Change 80-6 is a request to change the existing . zonin on _wo sites, one presently zoned Cl-0, Neighborhood Co,-=e_cial cc-b_ned with Oil Production and one site pre�..:ntly zoned R3-0, Medium Density Residential, combined with Oil Production, both two R4-0 High tensity Residential, combined with Oil Production. 3.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES: After reviewing the proposed zone change, the staff has identified the following issues: 1. Is the proposed zone change consistent with the City' s General Plan the recently adopted Local Coastal Plan? 2. Is the proposed zone charge consistent with. conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission on the approval of the Seacliff Phase IV Project? 3. Is the proposed zone change compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the general area? 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In February, 1980, the applicant requested the Department of Develop- ment Services Staff to waive the initial study/negative declaration assessment process in favor of proceeding immediately to the prepara- tion of an environmental impact report. After soliciting bid pro- posals from five .environmer_tal consulting firms, the City' s Environ- mental Review Committee selected the firm of Jack K. Bryant and Associates to prepare the EIR. In accordancerwith Soction 15160 of the State EIR Guidelines, a draft EIR was prepared and distributed for a 45 day public review period to allow other public agencies and members of the public at large to review and comment on the document. The final EIR consists of the draft EIR comments from persons and agencies who reviewed the draft EIR and responses to the comments prepared by the City Staff in con- junction with Jack K. Bryant and Associates. All persons and agencies who commented on the draft EIR have been notified o-f this meeting and sent a copy of the final EIR. The required entitlement for the development referenced in the EIR are the subject zone change, a conditional use permit, and a tentative tract map. It is the applicant' s intent to file applications for the conditional use permit and tentative tract map subsequent to certifi- cation of the final EIR and approval of the Zone Charge request. -..ONE CHANGF _20-6 Page Three The scope of the EIR includes the assessment of the proposal to ,je�•e; up to 450 residences cn a 21-acre site. the EIR was prcoared for proposed project on a gross land use basis. Certificat.- On CZ the does not preclude review of site ' s specific design and circui=tics' features at a - later date. ':he California Env i rcn.-r;ental Quality encourages preparation of environmental d cume:-ts as ear_ : as feesibiz in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. As indicated in. the EIR, the env ircn.:.en=a' opportunities and constraints ider.=ified s-.ould ba considered bt_- t!-e decisionmal.ers during review of a specific project on the site. serve as design parameters within which detail development plans be prepared. According to Section 15150 of the State EIR Guidelines, standards =c= adequacy of an EIR "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degre: of analysis to provide the decisiormakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account Of environmental consequencess and evaluation of the effects of a proposz= project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, end a good faith e='for_ at full disclosure. " 5.0 PRESENT LAND USE, ZONING, ANI_ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Subject property is located at the southtivesterly extension of Palm Avenue, east of the City boundary and west of the Seacliff Phase IV and existing Seacliff Planned Community. The two sites in question consisting of 15. 235 acres are presently zoned C1-0, Neighborhood Commercial, combined with Oil Production and R3-0, Medium High Density Residential,Residential, combined with Oil Production. The subject property is presently vacant of any development and is designated on the General Plan as Planned Community, however, the recently adopted Land Use Element of the Local Coastal Plan identifies the subject properly as High Density Residential, with a density of more than 15 units per gross acre. Under the metrics found in General Plan Document, the proposed zone change is consistent with both the planned community designation and tbe= Flfgh Density Residential designation. The properties adjacent to the subject site to the southwest is desi=nate' on the General Plan as Resource Production. It is presently zoned M=-02, Industrial District, combined with Oil Production and is presently ut11_z= as an oil production area. Properties located to the east of the subject site are designated on the General Plan as Planned Community, zoned R2-PE- Medium Density Planned Residential Development combined with Oil Productic Additional properties in the same area are zoned R3-0, Medium High Density Residential combined with oil production. The R2-PD-0 property will eventually be developed as the Seacliff Phase IV Project. The property located directly to the north of the subject site is within the Count•_:' s jurisdiction and has not been prezoned. 6.0 ANALYSIS• In December of 1979, ::he California State Coastal Commission reviewer Seacliff Phase IV, a 531 unit planned residential development adjace-: 1 ZONE CHANGE 80-6 Page Four to the subject property. At that time, the Commission conditionally approved the project and. amonc the conditions imposed by the Co-=issien on this project was the require:-ent that affordable housing for low and moderate income persons be provided on the 21 acre s: `e, of whic^ the subject property comprises 15.2 acres. The Coxi..issioz stip::,iatea that 20 percent of the aggregate units developed on the subject proper:-- and the Seacliff Phase IV site shall be available to low and mcderate income persons at affordable costs. The Commission indicated that the affordable units could be in the form of either one condominiu:- or two rent units built under the HUD Section 8 New Construction Prograr;. The property owner is presently envisioning a project consisting of approximately 450 units. 300 of the units would be at market rate condominiums and 150 would be rental units for low and moderate income �l housing. These 450 units would be on the total 21 acre site. The overall density would be approximately. 21.5 units per gross acre. As discussed in Section 5.0, zoning and general plan designation, the proposed R4-0 zoning on the subject site is' consistent with the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan and the newly adopted Land Use Element of the Local Coastal Plan. The proposed project is also con- sistent with the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan and will have a beneficial impact on identified local hc,:sing needs. Other issues such as topography, geology, and seizmicity, drainage and hydrology, aesthetics,. transportation and circulation, air quali-y, noise, and public facilities have been discussed in detail in Environ- mental Impact Report No. 80-1. Based on the above information and discussion, the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission certify Environmental Impact Report 80-1 and approve Zone Change No. 80-6. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION: The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission certify Environ- mental Impact Report 80-1 and approve Zone Change No. 80-6 with findings. The staff further recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Zone Change 80-6 in the adoption of the appropriate Ordinances. FINDINGS• 1 . The proposed zone change from C1-0 and R3-0 to R4-0 is consistent with the City' s General Plan and land use designation of planned community. 2. The proposed zone change to R4-0 is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the Local Coastal Program. 3.. The project resulting from the proposed zone change will be con- sistent with the goals and policies of the Housing Element for the City' s General Plan. R3-0 • I � yes R3-0 '9+. •r.1rr.iri R2-PO-0 Owvr...w •. \\ R4-0 a .,may 7 \ M 2-02 �-PO-O coo� ZC SO - ( 93-0 CI - 0 TO 94 -0He MPOW41ON MACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION • " 'Long: Change No. 80-6 Page Five 4 . The proposed change of zoning will result in a project that is consistent and compatible with the future surrounding land uses. S B:gc ATTACHMENTS• 1. Area Map 2. Site Plan 3 . Ordinance �1 Al l-STATE tFGAL SUPPLY CO. t-P00-YC1-05:0 ED:t 1 W 16: 24 '&711 374 Dorn r 3 � - a REQUEST FOR* CITY. COUNCIL ACTION " Dace max 16. 1999 jz�ubmitted m a: Honorable Mayor City Council ? ;1 r . o submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Director of Community DeveIopm t Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-12 Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Poliov or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Anaiysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions.Attachments: STATEMENT OE ISSM Transmitted for your consideration is Zone Change No. 87-12 and Negative Declaration No. 87-34 which is a request by David Dahl to change the zoning designation from RA-CD to (Q) RI-(3)-8.000-CD on a 4.115 acre site located on the south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 660 feet east of Edwards Avenue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE ar DECLARATION NO. 87-34, ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMT NO. 87--41, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13210 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-72. WITH REVLSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig. Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings of A22eval: 1. The change of zoning classification from RA-CD to (Q) R1 (3)-8,000-CD is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Estate Residential— 3 units per acre and is compatible with land use designations for surrounding properties. 2. The following conditions imposed by the "Q" zoning prefix will provide equestrian oriented amenities and design as well as assure consistency with surrounding zoning classifications and recent estate residential development. a. Any project approved for this parcel of land shall make provisions for equestrian trails within the development for the general public. b. At least 25% of the total number of residential lots shall be 15,000 net square feet or greater and a horse may be boarded on such lots. •I14 UJ LU c. Development of this parcel shall, to as great a degree as practical, be compatible with the draft Specific Plan being proposed for the area. d. Development of this parcel shall allow for innovation in types and placement of housing in the project. e. Any future project proposed for this property shall be subject to the filing and approval of a conditional use permit. Staff Recommendar_orL Approve Negative Declaration No. 37-34 and Zone Change No. 87-12 and introduce the attached ordinance for adoption. ANALYSIS: Zone Change No. 87-12 is a request to change the zoning from RA-CD to (Q) RI (3)-8,000-CD on a 4.85 Boss acre parcel for the proposed const=0hon of 12 single family estate homes in the proposed Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan area. At the November 17, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. Zone Change No. 87-12 was approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 37-41, Tentative Tract 13210, Conditional Exception No. 87-72, and Negative Declaration No. 87-34. Since the draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan has not been adopted by the City, "Q" or Qualified conditions have been placed on the new zoning designation In order to impose equestrian amenities such as the number of equestrian lots and providing equastian trails for the general public. In order for the applicant to file the necessary conditional use permit for a 12 lot subdivision, the City Council must approve Zone Change No. 87-12. On November 19, 1987, the Dahl Co. requested that the processing of the zone change be delayed in order to secure ownership of the site. The applicant has secured title of the site and has requested that Zone Change No. 87-12 be activated and set for public hearing before the City CounciL ENVIRONMENTAL STAM.- This project is covered by Negative Declaration No. 87-34. It is necessary for the City Council to act on Negative Declaration No. 87-34 prior to any action on Zone Change No. 87--12. FUNDIN SOURC>i Not applicable. ALnRNA ACTION- The City Council may deny Zone Change No. 87-12. RCA - 4/18/88 -2- (0135d) _, 11/Lli aG 1t3:�� 'p l li 41 4 U04U C a n Q �- A:tIA4 � 1. Area Map 2. Letter from applicant requesting delay. 3. Ordinance 4. Minutes from November 17, 1987 Planning Commission tweeting. S. Planning Commission staff report dated November 17, 1987. 6. Letter from applicant requesting that processing of Zane Change No. 87-12 be activated. 7. Letter from applicant verifying ownership of the site. PEC:DLB:MA:RLF:gbm RCA - 4/18/88 -3- (0135d) r ` cr' f�� 1..111a RA-O-CD t 1('OtlONtNI v � Knoll site Musa a of •' Ym111E1OMf01 A -CD - — *ON Ull 9 SSW ( Fj uoco� i. i - RA_C -� bftso wslxlu «( . w.• u u cud c 1 ! RA-0 M-r-_ tug(" 1 uoco __ c 1. i••1 N.i r` - -.. c ... HA-0 Al �Y�ll�• II •1 }: o 111 UII o IAoo_,,. - ! 1ra RA-01 RA-0 111/o co BA-0-CD t . •wr N 1�` /fco1122 i f RA a-CZ RA-0-Co 1 i RA-0•CD I j • r I �,� 'c zetw-u i��/IfIY t,Yl r i NwtY•Llp•(«K/I HUMING10N BEACH /IANNING DIVISION � 1 ALL-SIATELEGAI SUPPLYDO.. 1-800-222-0510 ED 11 W T •i�'S'. � V pat . "^ �' - Fw��y '{1 ;.�. �� s �� ' :jr �' •'.: •':�- _ _�ti ..;�C••ri.__ ,. ^__ _ - '-ems. A4 ' 'host LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction / < ., �y _ City of H �. - ;�, y Huntington Beach �; �, � ` ,�. _.., \.? � \ Permit Jurisdiction �• �. ' This areamdud•:oNy lams De:ow th.mean high:o••fine •-�-�� Coastal Zone Boundary �.•'';,_ �`� .'�-= -` •` • ,,,/// <"♦ and lands where the"'o;Ituct may e.61 ''�•' v `�•!� City Boundary ry Appeal Jurisdiction < ;Th,c t i,s:nebuo••.ad D e:.q(;. fir,�<e and:ham.d•..,,. -'•S. `f • , nale0 first p/prK road rd,al:Pnng fN'Sea w 30()'h^••.:n•• `M '� �:�• ' ► �� ± in ano e.teni of any peach or of!:r mean h•gn t•oe fine d _ �•' �r ?,'. -. _ -'/mere 6 rq Deacn,whither[,6 IhE greater distance AISD 4 _ included are Wnds w,thm 1 f r m a I r _ ( '. 00 o st ea s ro weI a ids _ -..tf�.� r i % and lah&wntun 300'of the top of lne seaward hats o! N Coastal bluff NOTE x I 800 400 O 800 1600 In addition to these geographic areas of appeal jurisdiclion R.C.§30613) the following types of development are appealable through- Appeal Jurisdiction (P. This area Tucludes tams where the _ r out the coastal zone pursuant to PRC Section 306031a)(4) Corr.ission Sirs dele,lated oriniral mmit Scale = 1 $O(] and Jurisdiction to the lnca"l goverment for 1.Any development approved by a county that is not 1 / arcns Potentially sub,icct to the PuLlic designated as a principal permitted — •. trust but which are detc•mined Ly title Th•sTut,hash,•a^r—m.eotosm.,yhe,etheCahtot"a g P P pe t ed use under zoning ap- 4 -� / f-oas:a�Cw• ,,S•o,,e:a•ns p,nlAcP cerhl•camn permit r•Proved pursuant to the applicable Local Coastal Program; Corr!ission to be fillyd, develor•ed• and a•roaprea saa•o pasuan:toPgCdevelopment )/ \.♦ Iu!, y;o5:v,b,and 2.An that constitutes a major public \!/c \\ corr•ittec' to urban uscs. YI P / `� \ r ♦ ♦ / yof:lI*am a,b o.,,• to uod�hpr:, dPvt513,a[fits may works project or a major energy facility. \\\ ♦ 't '. _ - also De apOea:abV p.n swam to P R C 6;ffX;:tYa)13,raMal. _ ! .nC iam51 :t O,es:•or�arise concein-nc the precise to ' \ L.C.P. not certified : pt m ,, ,r toda any aa oe!m in the above - •[,.•_ rmi't+•s•:'•u:ece:etrned:otM•,ocag—•n. ^'...-.•� .• ; , Sion boundary, only �•ent ano.or file e•ec,.,wa or,ecto,ru The Im In areas where a.parcel is bisected by the appeals jurisdic- \' r » a1t CJ•f,cation and,ntormation This plat may bP updated as Y that portion ' on of the parcel within the i4 .`- _ - aiO•opnale end'nay nG!mUu(k•alt hands wnrr post-LCP - � •`�`3��� a:� � i � area e ch,nhcaho^ nu; 'dfd appealable s subject the. ssons California Coastal Commission t ��i� o^ and ap[ra f :cacuon •r•a nrd oypp¢ jine as a lbl i b t to - ss, a al urisdicliOn. 100' fro nd 300'from bluffIT i r: �•�.•. I: t -1 V ffiffi-I ME MMM eI 41 IM M 300' from bt �a r 'r ." r<cerc T,� '. J:ice._ .�Y�r..�y7r =t•.:ei°T+"`E•: '�.t- r <' SA - - -- N1CA STATE• .p••.• - 'J - �.•� M.• '�1C".r 74 i •.F f 300' from bluff \LL-.1 Al E LEGAL SU-VCO, 1-M-2"20510 LC 11 r , 1 i CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105--(415) 543-8555 May 15, 1985 TO: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIONERS FROM: MICHAEL L. FISCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON MAP OF COMMISSION POST-LCP CERTIFICATION! JURISDICTION, CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH (for Commission consideration at its May 21-24, 1985 meeting) This recommendation was developed by Joseph Nicholson, Manager, Energy and Coastal Resources Division, and Jonathan 'Jan Coops, Coastal Program Analyst, Energy and Coastal Resources Division. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the map prepared by staff showing tie area where the Commission retains permit authority pursuant to P.R.C. §30519(b) , anc §30613, and where appeals of local government coastal development permit approvals are allowed pursuant to P.R.C. §30603(a)(1) and (a)(2) within the City of Huntington Beach. BACKGROUND After an LCP certification becomes effective, permit authority within that Jurisdiction is delegated to the local government. However,Vpur►suant to Section 30519 of the Coastal Act, the Commission retains permit authority (with certain exceptions) after LCP certification over developments occurring on tidelands , submerged lands, and public trust lands. As provided in Section 30613 of the Coastal Act, local jurisdictions can request that primary permit authority for areas potentially subject to the public trust but which are filled, developed, and committed to urban uses be transferred to the local government and the City ;,f Huntington Beach has made such a request. The permit Jurisdiction discussion below addresses this further and a map accompanying the staff report depict these areas . In addition to the retained permit .jurisdiction, Section 3C603 of the Coastal Act defines certain areas and types of development for which developments approved by the local government may be appealed to the Commission. Appeal jurisdiction is retained, for example, on 'ands within 10C -yet of st;,reams or wetlands , lands subject to the public trust, lands within 300 feet of coastal bluffs , beac^es , or estuaries, and lands between the seas and "the first public road paralleling the sea". During formulation of regulations governing the delineation of permit and appeals areas, the Commission recognized that the complexity of the road network in cer}air Parts of the coastal =one is such that a literal interpretation of the "first public road" definition could result in the inclusion of large areas within the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeals �urisdictien where the grounds for appeal pursuant to P.R.C. §30603(b) may not be an issue. The regulations therefore provide that the Commission may evaluate such areas , and limit the effect of designating the "first 1 -2- public road paralleling the sea" to the area in which the grounds for appeal specified in P.R.C. §30603(b) are clearly an issue. As also provided in the Commission's LCP regulations, a map portraying the areas of continuing Commission jurisdiction is to be adopted in conjunction with the final LCP certification. STAFF ANALYSIS The Commission first considered the post-certification permit and appeal map for Huntington Beach at its February 26-March 1, 1985 hearing in Los Angeles. At that time no action was taken due to the City's concern about certain areas at the southeast end of the City which remain within the Commission's original permit jurisdiction. The map adoption was reagendized for the April 23-25 meeting in Los Angeles but was pulled a second time at the request of the City. The major point of concern here revolves specifically around the inclusion of the tidally-influenced portions of the Huntington Beach and Talbert flood control channels within the Commission's retained permit area. The. City feels these areas are drainage channels and should be properly within the City's permit jurisdiction. Commission staff based the permit area delineation here on the U..S. Fish and 'Wildlife Service' s National Wetlands Inventory maps which classify both areas "Estuarine Sub-tidal" (meaning the substrate is continuously submerged) , and would submit that despite their concrete-lined character, do possess important value for waterfowl and fish species found in the area. In addition, staff has mapped these types of tidal features as permit jurisdiction in all other areas of the Coastal Zone, and believes this methodology to be consistent wit ection 30519 of the Coastal Act which defines the post certification permit jurisdiction as inclusive of tidelands and- submerged lands as well as public trust lands. Furthermore, modifications made to the City's "Coastal Conservation District" ordinances specifically designate maintenance of flood control channels, and restoration plans which may include development of new flood control facilities as conditional uses. As in most coastal cities, the Coastal Zone in Huntington Beach ,-is relatively narrow with the boundary located along parcel lines and street rights of way approximately 1 to 1.5 miles inland of the shoreline, except between Golden West Blvd. and Six-h St. where it is `urther seaward "see Exhibit 1) . The Commission's continuing permit and appeal areas are also found along the shoreline, and along the inland waterways and channels located at Huntington Harbour and the southeast end of the City. Precise boundar4es based on the accompanying map should be relatively easy to locate in the field if necessary, using the procedures set forth in the :ommission ' s administrative regulations (C.A.C. §13577) (See Exhibit 3) . Permit Jurisdiction The continuing. permit jurisdiction exists only on lands lying below the mean high tide 'line and within potential public trust lands lccated at Huntington Harbour, and adjacent to the Edison Power Plant. Because portions of Huntington Harbour are filled, developed, and committed to urban uses the City has requested, and the staff is recommending that the Commis=ion transfer its permit authority in certain instances , pursuant to Section 20613 of the Coastal Act. This request is discussed further below. The sources for the permit boundary are maps 144 and 145 (Seal 3each and Newport Beach quadrangles, scale 1:24,000) from the set showing potential tidelands trust areas prepared -or the Commission by the State Lands Commission staff. THese mans are used wherever the public trust component is the controlling -3- boundary criterion; however, given the complexity of precisely mapping potential public trust boundaries , it is apparent that the delineation may or may not inlcude all areas subject to the trust. Questions regarding the z-xact location and extent jof public trust lands must be referred to the State Lands Commission for determination. As mentioned above, the City of Huntington Beach has requested that the Commission transfer permit authority for the areas identified in Exhibit 2. Legislation passed in 1982 as part of the Hannigan amendments (AB 321, Stats. of 1982) provides the Commission with the authority to delegate its original permit jurisdiction over potential public trust lands to the local government in areas that are filled, developed, and committed to urban uses and the staff has used aerial photography, resource maps, the City's LCP and site inspections to determine where the permit boundary changes are appropriate. The areas recommended for transfer have been filled, have available infrastructure, and many are presently developed Kith buildings, roadways, parking lots, public facilities, and ether improvements . The State Lands Commission staff has reviewed the city request and concurs with the staff recommendation. Zoning for these areas provides a mix of commercial and residential designations. Because the Commission has reviewed specific land use and Zoning proposa' _� -or the areas , and placed density and site coverage requirements , Height limitations , provisions for public parking and access, visitor-serving uses and view :rotection on developments occurring in these areas, the staff believes these areas :lneet the requirements of Section 30613 of the Coastal Act and recommends transfer )f permit authority. As with all permit authority transfers of this types, the area ender consideration will remain in the Commission's appeal jurisdiction. APPEAL JURISDICTION The appeal jurisdiction boundary in the City of Huntington 3each is bases on the criteria of the First Public Road (FPR) , and the location 3= beaches , blu==s , the mean high tideline (MHTL' , wetlands, and potential public :rust lands where oermit authority has been transferred as discussed (See Exhibit As. shown :n :<hibit 31 in Huntington Harbour the `"HTL and potential public trust ' ine determine -he appeal boundary location. Along the shoreline Northwest- of Golden '.vest Blvd. , -he boundary is 300 feet from the beach , except inland of Bolsa Chica where the bouncary is 100 feet from the wetlands , and along Huntington Beach Mesa where the boundar' is 300 feet from the bluff. Southeast of Sixth Street the appeal area follows i combination of the First Public Road and a line 3C0 feet from the inland :::tent of the beach, however the effective boundary for the time being will be the 'Wand right-of-way of Pacific Coast Highway due to the presence of several areas directly inland where the LCP remains uncertified. These "white hole" areas result' in a somewhat complicated appeal 'boundary inland of Pacific Coast Highway her: .:S well , with appeal areas located 300 feet from she MHTL intersperzed with the uncer�.ified areas. The only additional appeal area is adjacent to the Net-land immec'a-ely west of Beach Blvd. First Public Road The route designated as the =irst Public :Road in .he City 4f Huntington ?each conforms well to the criteria set forth in the Commission S regulations . From the northwest it follows Pacific Coast Highway southeast to ..he city limits Santa Ana River. During the general review of the draft maps, the concern has been raised that the appeal jurisdiction boundary bisects parcels in some areas. While this has resulted in some initial confusion for certain jurisdictions, as stated at the outset, the Coastal Act and Commission regulations set forth the definitions and criteria for determining the location of both the continuing permit and appeal jurisdiction. The staff has consistently taken the position that where a parcel is bisected by the appeal boundary, only that portion of the parcel within the area defined as appealable (e.g. , within 300 feet of the inland extent of the beach) would be included in the appeal jurisdiction. A note has been added to the maps to make this as clear as possible. NOTE - Copies of the maps are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach and at area and State Coastal Commission offices. JJ Permit _ a rea Permit Authority Transfer A ::'f t i,r.•:,1, �J.l r;'t.t. .�' .'f f..,�;f r: � i,•.,.�,.,.2. .....� 1���'� r�J! F' .� :,r'• r:,'f�tJ%.:': 'r �' .'.,.YJ.7,.f�"^r r t.,- ,�'�®�,�.��,� ,r:jfjr:iJi'`;�•r:,�.. :�}';,. .j:•.+,• ,+'r..!. .::; �'�'r.•.zr:."f :`1�.:;,,;! �! aW. ♦.�'Pi►q%♦ � � r r�r Jr „•:.':'• �";:�� r rre f, + ';`�` `J'�:'�• •! t� ` �� I�►� %I�,t,�,{':.r•,'r �,r• ,,ff�;r,. / S.,lr.:,, 'r�:•:f. +.�;�rl. �F.�'�+.'.., '�, •.f•: ,•�r ..jl,.:1•: :f�•'F rJ,.• 'r•• a'''St a. •f. '�: v' J :�l,•'r' :v^:`t l,.•b.. :f;j::. .r'a :J/,.;1;:a7:;. �.� �/.r.. � J':hi •+'+r•.' Ir�r'a!✓r :i r,• .'r�'' .e '� '}'•1." •I,••?.:r.. •r �•J rr r: r' t .f. t.' .r.• f �4 1• ,r.'. :;� r!:� fr.:•�': •'1 J' •:rt •�L l rr'r•.!:^hr:':rr:'J��1;.�:tl:i::-I�t:�•�11:.,C. JJ:•. :irl: _ ''•• }r J•f;. '!%r•'L{t•7j t}.::t;r �.•t. ::+e;f:. .;r.;; :I' .1+tr'�.y��:�r;:, �I':7. Jt:`r,•::r + r*r t .j!:Cj+' ;y','r::Y..-' ft��i ��i�rr'•":�f M"r;. r 'Jr•;,?r,�•ll�fr�•f :i'•���• r• ;lfr.>,Ir 7•'�r ` f':,:��,j;•' _r'^ ,,1,J,'. r {/�r,:'�: •: ! �r�lr.'-lYff•;f:,'r...r r;:>i' �:��'1 ���f,%,,.�, ��1 �1I�1 '`�` •a '"�gz77f II:': `r:''�•7r'•r'�+I:•�.•.:':::�.�:r�^''.;;.yf;� Jr'!;w�` 1 � 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - SOUTH COAST AREA 245 W. BROADWi.%Y, STE.'380 1992 P.O. BOX 1450 v LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 (310) 590-5071 C- 1 ~i Date 9-03-92 Commission Reference # 5-HNB 92-61 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL PERIOD TO: City of Huntington Beach FROM: California Coastal Commission Please be advised that on August 31 , 1992 our office received a notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: Local Permit ## CDP 91-26 Name of Applicant Surfcrest Partners Project Description: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story building consisting of 284 condominiums on 9.8 acres in the Coastal lone with Special Permits . . Location -Northwest corner of Palm Ave. and Seapoint Ave. Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on September 15, 1992 Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed. Note: The notice of local action did not include written findings supporting the decision. So that we may complete our record of this decision, please forward a copy of the adopted findings to our office within 30 days . (This note is applicable only if a check mark has been entered. ) If you have any questions, please contact us. cc: Surfcrest Paretners H2: 4/88 6017E MV/lm CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY August 28, 1992 CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (TO CONSTRUCT 252 CONDOMDMJMS IN THE COASTAL ZONE) APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits - Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised) - Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 - Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7), three (3) story building consisting of 284 condominiums on 9.9 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters: 2) reduction in building separation requirements with clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements ; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage). APPROVED: A revised project consisting of six (6), three (3) story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres with Special Permits No. 3 and 5 listed above only for variation in building bulk requirements and to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: Appealable On August 17, 1992, the Huntington Beach City Council denied the appeal and approved the project with conditions and findings (see attached). Approved Denied _ Withdrawn X Conditionally approved - (Conditions attached) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final. (Telephone:714-536-5227) Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S.30603 and California Administrative Code 5.13319, Title 14. Pursuant to Public Resources Code S.30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me ENCLOSURE: Statement of Conditions CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director 1057K �,. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 29, 1992 CONNIE CRY C ERK AY NOTICE OF ACTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (TO CONSTRUCT 252 CONDOMMIUMS IN THE COASTAL ZONE) APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits - Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised) - Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 - Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7),, three (3) story building consisting of 284 condominiums on 9.8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters: 2) reduction in building separation requirements with clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements ; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage). APPROVED: A revised project consisting'of six (6), three (3) story buildings consisting of 252 condominiums on 9.8 acres with Special.Permits No. 3 and 5 listed above only for variation in building bulk requirements and to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: Appealable On August 17, 1992, the Huntington Beach City Council denied the appeal and approved the project with conditions and findings (see attached). _ Approved Denied Withdrawn X Conditionally approved - (Conditions attached) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final. 1 Telephone:714-536-5227) t Notice of Action Coastal Development Permit Page Two The City Council action on this Coastal Development is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code S.30603 and California Administrative Code 5.13319, Title 14. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 5.30603, an appeal by an aggrieved person must be filed in writing, and addressed to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 POB 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Commission receives this notice of action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Commission's review period, and as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me ENCLOSURE: Statement of Conditions CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director 1057K r . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 : 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 252 three (3) story condominium development properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The proposed 252 three (3) story condominium development is compatible with surrounding properties in terms of architecture and orientation. 3 . The access to and parking for the proposed 252 three (3) story stacked condominium development will not create an undue traffic problem. 4 . The planned residential development for 252 three (3) story stacked condominiums conforms to the provisions contained in Article 915 except for the special permits requested. 5 . As conditioned, Condition Use Permit No. 91-45 for 252 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The following special permits promote a better living environment by adapting the Planned Residential Development requirements which are compatible with the surrounding area: a. Deviation from building bulk requirements. b. Greater than 5% paving in main recreation area. 2. The requested special permits provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, design and building layout. 3 . The requested special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of th neighborhood or of the City in general. 4 . The requested special permits are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain, compatible with the surrounding environment and compatible with surrounding residential development. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design features of the proposed subdivision for 252 three (3) story condominiums are in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time that the General Plan designation of High Density Residential and R4-29-0-CZ (29) units per gross acre zoning were implemented. 3 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density of 26 units per gross acre. 4 . Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 252 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26 : 1. As conditioned, the proposed 252 three (3) story condominium development conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed 252 three (3) story condominium development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed 252- three (3) story condominium development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 5. The project is consistent with the affordable housing requirement of the Coastal Element by proposing to provide 20% affordable housing on-site through a first time buyer program with a resale covenant for first right of refusal to the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevation plans dated March 5, 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. All floor plans must provide an exterior storage unit of 100 cubic feet. Storage areas above washers and dryers must be provided shelving. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes . If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers,. on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. c. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. e. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California Insulation Standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the oil wells will be required to have an Exterior Wall noise Rating (EWNR) of 25 which is equal to a similar noise rating scale, the Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, to sufficiently attenuate against noise levels from oil well operations . Any window that meets the EWNR 25 or the STC 27 may be used. The first floor windows will not need any upgrades because the 10 feet high noise barrier separating the project from the .oil well site will sufficiently shield the first floor rooms . All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the heliport will be required to have an EWNR of 28 or a STC of 31, Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c indicate those units requiring both oil and heliport noise mitigation. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells and heliport. The ventilation requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation system. The ventilation system must provide two (2) air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of 10 feet of straight or curved duct, or six (6) feet plus one (1) sharp 90 degree bend. Exhibit 4a, 4b and 4c shows the _units requiring mechanical ventilation. f. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any - view. Said screening shall be architecturaly compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. In addition, foundations and utility installations should be designed to withstand possible minor differential settlement, caused by subsidence, without damage. Appropriate design parameters should be recommended by a qualified soils engineer and incorporated into the design and construction of the project. j . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist' s report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits : a. A grading plan shall be submitted to the City' s Department of Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. Drainage from the site shall connect with the City' s storm drain system. No storm water drainage shall drain to the linear park site. 4 . The site plan shall include (or reference page)_, all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 5 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity)-, an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Article 960 and 915 Planned Residential Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits . Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project ' s landscape plan. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and Community Development for approval. Native bluff plant materials shall be utilized in the landscaping of the site. c. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. d. Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. e. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials. f. The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 252 housing units (50 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through two (2) housing types: 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom-den units, shown on the technical site plan dated July 27, 1992, as plans A, B, C and D. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters. The- affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. 6 .' Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. c. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings ill be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: 1) Manual Pulls 2) Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection 3) 24 hour supervision 4) Smoke Detectors 5) Annunciation 6) Graphic Display 7) Audible Alarms. d. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in . areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. e. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings will be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. f . Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum 6 foot 8 inch wide by 4 foot 3 inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. g. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 415. h. Security gates will be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 403 . i . Address numbers will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be the following: 1) The number for the building will be sized a minimum of 10 inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half (1-1/2) inches. 2) individual units will be sized a minimum of four (4) inches with brush stroke of one-half (1/2) inch. j . Installation or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks will comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department Standards . k. Fire access roads will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and. City Specification No. 401. Includes the circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads (24 feet or 27 feet fire lanes, turnarounds and 17 feet by 45 feet radius turns) . 1. Names of streets must be approved by the .Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to use. m. Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification No. 426 . n. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 422 and No. 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. o. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code Title 17.04 .085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. p. Developer shall construct roadway to connect Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway. A temporary paved emergency access roadway shall be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction. q. Developer to provide funding for a temporary fire station facility at a site to be determined. Funding will occur with a minimum 90 days notice by the fire chief. This site for the temporary fire station will be acquired by the City. 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 8 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 9 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months. 10 . There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 11. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas. in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; d. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . e. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 12. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7: 00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 13 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following ; shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 14 . Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval. 15. A qualified archaeologist shall examine the surface of the site after it has been cleared of vegetation prior to site grading. 16 . If no cultural materials are observed, no further mitigation of cultural resources shall be reuqired. A written report shall be submitted to the city by the archaeologist. 17. If some indication of the presence of cultural materials i-s observed, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 18. Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 19 . Should any human bone be encountered during any construction activities on the site, the archaeologist shall contact the coroner pursuant to Section 5097. 98 and 5097. 99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American Remains. Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to State Law SB 297. 20 . This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder' s Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14315 : 1. The tentative tract map received and dated February 26, 1992, shall be the approved layout. 2. At least sixty (60) days prior to recordation of the final tract map, CC & R' s shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development. The CC&R' s shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner' s Association. 3 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows: a. Submit a soils report to the Director of Public Works . b. Construct off-site storm drain as shown on the Tentative Map, to mitigate increased runoff due to development. c. Construct full street improvements for Seapoint Avenue within the tract boundary. d. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the tract boundary to Pacific Coast Highway. e. Construct off-site traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Seapoint Avenue. f. Construct off-site traffic signal at Palm and Seapoint. g. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the existing terminus of Seapoint Avenue to Garfield. h. Construct any temporary access which may be required by the Fire Department. i . Enter a license and maintenance agreement with the City for maintenance of landscaping along Seapoint, along with the project frontage. j . Construct full improvements of Lot A in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works. k. Dedicate easement over lot A to the City for water line purposes and emergency access purposes. 1. Construct on-site storm drain in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works. (4316d) s REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION roon N a �/ grpT / -2/q� Au ust 17, 1992 ompl,4 �f/�►, Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITI AL USE PERMIT 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/TENTATIVE TRACT 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-33 (CONT. FROM JUNE 1, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: This item was continued from the City Council meeting of June 1, 1992, with direction to the applicant to revise the proposed 284 unit condominium project located at the northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint to reflect the following project characteristics : 1. A minimum 20 feet wide setback along the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park; 2 . Increase the width of the view corridor from Palm Avenue north; and 3 . Reduce project densities to be more environmentally and architecturally compatible with surrounding properties . The applicant has responded by submitting revised drawings reflecting a 252 unit project. It should be noted that although the applicant has responded, their position remains that the 284 unit project as presented and approved by the Planning Commission conforms to the City' s ordinances and General Plan and therefore, should be approved. RECOMMENDATION• Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract 14135 (Revised)/ Coastal Development Permit 91-26/Negative Declaration 91-33 by i PIO 5/85 approving the project as revised with 252 units with revised findings and conditions of approval, with Condition l.g. addressing affordable housing revised to read as follows : .1. The site plans, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 29, 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout. l.g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 252 housing units (50 units) for persons or households earning between 8.0-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of. median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through two (2) housing types : 1 bedroom, and 1 bedroom/den, units, shown on the modified technical site plan dated July 27, 1992 as plans A, B, C, and D. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. ANALYSIS• The applicant has submitted revised plans as directed by City Council . The revised plans feature the following project charcteristics: . 1. The number of units has decreased from 284 units to 252 units for a density decrease from 29 du/ac to 26 du/ac; 2 . Six building clusters are proposed rather than seven; 3 . Building site coverage has been reduced from 41% to 35%, a 6% difference (this increases project open space) ; 4 . The main vehicular entrance has been relocated to the Palm Avenue/Seapoint intersection; 5 . The view corridor along the northly side of the project from Palm Avenue northwest has been expanded from approximately 50 ' to 90 ' to include the total street width of Palm Avenue; 6 . There is a minimum building setback of 20 feet in lieu of the original 10 feet from the Bolsa Chica Linear Park along the rear property line; 7. There is a six foot offset between each cluster wing along the rear property line to create a varied view from the park (this increases the setback from the linear park to 26 feet for 1/2 of the cluster face) ; RCA 8/17/92 -2- (4118d) 8 . Second and third stories have been stepped back from the first floor elevations to minimize the building bulk along the linear park and Seapoint Avenue. "Step backs" vary along the face of the clusters . Most notable are the third story setbacks which range from 7. 5 feet to 21. 5 feet from the first floor balcony edges . Disposition of Special Permits Previously, special permits were required for the following: 1. reduction in building separations between clusters, 2 . reduction in building separations within clusters, 3 . variation in building bulk requirements, 4 . reduction in ground floor private open space, 5. to exceed the 5% paving restriction for the main recreation areas, 6 . reduction in the access width for the main entrance, 7. no trash enclosures to .the exterior of the buildings . With the revised plans, all of the special permits are no longer required with the exception of special permits 3 and 5 for building bulk and parking of the main recreational area. However, these two remaining special permits are supported by staff . Discussion: Staff has reviewed the revised plans with the assumption that the clusters constitute one building rather than three separate buildings, the first level of residences are above grade and require balconies rather than patios, and that the permanent trash enclosures in the subterranean garages meet the intent of the code. The only special permits remaining are those for building bulk requirements and to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreational areas . The plans have been revised to include 2 types of clusters (A and B) . Cluster A has all 3 story elements. Cluster B is also 3 story with 2 story elements at the center of the longest wing of the cluster (facing Seapoint and the linear park) . This does not meet the building bulk requirement that 1/3 of the units be one story less in height . (as a note, the previous plans included 2 story elements at cluster corners) Staff is making a finding that the intent of the building bulk requirement is met through the stepping back of third story elevations . The third story setbacks are greatest at cluster entrances and corners ranging from 15 feet to 21 . 5 feet from first floor balcony edges. This emphasizes the two story element and creates building bulk variation. RCA 8/17/92 -3- (4118d) e, Staff supports exceeding the 5% paving restriction for main recreational areas to allow full use of the pool amenities 'and recreational buildings . Affordable Housing The applicant has requested that the affordable housing condition be amended not to require two bedroom affordable units (Plan D and Plan E units) . Through - revised floor plans, Plan D has become a two bedroom corner unit making it infeasible to include as affordable. Plan E has been deleted from the proposal . The new condition would only offer 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom-den units as affordable. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: A. "Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 revised, Coastal Development Permit 91-26 and Negative Declaration 91-33 as presented to the Planning Commission for 284 units . " B. "Approve the appeal and deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 revised, Coastal Development Permit 91-26 and Negative Declaration 91-33 . ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings for Approval and Suggested Conditions of Approval 2 . Alternative Findings for Denial 3 . Area Map 4 . Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5 . Applicant Narrative dated July 29, 1992, regarding revised project and disposition of special permits. 6. Letter from Urban West Communities dated August 5, 1992 regarding affordable housing condition 7. Public Comment Letters MTU:MA:GR: lp RCA 8/17/92 -4- (4118d) -onztfizof ... Tom Zanic 'ja: Ger�t� Rt�actcw�ly T*Ah: ?a Re : -'n.rr. Tmrr MAP 14f 3 r Mqr�raj,. l�QI.ES uuwC((- IT15H Ge�nMurc fi�� 6 -1-9Z U 717M y .PN:tO23-181-14 APN: 023-181-23 APN: 023-181-25 EACLIFF PARTNERS _ HUNTINGTON BEACH CO HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 'RBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 225 BUSH STREET P. 0. BOX 7611 20 BROADWAY, SUITE 100 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 ;ANTA MONICA CA 91401 ,PN: 023-371-02 APN: 023-371-03 APN: 023-371-04 )eLORM, ALBERT W TR DAVIDSON, LAWRENCE W PORTER, DAREL D TR 9263 ARCHFIELD CIR 19264 ARCHFIELD CIR 19267 ARCHFIELD CIR 1UNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ,PN: 023-371-05 APN: 023-371-06 APN: 023-371-07 1CREE, JOHN M VAN BENDEGON, RICHARD THORSON, WALTER L 9269 ARCHFIELD CIR 19273 ARCHFIELD LANE 19275 ARCHFIELD CIR iUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 %PN: 023-371-08 - APN: 023-371-09- APN: 023-371-10 SMITH, EDWARD P TR� NAKASE, KATHLEEN K BONAKDAR, MOHAMMAD H 7036 INDUSTRY PL 19279 ARCHFIELD CIR 19281 ARCHFIELD CIR A MIRADA CA 90638 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 023-371-11 APN: 023-371-12 APN: 023-371-13 =ARRAR, JOHN E. WARNOCK, JEFFREY P HAYDON; RUSSELL B TR 9285 ARCHFIELD LANE 19291 ARCHFIELD CIR 19295-ARCHFIELD CIR 1UNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 kPN: 023-371-14 APN: 023-371-15 APN: 023-371-82 31FFORD, KELLY A EGERER, AZALEA ECKEL TR NECK, THEODORE WILLIAM 9301 ARCHFIELD CIR 4014 TERRYLYNN CIR 19296 ARCHFIELD CIR -iUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648, ONG BEACH CA 90807 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 110-015-50 '\PN: 023-371-83 APN: 023-371-84 SIGNAL COMPANIES, INC. "ERCERO, EMILIO J TR DESMOND, JOHN B 17890 SKYPARK CIRCLE 9292 ARCHFIELD CIR 19286 ARCHFIELD-CIR IRVINE CA 92714 -IUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ATTN: D. G. NAHIN APN: 110-230-07 AAYMOND C BYERLEY TOM ZANIC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 'ACIFIC COAST HOMES URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 2000 MAIN STREET i 124 MAIN ST, SUITE 200 520 BROADWAY, SUITE 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648- -1UNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA MONICA CA 90401 ATTN:G RESTIVO,D/COMM DEV 'II %PN: 023-371-85,85,89,93 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 l 'RESIDENT, SOG COMM ASSN PRESIDENT, CLUB SERIES HOA :/0 MARQUIS MGMT GRP C/O MARQUIS MGMT GRP `. i009 DAIMLER STREET 3009 DAIMLER STREET 1' MANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 S • Connie Brockway,City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach , Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 .• -• p.. , . -Huntington Beach,CA 92648 t . AP 15-50 SI IES, INC. ��11t INGTp �� IRCLE :.. ATT IN y - --. - y CppNTY Ca � LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 14-i �5 APN: 023-181-14 APN: 023-181-23 APN: 023-181-25 SEACLIFF PARTNERS HUNTINGTON BEACH CO HUNTINGTON BEACH CO URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 225 BUSH STREET P. 0. BOX 7611 520 BROADWAY, SUITE 100 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 SANTA MONICA CA 91401 APN: 023-371-02 APN: 023-371-03 APN: 023-371-04 DeLORM, ALBERT W TR DAVIDSON, LAWRENCE W PORTER, DAREL D TR 19263 ARCHFIELD CIR 19264 ARCHFIELD CIR 19267 ARCHFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 023-371-05 APN: 023-371-06 APN: 023-371-07 MCREE, JOHN M VAN BENDEGON, RICHARD THORSON, WALTER L 19269 ARCHFIELD CIR 19273 ARCHFIELD LANE 19275 ARCHFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 023-371-08 APN: 023-371-09 APN: 023-371-10 SMITH, EDWARD P TR NAKASE, KATHLEEN K BONAKDAR, MOHAMMAD H 17036 INDUSTRY PL 19279 ARCHFIELD CIR 19281 ARCHFIELD CIR LA MIRADA CA 90638 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 023-371-11 APN: 023-371-12 APN: 023-371-13 FARRAR, JOHN E. WARNOCK, JEFFREY P HAYDON, RUSSELL B TR 19285 ARCHFIELD LANE 19291 ARCHFIELD CIR 19295 ARCHFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON. BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 023-371-14 APN: 023-371-15 APN: 023-371-82 GIFFORD, KELLY A EGERER, AZALEA ECKEL TR NECK, THEODORE WILLIAM 19301 ARCHFIELD CIR 4014 TERRYLYNN CIR 19296 ARCHFIELD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LONG BEACH CA 90807 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 APN: 110-015-50 APN: 023-371-83 APN: 023-371-84 SIGNAL COMPANIES, INC. TERCERO, EMILIO J TR DESMOND, JOHN B 17890 SKYPARK CIRCLE 19292 ARCHFIELD CIR 19286 ARCHFIELD CIR IRVINE CA 92714 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ATTN: D. G. NAHIN - APN: 110-230-07 RAYMOND C BYERLEY TOM ZANIC CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PACIFIC COAST HOMES URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 2000 MAIN STREET 2124 MAIN ST, SUITE 200 520 BROADWAY, SUITE 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA MONICA CA 90401 ATTN:G RESTIVO,D/COMM DEV APN: 023-371-85,85,89,93 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 PRESIDENT, SOG COMM ASSN PRESIDENT, CLUB SERIES HOA C/O MARQUIS MGMT GRP C/O MARQUIS MGMT GRP 3009 DAIMLER STREET 3009 DAIMLER STREET SANTA ANA CA 92705 SANTA ANA CA 92705 jr Gabrielle, The lsit of labels given for this last public hearing did not have the t4vsre _ residents on the list (because of the Coastal Dev, Permit) These residents ali were notified however at the previous- hearing that—Vas- closed.- Please check with the CAtty to see if we can proceed. 1 p fin" ;w • 'mil ,6: J 023-371-06 Resident i 11114 19273 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9264. 023-371-08 . r Resident j 19277 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9264 • i 1 023-371-15 Resident i 19315 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 9264f T H Eg O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y This space is for the County Clerk's filing Stamps 'Re r 625 N Grand Ave..Santa Ana.CA 92701 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange, Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of IPUBL C HEARING NOTICE the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen NOTICE _ _ _ _ _ . - __ •AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING years, and not a party to or interested in the above OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL . entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer NO. /TEN SPECIAL- PERMITS/TENTAATIVTIV E TRACT MAP.' INO. 14135(REVISE D/COASTAL-[ of The Orange County Register, a newspaper of DEV/NEGATIVE DE ARATR 91 ]6INEGATIVE DECLARATION - N0.:9.1.33 general circulation, published in the City of Santa Ana, (To Construcf_284 Condomini- ums in the Coastal Zone) County of Orange, and which newspaper has been INOTICE'IS HEREBY GIVEN (that the Huntington -Beach adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the city Council will hold.a ppublic (hearing.-in the Council&u - Iber.at The Huntington Beach Superior.Court of the County of Orange, State of H v c Uner l)00Main Streets Huntington Beach;,Cogforma, California under the date of November 29, 1905, Case on the date and at the time• indicated below to receive and, Number A21046 that the notice of which the annexed is I consider the statements of all Persons-who wish to'be heard' a printed copy, has been published in each regular and relative toeTheapplicationde- scribed below. entire issue of said newspaper and not In any 1992 E/TIMPE:Monday June 1,I APPLICATION. NUMBER:- . supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: Conditional Use.Permit No.91- 45 with Special Permits/ Tenative Tract Map No.14135 (Revised)/Coastal Develop- . ment Permit No. 91-26/N, five Declaration No.91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Part- ners APPLEMay 23, 1992 woman race Council- woman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest cor- ner of Palm Avenue and, SegointAvenue ZONE:R4.24-0-CZ(High Den- sity Residential-24 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Produc- tion-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7), three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 con-- _ dominiums on 9.8 acres in the- Coastal Zone with Special Per- mits for:1)reduction in build- . 1ng separation requirements between clusters;2)reduction in building separation require- ments Iwithinclusters;3)vari- -ation in-building-bulk-requirements;4) reduction in. (ground floor-,private -open space requirements;5)to-ex- ceed the-5%sPaying restriction I certify (or declare) under Penality of periury that the (for main recreation areas;6)- reduction in access width for! foregoing is true and correct. first 1eet intersecting Sea pointt Ave`nue: and 7) nor- permanent trash enclosures to, the exterior" of building-(lo Executed at Santa Ana, California. catedingroundfloorgarage):; -ENVIRONMENTAL: 'TUS:',Covered'b'y Negative 4 1 declaration No.91.33 M1CIIeIe Medina CyOASNegaS TU'SecC eon ICOASTAL- STATUS: 'AP-1 Date . . . . .MOY..29.,- . . . . . . . . . . 19 92• PUBL CBHEARING IPROCE ;DURE: - - I . •0).Staff Report; 1(2) Public HaecingI ((an)d City Council Discussion; ;and Council action Under the provisions of the. lHuntineton Beach Ordinance Signature code,the action taken by the ICity Council is final unless an appeal is'filed to the Coastal' Commission by the applicant ;or on aggrieved party. Said :appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the oc ftions and grounds by and upon: lwhich the applicant or inter-i asted party deems himself.ag- / PROOF OF PUBLICATItgcieved. Said appeal must bel al[ (submitted of the Coastal (10)working office within ten (/ (10)working days of the daTej of the Councils action.There is no fee The the appeal of a. coastal development.permit. j An aggrieved person may file an ,appeal within ten (10) tio3;�J0603 of e- Pu6cRe — ---- so_urces Code in wr,ifing t0 w s 0 fornia? oasttal Commis.- 245 Broacwav Suite 380 Long Beacli< a ifornia 90801�, At n Ther a Hen Fy Y,s4 The Coastal Comr�ssion reel viewrperciodtwillcommcnce+af= Te.r,t the-C d,Y�6ppea L-penod,��igs. ended_'a�r_�no��eals�hay..e. been filed.not if i st Ap`pllca— 'w,ill be+ etlEti"v.:;f hh,,e��CoasTa If Com= missi0 =ryeVleW4` APpiiCailfsi are atived-riot to.begln = struction priiorto that con date:, ON FILE--- '� ±• - A COPY Of the'.preP052d reel0 !it is on file �n'The""Office oFffe City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Hunt.ingi'on----eh C6H'ni0 72648 orw inspection;Iiy=„The: 3i)bhc A eop.1 iFie sipff-re- abrt will`-tie -I] -I totriter-. ested p'ar"S at City M¢11 or the Main: it Lib"rarY- ttlII Talberl_";Avenue=)after' ay 29, 1992. .ALL---.INTERESTED PER- SONS"are-invited t0 attend 'said hewing and express opin- ;ions or`015mit,evidence for or. against We a'pplicbtion as out- lined above.qq CITYOCOUNCIL S ACTEONFIN COURT YOU MAY BE LIM ITED;_tO RAISING ONLY — — -- - THOSE .ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE-PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED- IN,'THIS NO- ;TICE,OR IN-WRITTEN COR- !�'�/C/ R•ESPONDE:NCE' DELIVERED IN THE CITY AT OR PRIOR; . If THE are LICan further'G. If There are any further questions please-call-Gabrielle Restivo, Associate Planner.at 536.5271. 'COnnie Brockway O GTy Clerk City of Huntington Beach f,— 2000 11A`ain- Street Hun)T)�n59Ton,eeac Calaiif�',92648' P b-ilish3F$Mav 3 L99,9.2m ,• - -: PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST MAILING LABELS (1211D) 5/19/91 President Wi m D. Holman Plan Director H.B. Chamber of Commerce �2110 ting each City of We er 2213 Main St. #32 M 8200 W roster B Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bch., CA 92648-2499 minster, CA 92683 Board President LPres., H. Hist. Sociieet�Y��' Plan Director H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors Newland euG� m City of 1 c 8101 Slater Ave. 0 B Blvd. 211 Ei St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 ington Beach, CA 92 48 5 Beach, CA 9 0 President Ch 'rperson CA Coastal Commission Amigos De Bolsa Chica His to al Resour Theresa Henry 15545 Computer Lane �2000 mm. Sery Dept. 245 W. Broadway, Ste 380 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 in St. Long, Bch, CA 90802 tington Beach, CA 92648 Charles Grant Robert Joseph Friends of the HS Wetlands Counc on erg/ Caltrans District 12 21902 Kiowa Lane 170 a Ave. 2501 Pullman St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 untington ach. CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92705. Ruth Galanter Edna Littlebury Director Coastal Conservancy Golden t. Mob. Hm. ers Leag. Local Solid Waste Enf. Agy. P.O. Box 66494 11021 Magn vd. O.C. Health Care Agency Los Angeles, CA 90066 Gar rove, 92642 P.O. Box 355 Santa Ana, CA 92702 President County of Orange/EMA Dominick Tomaino Huntington Beach Tomorrow Michael M. Ruane, Dir. Seac>,.>ce meow s Assoc. 411 6th St. P.O. Box 4048 6812 LaneHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Hu Beach, 92648 Julie Vandermost BIA—OC County of Orange/EMA Hunting n <Harbor2001 E. 4th St. #224 Thomas Mathews, Dir, Planning P. 0. BSanta Ana, CA 92705 P. 0. Box 4048 Sunset Beac2 Santa- Ana, CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer SCAG County of Orange/EMA Bill illy 818 West 7th, 12th Floor Bob Fisher, Dir. HHHOA Los Angeles, CA 90017 P.O. Box 4048 1 Algon 'n St. #119 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beac , CA 92649 I. Corral 100 P anning Dir. New Growth Coordinator Mary 1 ista t of Costa M Huntington Beach Post Office 20292 Ea Cir. 0. 00 6771 Warner Ave. H ngton Beach, 2646 Mesa, CA 628-1200 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Chairman, Environmental Board Planning Dir. Comm. Dev. Dept. City Fountain -Oy !�r/�r1-1"•� D (/rC�i /�� 2000 Main St. 10200 S ve. (BAN ML)((a., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Foun Va , CA 92708 ?,0- P-�'LDX C y �r✓fif� � �A g27vZ--70yt C SC S TS r M Dr. Duane Dishno HB CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT P. 0. Box 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 964-8888 DAVID HAGEN HB UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISRICT 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 964-3339 CSA 730 E1 Camino Way #200 Tustin, CA 9680 i APN: 023-181-14 APN: 023-181-23 APN: 023-181-25 Pacific Coast Homes Huntington Beach Co Huntington Beach Co P O Box 7611 225 Bush St P O Box 7611 San Francisco CA 94120 San Francisco CA 94120 San Francisco CA 94120 APN: 023-371-02 APN: 023-371-03 APN: 023-371-04 De Lorm, Albert W TR Davidson, Lawrence W Porter, Darel D TR 19263 Archfield Cir 19265 Archfield Cir 19267 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-05 APN: 023-371-06 APN: 023-371-07 Mcree, John M Barbed, Louis D Thorson, Walter L 19269 Archfield Cir 1477 Dry Creek Rd 19275 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Jose, CA 95125 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-08 APN: 023-371-09 APN: 023-371-10 Smith, Edward P TR Nakase, Kathleen K Bonakdar, Mohammad H 17036 Industry PI 19279 Archfield Cir 19281 Archfield Cir La Mirada CA 90638 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-11 APN: 023-371-12 APN: 023-371-13 Thompson, Robert F Warnock, Jeffrey P Haydon, Russell B TR 19285 Archfield Cir 19291 Archfield Cir 19295 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-14 APN: 023-371-15 APN: 023-371-82 Gifford, Kelly A Ege.rer, Azalea Eckel TR Neck, Theodore William 19301 Archfield Cir 4014 Terrylynn Cir 19296 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Long Beach CA 90807 Hiintinntnn RAar.h r.A 47Rast APN: 023-371-83 APN: 023-371-84 Tercero, Emilio J TR Desmond, John B 19292 Archfield Cir 19286 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 RAYMOND BYERLEY TOM ZANIC APN: 110 PACIFIC COAST HOMES URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES Signal Companies es, Inc. 2124 MAIN ST, STE 200 520 BROADWAY, STE 100 17890 SkyPark Circle HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA MONICA CA 90401 Irvine CA 92714 Attn: D. G. Nahin APN: 110-230-07 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 City of Huntington Beach ;; President, SOG Comm. Assn. President, Club Series HOA 2000 Main Street c/o Marquis Management Grp.ii c/o Marquis Management Grp. Huntington Beach CA 92648 3009 Daimler Street 3009 Daimler Street Attn: ,Gabriel l / RReestl vo Santa Ana CA 92705 Santa Ana CA 92705 pI of �ou,u�hii 0.?S=3711�-06 `- � r�� ai 023-371-06 ,.Resident Resident 19273 Archfield Circle 19273 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t ,..: ; ,E ,,�, 023-371-08 023-371-08 t-';: Resident ± .. Resident 19277 Archfield Circle 19277 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntin ton Beach CA 92648' g � , 023-371-15 '` 023-371-15 Resident Resident 19315 Archfield Circle ' = 19315 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i I I i I I 1 i i i I i t i I • i STATE OF CALIFORNIA r PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING H County of Orange TH APPEAL OF I E PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF I am a Citizen of the United States and a CONDITIONAL USE _ .PERMIT.NO. ♦ County ENVIRONMENTAL STA resident of the Cou aforesaid; I am over he 91.45 WITH TUS: Covered by Negative ���7 SPECIAL PERMITS/ Declaration No.91-33 age of eighteen years, and not a party to or TENTATIVE COASTAL STATUS: Ap- pealable(See Below) TRACT MAP NO. PUBLIC HEARING PRO- interested in the below entitled matter. I am a 14135(REVISED)/ CEDURE:(1)Staff Report; principal cleric of the HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL (2)Public Hearing: DEVELOPMENT (3) 'City Council Discus-I PERMIT sion;and INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general NO.9,-26/ (4)City Council action'' NEGATIVE Under the provisions of{ circulation, printed and published in the City of DECLARATION the Huntington Beach Ordi- ,. nance Code, the action I� Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of N0.91w33 taken by the City Council is (To Construct final unless an appeal is California,and that attached Notice is a true and 284 Condominiums I filed to the Coastal Corn. An the . - mission by"the applicant or complete copy as was printed and published In Coastal Zone) j an aggrieved party.,Said NOTICE IS HEREBY I appeal must be in writing the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley GIVEN that the Huntington and must set forth in detail gt the actions and grounds by a1, Beach'•City Council will I issues of said newspaper wit he issues of: hold a public hearing•in the and upon which the ap- ����pp ( ) �plicant or interested party !"'! " Council Chamber at the deems himself aggrieved. Huntington Beach Civic Said appeal must be sub- Center, 2000 Main Street, mitted to the Coastal Huntington Beach, C at (mission office within ten tim on the date and t the (10) working days of the time indicated below tore idate of the Council's ac- stat a and consider the ition.There is no fee for the y statements of all persons Ma 21 , 1992 who wish to.be heard rela- 'appeal of a coastal devel-' tive'to the application de- 1 opment permit. 1 scribed below. An aggrieved person may I DATE/TIME: Monday, !file an appeal within ten 1 June 1,1992,7:00 PM (10)working days pursuant APPLICATION NUMBER: to Section 30603 of the Conditional Use Permit No. Public Resources Code, in 91-45 with Special Permits/ writing to: Tentative Tract Map No. California Coastal Com- 14135 (Revised)/Coastal mission, 245 W. Broadway, Development Permit No. Suite 380, Long Beach, 91.26/Negative Declaration California 90801-145.0 Attn: No.91-'33 Theresa Henry (213) 590- APPLICANT: Surfci`est 5071 Partners The Coastal Commission LOCATION: Northwest review period will com- corner of Palm Avenue and mence after the City appeal Seapoint Avenue period has ended and no ZONE: R4.24.0-CZ (High appeals have been filed. Density Residential - 24 Applicants will be notified Dwelling Units Per Acre - 'by the Coastal Commission Oil Production - Coastal as to the date.of the con. Zone) clusion of the Coastal I declare under penalty of perjury, that the REQUEST: To construct Commission review. Ap- P 'j •t seven (7), three (3) story plicants are advised not to buildings:consisting of 284 begin construction prior,to foregoing is true and correct. c'ondorrliniums on 9.8 that date. acres in the Coastal Zone ON FILE: A copy.of the with Special Permits for: 1), proposed request is on file inthe Community Devel- Executed on May 21 199= reduction In building sepa- ration requirements be. opment Department, 2000 tween clusters;2)reduction Main Street; Huntington at Costa Mesa, California in building separation re- Beach, California 92648, b- the inspection by pu quirements within clusters; for I 3) variation in building bulk I o port in copy of the staff - requirements; 4) reduction i Port will be available to in- In ground floor private terested parties at City Hall ' open space,requirements; of the Main City Library Signature 5)to exceed the 5%paving (7111 Talbert Avenue) after g restriction for main recre- May 1992. 1 ALL I ation areas; 6) reduction in INTERESTED PER- access width for first 100 SANS are invited to attend said hearing and express feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no perma• opinions or submit eh nent trash enclosures to dance for or against the. the exterior of building (Io• application as outlined Gated in ground floor ga- above. If there are any fur- rage). ther questions please call ' Gabrielle Restivo,roc Associ- PROOF OF PUBLICATION Connie B Broc ate Planner at 71. kway, City Clerk, City of Hun-I tington Beach U Published Huntington] Beach Independent May L• I 21.1992 I ' 053.694 I Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �- Office of the City Clerk IT" �'-�4'' ' • ti`�,G'ow e g� I P.O. :tr,C} _t... L....PLSTIl.O. Box 190 _.�.:.: ::`;-` _ °r ::.2•? •.i'�s '"- Huntington Beach, n Jbi��5 97 "� '' CA 92648 �� CLASSart r.� -4 :; Z: f%� �. NN APN: 023-371-11 ��q� �r •� Thompson, Robert F pNTIN?41 19285 Archfield Cir ZCL d r) I909•I c��NTY Ca�� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING LI,III„!„lli,Fl,l,,,,11,,,I1,1l�,I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 91-45 : 1 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner . 2 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is compatible with surrounding properties in terms of architecture and orientation. 3 . The access to and parking for the proposed 284 three (3) story stacked condominium development will not create an undue traffic problem. 4 . The planned residential development for 284 three (3) story stacked condominiums conforms to the provisions contained in Article 915 except for-the special permits requested. 5 . As conditioned, Condition Use Permit No . 91-45 for 284 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1 . ' The following special permits promote- a better living environment by adapting the Planned Residential Development requirements which are compatible with the surrounding area : a . Reduction in building separation requirements between clusters . b. Reduction in building separation requirements within clusters . c . Deviation from building bulk requirements . d . Reduction in private open space requirements for ground floor units . e . Greater than 5% paving in main recreation area . f . Reduction of access width. g . No trash enclosures to the exterior of buildings ( located in ground floor garage) . 2 . The requested special permits provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, design and building layout . 3 . The requested special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property. or improvements of th neighborhood or of the City in general .- 4 . The requested special permits are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain, compatible with the surrounding environment and compatible with surrounding residential development . FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1 . The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design features of the proposed subdivision for 284 three ' (3) story condominiums are in compliance with the Standard plans and . specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time that the General Plan designation of High Density Residential and R4-29-0-CZ (29 units per gross acre) zoning were implemented. 3 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density of 29 units per gross acre. 4 . Tentative Tract Map No . 14135 Revised for 284 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL -DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26 : 1 . As conditioned, the proposed 284 'three (3) story condominium development conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan.. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach' Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act . 5 . ' The project is consistent with the affordable housing requirement of the Coastal Element by proposing to provide 20% affordable housing on-site through a first time buyer program with a resale covenant for first right of refusal to the City of Huntington - Beach.,,..,: �° _:. 2/p CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT"NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS• 1 . The site plan, floor plans and elevation plans dated March 5, 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout . a . All floor plans must provide an exterior storage unit of 100 cubic feet . Storage areas. above washers and dryers must be provided shelving . 2 . Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes . If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval . b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. c. Floor. plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers ; natural gas shall be stubbed in . at the locations of cooking facilities , water heaters , and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved- by..the -Building Department and indicated on the floor plans . e. The structures on the subject property, whether attached .or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California Insulation Standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project . _ r�'Ship All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the oil wells will be required to have an Exterior Wall noise Rating (EWNR) of 25 which is equal -to a similar noise rating scale thpl­. , Sound Transmission Class (STC) of .27, to sufficiently atten�atek�Z:�'., against noise levels from oil well operations . Any window that meets the EWNR 25 or the STC .27 may be used. The first floor windows will not need any upgrades because the 10 feet high noise barrier separating the project from the oil well site will sufficiently shield the first floor rooms . All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the heliport will be required to have an EWNR of 28 or a STC of 31, Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c indicate those units requiring both oil and heliport noise mitigation. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells and heliport . The ventilation requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation system. The ventilation system must provide two (2) air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of 10 feet of straight or curved duct, or six (6) feet plus one (1) sharp 90 degree bend. Exhibit 4a, 4b and 4c shows the units requiring mechanical ventilation. f . Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. . g . All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be - screened from any view. Said screening shall be .architecturaly compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors . If screening is not designed specifically into the building , -a ...rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved . h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls., streets, and utilities . In addition, foundations and utility installations should be designed to withstand possible minor differential settlement, caused by subsidence, without damage. Appropriate design parameters should be recommended by a qualified soils engineer and incorporated into the design and construction of the project . A M_E NT No f7 7AD QH - j . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the ' g-factors as indicated by the geologist ' s report . Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits . 3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits : a . A grading plan shall be submitted to the City' s Department of Public Works . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. Drainage from the site shall connect with the City' s storm drain system. No storm water drainage shall drain to the linear park site. 4 . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 5 . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No . 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction. Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community -Development and Public Works and must be .approved . The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a . State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials ( location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Article 960 and 915 Planned Residential Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of . building permits . Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project ' s landscape plan. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and Community Development_ for approval . Native bluff plant materials shall be utilized in the landscaping of the site. 1 . A landscape plan for the 10 foot off-site landscape buffer to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be submitted for review and approval.. The plan shall have received approval from the Orange County Environmental Agency Harbors, Beachs and Parks prior to submittal . ,�3 A -N NC). MrO c . All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. d. Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. e. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials . f . The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. g . An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through three (3) housing types : 1 bedroom, l bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units, shown on .the technical site plan dated March 5, 1992 as plans A, B, C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of .refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenenat for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City, of Huntington Beach and the developer . 6 . Fire Department Requirements are .a.s follows : E. a . Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building code Standards . Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. c. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings ill be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following : 1) Manual Pulls 2) Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection 3) 24 hour supervision 4) Smoke Detectors 5) Annunciation 6) Graphic Display 7) Audible Alarms . ATTACHMENT NO. � !o d. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards . e . Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings will be submitted to the Public Works .Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. f . Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum 6 foot 8 inch wide by 4 foot 3 inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. g . Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No . 415 . h. Security gates will be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 403 . i . Address numbers will be .installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Specification No. 428 . The size of the numbers will be the following : 1) The number for the building will be sized a minimum of 10 inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half (1-1/2) inches . 2) individual units will 'be sized a minimum of four (4) inches with brush stroke of one-half (1/2) inch.. j . Installation or removal. of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks will comply with Orange County Environmental •Hea-lth and Huntington Beach Fire Department Standards . k. Fire access roads will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 401. Includes the circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads (24 feet or 27 feet fire lanes, turnarounds and 17 feet by 45 feet radius turns) . 1 . Names of streets must be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to use. m. Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification No . 426 . n. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 422 and No. 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. o . The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code Title 17. 04 . 085 and City Specification No . 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts . A"i ACHMENT NO. p. Developer, shall construct roadway to connect Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway. A temporary paved emergency access roadway shall be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction. . q. Developer to provide funding for a temporary fire. station '+ facility at a site to be determined. Funding will occur with a minimum 90 days notice by the fire chief . This site for the temporary fire station will be acquired by the City. 7 . The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 8 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of .at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 9 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months . 10 . There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers . 11 . During construction, the applicant shall: a . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in -the late morning and .after- work is completed for the day; = '= c. Attempt to phase and schedule construction .activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; d . Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . e. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building . 12 . Construction shall be limited to Monday Saturday 7 : 00 AM to 8 : 00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 13 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed : a . Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. b. The 10 foot wide off-site landscaped buffer within the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be improved and accepted by the Orange County Environmental Agency Harbors, Beaches and Parks . � - - ATTACHMENT \ ACHMENT NO. �-- 14 . Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval . 15 . A qualified archaeologist shall examine the surface of the site ` after it has been cleared of vegetation prior to site grading . 16 . If no cultural materials are observed, no further mitigation of cultural resources shall be reugired. A written report shall be submitted to the city by the archaeologist . 17 . If- some indication of the presence of cultural materials is observed, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 18 . Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial . site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 19 . Should any human bone be encountered during any construction activities on the site, the archaeologist shall contact the coroner pursuant to Section 5097 . 98 and 5097 ..99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American Remains . Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to State . Law SB 297 . 20 . This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been . properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder ' s Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14315 : 1 . The tentative tract map received and dated February 26, 1992, shall be the approved layout . 2 . At least sixty (60) days prior to recordation of the final tract map, CC & R' s shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development . The CC&R' s shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner ' s Association. a . A ten (10 ' ) foot off-site landscape buffer along the Bolsa Chica Linear Park north of the project site shall be landscaped by the developer according to the specifications of the Orange County Environmental Agency, Harbors, Beaches and Parks and accepted by that agency. The buffer shall be maintained for 'the life of the project by the Home Owner ' s Association. Mo • /F[[^^.:1. L____ . c 3 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : a . Submit a soils report to the Director of Public Works . b. Construct off-site storm drain as shown on the Tentative Map, to mitigate increased runoff due to development . c. Construct full street improvements for Seapoint Avenue within the tract boundary. d. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the tract boundary to Pacific Coast Highway. e. Construct off-site traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Seapoint Avenue. f . Construct off-site traffic signal at Palm and Seapoint. g . Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the existing terminus of Seapoint Avenue to Garfield. h. Construct any temporary access which may be required by the Fire Department. i . Enter a license and maintenance agreement with the City for maintenance of landscaping along Seapoint, along with the project frontage. j . Construct full improvements of Lot A in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public..Works . k. Dedicate easement over. lot A to the City for water line purposes and emergency access purposes . 1 . Construct on-site storm drain in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works . _ . - M1040 c ` ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 91-26 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS: 1 . The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is not properly adapted to adjacent streets , driveways, parks and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner . 2 . The proposed project requires special permits for reduction in building separation requirements between and within clusters, deviation from building bulk requirements, ground floor private open space requirements and reduced access width at the Seapoint . intersection resulting in a more dense project with greater building bulk than normally allowed within the Planned Residential Development Article. 3 ,. The special permits allowing for a more dense project with greater building bulk characteristics do not promote a more aesthetically pleasing project or an enhancement of the living environment for future residents of the project and, therefore, do not meet the intent of the special permit provision to : a . Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; c . Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience nor detrimental or injurious to the value of . property or improvements of the neighborhood or the City in general; and d . Be consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment . 4 . The proposed project as designed is incompatible with the surrounding developments of Surfcrest South and Seacliff in regards to architecture, building orientation, building density and building bulk and is , therefore, detrimental and injurious to the value of surrounding properties or improvements and the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or of the City in general . � i �40. • _ 5 . Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 for 284 three (3) story condominiums is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General plan. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1 . Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 284 three story condominiums is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan by not being properly adapted to the resources and development constraints of the bluffs, coastal view resources , Bolsa Chica Linear Park and surrounding oil and heliport operations . 2 . The subdivision is incompatible with existing surrounding neighborhood subdivision design ' in terms of density, building bulk and orientation. 3 . The subdivision does not meet the design criteria specified by Article , 915, Planned Residential Development -and is, therefore, inconsistent with the zoning code. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26 : 1 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan because it blocks public views of coastal areas . 2 . Coastal Development Permit No . 9.1-26 is not consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code applicable to the property due to the visual impact the project will have on surrounding coastal areas . 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development can not be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan since Seapoint may not by fully connected to Garfield, Edwards and Pacific Coast Highway. 4 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act since it blocks public views of the Linear Park and Bolsa Chica area . s, �15 CC..CZ S �r f�+.7Kez,,.,• �:.: ••�. R3 IT-0-CZ R� 2.'PD-0-CY 1::; g:��. R2� 'f i':•'er I I R2-PD-0"CZ; s'o '�' �/ �•.. I r. CDP89-64/TT14135/CE89-55 He `r . c DP89-40/ND89-52 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ,.. .. - MAYOR Jim Silva City of H1.1I1tin.9to11 DeaCU MAYOR PRO TEMPORE Grace Winchell hh? P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 COUNCILMEMBERS _. Peter Green Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille .April 16, 1992 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mrs. Brockway: Re: Surfcrest North Development Proposal: Tentative Tract Map 14135 Revised, Conditional Use Permit 91-45, Coastal Development Permit 91-26, Negative Declaration 91-33 This letter is to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the above referenced applications for the Surfcrest North Development proposal. The size of.:the project, its location to city resources, and thus its potential for long term effects to the city necessitate that this item be reviewed by the City- Council. Specifically, I am appealing the project to address the relationship of the development to the surrounding Bolsa Chica Linear Park: setbacks to the linear park and the proposed building heights-adjacent to the park. If anyone has any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (714) 536-5553. Sincerely, tee_.: ,`J ','✓���..���.._ Grace Winchell, City Councilmember . � z m -c c�rq -n n t n - '� i n A L ATTACHMENT NO. TELEPHONE (714) 536-5553 Urban West Communities -) Z 0 Broadway, �Ll l�e 100 Mo�_iica , Ca.liforn.ia _90�-CJ .I , � 3 �0) � �-�r-� 3 l � July 29, 1992 Ms. Gabrielle Restivo Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Surfcrest North Project Tentative Map No. 14135 Coastal Development No. 91-26 Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 Dear Gabrielle: We are writing to you as a follow up to our meeting on the Surfcrest North project. As I told you, it is our position that the Surfcrest North project is in full compliance with every rule, regulation, policy, and ordinance of Huntington Beach, that the project was redesigned during the approval process to incorporate changes suggested by the City, that the Planning Commission correctly recognized both the full compliance with all planning and zoning requirements and the willingness to accede to the City's suggested changes when it granted the approvals for the project, and that the City Council is required, as a matter of law, to deny the present appeal. However, Surfcrest Partners would accept the City Council's determination if the Council approved the project with the moderate income housing requirements for "two" bedroom units deleted, even if the following modifications, and no others, were imposed on the project: 1. Increased building setbacks from park area on west boundary to 20' rninimurn and 26' minirnum; 2. Additional building "step back" along west (Park) and east (Seapoint) boundaries at first and second story transitions; 3. Expanded building setback at Palm Avenue at northwest corner of property for full width of Palm Avenue; 4. Reduction of project density by 32 'units; 5. Decrease of building site coverage; 6. Increase of project open space; 7. Reduction of required special permits from seven to one (for recreation area paving). If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, By: Surfcr st Partners RECEIVED T 0 3 1992 r J G.J om Zanic , Vice President i; ;:', of Con.m. Cevel.o,�ment i encl. ATTACHMENT N0. ? 3 cc: Michael Adams, Director, Community Development (without encl.) Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director (without encl.) Scott Hess, Senior Planner (without encl.) NARRATIVE SURFCREST NORTH PROJECT MODIFIED PLAN July 29, 1992 The modified plan for the Surfcrest North project would result in the following changes: 1. Building setbacks would be increased from the park area on west boundary to a 20' rninimum and a 26' minimum. The buildings would also be staggered to achieve more variation as viewed from the park. 2. Building "step backs" would be added along west (Park) and east (Seapoint Avenue) boundaries at the first and second story transitions. This "step back" creates a pyramid effect along these two elevations. In addition, in the type B clusters the middle two units would be limited to two story. 3. Building setback would-be expanded at Palm Avenue at the northwest corner of the site for the full width of Palm Avenue. Existing cluster 5 would be eliminated and the main access road would be moved to the Palm Avenue intersection. 4. Project density would be reduced by 32 units. Through the elimination of existing cluster 5 and other changes, the total number of units would be reduced by 32 units. 5. Building site coverage would be decreased. Building site coverage would be reduced to approximately 146,000 square feet which is a reduction of about 18%. 6. Project open space would be increased. Open space area would be increased to approximately 126,000 square feet which is an increase of about 10%. 7. Special Permits. The approved project as appealed includes seven (7) special permits. The modified plan would require only one (1) special permit (for recreation area paving). The previous special permits would not be required because of the following changes: a. Reduction in building" separation requirements between clusters. The redesigned site plan increases the separations, eliminating the need for a special permit. b. Reduction in building separation within clusters. The redesigned site plan increases the separations, eliminating the need for a special permit. C. Variation in building bulk requirements. The redesigned elevation of cluster type B includes two story units in the middle of the elevation. The redesign of cluster type A offsets half the building elevation from the other half. The interior units of the building are also setback 201. Therefore, a special permit is not required. ATTACHMENT NO.�3 d. Reduction in ground floor private open space requirements. Since the lower floor patio is above ground level, the balcony requirements would apply and those requirements are met. The modified project also contains more than the required amount of common open space, therefore a special .permit is not required. e. Exceed the 5% paving restriction for the main recreation area. Since current .private recreation features commonly include hardscape areas around a swimming pool for sitting, it is appropriate to exceed the 5% paving restriction. Although a special permit is required (the only one), it is offset by the provision of substantial landscaped areas throughout the project. f. Reduction in access width for first 100' intersecting at Seapoint Avenue. The new main access has been redesigned to meet the requirement, therefore no special permit is required. g. No permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of the building. Since the trash receptacles will be permanently stored in the garage level, the garage will serve as the permanent enclosure. Therefore, no special permit is required. ATTACHMENT NO. , 3 Urban West CoC. Santa IVI onic�-i1 <� �� t ( 310 ) � 4- � 3 if i Z'j�l i r.1. August 5, 1992 Mr. Howard Zelefsky Planning Director CITY Or HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Surfcrest North Project Tentative Map No. 114135 Coastal Development No. 91-26 Conditional Use hermit lvo. yi-�►a Dear Howard: This letter, as you 11 requested at our August 4th meeting, is an addendum for clarification i r.r rim lr'}'ti I' r'lr�t{�SB .J 111 j` r�i7Y11 (G9p�r onclorad) rall2rrfing the ahnvn prn)Prt. In that letter we stated that we would accept the City Council determination on the project even ,if the changes on the modified plans dated July 27, 1992, were adopted and the moderate income housing requirement for "two" bedroom units was-del.eted. The requested modification to the affordable housing condition l.g. approved by the Planning Commission would be as follows: l.g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 294 252 housing units (air 50 units) for persons or households earning between 80- 120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of J00% of median income). The affordable housing shall be provided through three 0) two (2) housing types: 1 bedroorn, and 1 bedroom/dens and 2 bedf:eem units, shown on the modified technical site plan dated Marta 3 July 27, 1992 as plans A, B, C, and D_ and Pv The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters. The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. wl Post-ltm brand fax transmittal memo 7671 x of pages ► 7b From CO, CP. Dept. Phone 0 Fax 3 �J Fax 0 ATTACHMENT NO. I�Z 08-05-92 10: 32AM ?01 Mr. Howard Zelefsky August 5, 1992 Page Two The reason for the request is that the project modifications requested by Council, as reflected in the "modified project", result in different unit types including 1) the deletion of unit plan D and 2) the addition of a new unit plan D, a two-bedroom corner unit. Since the new unit plan is always a cornier unit, it is not feasible to include in the affordable housing program. The. remaining unit plans A, B and C (one bedroom and one bedroom/den units) would be included in the program and would be "located throughout the condominium clusters." If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, By: Surferest Partners Tom Zanic Vice president CC. Mike Adams, Director, Community Development (without enclosure) Scott Hess, Senior Planner (without enclosure) Gabrielle Restivo, Associate planner (without enclosure) TACHMENT No. �P�Z � t` jZ HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOClTION 19781 Island Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 July 26 1992 k' . OelotCmm CityuoftHunntingtonent Beachpt. 0ey0/oA00 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Surfcrest, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 Tentative Tract No. 14135 Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 Negative Declaration No. 91-33 Dear Sirs : We strongly support the recommendations made by Mayor Pro-Tem Grace Winchell, and passed by the City Council on June 1, 1992 . The recommendations are: 1. Reduce the project density to attain compatibility with surrounding developments. 2 . Provide a full view corridor from Palm to the Bolsa Chica. 3 . Increase the buffer zone to a minimum of 20 feet, and NOT allow parkland to become part of the buffer. 4 . Require the design of the structure to be terraced back to avoid a castle wall look. It is important to remember .that this parcel was rezoned to R4 ONLY due to Coastal Commission requirements for affordable housing. With the Coastal Commission requirement void, and ALL the affordable housing requirements for Seacliff IV SATISFIED off-site at Pacific Ranch, there is NO need for affordable housing requirements on such a prime piece of property. An extremely high density project (30 units per acre) certainly does not belong in an area with densities of . 12 units per acre. flit-, ft ATTACHMENT NI O. �____ We urge the planning staff to recommend the right thing for the city, and we urge the City Council to stick to their decision of June 1, and eliminate the need for -affordable housing via a change to the General Plan. Sin -er ly, J e z `r C residc':t cc: Mayor Jim Silva Mayor Pro-Tem Grace Winchell Councilman Peter Green Councilwoman Linda Moulton-Patterson Councilman Jack Kelly Councilman Earl Robitaille Councilman Don MacAllister City Administrator Michael Uberuaga City Attorney Gail Hutton Domminick Tomaino, HSHA - ATTACHMENT NO. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF t0}P�.U13LIC HEARING 9C APPEAL OF THE jA C PLANNING I -IAA COMMISSION'S I ' 108FAPPROVAL OF " 1 '0QNDITIONAL USE STATE OF CAUMRMA ,1�ERMIT NO.91.45 UGHWITH SPECIAL ,OA- PERMITS/ County of Orange a m TENTATIVE :,Aa8 TRACT MAP NOV 14135(REVISED)/� COASTAL I am a Citizen of the United States and a DEVELOPMENT yo.jgRMIT NO.91.26/ resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the ; +;sq� NEGATIVE age. of eighteen yearn and not a party to or i•NO 91E-33.ARATION i interested in the below entitled matter. I am a "'UCTo Construct 284 principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH ' .12eendcastalurn Zo one) In + the Coastal INDEPENDENT• P P a news a er of �eneral G,NOTICE a HEREBY IVEN that the Huntington circulation, printed and published in the City of 1 Behch City Council will Co9Wna public hearing in the Huntin on Beach ou of Oran State of Coyrcil Chamber at the gt r my 9a• lunl(ngton Beach Civic Cardomi and that attached Notice is a true and C� " ter, 20b0 .Main Street, ! Kyy)},Yngton Beach, Califor- niR.Ign the date and at the complete copy as was printed and published in tjjn ndicated below to re- f cp}y,e and consider the the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley 5t {�ments of all persons Id %vish to be heard rela- issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s)of: f"v 5 the application de- scu ed below. AID E/TIME: Monday, Au. gyst 17,1992,7:00 PM" AAy�iLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 911-45 with Special Permits/ Ten five Tract Map No. ipi3 (Revised)/ Coastal Development Permit No. August 6-, 1992 9_j1�iLl 1 Negative Declaration o. 1-33 f} CANT: Surfcrest "Under the provisions of 9JILE: A copy of the f' ers tfibyAuntington Beach Ordi- pro osed request Is on file i ELLENT: Council- nance Code, the action! inP.t�ie Community De- woman Grace Winchell takdn by the City Council is, veld ment Department, t LO,�ATION: Northwest findilLunless an appeal is� 20boiMain Street, Hunting- cc of Palm Avenue and filed3tto,the Coastal Com- toh Weach, California $' bin t Avenue mission by the applicant or 92MB, for Inspection by NE: R4-29-0-CZ (High an leaggrieved party. Said thg-;public. A copy of the I appeal must be.in writing staff-report will be available Dgry ling Residential-29 I f)gwlling Units Per Acre-Oil!anwti must set forth in detail to io7brested parties at City F action-Coastal Zone) 'the'ldctions and grounds,by. HaH--or the Main- City U-1 � (]UEST: To construct alleiii upon which the ap- brary (7111 Talbert Av seer io three (3) story'plicant or Interested party enu�tafter July 3,1992. ti Y Ings consisting of 284 deems himself aggrieved. ALL INTERESTED .PER- 1 condominiums on 9.8 'Sald;appeal must be sub- SONS are invited to attend acFFe�s m the Coastal Zone;mitfed to the Coastal Com• said:<hearing and express witti�Special Permits for: 1) filspion office within ten opinions and submit evi- r"e'duction in building sepa-I(10) working days of the denoe for or against the rat! n requirements be-I dS18Eof the Commission's application as outlined ' g- q ac)i n. There is no fee for a1,,o If you challenge the twcten clusters;2)reduction Q 1yJnCouncil's action in declare, under penalty of perjury, that the in'�Ilsnilding. separation re- the appeal of a coastal de-I Ci ;w gUR&nents within clusters; ve ment permit. I court you may be limited to foregoing is true and ro� 3) variation in building bulk' -�npaggrieved person may, ra)3jng only those issues requirements; 4) reduction file' sn appeal within ten you_suor someone else in round floor private (10working days, pursu•i raised at the public hearing; o�' space requirements; ant 1D Section 30603 of the desDribed in this notice, or Executed on August 6 r 19�? 5))1 exceed the 5%paving Public Resources Code, in inowlitten correspondence ,,t; restriction for main recre- writi to: deUvered to the City at, or; at Costa Mesa, Californiaatibff areas; 6) reduction in Capt�ornia Coastal Com• prioMto,the public hearing.; I atMs width for first 100,m�i�����ion, 245 W. Broadway, If there are any further feDTSintersecting Seapoint I' Sr7it9 380, Long Beach, questions please call Gab-i Av�que; and 7) no perms• C110mia 90801-1450,Aftn riel)pcRestivo DeGange,As-1 nenl itrash enclosures to 507 esa Henry, {213) 590i 52oj�te .Planner at 536- cat exterior of building ga- E iSConnie Brockway,) � cat in m ground floor ga- ,T#� Coastal Commissior II Signature i rag!}. re�ie period will com CI)�►r♦rlerk }! ENVIRONMENTAL STA- men"after the City appea ,Nugt)ngton Beach! TUSTCovered b Negative per od has ended and n( y 9 a peals have been filed C4SylCouncll Duration No.91-33 P ,_„ :2000 Main Street,! 1 COASTAL STATUS: AP- Af{ !cants will be notifiec Hur�i in ton Beach CA'. PEAi:ABLE(See below) bye a Coastal Commission 9 r PUBLIC HEARING PRO- as�i o,the date of the con-I 926'48(714)5136.5227 CE13URE: (1) Staff Report; cl}��s(on of the Coastal! Publish Huntingtoni� ( (2) Public Hearing; (3) City c"1"mission review. Ap-; geao-Fountain Valley In- Council Discussion;and(4) pli $nts are advised not to dependent August 6,1992 City:Eouncil action. bogin construction prior tol iozis 081-013 UM PROOF OF PUB AI TON tha,.date — t c�� AMJLYOS P.O. Box 3748, Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3748 • (714) 897-7003 de = o sa Chica August 17, 1992 G �� y a Huntington Beach City Council i n 2000 Main Street s m Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a rn m m N yVK Ladies and Gentlemen: a r Subject: Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) Bolsa Chica Linear Park - After much planning and public input the Linear Park project on the Huntington Beach Mesa will begin soon its process of obtaining various governmental approvals with hopefully construction and planting activity starting in 1993. This park will represent only the second regional park to be placed in the Second Supervisorial District of Orange County. With equestrian trails, walking and riding trails, observation sites and other amenities the primarily passive Bolsa Chica Linear Park will provide views of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands as restoration proceeds, Bolsa Chica State Beach, Long Beach, and Catalina. It is important that we establish a precedence that this very unique and special park resource in Huntington Beach not be a versely impacted by developments that may adjoin its boundary.boundary. The design and planning of these developments should compliment or at least not disrupt the passive nature of this linear park that has taken so long in coming to its present planning stage. Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) does impact adversely the Linear Park and some of our specific concerns and comments are as follows: 1. First preference would be to have this property included in the Bolsa Chica Regional Park. Since the very beginning the acreage for the park has continually declined. It has even declined from the 113 acres recently approved by the City Council to 106 acres. There are continually plans that would reduce it even more. 2. The most dense residential development in the area (approximately twice the density of Seacliff's highest density) should not be immediately adjacent to a passive park which also —, provides a_buffer to one of the regions most significant wetlands and as a habitat area for— wildlife that uses the wetlands. 3. Tood planning would dictate the density and bulk of the developments should increase as you move away from the park and not vice versa. 4. To maximize view and public access to the park it would be preferable to have the height of the development less than the housing developments around it and to have public streets in the development. Preferably the public streets should be along the perimeter of the development to provide public access to the regional park and greater separation between the buildings and the regional park. V Huntington Beach City Council Page 2 August 17, 1992 5. Consistent with the-Council osition of June 1, the density of the project should be reduced. One way ' to return the z er to at least R-3. In 1981, the Council changed the zoning rom -3 to R-4 (Zone change 80-6) to accommodate an affordable housing condition imposed by the Coastal Commission on the Seacliff IV project. The Coastal Commission's 20% affordable housing condition for Seacliff IV (531 units) was transferred to the 21 acre parcel that includes the subject project. These 106 units along with affordable units required in conjunction with any project on the 21 acres would amount to approximately 150 to 196 affordable units being built on the 21 acres. Shortly thereafter, the Coastal Commission's requirement was eliminated by action of the Legislature but the.zoning action to assist the owner was not reversed. A reversal at this time seems appropriate and justified because the very significant Coastal Commission affordable housing condition no longer exists and no longer impacts the developer. _ 6. The setback from the buildings and the regional park boundary should be at least 20 feet as desired by the County of Orange. Larger setbacks would be preferred. None of the regional park land should be used as buffer for the project. None of the regional park land should be maintained by the home owners' association. 7. The second and third floors of the residential structures should be set back to minimize the impact on the project on the regional park. The vertical 35-foot high wall affect should be modified. 8. The view corridor at the end of Palm should be expanded to include the full width of Palm extended. 9. The project design should be changed to lessen the residential wall appearance of the project from the park. Further, the importance and value of public input and comments should not be diminished because they occur at the end of the planning process. This fact is not the fault of the public. If integration of public input is desired at earlier stages, then the current process needs to be reviewed to find an improved process that does not frustrate the public, planners, and developers. The alternative 252 unit pro is moving in the right direction but the imp ' of the project is still incompatible it s roximity to the regional park and not even closely consistent with the surroun ing ensities. stated before, t e zoning should be returned to at least R-3 because the condition behind the change to R-4 was removed_ and the size of the regional park and its importance have changed over the pastt v� Sincerely, Terry��A,.(Holton President TAD:vm -- A U.1--L— 1 7 — �=Y 2 MO ' 9 '. S 4 T O Y O -USA P . � 1 THE CORMY'ITE E FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT of f r' SURFCREST NORTH August 16, 1992 cn Jim Silva, Mayor City nt Huntington Read, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Surfcrest North, Tentative Tract # 14135 Dear MS . Restivo, The Committee for Responsible Development of Surfcrest North, Comprised of organizations, associations, an:! individuals, has been formed with one intent: the responsible development of the parcel at Palm and Seapoinre known a:= Surfcrest North. • VIe.. concur with the City Council ' S m, ot?on Oh , June I ,- 1992 requiring the applicant to resubs?.t plans that: r ' 1. Reduce density to be corpatible with surrounding densities (12-14 units/a-cre) . 2 . Provide a minimu,i 20 foot on site set back from the Linear Park. 3 . Provide set backs, or terraces to the building's successive floors to lessen the "bulk" of the structures. 4 . Increase the width of the view corridor to the full width of Palm Avenue. As to density, it seems in 1981, the zoning on this parcel ($) was bumped up to R4 from R3 as a DIRECT RESULT of a Coastal Commission mandate for 20% affordable units. It is obvious, then, the e.a�y way *:o rNdLICe density at Surfcrest North is to remove the reauirem�nt for affordable housing. This process should be relatively painless as: 1. The Coastal Commission no loner requires the units, 2 . Correspondence between City personnel and Pacific Coast. Homes indicate an agreement to credit. affordabl.e units at Surfcrest for affordable units sold at Pacific Ranch. The.: agreement in 1986-88 seems to leave only a few if • any affordable units required, and 3 . More importantly, affordable housing does not belong on one of the choicest parcels in the city with views of A U G - 1 7 - � 2 M O N 5 S T O Y o U S A ,. . W • the ocean, Catalina Island and the Bolsa Chica. DENSITY must be made compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant's "preferred" plan, which is the same seen at the June 1 Council meeting must not be approved. The applicant's submission of a revised plan indicates a reversal of their initial REFUSAL to make changes in response to the June 1 Council direction, The revised plan is encouraging as it does meet the park set back requirement, and increases the width of the view corridor. Density has been reduced to 27 units/acre, which is still roughly TWICE THE DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. This cannot be construed as attaining compatibility. The revised plan density must be reduced. The revised view corridor, according to submitted plans, seems to provide little view if any at all . Note that the access gate for vehicle traffic is within the corridor, and recreational areas may also restrict: view. Care must be taken to preserve the view as intended. Upper floor set backs or terracing of the building from the second to the third floors seems to meet the council's • intent . Little or no terracing has been provided between the first and second floors which needs to be corrected. In summation, the applicant's original and preferred plan is completely inadequate as resolved by Council June 1 . The revised plan, though a slight improvement, Still fails to meet three of the four mandates required by the June 1 motion. Why then is staff supporting the revised plan?? The August 17, Request for' City Council Action prepared by planning staff seems to be mediocre in its thoroughness. For _instance: 1. Under Statement of Issue, the three points supposedly requested by the Council are not what was said at the June 1 meeting and do not even follow the minutes from that meeting . No comment is made at all. about terracing the building, the increase to the view corridor is not spelled out, and the density issue is not correctly worded. 2 . Staff continues to push the affordable housing element despite the obvious intent of council to have it 1 7 - 9 2 PION 1 0 O 5 T Q Y 0 U S A P _ 2 0 • removed. Has staff reviewed the Coastal Commission requirement, or the agreement between the city and Pacific Coast Homes? 3. Under ANALYSIS, staff recognizes the high density (26 units/acre) , and notes the second to third floor set backs, but does not mention the lack of set backs from first to second floor. Also not mentioned is the plans for what is to be in the view corridor. 4 . Special permits required have been reduced from 5 to only two. For some unknown reason, staff has elected to use an assumption that "the clusters constitute three buildings rather than three separate buildings". This is a thinly veiled excuse to bypass restrictions to bulk. We reiterate that the project must conform to the requirements set forth at the June 1, 1992 City Council meeting to assure the project is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and does not adversely impact the Linear Park which was designed as a passive buffer for the Bolsa Chica. Sincerely, i The Committee for Responsible Development of Surferest North (Amigos de Bolsa Chica The Committee of 400 HOME Council Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington SeaCliff Homeowners' Association SeaCliff on the Greens Homeowners' Association (Estates, Masters, Club Series) ) } NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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, August 17, 1992, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No . 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No . 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell •LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling. Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 . 8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1)- reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No . 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Commission' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved' person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy. of the proposed- request is on file in the Community Development Department, 20.00 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 July 3, 199-2 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and- express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court you may be limited- to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described- in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,' or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Gabrielle Restivo DeGange, Associate Planner at 5-36-52-7-1. Connie Brockway, City Clerk Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 (3700d) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE. DECLARATION_ NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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, August 17, 19921, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings. consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 .8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Commission' s action. There .is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period .will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. 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 July 3, 1992 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Gabrielle Restivo DeGange, Associate Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway, City Clerk Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 (3700d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date Ju ly 6, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator 1 Prepared by: Michael .Adams, Director of Community Development Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (SURFCREST NORTH) Consistent with Council Policy? V� Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: t��K STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is staff 's analysis and recommendation for action on Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres. On June 1, 1992, the City Council continued action with direction to the applicant to prepare revisions as outlined on page 2 of this report. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Uphold the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 and deny said applications with findings . " City Council action on June 1. 1992 : "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 for the purpose of modifying the site plan to have a 20 foot setback from the Linear Park, graduate building heights from the linear park setback, increase the width of the view corridor the full width of Palm Avenue, and reduce the density to be compatible with the surrounding project densities . AYES: Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Silva, MacAllister NOES: Robitaille, Kelly ABSENT: Green ABSTAIN: None MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED. i Cl P10 5/85 ANALYSIS• Background City Council' s action on June 1, 1992, for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits, Tentative Tract Map 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 92-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 was to continue the project with the direction to revise the project as follows : 1. Provide a 20 foot linear park setback along rear property line. 2 . Step back buildings from the 20 foot linear park setback. 3 . Provide the view corridor along the easterly property line the full width of Palm Avenue. 4 . Reduce the project density to the surrounding average. The Council also requested a report pertaining to affordable housing requirements on the site and an explanation of affordable housing options . Discussion: The applicant has indicated in the attached letter that they are seeking a definitive action by the Council on their Surfcrest North Project . Their intent is not to modify the project as required by the City Council. Therefore staff has changed its recommendation to denial . It is staff ' s opinion that reducing project densities, modifying the linear park setback and the building mass and widening the view corridor will result in a . substantially modified project from which new development and design considerations may arise. At a minimum, the modified project will necessitate a review by City staff and should, as a normal course of action, be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, Staff ' s recommended action is to deny the project recognizing that the applications as presented to Council have been rejected based on a determination that environmental and aesthetic impacts will result to the coastal bluff linear park and coastal zone view corridor as well as the project being profoundly out of character and incompatible with surrounding development based on building mass, bulk and form, and out of scale with surrounding coastal park resources . Affordable Housing Discussion: As the previous report to the City Council indicated, the affordable housing requirement was placed on the site by the Coastal Commission as a condition of approval of the Seacliff IV residential project. The maximum number of permitted units was increased on both Surfcrest sites to 450 units. These two development requirements, the maximum number of units and the affordable housing requirement' were then incorporated into the City' s General Plan Coastal Element as a site specific development policy. RCA 7/6/92 -2- (3708d) Two courses of action are required to reduce the project density and eliminate the affordable housing requirement on site. First, the Coastal and Land Use Elements of the General Plan would need to be revised to reflect the desired density. Second, a zone change would be required to reduce the allowable buildout density to be consistent with the amended General Plan. Staff ' s primary concern with the above courses of action is the loss of affordable housing units within the Coastal Zone, and its impact to the City' s Housing Element affordable housing plan. Although Coastal Act policies no longer require affordable housing, state law requires new construction within the coastal zone to provide affordable housing where feasible or at another location within the same city either within the Coastal Zone or within three miles thereof. Therefore, a general plan amendment which would reduce site densities and remove the affordable housing requirement should include a plan to provide affordable housing off-site equivalent to the number of units lost through the general plan amendment. To avoid a total loss of affordable units, staff recommends that the affordable housing requirement remain on the site regardless of a reduction in site density. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, and direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment and zone change to reduce site densities and retain the requirement for affordable housing on the subject site. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Findings for Denial 2 . Alternative Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval for CUP 91-45/TT14135 Revised/CDP 91-26/ND 91-33 3 . Area Map 4 . Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5 . Letter from Urban West Communities dated June 24, 1992 regarding June 1, 1992 City Council Action. 6 . June 1, 1992 City Council Report. MTU:MA:GR: lp RCA 7/6/92 -3- (3708d) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS• 1. The site layout and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is not properly adapted to the adjacent Bolsa Chica linear park, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands view corridor from Palm Avenue and other adjacent residential structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2 . The proposed project requires special permits for reduction in building separation requirements between and within clusters, deviation from building bulk requirements, ground floor private open space requirements and reduced access width at the Seapoint intersection resulting in a project that exhibits excessive mass and building bulk than normally allowed within the Planned Residential Development Article. 3 . The special permits allowing for a more dense project with greater building bulk characteristics do not promote a more aesthetically pleasing project or an enhancement of the living environment for future residents of the project and, therefore, do not meet the intent of the special permit provision to: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or the City in general; and d. Be consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4 . The proposed project as designed is incompatible with the surrounding developments of Surfcrest South and Seacliff in regards to architecture, building orientation, building bulk mass and form, and is, therefore, detrimental and injurious to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or of the City in general . 5 . The site is designated by the General Plan as being located within a scenic corridor and located on a scenic roadway. The General Plan states that scenic corridors shall be protected from disharmonius development. It has been determined that the project is disharmonius with the surrounding coastal resource view corridor at Palm Avenue and with the coastal bluff linear park. The project is considered disharmonious due to its bulk, mass and form relative to these resources which impacts the environmental integrity of these resources and the aesthetic enjoyment of these resources by the general public. 6 . The housing element of the General Plan states that adverse impacts are to be minimized when increasing densities or relaxing standards to provide for low and moderate income housing. The proposed site layout and design creates adverse impacts to coastal view and park resources by not having view corridors of sufficient width and only providing a 10 foot setback from the Linear Park. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 284 three story condominiums is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan by not being properly adapted to the environmental resources and development constraints of the bluffs, coastal view resources, Bolsa Chica Linear Park and surrounding oil and heliport operations. 2. The subdivision is incompatible with existing surrounding neighborhood subdivision design in terms of building bulk, mass, form and orientation. 3 . The subdivision does not meet the design criteria specified by Article 915, Planned Residential Development and is, therefore, inconsistent with the zoning code. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26 : 1. The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan because it blocks public views of coastal areas . 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is not consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code applicable to the property due to the visual impact the project will have on surrounding coastal areas. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development can not be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan since Seapoint may not by fully connected to Garfield, Edwards and Pacific Coast Highway. 4 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act since it blocks public views of the Linear Park and Bolsa Chica area. ATTACH MENT NO. - ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 : 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is compatible with surrounding properties in terms of architecture and orientation. 3 . The access to and. parking for the proposed 284 three (3) story stacked condominium development will not create an undue traffic problem. 4 . The planned residential development for 284 three (3) story stacked condominiums conforms to the provisions contained in Article 915 except for the special permits requested. 5 . As conditioned, Condition Use Permit No. 91-45 for 284 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1 . The following special permits promote a better living environment by adapting the Planned Residential Development requirements which are compatible with the surrounding area: a,. Reduction in building separation requirements between clusters . b. Reduction in building separation requirements within clusters . c. Deviation from building bulk requirements. d. Reduction in private open space requirements for ground floor units . e. Greater than 5% paving in main recreation area. f. Reduction of access width. g. No trash enclosures to the exterior of buildings (located in ground floor garage) . 2 . The requested special permits provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, design and building layout . ATTACHMENT NO. -: to 3 . The requested special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of th neighborhood or of the City in general . 4 . The requested special permits are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain, ,compatible with the surrounding environment and compatible with surrounding residential development. J FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 REVISED: 1. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design features of the proposed subdivision for 284 three (3) story condominiums are in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time that the General Plan designation of High Density Residential and R4-29-0-CZ (29 units per gross acre) zoning were implemented. 3 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density of 29 units per gross acre. 4 . Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 284 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 91-26 : 1. As conditioned, the proposed 284 three (3) .story condominium development conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 5 . The project is consistent with the affordable housing requirement of the Coastal Element by proposing to provide 20% affordable housing on-site through a first time buyer program with a resale covenant for first right of refusal to the City of Huntington Beach. �2 Ni IAGHMENT NO. ; to CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS• 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevation plans dated March 5, 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. All floor plans must provide an exterior storage unit of 100 cubic feet. Storage areas above washers and dryers must be provided shelving. 2 . Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. c. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating unit.s; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, afire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. e. The structures on the subject -property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California Insulation Standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Hi 1AUHMENIT NO All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the oil wells will be required to have an Exterior Wall noise Rating (EWNR) of 25 which is equal to a similar noise rating scale, tht Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, to sufficiently attenuate) against noise levels from oil well operations . Any window that meets the EWNR 25 or the STC 27 may be used. The first floor windows will not need any upgrades because the 10 feet high noise barrier separating the project from the oil well site will sufficiently shield the first floor rooms . All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the heliport will be required to have an EWNR of 28 or a STC of 31, Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c indicate those units requiring both oil and heliport noise mitigation. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells and heliport . The ventilation requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation system. The ventilation system must provide two (2) air changes per, hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of 10 feet of straight or curved duct, or six (6) feet plus one (1) sharp 90 degree bend. Exhibit 4a, 4b and 4c shows the units requiring mechanical ventilation. f . Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be .screened ,from any ` view. Said screening shall be architecturaly compatible with .) the building in terms of materials and colors . If screening is not designed specifically into the building, 'a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations . i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a. registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities . In addition, foundations and utility installations should be designed to withstand possible minor differential settlement, caused by subsidence, without damage. Appropriate design parameters should be recommended by a qualified soils engineer and incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Al1p,CHMENT N • ------ j . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject p.roperty.: All structures within this development shall `be''`coiistructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist ' s report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits : a . A grading plan shall be submitted to the City' s Department of Public Works . A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. Drainage from the site shall connect with the City' s storm drain system. No storm water drainage shall drain to the linear park site. 4 . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 5 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction .Set. must be submitted to the ;k<= Departments of Community Development and Public Works and .must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and -signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes .all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval . The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Article 960 and 915 Planned Residential Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits . Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project ' s landscape plan. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and Community Development for approval . Native bluff plant materials shall be utilized in the landscaping of the site. 1 . A landscape plan for the 10 foot off-site landscape buffer to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be submitted for review and approval . The plan shall have received approval from the Orange County Environmental Agency Harbors, Beachs and Parks prior to submittal . z V. Pg � Hi iiA�riivitNI ITV. -r c . All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. i d. Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded ; with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. e. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials . f . The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through three (3) housing types : 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units, shown on the technical site plan dated March .5, 1992 as plans A, B, C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a . first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenenat for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer . 6 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows : a . Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout to comply with Huntington Beach fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building code Standards . Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. c. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings ill be submitted to and approved by the Fire- Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following : 1) Manual Pulls 2) Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection 3) 24 hour supervision 4 ) Smoke Detectors 5) Annunciation 6) Graphic Display 7) Audible Alarms . d. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards . e. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible. t{ construction. Shop drawings will be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to uh installation. f. Elevators will be sized to accommodate .an ambulance gurney. Minimum 6 foot 8 inch wide by 4 foot 3 inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. g . Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 415. h. Security gates will be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 403 . i . Address numbers will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Specification No. 428 . The size of the numbers will be the following : 1) The number for the building will be sized a minimum of 10 inches with. a brush stroke of one and one-half (1-1/2) inches . 2) individual units will be sized a minimum of four (4) inches with brush stroke of one-half (1/2) inch. j . Installation or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks will comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department Standards . k. Fire access roads will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 401. Includes the circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads (24 feet or 27 feet fire lanes, turnarounds and 17 feet by 45 feet radius turns) . 1 . Names of streets must be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to use. m. Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification No. 426 . n. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 422 and No. 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. o . The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code Title 17. 04 . 085 and. City Specification No . 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts . ATTACHMENT NO. p . Developer shall construct roadway to connect Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway. A temporary paved emergency access roadway shall be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction. q. Developer to provide funding for a temporary fire station facility at a site to be determined. Funding will occur with a minimum 90 days notice by the fire chief . This site for the temporary fire station will be acquired by the City. 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department . 8 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them.. 9 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months . 10 . There shall be no outside -storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers . 11. During construction, the applicant shall: a . Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts) ; d. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts . e. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building . 12 . Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7 : 00 AM to 8 :00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays . 13 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a . Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. b. The 10 foot wide off-site landscaped buffer within the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be improved and accepted by the Orange County Environmental Agency Harbors, Beaches and Parks . �� - gip- 1 CHhAENT-N0, ;L �o i a 14 . Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval . 15 . A qualified archaeologist shall examine the surface of the site after it has been cleared of v�e;getaton prior to site grading . 16 . If no cultural materials are observed, no further mitigation of cultural resources shall be reuqired. A written report shall be submitted to the city by the archaeologist . 17 . If some indication of the presence of cultural materials is observed, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 18 . Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 19 . Should any human bone be encountered during any construction activities on the site, the archaeologist shall contact the coroner pursuant to Section 5097 .98 and 5097 .99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American Remains . Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to State Law SB 297. 20 . This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly < ' executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the � owner of the property, recorded --with County Recorder ' s Office, 'and returned to the Planning Division; and until. the ten - day appeal period has elapsed. NDITIONS OF APPROVAL - 'TENTATIVE 'TRACT MAP NO, 14315 : 1. The tentative tract map received and dated February 26, 1992, shall be the approved layout. 2 . At least sixty (60) days prior to recordation of the final tract map, CC & R' s shall be submitted to and -approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development . " The CC&R' s shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner ' s Association. a . A ter! (101 ) foot off-site landscape buffer along the Bolsa Chica Linear Park north of the project site shall " be landscaped by the developer according to the specifications of the Orange County Environmental Agency, Harbors, Beaches and Parks and accepted by that agency. The buffer shall be maintained for the life of the project by the Home Owner ' s Association. ,� V • I 3 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : I a . Submit a soils report to the Director of Public Works . :;:: b. .Construct off-site storm drain as shown on the Tentative Map, to"tI NY mitigate increased runoff due to development . c. Construct full street improvements for Seapoint Avenue within the tract boundary. d. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the tract boundary to Pacific Coast Highway. e. Construct off-site traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Seapoint Avenue. f . Construct off-site traffic signal at Palm and Seapoint. g. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the existing terminus of Seapoint Avenue to Garfield. h. Construct any temporary access which may be required by the Fire Department. i . Enter a license and maintenance agreement with the City for maintenance of landscaping along Seapoint, along with the project frontage. j . Construct full improvements of Lot A in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works . k. Dedicate easement over lot A to the City for water line purposes and emergency access purposes . 1 . Construct on-site storm drain in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works . - - 10 � ,�w z tAAAENT NO. �o a' / I .�cc.-z c �,Ly/•a Roy-O•'c/Z 29 O CZ S"F o� I ' <cl v? l R3.17-0-CZ R2-P '0 PD R2-PD-0C7 sic O C n m ; CDP89-64/TT1. 4 3. 5/C. 89-55 • CD P 8 9 40/ND 89-5 HUNTING TON BEACH f" HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r �w J MAYOR ` Jim Silva C Ity Of FIwr-ktington .Desch MAYOR PRO TEMF •; _ Grace Winchell P. O. BOX 190 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 COUNCILMEMBERS ___... .. ' Peter Green Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille April 16, 1992 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mrs. Brockway: Re: Surfcrest North Development Proposal: Tentative Tract Map 14135 Revised, Conditional Use Permit 91-45, Coastal Development Permit 91-26, Negative Declaration 91-33 This letter is to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the above referenced applications for the Surfcrest North Development proposal. The size of the project, its +t'y location to city resources, and thus its potential for long term effects to the city necessitate that this item be reviewed by the City Council. Specifically, I am appealing the project to address the relationship of the development to the surrounding Bolsa Chica Linear Park: setbacks to the linear park and the proposed building heights adjacent to the park. If anyone has any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (714) 536-5553. Sincerely, r, Grace Winchell, City Councilmember -o — =gym Un a m AFFACHMENT NO. TELEPHONE f7141 536-555.3 — Ulb►a ► estVui4�.� 100 0') �z" 4-3379.3 Santa Monica , CaJhFornia 1904C) . June 24, 1992 Ms. Gabrielle Restivo Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Reach, CA 92648 tze; Appeal to the City Council Surfcrest North Tentative Tract Map No. 1.4135 Coastal Development No. 91-26 Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 Dear Ms. Restivo. This is to confirm our discussion today regarding the above appeal. You asked me whether Surfcrest Partners intended to change its above residential project as approved by the Planning Commission. We believe that the project as approved by the Planning Commission is compatible with City planning and policies and does not require modification. Therefore, we do not intend to change it. Sincerely, Tom Zanic Vice President 7:--TACHMENT NO. POSt-It'brand fax transmittal memo 76771 a of pages ► TO rj From A P Dept. Phone# ax# ff REQUEST" FOR CITY COUNCICr ACTION June 1, 1992 Date Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator . Submitted by: �lY �w Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Prepared by: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL Subject: USE PERMIT NO. 91-45. WITH SPECIAL *PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 - 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 an appeal by Councilwoman Grace Winchell of the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 , a request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres , pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to : "Uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No . 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No . 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 91-33 with findings and subject to conditions of approval . " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APRIL 7. 1992 : ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECONDED BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF NOES: BOURGUIGNON SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO DENY FAILED Pg $ ATTACHMENT NO. ON A MOTION BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATIr`" NO. 91-33 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING .VOTE: AYES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND NOES : LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND AND SECONDED BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED) , AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 I WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND NOES: LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL. PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED) . COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) : 1 ANALYSIS: Background The proposed condominium project is a revised project (Tentative Tract No . 14135 Revised) . The first project, Tentative Tract No . a No . 14135, was a request for a 216 unit condominium project of six ( 6) five (5) story buildings, with three (3) special permits . The special permits were for rear and sideyard setback reductions, reduction of access width and security fencing within the front yard setback. A variance to the 35 feet height restriction was also required. The project did not provide a view corridor at the Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue intersection. The project was approved by the Planning Commission with conditions to meet height restrictions and to provide affordable housing as required by the General Plan for the site. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission' s conditions, but withdrew the application after repeatedly requesting continuances by the City Council prior to the City Council hearing . Protect Description The current proposal is for 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres located at the northwest corner of Seapoint and Palm. The condominium project consists of seven (7) three (3) story building F clusters . Five (5) of the clusters contain 40 units and the other two (2) contain 30 - P6 Z�$ RCA .- 6/1/92 -2- _ (3393d) and 54 units . The clusters consist of two (2) end buildings and a central building with interior courtyorrds and second story walkways . The Buildings consist of me (1) story flats with two story units above. - There are a totavl of 284 units being proposed containing 464 bedrooms . The housvng consists of �8 one (1) bedroom flats , 740 square feet in area; 88, one (1) bedroom-den flats, ranging in size from 774 square feet to 857 square feet ; 68 two (2) bedroom flats, ranging in size fxom 1, 100 to 1, 1/10 square feet; 88 . two (2) bedroom two story units ranging in size from 1, 274 to 1,357 square feet and 12 three (3) bi6droom two story units 1, 600 square feet in area . A total of 458 parking spaces are provided in semi-subterranean garages beneath the building clusters for residents and visitors, with a few visitor parking spaces (21) at street level . Two (2) recreational areas are provided both with swimming pools and decks and clubhouses . The main recreational area is 12, 000 square feet and has a 1, 600 square feet recreational building . The secondary recreational area is 6, 000 square feet and has a 400 square feet recreational building. The site is surrounded to the north and east by the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and to the west by oil production facilities . South of Seapoint. Avenue is Surfcrest South, a 115 unit condominium project . The site has two (2) entrances on Seapoint Avenue. The main entrance is aligned with the Surfcrest South development . The secondary entrance is located just south of the Seapoint/Palm intersection. The Coastal Element of the General Plan identifies the site located west of Palm, north and south of Seapoint as the location for up to 450 high density townhomes of which 20 percent of the total must be affordable (see Coastal Element, Section 9 .4 . 3 Bluffs to Goldenwest Street, Pg . 117 , Attachment No . 8) . This language is a result of the Coastal Commission approval of the Seacliff IV residential project . The referenced section reads as follows : "The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19 acres area to be development with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981 . Twenty (20) percent of the total units must be . ' affordable ' by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition This site, which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of 38th Street (Seapoint Avenue) has been redesignated High Density Residential , " As a consequence of this requirement, the City initiated and. approved, with the landowner ' s concurrence, Zone Change No . ' 82-20 to increase the site density to 29 dwelling units per acre as a density bonus to provide affordable housing on-site. Staff and the applicant have mutually agreed upon the following proposed condition of approval : N:n p'J RCA - 6/l/92 -3- (3393d) ATTACHMENT N(J.C� An affordable housing plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development. Director prior to issuance r: = of a building permit for any unit . The affordable housing plan shall be for 20% of -the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided at three (3) housing types : 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units, shown on the technical site plan dated March 5, 1992 as plans A, B, C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters . The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. The Huntington Beach School District and Seacliff Partners have a tentative agreement regarding school impact mitigation. The agreement is based upon the Holly Seacliff Agreement and will receive final action by the Huntington Beach School District Governing Board . Discussion The proposed 284 unit condominium project is developed at the maximum site density of 29 DU/Acre. A 45 foot wide view corridor is provided at the eastern most end of the. site adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. The view corridor is for traffic traveling on Palm Avenue north to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and was identified by the project environmental assessment as a significant view resource to be preserved. The proposed buffer between the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and the rear property line consists of 10 feet of off site landscaping and 10 feet of on site landscaping between property line and building face . The two (2) landscaped areas will be separated by the perimeter project wall . Building heights adjacent to the Linear Park 'are 3 stories in height or a maximum height of 35 feet. Seapoint will connect between Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield, and traffic signals are required at Palm/Seapoint and Pacific Coast Highway/Seapoint intersections . Temporary fire station funding is required within 90 days demand by the fire chief and fire response times will be greatly reduced by road improvements . Paramedic services are anticipated to be upgraded by Surfcrest South fees . Parking is provided in semi-subterranean garages beneath the clusters and at street level . Within the garages, the full amount of resident parking is provided behind security gates , with additional visitor parking just inside the garage. For clusters 1, 21 3 , 4 and 5 additional guest parking is provided at street level . Clusters 6 and 7 contain the full amount of guest parking in the ' '. semi-subterranean garages . RCA - 6/l/92 -4- P00 3393d ATTACHMENT NO. Special Permits 1 . Building Separation Requirements Special permits are required to deviate from the required 35 feet front to front and 15. feet side to side building separation requirements within cluster five (5) . The front to front dimension is 21 feet and the side- to side dimension is 10 feet . This cluster was modified to allow for the 45 foot view corridor by deleting the center unit from the cluster and reducing the cluster width. The lost units of the cluster were . then added to cluster one (1) , which is the largest cluster containing 54 units . Without the requirement for the view corridor, cluster 5 would have met all building separation requirements . Staff supports the special permit for cluster 5 based on the provision of the view corridor. Special permits are also required for side to side building separation requirements within clusters six (6) and seven (7) , between the center buildings and end buildings . The current measurement is 12 . 5 feet . Also, between clusters six (6) and . seven (7) , the required rear to front building separation requirement is 30 feet . The plan provides 15 feet between balconies and 25 feet between buildings only. Although the special permits for clusters 6 and 7 contribute to a sense of bulk and density on-site, staff supports the special permits based on affordable housing being provided on-site. Also, - y staff does not feel the special permits detract from the architecture of the proposed project or the proposed living environment for future residents . Building Bulk Requirements A requirement of the code is to have 1/3 of the units of the building. one (1) story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure, rounding fractions to the next highest whole. number . None of the end units or central buildings of the standard cluster meet this requirement; however, the corner units of each end building are two (2) stories in height and follow approximately an every third unit pattern. In- addition, the largest end building of cluster one (1) has three (3) building units that are two (2) stories in height, two (2) corner units and an end unit . Staff supports this special permit based, again, on the allowable density on-site and the provisions of affordable housing . The code also requires that there be a four (4) foot offset every two (2) units in the building facade. This requirement is not met in the strictest sense of the code; however, staff feels the architecture provides sufficient plane offsets, pockets etc. to meet the intent of the code. RCA - 6/1/92 -5- �ATTACHMENT NO.Cv (3393d) Open Space The private open space requirement for ground floor units is 200 square. feet for one (1) bedroom units, 250 square feet for two (2) bedroom units and 300 square feet for three (3) bedroom units. The floor plan submitted for the ground floor units (all flats) do not indicate this is provided. Instead of the required area, an area equivalent to balcony areas required for upper story units is provided. For one (1) bedroom units a minimum of 60. square feet is provided, and for. two (2) and three (3) bedroom units a minimum of 120 square feet is provided. The total common open space provided for the project exceeds the code requirement by only 580 square feet . Therefore, the additional required ground floor private open space can not be provided with the existing plan. Staff feels that sufficient passive and active open space exists on-site for future residents and that this special permit will not affect the quality of the living environment . Main Recreation Area The code states that recreation facilit4.es may be counted toward the main recreation area provided that paving and roofing does not exceed 5% of the area . Both the main and secondary recreational areas are focused on swimming pools and decks with clubhouses surrounded by a relatively small area of landscaping . . The requirement is, therefore, not met . Staff believes , however, that there is sufficient landscaped areas both within the cluster courtyards and in the surrounding common open space area, and that this special permit will not impact project aesthetics or the recreation potential of the recreation areas . Access The code requires 48 foot wide access for the first 100 feet for any private street intersecting a public street . This requirement is met by the primary access which is aligned with the Surfcrest South entrance but not the .secondary access . The secondary entrance is 46 feet wide for the first 60 feet only. No concerns were expressed by the Public Works Department regarding this access and, therefore, staff concludes that no public health, safety or welfare impacts will result from the special permit . Trash Collection The code requires permanent trash enclosures for trash bins to the exterior of buildings . Trash enclosures are located inside the building at garage level . In order to allow for trash pickup, the bins must be placed outside the building at the curbs or driveway entrances . Staff expressed initial concerns regarding the possible traffic hazards and aesthetic impacts this might create. RCA - 6/l/92 -6- ATIACHMENT NO-` �3193d) Conversations with Rainbow Disposal indicate. two options for trash pi-ck up. On-site maintenance personnel may wheel containers at a .4 scheduled location for pick up or, for a fee, Rainbow Disposal will. rr retrieve the containers . Rainbow Disposal states that trash pick up hours follow a rigid schedule for safety reasons and that on-site maintenance personnel would be able to coordinate effectively for the placement and return of trash bins without the. creation of any on-site hazards . Therefore, staff does not find this special permit to be an issue. Appeal Analysis , The appellant, Councilwoman Grace Winchell, has appealed the project approval to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project especially in regards to its relationship to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park.- As previously stated, the project buffer to the linear park on the rear property line is ten feet of on site project landscaping and ten feet of off site (within linear park boundaries) landscaping. Building heights adjacent to, the linear park will be three stories or 35 feet in height . Finished floors will be approximately 2 feet above adjacent grade. Dialogue with the Orange County Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks indicates a preference fo r a full 20 foot on site (within project boundaries) buffer, but has accepted the proposed buffer provided the off site landscaping is maintained by a homeowner ' s association. s- Staff ' s .onlh recommendation subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing is to add the following condition regarding product phasing and/or release of units : 2K. A product phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director which specifies timing for the completion of onsite landscaping, project amenities, etc. , to include, but not limited to, landscaping of the 45 feet wide view corridor, the on site and off site landscape buffer to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, primary and secondary recreational areas and the release of affordable housing units . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION• The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s action on April 7, 1992, and approve the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No . 92-33 with findings . 4 L RCA - 6/l/92 -7- � 0 e�f (3393d) ATTACHMEN f n, - ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP 91-45/TT14135 Revised/CDP 91-26/ND 91-33 2 . Alternative Findings for Denial 3 . Area Map 4 ; Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5 . Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Tract Map 6 . Negative Declaration No. 91-33 7. Applicant Narrative 8 . Letter dated March 25, 1992 from Urban West Communities accepting affordable housing condition. 9 . Letter dated April 71, 1992 from Huntington Beach School District regarding tentative impact mitigation agreement . 10 . Letter dated January 13, 1992 from Orange County Department of Harbors, Beache s and Parks regarding Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 11 . Letter dated March 13 , 1992 from Rainbow Disposal accepting onsite refuse collection areas . 12 . Letter dated March 27-, 1992 from Los Amigos de Bolsa Chica i Y regarding Bolsa Chica Linear Park. f MTU:MA:GR: ss 1 :i RCA - 6/1/92 _s_ ATTACHMENT NO. (33.93d) T V-L'S/9 zr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF `� - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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, July 6, 1992, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residential-29 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 . 8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No.. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. � 0 Ve 10 c NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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 June 1, 1992, 7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-24-0-CZ (High Density Residential-24 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) . REQUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 2.84 condominiums on 9 .8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 1.00 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building. (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Costal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450_ Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 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 May 29, 1992. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Gabrielle Restivo, Associate Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 (3385d) Tlkl 1`f l)q APN: 023-181-14 APN: 023-181-23 APN: 023-181-25 Pacific Coast Homes Huntington Beach Co Huntington Beach Co P O Box 7611 225 Bush St P O Box 7611 San Francisco CA 94120 San Francisco CA 94120 San Francisco CA 94120 APN: 023-371-02 APN: 023-371-03 APN: 023-371-04 De Lorm, Albert W TR Davidson, Lawrence W Porter, Darel D TR 19263 Archfield Cir 19265 Archfield Cir 19267 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-05 APN: 023-371-06 APN: 023-371-07 Mcree, John M --- Barbed, Louis D - Thorson, Walter L 19269 Archfield Cir 1477 Dry Creek Rd 19275 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 San Jose, CA 95125 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-08 APN: 023-371-09 APN: 023-371-10 Smith, Edward P TR Nakase, Kathleen K Bonakdar, Mohammad H 17036 Industry PI - 19279 Archfield Cir 19281 Archfield Cir La Mirada CA 90638 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 023-371-11 APN: 023-371-12 APN: 023-371-13 Thompson, Robert F Warnock, Jeffrey P Haydon, Russell B TR 19285 Archfield Cir 19291 Archfield Cir 19295 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648-- - ---Huntington Beach CA 92648— -Huntington Beach CA 92648---- APN: 023-371-14 APN: 023-371-15 APN: 023-371-82 Gifford, Kelly A Egerer, Azalea Eckel TR Neck, Theodore William 19301 Archfield Cir 4014 Terrylynn Cir 19296 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648___ _---- Long. Beach CA 90807 Rintinntnn Raarh r.A Q50aaR APN: 023-371-83 APN: 023-371-84 Tercero, Emilio J TR Desmond, John B 19292 Archfield Cir 19286 Archfield Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 .. __. .Huntington Beach CA 92648 RAYMOND BYERLEY TOM ZANIC APN: 110-015-50 PACIFIC COAST HOMES URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES Signa•1 Companies, Inc. 2124 MAIN ST, STE 200 520 BROADWAY, STE 100 17890 Sky Park Circle HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA MONICA CA 90401 Irvine CA 92714 Attn: D. G. Nahin APN: 110-230-07 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 APN: 023-371-85,86,89,93 City of Huntington Beach President, SOG Comm. Assn. President, Club Series HOA 2000 Main Street c/o Marquis Management Grp. c/o Marquis Management Grp. Huntington Beach CA 92648 3009 Daimler Street 3009 Daimler Street Attn: abrielle Restivo, Santa Ana CA 92705 Santa Ana CA 92705 023-371-06 Resident 19273 Archf ield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-371-08 Resident 19277 Archf field Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - 023-371-15 i Resident 19315 Archfield Circle - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i i j NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Coastal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Commission' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit. An aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. 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 July 3, 1992 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Gabrielle Restivo DeGange, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway, City Clerk Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 (3700d) Office of the City Clerk �I. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Tom Zanic 520 Broadway Santa Monica, CA 90401 Ernie Vasquez 695 Town Center, Suite 300 Costa Mesa, CA Terry Dolton 1-7892 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Office of the City Clerk */.nteCity of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Lou Mannone 19821 Ocean Bluff Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �I. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA92648 Jack Bowl'and 6881 Presidio Drive Huntington Beach, CA P.O.BOX 190 GAutVKNIAVZO45 Don Guillaume 19243 Meadowood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office of the City Clerk ��. je City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Nick Tomaino 6812 Scenic Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA Jay Kreitz 19781 Island Bay Huntington Beach, CA H t,ity or Huntington beach eP d P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Mark Porter 19561 Topeka Huntington Beach, CA Office of the City Clerk I. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Ralph H. Bauer 16511 Cotuit Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 P.O.BOX 190 T'^ CALIFORNIA 92648 Gerald Chapman 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 lP.O.BOX 190 CALItUKr41M ycww Robert Biddle 1710 .15ine Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 • Office of the City Clerk %. City of Huntington Beach P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Dave Sullivan 4162 Windsor Drive Huntington BEach, CA 92649 ., ...-.`w.;.�...• •ti^.n..e•w.r.r.r<, _. ...,... .., ,. . •�.�.yy^"' I. .- .. _ ,•,•.,,,.� �� .,j�}r..,_.. C.-.v.:::_"".-.•-.i'!^.}.�" .j.�. .a.. ..•.,,.':.ar•h.' �.,.u. .•w.....•rf .t-�' .r.., Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r;a L. r Office of the City Clerk �t6 (;R15.►�- .:! S2 f,T.�� ;HFa'Thh 1�Tf r +4f_tL' �-``,�-..rye" P.O. Box 190 �tKd+j© �y�#f:!•; F. a h). �"4" Rgg n 6 i (\ }? �; :� r Huntington Beach,CA 92648 � � ' Q1 � I j. APN: 023-371-11 Thompson, Robert F 19285 Archfield.Cir ING�QN Hi mtinntnn RAarh l`.A Q-?W cUUN TY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � ��;II�L,rrI�I�LI�r�I�rIIN��,I�„rlll `, . a Hie CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK June 4, 1992 California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry Regarding: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) Coastal Development Permit No. 91-25 Negative Declaration No. 91-33 Dear Ms. Henry: The City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its.regular meeting.held Monday, June 1, 1992, closed the public hearing and continued the decision pending reworking of the project by developer and staff. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 536-5227. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City. Clerk CB:me CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director 1051 K (Telephone:714-536-5227) CCORRECTE:b) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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 June 1, 1992, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No.. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No . 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-24-0-CZ (High Density Residential-24 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REQUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 . 8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for : 1) reduction in building separation - requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building. bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5s paving restriction for main recreation areas ; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' '. (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Costal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the. Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 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 May 29, 1992. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing- and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. IfZou challenge the City Council ' s action in court, you may be limited to ralsina on1v those issues you or someone a se raised at the vubl-i-c-Te—arina described in this notice, or in wri en correspondence a ivera i a prio o e punTic hearin ere are any further questions p ease call Gabrie a estivo, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street (3 3 85d) Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK June 4, 1992 Tom Zanic, President Surfcrest North Development c/o Urban West Communities 520 Broadway, #100 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Regarding: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) Coastal Development Permit No. 91-25 Negative Declaration No. 91-33 Dear Mr. Zanic: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, June 1, 1992, closed the public hearing and continued the decision pending reworking of the project by developer and staff. A copy of the minutes will be forwarded to you when complete. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at 536-5227. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me CC: City Administrator City Attorney Community Development Director 1051 K (Telephone:714-536-5227) C CORUCTEb) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 (REVISED)/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/ . NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 (To Construct 284 Condominiums in the Coastal Zone) 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 June 1, 1992, 7 :00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with Special Permits/Tentative Tract Map No . 14135 (Revised)/Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26/Negative Declaration No. 91-33 APPLICANT: Surfcrest Partners APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue ZONE: R4-24-0-CZ (High Density Residential-24 Dwelling Units Per Acre-Oil Production-Coastal Zone) REOUEST: To construct seven (7) , three (3) story buildings consisting of 284 condominiums on 9 . 8 acres in the Coastal Zone with Special Permits for: 1) reduction in building separation requirements between clusters; 2) reduction in building separation requirements within clusters; 3) variation in building bulk requirements; 4) reduction in ground floor private open space requirements; 5) to exceed the 5% paving restriction for main recreation areas; 6) reduction in access width for first 100 feet intersecting Seapoint Avenue; and 7) no permanent trash enclosures to the exterior of building (located in ground floor garage) . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Covered by Negative Declaration No. 91-33 COASTAL STATUS: APPEALABLE (See Below) PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action.. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be submitted to the Costal Commission office within ten (10) working days of the date of the Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal within ten (10) working days, pursuant to Section 30603 of the. Public Resources Code, in writing to: California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 Attn: Theresa Henry (213) 590-5071 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 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 May 29, 1992 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council ' s action in court, you may be limited to raise—ngaonly those issues you or someone a she raised at the publid-hearing described in this notice, or in -w—F-17ten correspondence a ivera i a rio BUM is hearin ere are any further questions p ease cal Gabrie a estivo, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . �kr Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street (3385d) Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 ii STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the Courtly aforesaid; I 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 HUNTiNGTON BEACH i RE�uEST -r construct California Coastal com- PUBLIC NOTICE ! seven INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general cs three (3) story mission,2, LW.ong Broadway, CORRECTED buildings consisting of 284 Suite 380, long Beach, circulation, printed and published in the City of NOTICE OF 1conclorniniums on 9.8 California 90801.1450 Attn: PUBLIC HEARING , acres in the Coastal Zone Theresa Henry (213) 590- Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of with Special Permits for: 1) i5071 gt � g AN APPEAL OF reduction in building sepa• , The Coastal Commission California. and that attar, ad Notice is a true and THE PLANNING ration requirements be. 1review period will com- COMMISSiON'S tween clusters;2)reduction mence after the City appeal APPROVAL OF In building separation re- (period has ended and no complete co as was printed and published in quirements within clusters; appeals have been filed. f' >•J CONDITIONAL USE 3)variation in building bulk las Applicants will be notified the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley PERMIT NO. requirements; 4) reduction by the Coastal Commission 91.45 WITH In ground floor private to the date of the con- issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: SPECIAL PERMITS/ open space requirements; Iclusion of the Coastal TENTATIVE 5)to exceed the 5%paving (Commission review. Ap- TRACT MAP NO. restriction for main recre• ;plicants are advised not to 14135(REVISED)/ atlon areas;6) reduction in (begin construction prior to COASTAL access width for first 100 ;that date. DEVELOPMENT feet Intersecting Seapoint. ON FILE: A copy of the May 28, 1992 PERMIT Avenue; and 7) no perma• proposed request is on file nent trash enclosures to In the Community Devei- NO.91.28/ the exterior of building (lo- opment Department, 2000 NEGATIVE cated in ground floor ga. Main Street, Huntington DECLARATION rage). Beach, California 92648, NO.91.33 ENVIRONMENTAL STA. for Inspection by the pub- (To Construct TUS: Covered by Negative Ilic. A copy of the staff re- 284 Condominiums Declaration No.91.33 port will be available to in. the COASTAL STATUS: Ap-I terested parties at City Hall pealable(See Below) i of the Main City Library Coastal Zone) PUBLIC HEARING PRO-i ((7111 Talbert Avenue) after NOTICE IS HEREBY CEDURE:(1)Staff Report; may 29,1992. GIVEN that the Huntington (2)Public Hearing: ALL INTERESTED PER. Beach City Council will (3) City Council Discus SONS are invited to attend hold a public hearing in the sion;and said hearing and express Council Chamber at the (4)City Council action. opinions or submit evi- Huntington Beach Civic Under the provisions of dence for or against the Center, 2000 Main Street, the Huntington Beach Ordi- application as outlined Huntington Beach, Califor• nance Code, the action above. If you challenge the nia, on the date and at the taken by the City Council is City Council's action in time indicated below to re- final unless an appeal,is court, you may be limited ceive and consider the filed to the Coastal Com- to raising only those Issues statements'of all persons mission by the applicant or you or someone else who wish to be heard rela- an aggrieved party. Said raised at the public hearing tive to the application de- appeal must be in writing. described in this notice, or I scribed below. and must set forth in detail in written correspondence I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the I DATE/TIME: Monday, the actions and grounds by delivered to the City at, or June 1,1992,7:00 PM and upon which the ap•I prior to,the public hearing. foregoing Is true and cornea APPLICATION NUMBER: plicant or Interested party, If there are any further Conditional Use Permit No. deems himself aggrieved questions please call Gab- 91.45 with Special Permits/ Said appeal must be sub.I nelle Restivo, Associate Tentative Tract Map No. mitted to the Coastal Com-i Planner at 536.5271. Executed an May 28 1991 114135 (Revised)/Coastal mission office within ten Connie Brockway, Development Permit No. (10) working days of the City Clerk, City of Hun- 3tCosta Mesa, California 91-26/Negative Declaration date of the Council's ac• tington Beach No.91.33 tion.There is no fee for the 2000 Main Street APPLICANT: Surkcrest appeal of a coastal devel- , Partners opment permit. Huntington Beach,Cal- - - - APPELLANT: Council- An aggrieved person may Itornia 92848 (714) w oman Grace Winchell file an appeal within ten 538.5227 LOCATION: Northwest (10)working days pursuant Signature corner of Palm Avenue and to Section 30603 of the Published Huntington Seapoint Avenue .. Public Resources Code, In ZONE: R4.24-0-CZ Hi h i Beach Independent May (High writing tom i,,�_ 28,1992 Density Residential - 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre - 1_ 054.714` Oil Production • Coastal .Zone)____ PROOF OF PUBLICATION O � . pti, �-I• yZ STATE OF CAMFOANIA PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF G-` PUBLIC HEARING County ofj Orange AN APPEAL OF 1 THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S I am a Citizen of the United States and a APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE —ENVIRONMENTAL STA- resldent of the County aforesaid; I am over the PERMIT NO. TUS: Covered by Negative 91.45 WITH Declaration No.91-33' age of eighteen ears, and not a a to or SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL STATUS: Ap- 9 9 p TENTATIVE peUBble(See Below)RING PRO. 14135(REVISED)/ interested in the below entitled matter. I ar i a TRACT MAP NO: .. , PUBLIC (1)Staff Report; . ;I (2)Public Hearing: principal cleric of the HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL (3) City Council Discus- DEVELOPMENT Sion,and INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general PERMIT . (4)City Council,action. NO.91.26/ I Under the provisions of circulation, printed and published in the City of NEGATIVE l the Huntington Beach Ordi- Huntin n Beach County of Orange, State of _ DECLARATION taken Code, the action Huntington 9 • NO.91.33 taken by the City Council is (To Construct final unless an appeal is California,and that attached Notice is a true and filed to the Coastal Com- mission by the applicant or Complete copy as was printed and published in in the • an aggrieved party. Saidl Coastal Zone) appeal must be in writing; the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valle NOTICE• IS HEREBY and must set forth in detail Y GIVEN that the Huntington the actions and grounds by issues of said newspaperto wit the issues) of: Beach City Council will and upon which.,the a y hold a public hearing in the plicant or interested part Council Chamber at the deems himself aggrieved. Huntington Beach Civic Said appeal must be sub- Center, 2000 Main Street, mitted to the Coastal Com- Huntington Beach, Califor- mission office within ten nia, on the date and at the (10) working days of the time indicated below to re- date of the Council's ac- Ma 21 992 sceive and tatements of call idek the tion.There is no fee for the y r persons appeal of a coastal devel- who wish to be heard.rela-I opment permit.. tive to the application de- An aggrieved person may scribed below. - file- an appeal within ten DATE/TIME:—Monday', (10)working days pursuant June 1,1992,7:00 PM to Section 30603 of the APPLICATION NUMBER: Public Resources Code, in Conditional Use Permit No. ; writing to: 91-45 with Special Permits/I California Coastal Com- Tentative Tract Map No. ! mission, 245 W. Broadway, 14135, (Revised)/Coastal` Suite 380, Long Beach, Development Permit: No. California 90801-1450 Attn: 91.26/Negative Declaration, Theresa Henry (213) 590- No.91-33 5071 APPLICANT: Surfcre.st; The Coastal Commission Partners - review period will com-I LOCATION: Northwest I mence after the City appeall corner of Palm Avenue and I period has ended and no' Seapoint Avenue 'appeals have been filed. ZONE: R4-24-0-CZ (High Applicants will be notified Density Residential - 24 by the Coastal Commission Acre l Dwelling Units Per Ac - as to the date of the con- Oil Production - Coastal elusion of the Coastal I declare under penalty of perjury, that the Zone) Commission review. Ap- t,. P `I t' '1 '1 REQUEST: To construct plicants are advised not to foregoing is true and correCL seven (7), three (3) story begin construction prior.to. •�� g buildings consisting of 284 that date. condominiums on 9.8 ON FILE: A copy of the acres in the Coastal Zone proposed request is on file Executed on May 21 199 2 with Special Permits for: 1) in the Community Devel- �� reduction in building sepa- opment Department, 2000 ration requirements be- Main Street, Huntington at Costa Mesa, California tween clusters:2)reduction Beach, California 92648, oe in building separation re- for inspection by the pub- quirements within clusters; lic. A copy of the staff re- 3)variation in building.bulk port will be available to in- requirements; 4) reduction fterested parties at City Hall in ground floor private of the Main City Library Signture open space requirements; (7111 Talbert Avenue)after 5)to exceed the 5%paving May 29,1992. restriction for main recre- ALL INTERESTED PER- ation areas; 6) reduction in SONS'are invited to attend access width for first 100 said hearing and express feet intersecting Seapoint opinions or submit evi- Avenue; and 7) no perma- dence for or against the nent trash enclosures, to application as outlined the exterior of building (lo- above. If there are any fur- cated in ground floor ga- ther.questions please call rage). Gabrielle Restivo, Assock Me Planner at 536-5271. / PROOF OF PUBLICATION oonnle Brockway,; City Clerk, City of Hun-i tington Beach r e Published Huntington, lY�J Beach Independent May! 21,1992 053-694\ . � '" - •%/ r. ���. '" ��,�,''��� �' ,per:�!?„��' � . •,+��` .t .a•r 4 �\� .�`-���. �; ^fit - ��,. �S.fl_w* f 7 �i.�\ �- Ik `. .W � -�, �� _:-��1li2il��r��.•-=+..�-i�� •_ ,i.J�� .li.�crJ7'.'�.Ir' ��'"♦ � '�� �.�:�r -9- �4 If - AFT, McLarand Vasquez& man „s., ON TRACT NO. 14135 PALM AVENUE COUIN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, NTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA NG LOT 13 It SE Apoirj STREET Zzlvy LOT A PRIVAIE STREETS S�APQINT STREET (PROPOSED) 72 � SWIATES 6 TRACT NO. 14135 /44 PACIFIC COAST HOMES HUNTINGTON CA - , Tp DF'CURB]i 3 I SECURITY FENCE W PROfEC.'F SWISTKS PALM AVENUE El EIE B/BI FIC.I CC.) Blxl _1 /2 'CON $T R S Ell._ Knc,r K_ rr3 PM 0]Nsrv. �%"^ Nr3 eFns rr N•SMOUr4 P./E YLU W�PK � N / N BIBI BSMA� �S r{�Ww sLC arAM.Ir3msr. F:Ih' fl�BI 1'IC.1 I.C. Blfll of SEWrpsm M[ f/ r6.33C0. IJSr3r ]g,3r PROPOSED PARK SEc31NDAIlY - / CARD KEY r3r]a / nAu. tB WTs N!s s Nasr ,SW I BD V%is Y SPACEs TS ar.r SC Snap m 5T R% I s m ss.cEs m3nFw S" rWN 12 WI$ NSPACEs / C IFv I P,rmfr..] / Tf Irrro V..rsm 561Ms Ili$PACES / I ]arr3d%3 I rNb C YP C6 A umi..33o3xro mWrs 1.srrt�s I AAUG r iB Wis 56 SPACES ns+3r,1 .r3®3xro � FF li WIS x s s : O S/ p�PP ly~jy IAmi .reLta -_ - p� W t 2M WIs r5B YKSs.rl3suwl LINEAR PARK BUFFERS s/ tit "+ v.crsn ]r aA _2 fh SITE 8311FF.R RANliES 1'R(MI rC If TU IB)'(,v 1 iB'SE'IBAI'K) S�` r C,C, 6 SITE BUFFER I IB:B Tf]NI: ee N --N .APED TO CWNTY SFECIFCATBINS I Lr wA ,e` kC oe I ST 3 orf' m G PCc CSS S 3 MAIN EN'RY 0WS 1 0' GATE.If SF, f;Y � r� v.n rm J aimrer;o..� G 0.EC AR !r..� _ SPwr Suri3rrM Swrr3 rirr My I c]c wrw wev '. 0 ! r IBrxl I'/cl e,e .er. FR xxl / pDl D hJE BIBI PrBI C.L.1 i "� CLU :R 2 yiE 1 ry. rA A/Ai CL ERNBI ] I' EST h.'IF.' li]ISU B'BI r EE N'BI B]B I I';C.1 x I ��ICE Ile rOP)F CURB!B err fArn EM BIBI BIBI C.t.l CI B/BI ErE. i MAX BLM I III REA AREA MAP E%ISTING SCREEN wwLL T}^/"r[_TT.TE T SITE E PLAN ED.. `I 11,= - - 0 SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS z R/it f.lJ9t 11-IBAI x n.vi -in.v: SI:t' NDARr RIA.ARIA(ANO,S.I. .� I OPEN SPACE TABULATION LA1'ION t l "ei PAI M AVENUf: �' "•!' I ' __ — COMN NV O1'I-.N SPACE 114,I80S.F. (Shaded Areas) PRIVAFF:CN'I N SPACE 34,621S.F. (Balcony Areas) 1 I 11 F N A1 INMI N1N 1Nti v \ OPEN SPACE PI-AN SURFCREST NORTH FIUNTUNCiF NJ BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCRESI•PARTNERS PALM AVENUE SITE COVERAGE STATISTICS BUILDING COVERAGE I73,751)S.F.(40.7%) t LANDSCAPE C'OVERAGI, (42.6%.) S017TSCAP[ 112.708 S.P. I I A R DSC A Pf: 69.0311 S.F. - PAVIN(;&PARKPo,';C'OVFRAGI- 71AP S.F. (16.7%) PM)POSED TARN ITN i YAVI`XI&PAR):Iv'i AkEA TOTAL 426.888 S.F. (I(MPk) .11.1%NU ARIA LANDSCAPED AkEA M)MCAPE, V:•• ' LANDWAPE:U AREA , N' - V.I1 .::. — Nn\AI.I IM'Aill.l:YI.A%—LM'illl W1 . SITE COVERAGE PLAN eI 10 SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTCNJ.BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS eoan I i �`' YWAI:x1V I.INf: II so YYY UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.l UNIT C/C.1v �.. I.Al /C.I UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E/E t II.AI�I'I..YI I.nl�'I,Iw NIIIINY. .Yl.n'I Il.w,,'ll/.NY. In (1'x,h"1 . l �K� l V I1:?INY 1. v l+ tl UNIT D/D.l UNIT D/D.l UNIT B/B.I .,lxnll: uw]14,.,I. UNIT B/B.1 f l,nl IIIw NIx MI, K 1'I U'1tnv N'Ixtl61(' . UNIT B/B.1 UNIT B/B.I - I'luw N'IIUNP � y..F,n x..Il Sl I - `. •.• �t 1,.,1 IIM:aIYe,ll. NIT D/D.1 UNIT D/D.1 UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.1 UNIT C/C.lv n �'F` — UNIT C/C.I UNIT B/B.l UNIT E/E II U Ildl Lnl luw plluwl'. II V Inw p11uN1'. - "�`I'IIM,U„L. I I.AI,I r+1...11, GARAGE CLUSI, R PLAN11 f cxw fu>nf) TYPE IA SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURI CREST PARTNERS s . . tl4.13� tl�l)�41 ,k � •I. I���I�IIIIIIiI�I I � ��,.:_ ;,�tt ,,, ; r — j �:.e;��::.�:•ice:= TO P., �J /+ it►+�y�.y., f }:%;; '�♦-- �i a�i.�"j.�-ram: , ;►. = 0 I® 'a:,, �n ' ►�!•fit A,' s`� wi ��� ��+,.�•�'.5.�:'�' � sue, [, \ ,� /`�y�\;'.?. Q .IIIIIIIIII I i,�< _ I111111111 � Qp�l��gN M0 . ...-.s r / 4 !♦�:..�� by �� ����I♦.�.�v,:�t^�� I'•. �,'. ,�a.»�U ♦♦ter � ♦' ev fill AQ 91 milli ull.. p all ♦n�♦�'.�+♦0�.�..'� �'.' I:♦:.:�.'e.;♦;,t I 11, I Y �11111111!!!IIIIIIIIIIE �.,\����:,��!l1111'1!!l11r11t. ��� -M--1 UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.1 UN[T C/C.1 ..All'LAI I,I IIIN'\IPIN 1'. (41Mi � UNIT C/C.1 UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E/E 6�M� 1;�I 1,,IPt _� 1'I,Ai rIN VIFIII.,I: 11 n1'IIN,I...tl 41.AfIk 1.A1 ( UNIT B/B.1 ' UNIT A/A 'y.; r1.AlnuwnuuMe - ,. UNIT A/A PRIMARY 8 E('RE,Yrx)N ARIA I.A'IL.1 UNIT B/B.1 Y UANIT RlB1 B.1 Y.V InM if rr I . UNIT A/A •uAl,lwal«,,1 ` 1Nin1 ' UNIT A A / 'UNIT B/B.l < 1'LAI 1'1 AI fl, s UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.1 UNIT C/C.1e IA F-11FLA'r FLAr IUw S11oM F. I Ar IUN]IIUNI' / ,1,r ;`/�i a — UNIT C/C.I UNI"r B/B.I UNIT E/E r, II.,I f•.ro,l«M:,i'. Il.dl li tANu,I. ILAL19.11 GAR,ua:ENTRY • . _ . CLUSTER ['LAN ? ' TYPE C L(..P.1A I) n ; S1�YURFCREST NORTH 11UNT1wrr0N BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS ) ewln 1 (-� .PRIVATE. UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.1 UNIT C/C.lv UNIT C/C.1 UNIT.I3/B.l l I.A'1:I VY.♦IM'MI I: I I.AT.I tw.+A.S C{ FLAT,FI.A, I.AT,r.-mMP II.AT,TOWYHOMF „t, .v UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E/E :. ( FI-ATROWHNJU E FUTIFTAT 1 .\ I'..T) 9 \ 01111\'INFO.\111 1 UNIT 113/13.1 IL -- . ' UNIT E/E .. . •�.. . FUTIFI.AT sz UNIT B/B.l ' T� \ f11TI-11 11. UNIT C/ U.C.I NIT B/B.1 . UNIT E/E UNI41 II3/13.1 UNI;I;C/C.l '� �' AI;11,.♦I«N :..,1. .,: X P I).I:NT{�7'' .!' F y CLUSTER PLAN '' k TYPE D we".4awl'I" U�I SURFCREST NORTH l 4�` HUNTINGTON 13EACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCRES'f PARTNERS 7A ev.ln I « -AAtt.T11P7' �Ih I I -� M.Ii1MtM. �� wn1.K WA1 M.flUIiM. I I �n Ivl � II A. i I I O II I \ O O M.BA. _ _ AI_('( Y O 00 ' I )VA L KWAY PLAN A PLAN B 74(5f.LIVIN(; 77d S.F'.LI VINO rw�\F'.WA L(:(NJY nrt SF.IN I.('(NJY Ilel('.F FA 7.YMOR. A"I'S UNIT PLANS -\ NORTH ORTH HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURECRESf PARTNERS ... BALCONY OR IlAL('f XJY F 1 LI VINCi LIVING M,BpiM. . — / � 1IAL'(Y.'1� / I c II _ BATH O I I _ I • __— pNINCi i I •Bpi% r� -- ° QO ❑ '1 I 1 M.BDNM M,BA. O -- O WALKWAY" ' PLAN. C PLAN D 857S.F.LIVING IIWSF.I.IVINO la(1 S.F.IIAI.(:(1f:1' ISI�S.F.IfAL('fr.'1' I1MI f'.F'.I:.\'1',tiff lH. I I?5('.F.F\T.ST(lk. I FLATS UNI`C PLANS SURFCREST NORTH HUNTING TON III-A(11.CA1.11'ORNIA SURFCRES'1'PAUNERS _ I i NI LIVING 0 I�VIA EAR M.HA. —_'-1 O I KIF. �r�r to.wnr. I DEN ilsl M. uu AU. AA H WALKWAY. I PLAN F. 1110SF.LIVI"' I50 S F.HALCI Ia1' its CF.IAT i(f&. 1 LNF UNIT PLANS scntR.vr•rr SURFCREST NORTH IIUNTINGTON IiEACII.CALIFORNIA SURPCREST PARTNERS If .I Ilan.ul Ali L(-() Y '( 7( fill vo( y M.I UK. O 1.1 O M.IIA. YIN( I fAi'II O �v LAU - K- W NLKWAY PLAN B.) 1'OWNIIOMI? PLAN L'.1 UPPER LIMA. I-Owl"R LEVEL UNIT PLANS I77J 5.{•.LIVILY(4 IIA('(wti'Y SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGI'ON BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURFCRHSI'IARTNERS I RAI 1 ON I �1 SIOIR 1�1 1.1 I�`lli O -- PDR. Y. 0 Ii {Ij�J II O M.11, 1 . Tf O up Jn K�L p ST( Rl kl L i N'AI.11,11' , PLANC.I PLAN C.1 UPPER I.I:Vlil. LOWER[.[:VC-'I. TOW N I OM li UNIT PLANS 12UI 5.1: 1',P.Ii7i'I'.SII M: SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURFCRESf PARTNERS O O I u> I 0 unto - MAW. �/ 0 14nr❑ LAU t 1 / l -��I uF:IkUX%N M.IIA. OTC—i-iT l .Y aty. ENM IMAGE M_DADI 16; 1 'IOWNIIOM[. ---- —�..- UNIT PLANS PLAN D.1 usr.uAL44r r PLAN DA UPI'FR I.1?VF.I. 13`4 1'1ixr%im LOWER LEVEL SURFCREST NORTH . IIUNI INOT(NJ BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURFCRI'.S'1'PAK'I'N[RS 11 goIi:— � I I 'IyJI 'J 1r. 15 I} JIUP �csil r l:I 10 RGSIIMHT PARKIHIi MI NI:111M:1'1 Ai 1'I.IISTtR(' Rw5 li AS 1`'I--.7 SFA'UPITY(:ATF. im I Il' tl 1 ! i 5 Ili: Oil nl t'I IISI I.N IYYY.t' `4I\'ISIHM�T f11�11 F:N t' 1 I Tt - 1 _ i - - IT (;A";; GNTRYI!%IT GARAGE PLAN i 5[/\iE'Im 1- CI US`I'I R TYPE A NI(SIIMISI ry SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS 14 Mill }.ib•} I T— 1— _- (iAHA(il: I —. _.IIS11—PANXI.— �--( TF MIICII. IIN � nS ,X I � y I lit I , I I — I NASII I T ' . I GARAGE'• PLAN f:I.0 tiT F.IH Il^Y 1'1-I H SURFCREST NORTH IIUNTR,G=N BFACFF,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS I+A ealzl Itad:E� z.zn.v- \61.IM.:111 ]IO -- I-T 1..11 .1 ,tl e � YAW r LOOP ROAD HNJ'I'I:N PROPERTY'LIST. 11.V11STAYT'.NUF. CLUSTER SECTION A-A L'AI.F.1/X - SURFCREST NORTH IIUNTINC•1'ON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCRES•F PARTNERS 15 eo.1:I 'n I iF al (�Mll�h'A VT fY WNY fi 6 �KfY i) I.I.MIAR PAHA hIAA M )• y j � '2 FI.AI _ PLANTER LO)P WAD II 11 lu.ul Inr.—fw Ru(fcr Arse. LLUSI'ER SECTION B-B SU RFCREST NORTH HUNTINGT NJ BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURPCREST PARTNERS 16 c.i.l .11:AHXu'1 AV f:l.M1L�I:i:l.l':\'AIMn ������ • sURF(:Kf sT NORTH Ii.HB4 ISA M.MHf1S P� �O WOMB � CLU5TF:6z � / P(X)L ll MXX.O.. '\ MENME y l4 IY 4.1 \X' \ q,// T C� (�aZ...,,...... PRIMARY Rl:(:RFiATION ARFA SECONDARY RECREATION AREA 1600SI: 40(IS1: j CLUBHOUSE PLANS SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGTON BFAC'II,CALIPORNI'A StIRFCREST PARTNI'.16 19 AmlgQS P.O. Box 3748, Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3748 • (714) 897-7003 _ B61sa ica , 4VJ(.Pb r May 29, 1992 CJJAJ Huntington Beach City CouncilJ���G AOA1411-- Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l 2— Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) Bolsa Chica Linear Park After much planning and public input the Linear Park project on the Huntington Beach Mesa will soon begin the process of obtaining various governmental approvals with construction and planting activity hopefully starting in 1993. The park will represent only the second regional park to be placed in the Second Supervisorial District of Orange County. With equestrian trails, walking and riding trails, observation sites and other amenities the primarily passive Bolsa Chica Linear Park will provide views of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Bolsa Chica State Beach, Long Beach, and Catalina. It is important that we establish a precedence that this very unique and special park resource in Huntington Beach not be adversely impacted by developments that may adjoin its boundary. The design and planning of these developments should compliment or at least not disrupt the passive nature of this linear park that has taken so long in coming to its present planning stage. Tentative Tract 14135 (Surfcrest North) does impact adversely the Linear Park and some of our specific concerns and comments are as follows: 1. This project states that there are 7 three-story structures but the project will be viewed* seven parking structures topped with over 20 three-story structures. These structures will ring two edges of the Linear Park like a giant wall. The height of the structures nearest the park will be approximately 35 feet above ground level. From a perspective within the Linear Park these buildings will loom much larger than their thirty-five feet may appear to indicate. The view easterly from within the park will be of a wall of residential units. 2. This project positions the highest density project in this neighborhood immediately adjacent to the park rather than making a'more gradual change from the park to lower density and lower profile projects to higher density projects the further you move away from the park. The two Surfcrest Projects (North and south) do just the opposite. The North project at 29 units per acre is immediately adjacent to the park on the North side of Seapointe Avenue and the South project is approximately 15 units per the acre, compatible with other. surrounding developments, is located south of Seapointe Avenue. 3. Original structures proposed for the project were also vertical in nature and there was significant discussion and direction to terrace the buildings with lower heights nearest the Linear Park boundary and rising the further away the structure was from the park. What we see incorporates none of these design suggestions and instead presents us once more with vertical high walls. 4. If a project, like this one, has a significant impact on adjoining open space, it should be sufficiently screened and/or redesigned to reduce the impacts. The landscaped buffer area should be sufficiently large enough to screen the project and should be located on the property within the development. The proposal to split a 20-foot buffer area equally within and outside of the project is simply unacceptable. Open space is too important to be used as part of the area necessary to screen a developer's project. To further saddle the homeowners' association with the maintenance responsibility seems ill-advised and will probably only lead to conflicts and problems in the future. Some alternatives to consider for this project and others in the future are: a. It does not seem, given the location of this . development next to this Linear Park, to require a minimum 20 feet of landscaped buffered area within the project as preferred by the County of Orange and to increase the buffer area by a ratio of one additional foot for each foot of structure height above 20 feet. b. Terrace the height of structures over twenty feet so that the parts of the structure above this height are set back one foot for each foot of additional height. C. Where possible have public roads along the perimeter of the projects to afford additional public access to the park and additional buffer area for the park. d. Avoid where possible residential fences along park boundaries to reduce disturbances and afford better protection. e. The project being granted either variances or special permits should provide enhancements to the park. f. If there must be split buffers, require the developer to set up a fund in the name of the County of Orange prior to issuing building permits in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of all the necessary work to prepare and plant the split buffer area and to maintain it for 10 years. This would avoid saddling the homeowners' association with this responsibility and would avoid having any easement or other rights conveyed within the park to the homeowners' association. 5. The Linear Park has been under continual pressure which has reduced its size and the width of the upland portion. Originally envisioned as a 400 acre park ringing the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, it was reduced down,to roughly 1.30 acres. The City Council agreed upon a 113 acre park, the developer's modification of street alignments, and other changes, have cut the size down its present 106 acres. I cannot remember any realignment or engineering work that contributed towards the expansion of the park. 6. The Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee was composed of various diverse community groups-and spent a significant amount of time planning what the park should contain. Several goals were always present. First, was the desire to fight the reductions in size and to use what resources were available to increase the park's size, particularly its upland acreage and width. Second, was to keep the majority of the park passive with a variety of trails and view opportunities. Third, was the desire to keep structures and their size, if absolutely needed, to a minimum within the park. The vary nature and size of the proposed project does nothing to enhance the achievement of these goals. 7. Lastly, like the one residential development on the public beach, this project as it is proposed, is on the wrong side of the road and interferes with the objectives of the public's park. In the early 1980's when the zoning for the property on which Surfcrest North and South are planned was established, the property being bisceted by the placement of Seapointe Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway was not known. Likewise, in the early 1980's the ultimate diminished size of the Linear Park was not known. Now in the 90's, before a final decision is made on this project, the impacts of the project on the Linear Park as proposed should be viewed in light of the planning decisions which we know today. With this project,and each of the projects that are to come, let us plan projects which are compatible with the passive nature of the park, and wherever possible expand the size of this very special Bolsa Chica Linear Park. J Sincerely, Terry A. Dolton President TAD:vm REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION June 1, 1992 Date Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator c Submitted by: �Y Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Prepared by: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL Subject: USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 C/a s t a E/ n r� � Consistent with Council Policy. Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception � , A1 f CW Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Councilwoman Grace Winchell of the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33, a request to construct 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres, pursuant to Article 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Uphold the Planning- Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 91-33 with findings and subject to conditions of approval . " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APRIL 7. 1992: ON A MOTION BY LEIPZIG, SECONDED BY DETTLOFF, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 -WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF NOES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO DENY FAILED. Plo 5/85 ON A MOTION BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND NOES: LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND AND SECONDED BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED) , AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BOURGUIGNON, SHOMAKER, RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, KIRKLAND NOES: LEIPZIG, DETTLOFF ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14135 (REVISED) . COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-26 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) : ALYSIS• ,Bgckground The proposed condominium project is a revised project (Tentative Tract No. 14135 Revised) . The first project, Tentative Tract No. No. 14135, was a request for a 216 unit condominium project of six (6) five (5) story buildings, with three (3) special permits . The special permits were for rear and sideyard setback reductions, reduction of access width and security fencing within the front yard setback. A variance to the 35 feet height restriction was also required. The project did not provide a view corridor at the Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue intersection. The project, was approved by the Planning Commission with. conditions to meet height restrictions and to provide affordable housing as required by the General Plan for the site. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission' s conditions, but withdrew the application after repeatedly requesting continuances by the City Council prior to the City Council hearing. Project Description The current proposal is for 284 condominium units on 9 . 8 acres located at the northwest corner of Seapoint and Palm. The condominium project consists of seven (7) three (3) story building clusters . Five (5) of the clusters contain 40 units and the other two (2) contain 30 RCA - 6/l/92 -2- (3393d) and 54 units. The clusters consist of two (2) end buildings and a central building with interior courtyards and second story walkways. The Buildings consist of one (1) story flats with two story units above. There are a total of 284 units being proposed containing 464 bedrooms. The housing consists of 28 one (1) bedroom flats, 740 square feet in area; 88 one (1) bedroom-den flats, ranging in size from 774 square feet to 857 square feet; 68 two (2) bedroom flats, ranging in size from 1, 100 to 1, 110 square feet; 88 two (2) bedroom two story units ranging in size from 1,274 to 1,357 square feet and 12 three (3) bedroom two story units 1, 600 square feet in area. A total of 458 parking spaces are provided in semi-subterranean garages beneath the building clusters for residents and visitors, with a few visitor parking spaces (21) at street level . Two (2) recreational areas are provided both with swimming pools and decks and clubhouses. The main recreational area is 12, 000 square feet and has a 1, 600 square feet recreational building. The secondary recreational area is 6,000 square feet and has a 400 square feet recreational building. The site is surrounded to the north and east by the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and to the west by oil production facilities. South of Seapoint Avenue is Surfcrest South, a 115 unit condominium project. The site has two (2) entrances on Seapoint Avenue. The mai-n entrance is aligned with the Surfcrest South development-. The secondary entrance is located just south of the Seapoint/Palm intersection. The Coastal Element of the General Plan identifies the site located west of Palm, north and south of Seapoint as the location for up to 450 high density townhomes of which 20 percent of the total must be affordable (see Coastal Element, Section 9 .4 .3 Bluffs to Goldenwest Street, Pg. 117, Attachment No. 8) . This language is a result of the Coastal Commission approval of the Seacliff IV residential project. The referenced section reads as follows: "The Coastal Commission required the inclusion of an additional 19 acres area to be development with up to 450 high density townhouses bringing the total number of units to a maximum of 981 Twenty (20) gercent of the total units must be ' affordable' by the State Department of Housing and Community Development definition This site which is south of Palm Avenue on both sides of 38th Street (Seapoint Avenue) has been redesignated High Density Residential .-" As a consequence of this requirement, the City initiated and approved, with the landowner's concurrence, Zone Change No. 82-20 to increase the site density to 29 dwelling units per acre as a density bonus to provide affordable housing on-site. Staff and the applicant have mutually agreed upon the following proposed condition of approval : RCA - 6/1/92 -3- (3393d) An affordable housing plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for any unit. The affordable housing plan shall be for 20% of the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided at three (3) housing types: 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units, shown on the technical site plan dated March 5, 1992 as plans A, B, C, •D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters. The affordable units shall be made available as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenant for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. The Huntington Beach School District and Seacliff Partners have a tentative agreement regarding school impact mitigation. The agreement is based upon the Holly Seacliff Agreement and will receive final action by the Huntington Beach School District Governing Board. Discussion The proposed 284 unit condominium project is developed at the maximum site density of 29 DU/Acre. A 45 foot wide view corridor is provided at the eastern most end of the site adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. The view corridor is for traffic traveling on Palm Avenue north to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and was identified by the project environmental assessment as a significant view resource to be preserved. The proposed buffer between the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and the rear property line consists of 10 feet of off site landscaping and 10 feet of on site landscaping between property line and building face. The two (2) landscaped areas will -be separated by the perimeter project wall. Building heights adjacent to the Linear Park are 3 stories in height or a maximum height of 35 feet. Seapoint will connect between Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield, and traffic signals are required at Palm/Seapoint and Pacific Coast Highway/Seapoint intersections. Temporary fire station funding is required within 90 days demand by the fire chief and fire response times will be greatly reduced by road improvements . Paramedic services are anticipated to be upgraded by Surfcrest South fees. Parking is provided in semi-subterranean garages beneath the clusters and at street level. Within the garages, the full amount of resident parking is provided behind security gates, with additional visitor parking just inside the garage. For clusters 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 additional guest parking is provided at street level . Clusters 6 and 7 contain the full amount of guest parking in the semi-subterranean garages . RCA - 6/l/92 -4- (3393d) Special Permits 1. Building Separation Requirements Special permits are required to deviate from the required 35 feet front to front and 15 feet side to side -building separation requirements within cluster five (5) . The front to front dimension is 21 feet and the side to side dimension is 10 feet. This cluster was modified to allow for the 45 foot view corridor by deleting the center unit from -the cluster and reducing the cluster width. The lost units of the cluster were then added to cluster one (1) , which is the largest cluster containing 54 units. Without the requirement for the view corridor, cluster 5 would have met all building separation requirements . Staff supports the special permit for cluster 5 based on the provision of the view .corridor. Special permits are also . required for side to side building separation requirements within clusters six (6) and seven (7) , between the center buildings and end buildings . The current measurement is 12 . 5 feet. Also, between clusters six (6) and seven (7) , the required rear to front building separation requirement is 30 feet. The plan provides 15 feet between balconies and 25 feet between buildings only. Although the special p permits for clusters 6 and 7 contribute to a sense of bulk and density on-site, staff supports the special permits based on affordable housing being provided on-site. Also, staff does not feel the special permits detract from the architecture of the proposed project or the proposed living environment for future residents. Building Bulk Requirements A requirement of the code is to have 1/3 of the units of the building one (1) story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure, rounding fractions to the next highest whole number. None of the end units or central buildings of the standard cluster j meet this requirement; however, the corner units of each end building are two (2) stories in height and follow approximately an every third unit pattern. In addition, the largest end building of cluster one (1) has three (3) building units that are two (2) stories in height, two (2) corner units and an end unit. Staff supports this special permit based, again, on the allowable density on-site and the provisions of affordable housing. The code also requires that there be a four (4) foot offset every two (2) units in the building facade. This requirement is not met in the strictest sense of the code.; however, staff feels the architecture provides sufficient plane offsets, pockets etc. to meet the intent of the code. RCA - 6/l/92 -5- (3393d) Open Space . The private open space requirement for ground floor units is 200 square feet for one (1) bedroom units, 250 square feet for two (2) bedroom units and 300 square feet for three (3) bedroom units. The floor plan submitted for the ground floor units (all flats) do not indicate this is provided. Instead of the required area, an area equivalent to balcony areas required for upper story units is provided. For one (1) bedroom units a minimum of 60 square feet is provided, and for two (2) and three (3) bedroom units a. minimum of 120 square feet is provided. The total common open space provided for the project exceeds the code requirement by only 580 square feet. Therefore, the additional required ground floor private open space can not be provided with the existing plan. Staff feels that sufficient passive and active open space exists on-site for future residents and that this special permit will not affect the quality of the living environment. Main Recreation Area The code states that recreation facilities may be counted toward the main recreation area provided that paving and roofing does not exceed 5% of the area. Both the main and secondary recreational areas are focused on swimming pools- and decks with clubhouses surrounded by a relatively small area of landscaping . The requirement is, therefore, not met. Staff believes, however, that there is sufficient landscaped areas both within the cluster- courtyards and in the surrounding common open space area, and that this special permit will not impact project aesthetics or the recreation potential of the recreation areas. Access The code requires 48 foot wide access -for the first 100 feet for any private street intersecting a public street. This requirement is met by the primary access which is aligned with the Surfcrest South entrance but not the secondary access. The secondary entrance is 46 feet wide for the first 60 feet only. No concerns were expressed by the Public Works Department regarding this access and., therefore, staff concludes that no public health, safety or welfare impacts will result from the special permit. Trash Collection The code requires permanent trash enclosures -for trash bins to the exterior of buildings . Trash enclosures are located inside the building at garage level . In order to allow for trash pickup, the bins must be placed outside the building at the curbs or driveway entrances. Staff expressed initial concerns regarding the possible traffic hazards and aesthetic impacts this .might create. RCA -. 6/1/92 -6- (3393d) Conversations with Rainbow Disposal indicate two options for trash pick up. On-site maintenance personnel may wheel containers at a scheduled location for pick up or, for a fee, Rainbow Disposal will retrieve the containers . Rainbow Disposal states that trash pick up hours follow a rigid schedule for safety reasons and that on-site maintenance personnel would be able to coordinate effectively for the placement and return of trash bins without the creation of any on-site hazards . Therefore, staff does not find this special permit to be an issue. Appeal Analysis The appellant, Councilwoman Grace Winchell, has appealed the project approval to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project especially in regards to its relationship to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. As previously stated, the project buffer to the linear park on the rear property line is ten feet of on site project landscaping and ten feet of off site (within linear park boundaries) landscaping. Building heights adjacent to the linear park will be three stories or 35 feet in height. Finished floors will be approximately 2 feet above adjacent grade. Dialogue with the Orange County ,Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks indicates a preference for a full 20 foot on site (within project boundaries) buffer, but has accepted the proposed buffer provided the off site landscaping is maintained by a homeowner' s association. Staff ' s only recommendation subsequent 'to the Planning Commission hearing is to add the following condition regarding product phasing and/or release of units: 2K. A product phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director which specifies timing for the completion of onsite landscaping, project amenities, etc. , to include, but not limited to, landscaping of the 45 feet wide view corridor, the on site and off site landscape buffer to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, primary and secondary recreational areas and the release of affordable housing units. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s action on April 7, 1992, and approve the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 with special permits, Tentative Tract No. 14135 (Revised) , Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 and Negative Declaration No. 92-33 with findings . RCA - 6/l/92 -7- (33.93d) ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for CUP 91-45/TT14135 Revised/CDP 91-26/ND 91-33 2 . Alternative Findings for Denial 3 . Area Map 4 . Letter of Appeal dated April 16, 1992 5. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Tract Map 6. Negative Declaration No. 91-33 7. Applicant Narrative 8 . Letter dated March 25, 1992 from Urban West Communities accepting affordable housing condition. 9 . Letter dated April 71, 1992 from Huntington Beach School District regarding tentative impact mitigation agreement. 10 . Letter dated January 13, 1992 from Orange County Department of Harbors, Beache s and Parks regarding Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 11. Letter dated March 13, 1992 from Rainbow Disposal accepting onsite refuse collection areas. 12 . Letter dated March 27, 1992 from Los Amigos de Bolsa Chica regarding Bolsa Chica Linear Park. MTU:MA:GR:ss RCA - 6/l/92 -8- (3393d) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is compatible- with surrounding properties in terms of architecture and orientation. 3 . The access to and parking for the proposed 284 three (3) story stacked condominium development will not create an undue traffic problem. 4 . The planned residential development for 284 three (3) story stacked condominiums conforms to the provisions contained in Article 915 except for the special permits requested. 5. As conditioned, Condition Use Permit No. 91-45 for 284 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General Plan and Land Use Map designation. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The following special permits promote a better living environment by adapting the Planned Residential Development requirements which are compatible with the surrounding area: a. Reduction in building separation requirements between clusters. b. Reduction in building separation requirements within clusters . c. Deviation from building bulk requirements. d. Reduction in private open space requirements for ground floor units. e. Greater than 5% paving in main recreation area. f . Reduction of access width. g. No trash enclosures to the exterior of buildings (located in ground floor garage) . 2 . The requested special permits provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, design and building layout. I ATTACHMENT N0. I�9-�0 3 . The requested special permits will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of th neighborhood or of the City in general. 4 . The requested special permits are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving -a development adapted to the terrain, compatible with the surrounding . environment and compatible with surrounding residential development. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design features of the proposed subdivision for 284 three (3) story condominiums are in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time that the General Plan designation of High Density Residential and R4-29-0-CZ (29 units per gross acre) zoning were implemented. 3 . The site is relatively flat and physically suitable for the proposed density of 29 units per gross acre. 4 . Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 28.4 three (3) story condominiums is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 91-26: 1. As conditioned, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as of-her provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three .(3) story condominium development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use -Plan of the General Plan. 4 . The proposed 2.8-4 three (3) story condominium development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. 5 . The project is consistent with the' affordable housing requirement of the Coastal Element by proposing to provide 20% affordable housing on-site through a first time buyer program with a resale covenant for first right of refusal to the City of Huntington Beach. `d -AuHMENTNO. Zl�a CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevation plans dated March 5, 1992 shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. All floor plans must provide an exterior storage unit of 100 cubic feet. Storage areas above washers and dryers must be provided shelving. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner. shall complete the following: a. Submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval . b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to backflow devices and Edison transformers, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. c. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . d. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. e. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California Insulation Standards of 45 dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s) . All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. n53/i0- iACHME►NT NO. Imo; All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the oil wells will be required to have an Exterior Wall noise Rating (EWNR) of 25 which is equal to a similar noise rating scale, the Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, to sufficiently attenuate against noise levels from oil well operations. Any window that meets the EWNR 25 or the STC 27 may be used. The first floor windows will not need any upgrades because the 10 feet high noise barrier separating the project from the oil well site will sufficiently shield the first floor rooms. All windows in the second and third floor rooms exposed to the heliport will be required to have an EWNR of 28 or a STC of 31, Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c indicate those units requiring both oil and heliport noise mitigation. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells and heliport. The ventilation requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation system. The ventilation system must provide two (2) air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make-up air obtained directly -from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of 10 feet of straight or curved duct, or six (6) feet plus one (1) sharp 90 degree bend. Exhibit 4a, 4b and 4c shows the units requiring mechanical ventilation. f. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. g. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturaly compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. h. If outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. i . A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. In addition, foundations and utility installations should be designed to withstand possible minor differential settlement, caused by subsidence, without damage. Appropriate design parameters should be recommended by a qualified soils engineer and incorporated into the design and construction of the project. 4a E: H��ENT New j . An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist' s report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits: a. A grading plan shall be submitted to the City' s Department of Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may -be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. Drainage from the site shall connect with the City' s storm drain system. No storm water drainage shall drain to the linear park site. 4 . The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. l. for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape -plan prepared and signed -by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity) , an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Article 960 and 915 Planned Residential Standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project 's landscape plan. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and Community Development for approval. Native bluff plant materials shall be utilized in the landscaping of the site. 1. A landscape plan for the 10 foot off-site landscape buffer to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be submitted -for review and approval . The plan shall have received approval from the Orange County Environmental Agency Harbors, Beachs and Parks prior to submittal . AT NO. c. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. d. Final Tract Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. e. Perimeter fencing plans for review and approval which depict decorative materials. f. The applicant shall work with the Department of Public Works to provide alternate routes for traffic during the construction phase, if necessary. Adequate signage shall be provided to warn motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians of construction. g. An affordable housing plan shall be provided for 20% of the 284 housing units (57 units) for persons or households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100% of median income) . The affordable housing shall be provided through three (3) housing types : 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2 bedroom units, shown on the technical site plan. dated March 5, 1992 as plans A, B, C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the condominium clusters. The affordable units shall be made available -as a first time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach. The covenenat for resale shall be subject to mutually agreed upon language between the City of Huntington Beach and the developer. 6 . Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be ins,talled throughout to comply with Huntington Beach fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire .Department and Uniform Building code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. c. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards . Shop drawings ill be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: 1) Manual Pulls 2) Water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection 3) 24 hour supervision 4) Smoke Detectors 5) Annunciation 6) Graphic Display 7) Audible Alarms. ATTACHMENT NO.I'-; d. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. e. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction. Shop drawings will be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. f. Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum 6 foot 8 inch wide by 4 foot 3 inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. g. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 415. h. Security gates will be designed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Specification No. 403 . i . Address numbers will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be the following: 1) The number for the building will be sized a minimum of 10 inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half (1-1/2) inches. 2) individual units will be sized a minimum of four (4) inches with brush stroke of one-half (1/2.) inch. j . Installation or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks will comply with Orange County Environmental Health and Huntington Beach Fire Department Standards. k. Fire access roads will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 401. Includes the circulation plan and dimensions of all access roads (24 feet or 27 feet fire Lanes., turnarounds and 17 feet by 45 feet radius turns) . 1. Names of streets must be approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to use. m. Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification No. 426 . n. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification No. 422 and No. 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. o. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code Title 17.04 .085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. ENT N0. ATTACHM �____ p. Developer shall construct roadway to connect Seapoint to Pacific Coast Highway. A temporary paved emergency access roadway shall be completed prior to commencement of combustible construction. q. Developer to provide funding for a temporary fire station facility at a site to be determined. Funding will occur with a minimum 90 days notice by the fire chief. This site for the temporary fire station will be acquired by the City. 7. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division,- and. Fire Department. 8 . All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 9 . Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection/within twelve (12) months. 10 . There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 11. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog. alerts).; d. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. e. Information on equipment or facilities which may generate air pollutants shall be submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff for their review prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any use within the building. 12. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 13 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. b. The 10 foot wide off-site landscaped buffer within the Bolsa Chica Linear Park shall be improved and accepted by the Orange County Environmental Agency Rarbors, Beaches and Parks. Al "1 ACHMENT NO. I:� 14 . Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water line for the use of reclaimed water subject to Water Department approval. 15 . A qualified archaeologist shall examine the surface of the site after it has been cleared of vegetation prior to site grading. 16 . If no cultural materials are observed, no further mitigation of cultural resources shall be reuqired. A written report shall be submitted to the city by the archaeologist. 17 . If some indication of the presence of cultural materials is observed, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 18. Should any cultural materials be encountered during the initial site survey or during grading and excavation activities, all activity shall cease and the archaeologist shall determine the appropriate course of action. 19 . Should any human bone be encountered during any construct-i-on activities on the site, the archaeologist shall contact the coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American Remains. Should the coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to State Law SB 297 . 20 . This conditional use permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder' s Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14315 : 1. The tentative tract map received and dated February 26, 1992, shall be the approved layout. 2 . At least sixty (60) days prior to recordation of the final tract map, CC & R' s shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development. The CC&R' s shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner' s Association. a. A ten (10 ' ) foot off-site landscape buffer along the Bolsa Chica Linear Park north of the project site shall be landscaped by the developer according to the specifications of the Orange County Environmental Agency, Harbors, Beaches and Parks and accepted by that agency. The buffer shall be maintained for the life of the project by the Home Owner' s Association. ATTACHMENT NO. p� 3 . The Public Works Department requirements are as follows : a. Submit a soils report to the Director of Public Works . b. Construct off-site storm drain as shown on the Tentative Map, to mitigate increased runoff due to development. c. Construct full street improvements for Seapoint Avenue within the tract boundary. d. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the tract boundary to Pacific Coast Highway. e. Construct off-site traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Seapoint Avenue. f. Construct off-site traffic signal at Palm and Seapoint. g. Construct full width improvements for Seapoint Avenue, off-site, from the existing terminus of Seapoint Avenue to Garfield. h. Construct any temporary access which may be required by the Fire Department. i . Enter a license and maintenance agreement with the City for maintenance of landscaping. along Seapoint, along with the project frontage. j . Construct full improvements of Lot A in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works . k. Dedicate easement over lot A to the City for water line purposes and emergency access purposes. 1 . Construct on-site storm drain in accordance with requirements of the Department of Public Works. ATTACHMENT NO. I _ ATTACHMENT NO, 2 ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0, 91-26 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 91-45 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development is not properly adapted to adjacent streets, driveways, parks and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The proposed project requires special permits for reduction in building separation requirements between and within clusters, deviation from building bulk requirements, ground floor private open space requirements and reduced access width at the Seapoint intersection resulting in a more dense project with greater building bulk than normally allowed within the Planned Residential Development Article. 3 . The special permits allowing for a more dense project with greater building bulk characteristics do not promote a more aesthetically pleasing project or an enhancement of the living environment for future residents of the project and, therefore, do not meet the intent of the special permit provision to: a. Promote better living environments; b. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or the City in general; and d. Be consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4 . The proposed project as designed is incompatible with the surrounding developments of Surfcrest South and Seacliff in regards to architecture, building orientation, building density and building bulk and is, therefore, detrimental and injurious to the value of surrounding properties or improvements and the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or of the City in general. ATTACHMENT NO. 5. Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 for 284 three (3) story condominiums is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City' s General plan. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14135 REVISED: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Revised for 284 three story condominiums is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan by not being properly adapted to the resources and development constraints of the bluffs, coastal view resources, Bolsa Chica Linear Park and surrounding oil and heliport operations. 2 . The subdivision is incompatible with existing surrounding neighborhood .subdivision design in terms of density, building bulk and orientation. 3 . The subdivision does not meet the design criteria specified by Article 915, Planned Residential Development and is, therefore, inconsistent with the zoning code. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 91-26: 1. The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan because it blocks public views of coastal areas. 2 . Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26 is not consistent with the Coastal Zone suffix, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code applicable to the property due to the visual impact the project will have on surrounding coastal areas. 3 . At the time of occupancy, the proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development can not be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the General Plan since Seapoint may not by fully connected to Garfield, Edwards and Pacific Coast Highway. 4 . The proposed 284 three (3) story condominium development does not conform with the public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act since it blocks public views of the Linear Park and Bolsa Chica area. ATTACHMENT NC�. ------- - - - i y ` Coa. a•0�0/ —--- Fz0 R4-29-0 CZ •m�[a :5 wl F�./' ` ii%;.Pod'h•,,^f• g'b!SdtMf�01 �r,a•e.wi„ �: •,;� '$',;•'�'._.' TA�s uy' R2.-P��Oc2 R3,f7 0-CZ Q,I R2-PD-0-Cl c 1 l ' I i CDP89-64/TT 1413 5/CE89-557 ca CDP89-40/ND89-52 I TINGTON BEACH „ HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION MAYOR a Jim Silva J City of Huntington Beach MAYOR PRO TEMPORE Grace Winchell P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92646 COUNCILMEMBERS Peter Green Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Linda Moulton-Patterson Earle Robitaille April 16, 1992 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mrs. Brockway: Re: Surfcrest North Development Proposal: Tentative Tract Map 14135 Revised, Conditional Use Permit 91-45, Coastal Development Permit 91-26, Negative Declaration 91-33 This letter is to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the above referenced applications for the Surfcrest North Development proposal. The size of the project, its location to city resources, and thus its potential for long term effects to the city necessitate that this item be reviewed by the City Council. Specifically, I am appealing the project to address the relationship of the development to the surrounding Bolsa Chica Linear Park: setbacks to the linear park and the proposed building heights adjacent to the park. If anyone has any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please contact me at (714) 536-5553. Sincerely, Grace Winchell, City Councilmember -n m N CDr T rn rn Vl m TELEPHONE (714) 536-5553 Alqrae.4*wn.f' M47'L ,� "•.•t �` � r-i;•. ,i' vv l�c•+4i10' n ���11• ��. '- •_, iy � GI �/,�/'\i�`'4l-.��M 45. , lk • `fir. _ -.`•: ,fit "> ��` � ..�.�` '�. �\ �' ou� •4g---- . 5 LLO �... �.•.,.-,rditiC'!►-.IiSdhrr^�.-- .1.-4•ua �. .r.�r t ,_N: , '��-�. -:.i S'Ja. •. ."c'. T 19 - - ^^�.�s'k�}`9 _ -p few^ 47 _—___ - - _--^�1_ -._- —Y•_ -_ - .. .--y_ ,. . __ s� "'0'^ �••t:4'•`t �r, ,Lv B'!_��'d�,f�1�K•rr'i}•c' . Wall 9cL.arand, • Vasquez& 023-371-06' Resident 19273 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Wt` 023-371-08 . ~` Resident 19277 Archfield Circle. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-371-15 Resident - 19315 Archfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �i✓r ( ! ! SET -2 i 1 i - I it .I .• .- Ii L' - II li i 'i FRAtr IM68 TENTATIVE TRACT RA IT NO. 14135 v S IN THE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, =— PALM AVENUE CITY LL COUNTY F Y 0 ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN TNF.CI Y IF ml:NTCN.TO DUCH,C—M OF O—E.IFT—OF 1-1-Fi[A.AD C-:1 r.F. VIP Fill.: BOOM 3dC.PA—IL—tI OF P—L VIPII L:THE OFFICE Of T C-11 FLIF.I.OU OF!AID'.1C- 5--Cr/O^/ A-^ LO FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES —le 6 C AC17.A1IP.11_C 1"11 11 11 `TENT.TRACT NO 14135 C.. ID. FD I A .1.1..1.1-AU A-.11AZIED D' I—Olt I "N 'TIN-1 P-11 lw� 1—I.- o U.— I FIVF. CITY 11 HVITII—N—CH 11CIIII 1AP C111 1`1 ID11",ID F-1 c 0 C, .......... I- m cj r AV, SE�'P::, 7 1 -3f/,v I PAW. AVENUE STREET An f,, re sl 111.--l--—.1 r OF MY L ma 7, IF-I / CI� L- -- ..r - •Id," B } °_- — ts....-- A 4 Ik p Q STREETS. S A P 1 T i'�-I �E ROPIDSED)T 7101 AIN—ECT 2'"H NO 22�8408 111-1111-311 A.10C.— I: ARIN-1 III.1IL IW I.—C...I D—cm: . —1,...FDCI 1. 111.0. IFI`-CI 1-1 ilh FF A\- L 4%XjALI)YN & TENTATIVE �VA r WWI' C I A T PS PACT N --M T 0. 14135 PACIFIC COAST HOMES A ..;r. ,IT 1;.., 7.'. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA k t N I k N k j C.M4 k A 14 K I S 1. PALM AVENUE OPEN SPACE TABU LxrioN ((MNICN(-)PLN SPACT' 1 14,180 S.F. IS-aJed Areas) PRIVATE SPACE 34,628S.F. (M'Oxiv Areas) lU P nl 11 MRK NTK At.1)1.%11;%S%)N'S MAIN Rl I.Ald A 12.(— ;7 f -V OPEN SPACE PLAN SURFCREST NORTH 11UNTINGTON BEACIi,CALIFORNIA S IJ R I-C R 1:ST PA WIN F R S 3 SITE COVERAGE STATISTICS PALM AVENUE BUILDING COVERA(;I 173,750 S.F.(41).7Y,,) 4 LANDSCAPE.COVFRAGE (42.6%) SOF I'SCAPI: 112.70b S.F. IIARDSCAPI? 69.0.Y,S.1:. \ I PAVIN(;&PARKING COVI'?RA(.iF 71AW SF. (16.796,) •� �I•AVIMi A'PARKIW AREA -\ //"'� •(��� � - I "IT.)'IAI. 426,89F S.F. RIIILDIM;AREA LANDSCAPED AREA LANDSCAVEDAREA 1 A � � ���N.\\ \I.I\MAHI 1.I'I.•l.\II I:Y'AII I.�a SITE COVERAGE PLAN m n, SURFCRENORTH z HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA I SURFCREST PARTNERS z o Go (ucnx> ?r 4 UNIT E/E UNIT B/13.1 UNIT C/C.Iv UNIT C/C.1 UNIT B/B.l UNIT E/E A,11.,1 1,1•IUW.,p 1pl l( Il.nl luw,Ilb4(' I.,I.4 M,IY l,I'. IL,,c�,u,lY X,lli fl.nlli'LAI , �Y r UNIT D/D.1 UNIT D/D.1 UNIT B/B.I ».Ix, Y: a .Il,:,r. UNIT B/B.I I'Lnl Ili+NHrN ii 1'L,I III m'p,Y X.,I. UnNl li•� B/B.1 :- UNITlBM,F.B/ .I IT�IItiNN. .UNIT D/D.1 UNIT D/D.1 1 x'' \ • l X 7 L7 UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.l UNIT C/C.lv UNIT C/C.1 UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E/E II nI II\1I I.AI IUMAIInNI. II\1 I�•V,IIII\I I' ` 'll,1 Pn\pIY!>I. II�, r.L.Sli 11,,1 ILAI GARAGE ENTRY 96,In. CLUSTOR PLAN L«X•R1Inl) ` = TYPE IA m SURFCREST NORTH Z IiUN"I•INGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA _A SURF-CREST PARTNERS nll; ,u+-IuI III N ....... ...... p7 IN 541 NO G 10 Mal cm rd2rm ........... MIC ON, too mo O;p Iff®r rM -1 54.� i, All M7. kwi kill. PRIVATI: <REAR UNIT E/E UNIT 13/13.1 UNIT 1'I,wr/I'I.wl .wllll,u;�'IIfINr: il.nr 1114�IIIINi: r)f.' � �- - �y� `1N1N1' UNIT C/C.1 UNIT B/B.l UNIT E/E 4i:\� I I.�rXI' i• II.AI IIM'NIX N;11: il-♦r'rliu'�'I1K151: II.w1;iI.A1 UNIT A/A ' UNIT 13/13.1 1'LAI;-—IIIN I', i 1'RI\,AH\' - r' UNIT A/A H,I,'H E..A,'tl IN AHH,\ - II nI IL,,I UNIT B 1 B. UNIT W13.1 UNITA/A rl.n l,row'.'nuae N•`]m 1�!1~tM n 1 I.0 n Al PNlwl > . UNIT A/A ' •UNIT 13/13.1 UNIT E/E UNIT B/I3.1 UNIT C/C.1 f LAI;iLAI 1'Lnlilu4?hUN P: 1'I nl lu4 VI4NI .I IT U�, ••�.. jrU N B :1 UNIT F U NI CC B .. E /'LUSTER PLAN TYPE C' � . _ SURFCREST NORTH m IIUNI•INGION BEACH,CALIFORNIA SIJRFCREs,r PARTNERS dG .O aa.w I e N�l �l v i ,J .-/� .PN NAIL. /.�. -- r � 1..JJ� _ /. �.r'• l Nnl rrn'Y 5. ` J 'r UNIT E/E UNIT B/B.] UNIT C/C.l UNIT C/C.1 UNIT B/B.I UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E/E r�LAvl:..r �Lnr,mv�.,'rw",e rLArrtoxa'INl.a r; fn i ` PIATr„) .—; PIAT/PLA, 1 \\ 1 1 \ F..T> • q 1M Nits Itl:l li I..A I'N Y:.\It1 ( r.�J" UNIT BiB.1 `. I III. - '1.�•1.Yr ' UNIT E/E ' � • �.r�• r • Plrur�LA, UNIT B/B.1 UNIT E;E UNIT B/B.I UNIT C/C.IJ UNIT C/C.I UNIT B/B.I '?-r nl rinl "AlUNIT r.1.A„Itn,INNRIi II II\I hn,ll�nll I i '•,O \ •.• • 'r.+„r.. r 1 / r ry I= CLUSTER PLAN SURFCRES r NORTH �y IIUN'IINGH'ON MACH.CALIFORNIA SUR FCR F.STPARTNERS IA f�.111 i�� ST(M = rtsmanvr— \ L_ ETA LIVING rl rrI II O � n 'FA I.A WAN HURM. ®I I Ivl I II 1 —' GA F \ M.RA. MNIN( 0 Ic 0 ---M.ISA. 4LI fYJN, _ _ /�y\ o I- WAI.AWAY -- PLAN A PLAN B 774 S.F.1.1 V I N(i 7AU S.F.LIvl( f•n S.F.Ii.\L('f MI)' fa.S F.IIAI.('(Y.'1' If MI('.F.I'.%'1'.ST(lit. I'I.AIS UNIT PLANS SURFCREST NORTH HUN I-IN(;I'ON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCRI ST PAR'MFRS � n n -i -iliAl.(oqy OR j I O MIS i'I.1.� •(' LIVING _ -I M.HOftM. O L_J �T i tinl '(ONY L' BATH O . — 1 /� pNING t H7 ij; <u 11• \� I I M.HUHM. �� 4 I7FN �, O M.HA. � OEl ElO WALKWAY PLAN C• PLAN D 857 S.F:I.I VIN(: I I W S.F.LI VIYi I441 S.F.HAL(ONY I IMI(',1�.I.A T.S I OIC 1-- I N�S.F.11.1;1 I I:1 11,AT S UNIT PLANS 4'nl Iv'b�.•1'L' y • SURFCREST NORTH IIUNTTIKGI'ON BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURPC•RI'.S'r PARTNERS (Tt -0:11:31 V/ \ li,�l.(.Y71 Y'rl 'OR NI � LIVING O TIEAN � ALF'(YFV � M.HA. M.RDRM. 5w Aru�I' MN MIX M. LAU -ir-, HA 71 WALKWAY PLAN 1: 1110SF'I.IVIN(; I RisVHAIXONh . I I.A'I UNIT PLANS E SURFCREST NORTH Z HUNTINGTON BEACH;CALIFORNIA SURPCRI%ST PARTNI RS 10 • �C� r.It �Lf'(>NY 1. I c O .M.I*11 Lie O O'M.NA. a NTH 0 IAU k H MtM 0 K VWDR. —� WALKWAY PLAN 11.1 PLAN B.1 UPPER I.I V1:1. 'rOWNHOME LOWER LEVEL UNIT PLANS UU S.f'.IfA I'S('.I:,14A T.Ill M. SURFCREST NORTH 11UNTINGI"1'ON BFACII,CALIFORNIA i SURFCREST PAK'1'NI RS > I I i i o v \ IJAI :1N1 Is 1 1 _ .1 M.NI M. 1 ti I'I Nt. LIE) -- PDR. LN Y, } �y O II M.BA'I'II -B _ 1 I]ININYi o TI up Jn ✓ �' f " Slf 1 '-E BDR I x � �— I PLAN C.1 PLAN C.1 UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL 'FOW N HOM E UNIT PLANS I1ALI:I 57 S:.IJ\!IN7 1111 BAL('INN' I l(1('.1:I[%1'.S'I I SURFCREST NORTH I IUNTINGF NN BI ACII.C'ALIFORNIA T SURFCIZ SL PARTNERS .Jam. 1, �11 O p \ pl - HAI'II I.AU t � I I1I l` —Ir a HI:DR(XM ci Q L... cd IMNIN(i I —T OL �.. 14 P1IH1 i�t.v�.r. �`�. . I.6n.U n 11( 7f rti-�.i ItAlf'f�1's UNIT PLANS pael tiJ•�:I�'INf l PLAN D.I iv;s.F.HA.'(Kti PLAN DA UPPER I.I:Vlil. I;sr.v.ec'r.STlM LOWER L.L:Viil. �-� SURFCREST NORTH 11UNI'INCiI'(NJ BEACH.CALIFORNIA SURFCRFSTVAR'FNERS ^ I? Z I 'I � UP • 1-III LIL -11 j M RESIDE.�'i PAPKING ��/ f4 RESIiX t'T AI(;I.USTEP C S SYLURITY p,\TE ECIIRIT ENCE i S V PO Al t'l1,tTEP 11 Pt.1 1♦ t'ISIT(A PANAI T\'IfI I(RI Al - _� i GARAGE ENTRY/FAIT GARAGE PLAN SGLE'U7'O :1,1.1'11:N I)YARKI.Ki CLUSTER TYPE A Rtll V-- t .I IM. I:R TI'PI.;.('t1.M IIAR l._ _ SURFCREST NORTH m HUN"1'INGfON BEACH,CALIFORNIA �y SURFCREST PARTNERS la L `CJ \ _I ry STRYe �I;x lr ,'Inl if wl YAM«I W: —i x�,ll IIj _ y1 i II II iI I' I., 1I-IM Il'1:611; = 1 4- TI _ GARAGE PLAN t't.u.rreu Tret;u r SURFCREST NORTH 11UNTINC;FON BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCRI•:)F PARTNERS ^� IaA 41 � Q III LYE Y _ Mw\RI IN;111. t ?, �At, 1 Jfl l t.VIKi: y �1 f IINP�I I.(X)P HUAU PH()PF:H'PY 1-INI: IIAKMN'TAVENUE CLUSTER SECTION A-A u-w(r,IN�.IR SURFCREST NORTH HUNTINGI NJ BEACH,CALIFORNIA SURFCREST PARTNERS Is X0.1:1 LL11.a1 II IX 91 f,�MIIIRMNT fi(tYXIF' TO \ Secrnd Plr. n iKfY D 1.11EAR PARR 1� T(Y+.'NIntAF' rt us �p f r'F tl � 1 In Irt log�— P1�1h'TFR UN1F W)AD LuWJ 4x Wffcf Arena CLUSTFER SECHON B-B x:Al r,ex.nr SURFCREST NORTH IIUN"I'INGI'ON(BEACH,CALIFORNIA Sl1RFCRGST'PARTNI RS � 16 1 0 � � e ra 11� m i ° .f =1 L _ ° 4 W I ° PB ATTACHMENT NO - - a, E t. a. t • .�1 l b J 1• F_ - _ 5 �t i - �n t, ! r a. �i • i . ® u 1• t• 1 P� �O a erxiL a I s � r � MEN \ r LOUNGE M. / r !!! •` .r �; , Cam' n � , ]Tfy fYNN. Cw$'I'fix a PRIMARY RECREMION AREA SECONDARY RECREATION ARFA 1600SI: 400SI: CLUBHOUSE ( CANS SURFCREST NORTH IIUNTIN16TON DI MAI,(•ALIPORNIA SURRAWST MIUNERS 1� m z -1- wi City Huntington of Hunti ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building D.ivision 536.5241 Planning Division 536.5271 October 10 , 1991. s: Office of the Governor Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street , Room 121 Sacramento , CA 95814 Subject : NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91--33 CONSTRUCTION OF A THREF_. STORY 284 UNIT,% CONDOMINTUM` PROJECT IN THE COASI'AI, 'LONE , IN THE: CT7TY OF 11UNTTNGTON BENCH, COUNTY OF ORANGE' ' To Interested Parties : The City of Huntington Beach has prepared a mitigated negative declaration in analyzing the potential impacts of the following project : Project Proponent : Surfcrest Partners Project Location : Southwest of intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street Project Description : Construction of a three story, 284 unit. condominium project on 9 . 8 acres located within the R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Resident: i al - 2.9 Units/Acre - Oil. - Coastal lone) district . Due to the time limits mandated by State law, responses and comments must be forwarded to the City at the earliest possible date but: not later than 30 days . Sincerely, /f Julie Osugi Assistant Planner. Attachments - Negative Declaration No . 91-331 1 . Initial Study t ATTACHMENT � Poe ro JO : lp ( 1074d) 1 r W'Ll to' a to t w C1.1[Slx�ia�.+, l W G Ttinty b2r..t. kxn. U1, liacr`.c,to, O 9 SL1 l — 91 b/(LS CYi 1) S« 1U.s bet w )0== Cir C00CPU=CW UM I3r713>3D +17.L C CCMaC _MaJ%CD<3nv,(. r,Tt 6CA I 1. no}�a n(a.I��C�(�t i vP DPI 1 ara i_i Qn Nn 9 1=? City of Huntinqton Beach ,_ a„L,a r'cr.on: Julie Ostigl )e. SYt oct 1.Alr m.: 2 n(1 n Mia.i.n__S1-r�e N. Cr""ry,,__O r a n cL�_— ------- '--- - , . :1112) S 3 6-S Z I 1 ---— 01ange 111_inL-- Lri on 13eac1i -------------..__---------------- «rmr c I ,kJ.23 Tor Crc.,n Palm_ nvei-l-ueLSpoin.t._S.t ._. - N/A b. Within 1 a1.1r,[. 1. 1:-A:'2TIii_^YL E. IlJ.1L ,4'":rli I-Ir n 9. 1Y. nLlTT._CT_.Tfli p L_Vr', G1. rrJP Cd. ;s,. t .... :.... 01. ---rL,r i': Grp 0l. ,., i"" I_:(Y':.,f•Y1_ !/:r M-------- f.. c•:.rn 0, .r :rl. i., _•.. r. i ..l� 41. ..1.1, ..L:':, ,...r..:lel: ._ :;. _ -.1 n l::7 i,.-..:'r,:: ,:.v r r •,r-' 71 r:, i r� , ,, :n:r.l --cc:-: ----- -- - ... ..._.: : Condi i=iona 1 Use Permit :l. Lr�� .. _. �:1. N/A . il- 1-L11(i�.. 0!. rx.l C. !tea! C•?. :_-li,......1: _.�,.. ,c:t; Ci. -J'r:IC1:'CJ:.. (-<r':1 C�. �.r<,n1e•�!C,':i:c_:1C 1: r Iai \1[ Cul1t;+ !0. ._ _.;a e•,/;L: ,.!r.1 dal n:..a i5. `.�!! Goa lC<, 2L. -X_-wl��: Ol, _�_—Arca�-a C")1 c..1/Htwt.rr. .,n. ... .•.I:..n.0 'S tl lu W .i,• `',__-f,;,v'.:. ..,1, ..'•r GS. _--�rb.q+1 L.:re !7. - _ N:.r.. ... . _ .. .!;J}L.,:n:[l.•., :E. ..... :n.,cL......, ,. .,. C7. - fir. tL.,t. - , --_- lt. 1..` [,. 77. l,... 10. -- 1!. ntti�c: t.,,,x�,} r.��[+: ';r'• i';=� I`1�l High Density Residential land use and R4-29-0-CZ (High Density Residentiai- 2Q ,L im)-c /�rTe-Oil-Coastal Zone) zoning designations . Construction of a 284 unit three stor- condominium project on 9 . 8 acres located w]- f.}ll.n rile R-4-29—O-0IZ ZOn1IlCf C .LSt'.1 ict. TI-)n- ci I_.n i-c __ 1r1r:�_�.P_C�. c3_C�7f3C2.n to the proposed boundary of the Bolsa Chi_ca Line I ATTACHMENT MT T NO. _- 11. raxar = Cr LxLD X7rC7 X 2 / - Xz:S t .C1.arirrbo�a.. ,r111 u''T 1 d.c�:1!(x�m c>< (cc +�Ll [�..r pco�..��( ?C� n�ybaz �l r.+.�• :i_..,cf :c< + Sic°).ct (�.q. f M_a A 7t,U C. CC Pr._ r ctlm a LY.v!cv. ur aC C ci• �ccn c} },1.... (�':: .- i.:,_. 4�"if CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Gabrielle Restivo ulie Osugi To Associate Planner Fro ssistant Planner Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DateOctober- 10, 1991 l FORM NO. 91-33 Applicant: Surfcrest Partners Request: 284 unit condominium project with private recreation area on 9.8 gross acres located within the R4-29-0—CZ (High—Density Residential — 29 Units/Acre—Oil—Coastal Zone) District. Location: Southwest of intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. B_ack�,round Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may I:e filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Daily Pilot for a thirty (30).day public review period commencing Tuesday, October 15 1991 and ending Thursday, November 14, 1991 . If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 91-33 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Miti ation Measures X The attached mitigating measures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting; from the pr(-)jL'c't ,.rne.l ill-(- 1_ec:0nr1Irc'IIdL�d as C011 litions of approval. JO:lp (1067d-2) ATTACHMENT NO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 91--33 1 . Name of Proponent: Surfcrest Partners Address : 520 Broadway, Ste. #100 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone Number: (213) 394-3379 2. Date Checklist Sybmittgd for Review: October 9, 1991 3. Concurrent Ent.itlement(s)_: Tentative Tract Map No. 14135, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, and Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45. 4. Project 'Location: Southwest of intersection r.f Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street . See attached vicinity map. 5. Project Description: 284 unit condominium.project with private recreation area on 9.8 yross acres located within the R4-29-0-CZ (High-Density Residential - 29 Units/Acre-Oil-Coastal Zone) District. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection. ) Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable eart� conditions or changes in -geologic substructures? Discussion: The proposed project does not include any activities which will impact earth stability or geologic substruct•:res. Furthermore, the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require submittal of a soils study and implementation of speciFi-ations contained therein. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. AT TAC�in.�ENT NO.�Z Yes Maybe No b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-covering of the soil? X Discussion: Landform modification is anticipated in association with the development of the site which will inevitably result in disruption, displacement, compaction, and over-covering of soil . The project proposes approximately 67,000 cubic yards of grading. The maximum height after grading will not exceed four (4) feet. Grade impacts are anticipated to be minor and will be addressed through standard conditions o. approval which require submittal of grading plans and a hydrology study. No significant adverse 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 Discussion: The project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 32 to 34 feet above mean sea level . The site is devoid of any distinguishing topographic features. The site is located approximately 330 feet south of the bluff of the Huntington Beach Mesa. No significant adverse impact is an.ticipa.ed. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X-. Discussion: Minor short-term wind erosion and water may occur during site preparation and grading p`,ases . However, the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require implementation of dust control measures and a desiltation plan to insure runoff will not impact adjacent properties, no sig-ificant adverse impacts are anticipated. 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? 1 . _._. Discussion: The project site is not located -ithin the Alquist-Priolo Special Hazards zone; however, it is located on a portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa which is considered to be regionally subsiding. Pr:vious environmental assessment of this area has indicated that the subsidence rate in the vicinity has beer declining; it is further indicated that the subsidence rate is extremely slow and that minor improve'ents may be resulting from fluid/steam injection methods being utilized by surrounding oil activities. Therfore, subsidence is not anticipated to pose a hazard to or to present substantial constrains on the propose" development. The project is subject to standard conditions of approval which require submittal of a .soils study and implementation of all recommendations contained therein. No significant adverse impacts ara anticipated. 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 durir.•g 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 cont" -- -" ^^ ° n rivPrcP - impacts are anticipated. '* 5 Environmental Checklist -2- "gad) Yes Maybe No Long—Term: Development ans occupancy of 284 condominium units on 9.8 acres of vacant land will result in an increase in air pollutant emissions; however, projected emissions are well below threshold levels (significant emission levels) for pollutant emissions, as identified in the Air Quality Handbook, prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts. 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 Discussion: The proposed project will not drain directly into any natural waterway. All drainage will be collected on—site. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X Discussion: Slight increases in surface runoff will occur due to the over-covering of the site with impervious surfaces. However, the tract map has been designed to collect runoff on—site and to direct it to an outlet at the Seacliff Golf Course by the following method. The applicant is proposing construction of an onsite drainage collection system within the private streets of the tract. This system will provide catch basins within the streets and common areas and will gravity flow to a single private pump station near the entry closest to Palm Avenue. From this pump station, the runoff will be pumped to the catch basin at the intersection of Seapoint Street and Palm Avenue and will then flow to an outlet at the Seacliff Golf Course. The projected runoff was tabulated to drain towards this catch basin per the hydrology study prepared for the existing Seaclil" tracts sev= -al 'years ago. No runoff from this project will drain towards the linear park area. With implementation of the mitigation measure identified below, drainage impacts are not anticipated to be significant Mitigation: 1 . Prior to issuance of grading permits the p.roposed drainage system shall be approved by Public Works, installed and operating. . C . Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X Discussion: The project site is not located in the vicinity of the floodplain. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — _ X Discussion: See 3a. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X Discussion: See 3a. ATTACHMENT NO. Environmental Checklist —3— (0968d) Yes Maybe No f. Alteration of the direction or rate of. flow.of. ground waters? _ _ X 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 Discussion: Development of vacant property will increase water usage on the site. Using Public Works demand factors, the proposed development is .projected to use approximately 179,000 gallons of water per day once occupied and will result in an additional burden to the City's existing water system which currently cannot meet peak hour water demand. However, 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 adverse impact is anticipated. Mitigation: 1 . 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 the tract. i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X, Discussion: See 3c. 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 b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered coecies of plants? _ X- 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. Discussion (a-d) : The project site has been highly disturbed by existing oil operations, dumping of soil and weed abatement activities. As such, it does not appear to support any rare or unique plant species or mature trees. Grading/construction activities are not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to possible sensitive plant species which are located along the face of the bluff since the bluff is located more than 500 feet from the site. The project will also be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of a desalting plan to insure that runoff during the construction/site preparation phases will not drain towards the bluff. No significant adverse plant impacts are anticipated. 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 A-i iFAC M� ENT�®. Cc � Environmental Checklist -4- 968d) Yes Maybe NNQ 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. De torioration to existing fish or- wildlife habitat? X Discussion (a-d): The project site is largely disturbed by previous oil operations, soil dumping and weed abatement activities and does not support any rare or endangered animal species. As identified on the linear park plans, the closest ESHA, a coastal scrub/raptor tree area, is located on the other side of the proposed Linear Park more than 400 feet from the site. Therefore, grading/construction related activities are not anticipated to have any significant adverse animal impacts. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X _ Discussion.: The proposed project is located in the vicinity of an oil facility and an operating heliport and may periodically expose some occupants to high levels of noise. Heliport Noise The heliport operates seven days a week from sunrise to one-half hour before sunset and averages twelve take offs and landings per week day and 5 take offs and landings per weekend day. Noise readings taken at the. Site by Mestre Greve Associates determined sound. levels during take offs and I arid in.gs to be a maximum of 83dBA (80d8A average) . the duration of noise events ranged from 20-60 seconds . The study concluded that although heliport noise levels during takeoffs/landings would exceed the City's Noise Ordinance, since these incidences are occasional and do not occur during the nighttime, the sound levels are not sufficient to result in a significant adverse impact to the occupants of the proposed project. However, the study did recommend implementation of the following conditions of approval to reduce the degree of disturbance from helicopter operations . The following conditions shall be required for all units of Lots 2, 3 and 4 that face the heliport site; see Attachment #4. All windows in habitable living areas that face the heliport shall have an EWNR value of 28 (STC of 31) . Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for these units . The specifications for the mechanical ventilation shall comply with specifications of the Noise Report (#89-14-12DMr2) prepared by Mestre Grove Associates (Feb '90) . Notice to prospective home buyers that these homes are subject to occasional helicopter- overflights shall be provided prior to purchase of units . Oil Facility Noise The noise analysis prepared by Mestre Greve Associates determined that although oil well pumping noise in itself did not exceednoise ordinance. 1evels, noise levels measured along the westerly boundary of the site (adjacent to oil activities) periodically exceeded noise limits specified by the Noise Ordinance due to oil pump noise in conjunction to automobile/truck drive bys and aircraft noise in the area. However, through implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of an accoustical report to verify compliance with State and Local noise standards and the mitigation measures identified below, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. O ATTACHMENT N04 Environmental Checklist -5- (0968d) ' . - Laybe No Mitigation: 1 All windows for all units of Lots l and 2 that face the oil well facility will be required to have an Exterior wall Noise Rating ([wwn) of 25 which is equal atu a similar noise rating scale, the Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, to sufficiently attenuate against noise levels from oil well operations. Any window material that meets the Evw[R 25 or the STC 27 may be used. Attachment #4 shows the units requiring window upgrades. 2. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells. The ventilaUnn requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation sys'tem. The ventilation system must provide two air changes per hour to each x^ui tame room inclumny 20z rrvs» make-up ^i , obtained uirocUv *om the outsiue The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating cons trvchon and shall cnn.si,t of a minimum of ten feet of ,traight or curved duct, or ,ix feet plus one ,x^rn 00 degree bend Attachment *w shows the units requiring mechanical ventilation. u. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? �L'Discussion: See See 5a. 7 Light and Glare. xill the proposal produce new liyht or glare? _X_ Discussion: Development of 284 uni t` on ^ nrimarilx vacant ,i te °ill intrnduce new I gxt and glare sources �ntc the area. Ho*ever, the project *ill be subject to ,t^nu^rd cvndibo^s of approval renuirino submittal of a liyhhng plan to insure that exterior 11ightiog ; s oirecteu to prevent millage onto adjacent orup,rtie, No significant adverse impact, are anticipated. 8 uoo Use. wi 11 the proposal resvl t in a substantial alterahon of the present or planned land use of an area? _-- -_- X Discussion: The proposed project comnlie, °i th the Zoning and General ploo Des io"otion and ` not o subs anti^) al tC' ,hon to t» planned land use of the area. g. Natural Resources. will the proposal result in: a increase i^ the rate of use of any natural resources? -_- __- �L b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? -L Discussion (*-b) : The proposed project vill result in incre*,es of fuel/energv usage in the City; hn*ever, the le"vl of development proposed by the project are cons stent with the zoning and General PI an Therefore, anticipated energy demands created by the construction and occupancy of 284 condominiums are within parameter, of the overall projected demand which i` planning to be met in the areo. No significant !� increase in the rate of depletion or usage is anticipated. ` �O. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: � a. x risk of an explosion or the release of »a,^nuous substances (incluoing, but not limited to nil , pe,ticix,s, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident of- upset oo^oidon,7 _-- -X- | ' `. ` ' ` |� / PI) - �� � 8 C���� &J�� »» snvimnmeo�al Checklist -h- ! ' ,» o»�v�88��k~�� K 8���, ' , ��� > ^ Yes Maybe No Discussion: The project proposes development of residential units in the vicinity of oil pipelines to the northeast of the site and large oil facilities to the southwest of the project site. In the event of an accident at the oil facility of leakage in the pipeline, hazardous substances may be released which may impact residences in the vicinity, including the proposed project. However, the existing oil pipelines located closest to the site are anticipated to be removed in conjunction with linear park development and are not anticipated to be a permanent hazard. The proposed project site is located within the methane district. Methane gas, if allowed to accumulate may result in fire or explosion. Construction of new residences within the methane zone may expose occupants .to fire/explosion hazards. 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 development will allow for development of 284 residential units and will accommodate approximately 767 people; however, population increases associated with the proposed project are consistent with the General Plan and are not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the growth rate of the city. No significant adverse impact is anticipated. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? .X Discussion: The proposed project will increase the number of housing units in the city ano will not create a demand for additional housing or adversely impact existing housing stock. 13. T ran sportation/Circula.tion. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ X Discussion: The proposed project will allow for developmenrof 284 condominium units on a previously vacant site which will result in an .increase in traffic gene; -.tion in the area. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. and reviewed by the City Traffic engineer which evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed project in conjunction to existing and projected buildout traffic levels . The study projects 'that the proposed project will generate approximately 1 ,730 average daily trips of which approximately 150 will occur during the AM peak hour and 200 will occur during the pm peak hour. The study indicates that the project will contribute to cumulative adverse impacts to arterials and intersections in the area. However, the study has indicated that the project's impacts can be adequately mitigated through fairshare contribution toward improvements to complete the City's Circulation Plan. The fair share contribution identified is covered by the City' s existing traffic impact fee. which is assessed through standard conditions of approval requiring payment of the Traffic Impact fee by all new development. Ne significant adverse impact is 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 adverse impacts are anticipated. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X Discussion: The project proposes development of Seapoint Avenue to access the site. Extension of Seapoint Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway is anticipated to improve cirr_rllatinn_in_thp_arpa—_Nn _c_i.nn-i-fi-Canf averse impact is anticipated. �IENT NO ► .�Hi �0 7 �e Environmental Checklist —7— (0968d) Yes Mavbe No d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X Discussion: See 13 a b c. 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 contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on emergency fire response and service which may 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: 1 . 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 the project shall pay its fa'.r 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, Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway shall be complete and open to the public. b. Police protection? _ X C. Schools? X Discussion: The proposed project will generate approximately 75 elementary school students and 36 high school students (based upon H.B. City School District and H.B. High School Student Generation Rates) . The proposed project in itself will not require the construction of any new school facilities; although, it may contribute to a cumulative impact to schools over the long-term, the project's contribution is not anticipated to be substantial , since the project will be subject to payment of school fees to address school impacts associated with occupancy of the 284 units. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X P5 i �- 1ACHNiENT NO Environmental Checklist -8- . 3d) Yes Maybe No Discussion: . There are no parks in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The nearest park facilities are located at Worthy Community Park and Smith and Dwyer Schools. However, the proposed subdivision is adjacent to the. proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park. The project will contribute a combination of fees and land to meet park and recreation needs of the proposed residential development. No significant adverse impact is anticipated. r,. Maintenance of public faciliLies , 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? _ 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? _ _ b. Commur.icati sy.stems? C. Water? f 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? f. Solid waste and disposal? X Oiscussion (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 15 additional residences; no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: P5 Environmental Checklist —9— ATT .ACHMENT N� 5+968d) Yes Maybe No 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): See 10a. 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: The proposed project will result in construction of three story buildings on vacant property on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The site currently offers view opportunities of the Bolsa Chica area from the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Street. The proposed project will provide view corridors along the internal access roads and will be architecturally compatible wi-th existing development in the area. The project includes a ten foot wide landscaped buffer along the Linear Park boundary to provide a transition between the Linear Park and .the development. However, the project will block public views currently available at the intersection of Seapoint and Palm. With implementation of the mitigation measure identified below, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: 1 . Prior to action on the project, the applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a view corridor at the intersection of Seapoint and Palm. The applicant shall also submit a View Study which demonstrates the adequacy of the proposed view corridor. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ X Discussion: The project site is located adjacent to the proposed boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. The proposed project does not encroach within the Linear Park boundaries. Furthermore the project is providing a 10 foot wide landscape buffer between the park and the proposed development to provide a transition between the park and the development. The proposed plans will be submitted to County of Orange Park Planners to review for concur—Znce with C, - nty Park Plans . No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 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) : Based on the results of a previous archaelogical study prepared for the site (EIR 80-1) indicates that no archaeological sites or other cultural resources are on the project site. Therefore no significant adverse impacts to archaeological/cultural resources are anticipated. Pyre: Environmental Checklist —10— ! a TACHMENT NO.40 !) Yes Maybe Nc iV 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 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 X_ 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 Sign ure ell For: City of Nuntington .Beach mm ni—y Development Department i ATTACHMENT NO. >Bd> Environmental Checklist -11- ,�� RECOMMENDED MITIGATING MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 91-33 Impact Mitigation 1 . Development will result in 1 . Prior to issuance of grading alteration of existing permits the proposed drainage drainage systems. system shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 2. Potential impact to 2. 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 tract. 3. Exposure of future occupants to excessive noise. 3. a. All windows for all. units of Lots 1 and 2 that face the oil well facility will be required to have an Exterior Wall Noise Rating (EWNR) of 25 which is equal to a similar noise rating scale, the Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 27, to sufficiently attenuate against noise levels from oil well operations . Any window material that meets the EWNER 95 or the STC 27 may be used. Attachment #4 shows the units requiring window upgrades . b. Mechanical ventilation will be required for all homes adjacent to the oil wells . The ventilation requirement may be provided by certain types of air conditioning systems or a mechanical ventilation system. The ventilation system must provide two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% fresh make—up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct, or six feet plus one sharp 90 degree bend. Attachment #4 shows the units requiring mechanical ventilation. TACHMENT NO. Environmental Checklist —12— �! 8d) i MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) Impact Mitigation 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 the project shall pay its 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 pennits provide automatic fire sprinkler protection in all structures over 5,000 square feet in total are.a and in all structures with substandard access and/or insufficient fire flow as determined by the Fire Department. S. Construction of the project will eliminate 5. Prior to action on the project, the applicant existing public view opportunities shall revise the site plan to provide a view from the intersection of Palm Avenue and corridor at the intersection of Seapoint and Seapoint Street Palm. The applicant shall also submit a View Study which demonstrates the adequacy of the proposed view corridor. PD (0 .7 Fnvironnioni.al Chri-kli:i i_; I �r.. QACHMENTNO.�_ . RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 I . INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No . 91-33 . This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as of December 16 , 1991 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines . This document contains six sections . In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments , Responses to Comments , Errata to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration . The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies , groups , organizations , and individuals as of December 16 , 1991 . The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment . The Errata to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration . It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration . Based on the information contained in the public record the decisionmakers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project . II . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups , organizations , and individuals that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project .. The City also used several methods .to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration . The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration . 1 . A cover letter and copies of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 15 , 1991 . The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 91101031 to the proposed project . A copy of the cover letter and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the - -- -- '-- -- -- Beach, Planning Department , 2000 P017 Huntington Beach, California 926 f B, CH" "ENT NO. .ez 2 . An official thirty (30) day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was established by the State Clearinghouse . It began on October 15, 1991 and ended on November 14 , 1991 . Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through December 16 , 1991 . 3 . Notice of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was published on the Daily Pilot on October 15, 1991 . Upon request , copies of the document .were distributed to agencies , groups , organizations , and individuals . III . COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of December 16 , 1991 are contained in Appendix A of this document . All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages.. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments ,for each comment which raised an enviro.mmntal issue are contained in this document . IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No . 91-33 was distributed to responsible agencies , interested groups , organizations , and individuals . The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty (30) days . The public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on October 15 , 1991 and expired on November 14 , 1991 . The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through December 16 , 1991 . Copies of all documents received as of December 16 , 1991 are containedin Appendix A of this report . Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered . Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue . Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues , or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental, Quality Act (CEQA) . Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference . This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. A rTACHMENT NO Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -2- 3d) HBEB-1• Comment : Item 6-Noise : While the proposed project is located near an operating heliport, and the residents may experience noise from heliport operations , the project itself will not cause any increase in noise, except during construction. Therefore , the more appropriate checklist item response should be No rather than Maybe . Response : The project will generate short-term noise impacts during the grading and construction phases therefore the impacts "maybe" response is justified . HBEB-2 : Comment : Item 13-Transportation/Circulation: An estimated 1, 730 daily trips will add a significant burden to Palm Avenue, which is currently the only entrance to the proposed project . The Environmental Assessment states that this project will have a cumulative adverse impact on arterials and intersections in the area , although these impacts will be mitigated through developer contributions to future roadway improvements . Given these facts , we believe this checklist item should be changed from No to Maybe . Response : Comment noted . Response will be revised to "maybe" . See HBEB-2 on Errata . HBEB-3 : Comment : Item 18-Aesthetics : There is currently unrestricted public view of the Bolsa Chica area and the ocean. Even with the suggested mitigation measure, which calls for a public view corridor, much of the public view will be lost . This will be due to the site being raised 4-feet and the construction of 3-story condominiums . Therefore, this checklist item should be changed from Maybe to Yes . Negative Declaration p ATTACHMENT NO.4 � No . 91-33 -3- 1 > Response : :z Comment noted . Response will be revised to "yes" . See HBEB-3 on Errata . HBEB-4 • Comment : Item 19-Recreation : The environmental assessment states that proposed plans will be submitted to the County Park Planners for review. We question if the proposed 10-foot landscape buffer will meet current County requirements , or must it be approved? Response : The buffer is located within the proposed project boundary and is under the jurisdiction of the City. No action by the County is required; however , to facilitate design of a compatible development the City has submitted plans to the County' s Park Planners to receive their input regarding issues of compatibility with the proposed Linear Park. HBEB-5 : Comment : The members of the Environmental Board appreciate this opportunity to provide our input- to you and the Planning Commission . This ad hoc committee agrees with the environmental assessment findings that this proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment , with the above stated qualifications . Response : Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . CRWOCB-1 Comment : We have reviewed the Environmental Checklist Form/Negative Declaration for the above-referenced project and have the following comments : If dewatering becomes necessary during construction at the site, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land will be required from this Regional Board . Also, the new storm water regulations , published by EPA on November 16 , 1990 in the Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT NO.4 ' No . 91-33 -4- �I , _ . 3) Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 122 , 123 and 124) , require a NPDES permit for runoff from construction sites of five acres or more . Please note that the time frame for the issuance of a permit can be as long as 180 days from the time the permit application is accepted as complete. Response : Comment noted and has been forwarded to the decision makers for inclusion as a condition of approval on the project . The condition of approval will read as follows : 1 . Prior to issuance of building permits , the applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region . 2 . If dewatering of the site becomes necessary during construction of the proposed project , the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit or WDR permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region prior to initiation of dewatering activities . CRWOCB-2 Comment -. Provided the project complies with the mitigation measures prescribed in the initial study, we have no other comments at this time . If you have any questions , please contact me at ( 714 ) 782-3292 . Response : Comment noted and will . be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . DCDOG-1 : Comment : The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oil field . Presently, there are two abandoned oil wells within the project boundary . There are also. numerous producing, injecting and idle wells adjacent to the project . Response : Comment Noted . Staff is aware of the presence of oil equipment and wells in the area . Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -5- 58d) DCDOG-2 • Comment : If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well , there is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division specifications . Section 3208 . 1 of the Public Resources Code reabandonment of any previous.ly abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard . The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. Response : The discussion under item #10 . "Risk of Upset" (pg . 7 of the checklist) identifies potential hazards associated with the removal/abandonment of oil production equipment . The section has been revised to state that the wells on the site will be abandoned in compliance with state and city regulations (see DCDOG-2 of Errata) . Although not specified in the discussion, oil well abandonments in the City of Huntington Beach are monitored by the City Fire Department . The Fire Department ' s specifications require that the applicant contact the Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas prior to the initiation of any oil activities as well as the filing of all proposed well abandonments . Fire Department specifications further require that no structures be located on top of abandoned wells and that the wells remain accessible in case of emergency. These requirements are covered by standard conditions o.f approval applied to all projects within an oil area . DCDOG-3 : Comment : Under PRC Section 3208 . 1, the reabandonment responsibilities of the owner/developer of a property upon which a .structure will be located need extend no further than the property boundaries . However, if a well requiring reabandonment is on an adjacent property and near the common property line, the Division recommends that the structure be set back sufficiently to allow future access to the well . Response : Please refer to response to DCDOG-2 . DCDOG-4 : Comment : Furthermore, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or .grading , remedial plugging operations may be required . If such damage occur.s , _the _D_ivision' s district office must be contacted to obtain inf - for and approval to perform remedial c Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT,N®. No . 91-33 -6- �_ __ 58d) Response: Comment noted . As stated in the response to DCDOG-2 all abandonments will comply with Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas requirements . DCDOG-5 • Comment : Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division ' s current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless , suggest that a diligent effort be .made to avoid building over any abandoned well . If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas venting system be placed over the well . Response : Comment noted . Please refer to response to DCDOG-2 regarding the construction of structures over abandoned wells . In addition, the project site is located within the methane zone and is therefore subject to the city ' s requirements for construction within a methane area . These include preparation of a soil gas study and implementation of venting mechanisms pursuant to Fire Department approval . DCDOG-6 : Comment : To ensure proper review of building projects within the subject area , the Division has available an informational packet entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedures" . The packet outlines the information that a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should .contact the local building department for a copy of the site review packet . Response : This information is provided by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department . The comment has been noted and will be transmitted to the applicant upon action of the project . DCDOG-7 : Comment : The Division is mandated by PRC Section 3106 to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing :. ( 1) damage to life, health, property, an f Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT.NO. No . 91-33 -7- '-- __ _ 58d) natural resources ; (2) damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; (3) loss of oil , gas , or reservoir energy and,. (4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes . Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas. Supervisor the authority to regulate the manner of drilling , operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to conserve, protect and prevent waste of these resources , while at the same time encouraging operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of oil and gas . Response : Comment pertains. to the Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas jurisdiction as mandated by the Public Resources Code and does not require a response . DCDOG-8 : Comment : The scope and content of information that is germane to the Division' s responsibility are contained in PRC Section 3000 et seq . , and administrative regulations under Title 14 , Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations . Response : Please refer to response to DCDOG-8 . DCDOG-9 : Comment : If you have any questions , please feel free to contact John Jepson at the Division district office. in Long Beach . The address is 245 West Broadway, Suite 475 , Long Beach, CA 90802 ; phone (213) 590-5311 . Response : Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue . No reply is warranted . DOT-1: Comment : Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the construction of 284 unit Condominium project located at Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue . The site is situated near Golden West and SR-1 Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach . Caltrans has no comment at this time . `y Negative Declaration RTTACHIViENT-N0. No . 91-33 -8 ;58d) Response: Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . DOT-2 - Comment : Please continue to keep us informed of any further developments that could potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities . If you have questions or need to contact us , please feel free to .call Anthony P. Lee at (714 ) 724-2250 . Response : Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue . No reply is warranted . CSA-1: Comment The Huntington Beach City School District ( "District" ) has received your notice dated October 10 , 1991, on the above stated proposed applications . On behalf of the District , we have been requested to respond to your letter . Response : Comment noted . Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue . No reply is warranted . CSA-2 : Comment : Our comments assume the information you provided, which sets forth a maximum total of 284 condominium residential units on a 9 . 8 acre site .. Response : Comment noted . Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue.. No reply is warranted . CSA-3 : Comment : It is the District ' s position that new residential development within the City of Huntington Beach will generate new students , which has financial and operational implications on the District . Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT N0. No . 91-33 -9- Although infill development may appear to have less of an effect on the 5chool district than large master planned developments within the City, the cumulative effect of infill development as a result of General Plan land use amendments which increase the intensity of land use in the community, has significant implications on the District ' s ability to maintain the quality and continuity of the education services which are desired in the community. Response : The discussion under item #14c on page 8 of the Checklist concurs that the project will generate an increase in students ( approximately 75 elementary school and 36 high school students) and will contribute to cumulative effects on schools in the area . However , the project does not include any General Plan Amendment change of zoning or any other activity which would allow for more intense development than is permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations . The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning which have been in effect on the property since February 22 , 1983 . The City maintains that the generation of 75. new elementary school and 36 high school students associated with the project can be accommodated by existing school facilities in the City. Natural attrition of. enrollment levels due to students graduating, families relocating out of the area , etc . open up space for new students . In addition, the school district has several closed schools in the City which may be refurbished and reopened if necessary. However, development of the proposed project in itself will not require any additional school facilities ; school fees should offset project related school facility impacts resulting from the proposed project . SA 4 : Comment : Please note that the District , as a result of an agreement with the Huntington Beach Union High School District , receives only 61% of the development fees paid at the time of issuance of building permits . . In addition, supplemental revenues to make up the difference between the cost to house students and construct/ reconstruct facilities and the collection of development fees , as have been previously available from the State, have been depleted and the District cannot reasonably anticipate State revenues to supplement development fees in the future . Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT NO. No . 91-33 -10- _ Response : Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-5 • Comment : The increased enrollment in any one area of the District as a result of infill development may result in the District having to overload existing schools , pursue attendance boundary adjustments , initiate transportation alternatives , or re-open closed schools , all of which may have a significant effect on the existing student enrollments of the District and would result in additional District costs . Response : Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-6 : comment : It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City' s proposed Negative Declaration No . 91-33 is inadequate and that more appropriate environmental documentation ( i . e . , Mitigated Negative Declaration, Focused Environmental Impact Report , etc . ) which address the following items and issues be prepared : Response : Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . Please refer to CSA-7 through CSA-22 responses . CSA-7 : Comment : The square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and calculation of development fees should be provided . Response : The proposed units range from 740 to 1 , 600 square feet in size . Environmental impacts are primarily correlated to the number .of residential units not the size. of each unit . Plans are currently in p� 97 Negative Declaration r�; %.HfNT NO. No . 91-33 a somewhat conceptual stage and units may undergo changes in size at the working drawing stage . Future school fees generated by the project will be assessed based upon the actual square footage of units permitted and fees in effect at that time . Therefore, calculation of anticipated school fees is not appropriate at this time . CSA-8 : Comment : The phasing of development should be identified; Response : The applicant currently proposes construction of the project in a single phase. CSA-9 : Comment : The location of school sites , school bus stops , student pedestrian movement patterns to school sites , bus routes , etc . , relevant to the development should be identified; Response : The location of school sites has been identified in CSA-10 response . The location of school bus stops and bus routes associated with the project is not an environmental issue and therefore, is not discussed in the mitigated negative declaration. The location of bus stops and bus routes within the site will be determined by the school district at the time of development or occupancy. The traffic/circulation analysis contained on page 7-8 of the checklist determines that all potential traffic impacts (both project specific and cumulative) can be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of traffic improvements covered under the City' s Traffic Impact Fee, which would be exacted from this project , if approved . The project is not expected to generate significant traffic conflicts with student circulation patterns . See CSA-13 response. CSA-10 : Comment : The designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be identified; Response : - The project is located within the Huntington Beach City School District ; K-8th grade students generated by occupancy of the proposed tract will be accommodated at Smith Elementary and Dwyer_ - . rx� ag Negative Declaration 6` CHMENT NO. N o . 91-3 3 -12- �_._.� CSA-11• Comment The District ' s existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of existing schools , administrative, and operation facilities should be discussed . Response : This information has been provided in CSA-29 comment and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . Comment : The District ' s past and present enrollment trends , and present enrollment , including facility utilization should be identified . Response : Refer to response for CSA-11 . GSA-13 • Comment : A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement , school transportation, and busing activities ; Response : As stated in the discussion under item 13a on page 7 of the checklist , LSA Associates , Inc . conducted a traffic study which analyzed the projected traffic volumes and movement associated with the project . It is commonly accepted that traffic impacts dissipate as you move further away from a project site . In other words , school traffic activity, like project related traffic activity lessens as you move farther from the sites . The school sites and project site are located approximately two (2) miles apart . Therefore, project related traffic is reasonably anticipated to have a negligible impact on school traffic . In addition, arterial crossing points in the project vicinity such as Palm/Goldenwest and Palm/Seapoint are or will be controlled by signalized intersections by time of occupancy. The Traffic study has indicated that project related traffic contributions to these intersections can adequately be mitigated through traffic improvements covered by the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Fee . Through implementation of these improvements no significant increases in conflicts are anticipated . r . , "`. Negative Declaration ACHMENTNCB z No . 91-33 -13- - ' CSA-14 Comment : A complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities , classrooms , and outdoor school areas ; Response : As previously stated, school facilities are located approximately two miles from the project site . The school sites are not located along the main arterials expected to be used by project traffic . As such, project generated noise is expected to have a negligible impact on school facilities . CSA-15 Comment : A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies ; Response : The need for and the degree to which such busing of students would occur as a result of this project is highly speculative and cannot be reasonably assessed . Project related air quality impacts have been analyzed and have determined. to be insignificant . CSA-16 - Comment : The development ' s utilization impact on the District , including projected enrollments , projected space requirements , projected busing requirements , projected teacher/staffing requirements , and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; Response : This information has been provided in CSA-23 through CSA-28 comment and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . Traffic and Noise impacts were analyzed on pages 7, 8 and 5 , respectively, of the Initial Study Checklist . P�,31D g P►�ENT N®. Negative Declaration ATTACH No . 91-33 -14- , CSA-17 Comment The development ' s fiscal impact on the District , including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; present and projected capital facility, operations , maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; .and personnel , operations , and maintenance costs should be identified; Response - Information has been provided on Comments CSA-26 through CSA-28 and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the project . CSA-18 Comment : Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and .evaluated, including but not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows : a . Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code . b . Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code . C . Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code . d . Article 2 . 5 (Commencing with Section 39327 of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . e . Section 53080 of the Government Code . f . Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . g . Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; Response : Please refer to CSA-3 response . .: d31 4 r ���iENT NO. Negative Declaration ; . No . 91-33 -15-' CSA-19 : Comment : Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No ' s . 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 and 12 should be addressed . Other projects in the geographical area of the District and included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location . Response : The comment is noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the mitigated negative declaration . The City has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that all potential impacts ( including cumulative impacts.) associated with the project can be reduced to a level of insignificance through revisions or conditions placed on the project . The City therefore believes that preparation of a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project . No unmitigable significant environmental impacts were identified; therefore, Environmental Impact Report and. statement of overriding considerations are not necessary. CSA-20 : Comment : Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District ' s enrollments , space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities , and administrative activities . Response : The draft mitigated negative declaration analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the applicant ' s proposal and recommends changes in the project or implementation of activities to reduce project generated impacts to a level of insignificance . CSA-21• Comment : Appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No ' s . 1 through 14 should be determined . _ P5� h I I ACHMENT NO. 4P-�4 Negative Declaration . No . 91-33 -16 -- - - .- - - Response : fs The draft mitigated negative declaration analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the applicant' s proposal and recommends changes in the project or implementation of activities to reduce project generated impacts to a level of insignificance . Analysis of alternative projects is beyond the scope of a negative declaration and is not appropriate . CSA-22 : . Comment : If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District ' s development utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts , the text of the statement , along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, should be identified and made available for public inspection Response : Please refer to CSA-19 response . CSA-23 • Comment : In order to respond to your inquiries , we hope that the following provides adequate information : 1 . Student Generation The District has previously used average District-wide student generation factors or student yields , as follows : K-5 . 1171 students/dwelling unit 6 . 0191 students/dwelling unit 7-8 . 0434 students/dwelling unit Total . 1796 students/dwelling unit However, this is an average District-wide yield factor which assumes a mature community, and does not reflect actual yield retes of new developments in the community. A recent survey of various new developments in the community, as previously discussed reflects yield factors which range higher than the average District-bide factors . N33 6 � Q _MENT NOo �l Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -17- "'" These new development yields are as follows : K-5 . 1779 students/dwelling unit 6 . 0305 students/dwelling unit 7-8 . 0611 students/dwelling unit Total . 2695 students/dwelling unit The District ' s projection of students for the 28.4 units is as follows : New Dev . Yield (+) K-5 50 . 52 6 8 . 66 7-8 17 . 35 Total 76 . 54 Response : Comment provides projected student generation rates (which are consistent with projections used in the Mitigated Negative Declaration) and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . No further response is required . CSA-24 : Comment : Facility Accommodation Students generated from the 284 units are in the following school attendance areas : Smith Elementary School Dwyer Middle School Response : Comment specifies which schools will accommodate the project ' s students and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . No further response is required . CSA-25 : Comment : Projected Development Fees The statutory development fees authorized to be collected by the District for the 284 proposed units is estimated as follows based upon average unit . size of 1 . 125 sq . ft . Residential Fees @ $ . 964/sq . ft . $307 , 998; - Negative Declaration g No . 91-33 -18_ ATTACHMENT N®, Response: Comment calculates projected development fees generated by the proposed project and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. No further response is required . -CBA=2- Comment : Improvements Costs (K-8) The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area . A 600 student K-5 of K-6 grade school required a net building square footage of 35 , 400 square feet , based upon 59 square feet per student . A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60 , 000 square feet , based upon 80 square feet per student . State construction practices accept a base building cost of $90 . 87 per ' square foot for K-6 grade schools , and $93 . 61 per square foot for 7-8 grade schools . These costs assume 30% of the building square footage as relocatable classrooms . Adding. the cost of other improvement requirements for a particular school site, the total K-6 grade school improvement cost would be. $156 . 88 per square foot and $162 . 30 per square foot for 7-8 grade schools . As an example, the improvement costs of a K-5 school of 600 students at $156 . 88 per square foot is $5 , 553 , 700 or $9 , 256 (±) per student . The improvement cost of a 7-8 grade school of 750 students at $162 . 30 per square foot is $9 , 738 , 000 or $12 , 984 per student . Therefore, the cost of improvements for the 31 units would be as follows : District Students Improvement Cost K-5 50 . 52 $467 , 646 6 8 . 66 $ 80 , 175 7-8 17 . 35 $225 , 304 Total 76 . 54 $773 , 125 FTACHMENT NO. Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -19- _ _ Response . Comment calculates improvement costs for classroom development and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . No further response is required. CSA-27 • Comment : Land Cost The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-5 school site and a 608 school site . The requirement is 10 acres for K-5 and 21 acres net for 6-8 . Assuming a land cost of $15 . 00 per square foot or $657, 400 per acre, it is projected that the cost of a K-5 site would be $6 , 534 , 000 and a 6-8 site would be $13 , 721, 400 . For 35 ,400 square feet of building for a K-5 school of 600 students , this equates to a cost per building square foot of $184 . 58 (±) or $10 , 890 per student . For 60 , 0.00 square feet of building for a 6-8 grade school of 750 students , this equates to $228 . 69 per square foot or $18 , 295 per student . Therefore the cost of land for the 284 units would be as follows : District Students Land Cost K-5 50 . 52 $550 , 202 6 8 . 66 $ 94 , 329 7-8 17 . 35 $317 , 462 Total 76 . 54 $961 , 993 Response : Comment calculates Land Costs associated with school development and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . No further response is required . 3� iCHfNTN� r k,. - . Negative Declaration No . 91-33 �_,- CSA-28 : Comment : Total Cost revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land cost to. the District and the estimated development fee revenues , the following revenue deficit has been determined: Improvement Total Students Land Cost Cost Cost K-5 50.52 $550,202 5467,646 $1,017,848 6 8.66 S 94,329 S 80,175 5 174,505 7-8 17.35 $317,462 $225,304 S 5423 Total 76.54 5961,993 5773,125 $1,735,119 Estimated Development Fees S 307,998 Revenue Surplus/(Deficit) ($1,427,121) i Response : Comment calculates Cost-Revenue Surplus/Deficit associated with school development and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. No further response is required . CSA-29 : Existing District Enrollment Capacity The District is and will continue to experience sever District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the. various open District schools , grade level , estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1 , 1990 and October 1, 1991 . School Acreage 1990 1991 Capacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle Scnool (6-8) 17.3(±) 1,118 1,115 1,110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 10.3(+) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.6(+) 558 559 5.40 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach 3 Negative Declaration !�I TAQI MENT No No . 91-33 =2i- Eader School (K-5) 13.0(+) 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kett(er School (K-5) 12.8(+) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(+) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(+) 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5,681 5,610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms , laboratory, and other reconfigured areas . The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools , estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage Capacity LeBard School 10.8(+) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.9(+) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 9.6(+) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Cortmunity College) Clapp School 5.8(±) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(+) 960 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT NO. No . 91-33 -22 The schools available to the 284 units which would not require a total reorganization of the enrollment attendance areas , but will still require costs to the District in terms of busing students , include Dwyer Middle School and Smith Elementary School . Dwyer Middle School consists of 26 regular classrooms , of which 2 are relocatables , with a total capacity of 780 students . Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment , Dwyer Middle School is at a capacity of 103% . Smith Elementary School consists of 23 regular classrooms , of which 4 are relocatable, with a total capacity of 690 students . Based upon the October , 1991 enrollment , Smith Elementary School is at a capacity of 100% . Based upon the student generation yields described herein for the 284 units , the impacts on Dwyer Middle School and Smith Elementary School create an even more overcrowded condition, which could require the District to pursue enrollment attendance boundary modifications , the addition of relocatable units , and/or re-open schools in areas which would not be effective in terms of the educational programs and operations of the District . In addition, the District would incur school re-opening and re-configuration costs , busing costs , loss revenues from existing leases , and the cost to acquire land and construct a new District Office . Response : The comment provides information on existing enrollment and school capacities and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration . No further response is required . The comment has been included in the final record of the project and will be considered by the decision makers prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-30 : Comment : The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State . There have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements , and that information relative to the District ' s and State ' s capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1 . 58 per square foot of residential and $0 . 26 per square foot of non-residential , is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts . The State Legislature ' s adoption of AB 2926 , the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F. Green I IACH'- [j�� Negative Declaration - _ No . 91-33 -23- State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development . The State ' s inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass , has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact . In essence, development fees only address , at a maximum (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees . The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid . Response : The commend explains the district ' s capital financing system. No further response is required . The commend has been included in the fihal record of the project and will be considered by the decision makers prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-31 : Comment : Further , the City should be apprised of various legal decisions since the adoption of AB 2926 , the development fee legislation. On January 25 , 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S . Hart Union High School_ District v . Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles , 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2and Dist . January 25 , 1991) (hereinafter , "Hart" ) . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the same issues that can be raised with regard to the application . In particular, the Hart Court held : a . Mira Development Corp. v . City of San Diego ( 1988) 205 Cal . App . 3d 1201, was correctly decided . Government Code Section 65996 does not apply -to legislative land use decisions , and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities . ( ID . at 1148-1150) . � S�k A r TACHME NT NO®_ �. Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -24-- -_ A =65-8d) b. The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by State . 1989 , c. 1209 . (Id . at 1149) . AS noted by the Court (Id . at n. 11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "'declaratory of existing law. " The Court further pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have amended the statute with Mira in mind . ( Id . ) C . Government Code Section 65995 (e) pre-empts only "the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project , " not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira . (Id . at 1150) . d . The County' s mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e . The school district had the right to challenge zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with the County' s adopted general plan provisions requiring adequate public facilities . ( Id . at 1150) . f . The trial court should not have sustained the County' s demurrer to the school district ' s petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision ' s impact on the County' s decision to grant the rezoning application. ( Id . at 1148 , 1150) . Response : Comment cites a court case which determined that the approving body must take into account potential school facilities impacts when acting on a general plan amendment or zone change and that a city can base .denial of such applications on inadequacy of school facilities . However , the proposed project does not consist of a general plan amendment or zone change . CSA-32 : Comment : On March 26 , 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v . County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District , April 2 , 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta" ) . ATTACHMENT NO, Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -25 The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues . In particular, the Murrieta case held : a . The County' s authority to specify land use and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre-empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 . The County had argued that those statues , which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon "development projects , " prohibit the County from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts . The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre-empt the field of school facilities financing , they do not pre-empt the County' s authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities , and .timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided in conjunction with new development . b. Government Code Sections 65995-69996 apply only to "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non-legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps , conditional use permits , and variances . Those sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments , zone changes , and specific plans . C . Mira Development Corp . -v . City of San Diego ( 1988) 205 Cal .App . 3d 1201 , and the more recent decision in William S . Hart Union High School District v . Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles ( 1991) 226 Cal .App . 3d 1612 , were correctly decided. Both Mira and William S . Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions . d . Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-6599,6 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law and were not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira . e . Since the County was not pre-empted from considering school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the SWAP, the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA .by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report fully disclosing all school impacts , by failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non-significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts. ATTACHMENT NO. Negative Declaration No . 91-33 -26- J f . The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District` s school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County' s General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities , including school, in conjunction with new development . The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County' s General Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid under Government Code Section 65300 . 5 . The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case . The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to the Superior Court , now pending action . The Court ' s decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial courts in California . The Court of Appeal ' s ' decision in the Murr�.e_ta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart . For the first time since Government Code Section 65995 -65996 were adopted in 1986 , a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions , it has the duty to do so . Response : Comment cites a court case which determined that government code section 65995 and 65996 , which limit the amount of school fees. that can be exacted on development projects , do not preempt a local agency' s authority to mitigate school impacts resulting from land use decisions (such as general plan amendments and zone changes) through non-financial means . However, the proposed project does not consist of any .such land use decisions . CSA-33 : Comment : The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications (Coastal Development Permit NO . ( 1-26 , Conditional Use Permit No . 91-45 , Tentative Tract Map No . 14135) on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities . Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT NO. No . 91-33 -27- Response : Comment noted and forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-34 • We would, however , request that Negative Declaration No . 91-33 be rejected, and recommend that additional environmental documentation provide an identification of all environmental impacts , both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures , and set forth appropriate alternatives . Further , that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of Tentative Tr E Map Ng, . 14135� Response : Comment noted and forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . CSA-35 : Comment : If the District can be of any further assistance or provide information that will allow the City to address issues and concerns more effectively, please don ' t hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate your assistance and consideration . Response : Comment noted and forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . Negative Declaration ` � ° �� No . 91-33 -28- ' V. ERRATA TO DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document . The changes are identified by the comment reference . HBEB-2 Response : On page 7 of the Initial Study Checklist response to item #13a has been revised to "Maybe. " HBEB-3 Response : On page 10 of the Initial Study Checklist response to item #18 has been revised to "Yes" . P� `-S Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT NO. 6 No . 91--33 -29-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD TO: JULIE OSUGI, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM No. 91-33 REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICANT: SURFCREST PARTNERS REQUEST: 284 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT An ad hoc committee of the Environmental Board was formed to review and comment on the subject environmental assessment. The committee's comments are as follows: Item 6-Noise: While the proposed project is located near an operating heliport, and the residents may experience noise from heliport operations, the project itself HBEB-1 will not cause any increase in noise, except during construction. Therefore, the more appropriate checklist item response should be No rather than Maybe. Item 13-Transportation/Circulation: An estimated 1,730 daily trips will add a ` significant burden to Palm Avenue, which is currently the only entrance to the TtBrB-L proposed project. The Environmental Assessment states that this project will have a cumulative adverse impact on arterials and intersections in the area, although these impacts will be mitigated through developer contributions to future roadway improvements. Given these facts, we believe.this checklist item should be changed from No to Maybe. Item 1 -Aesthetics- There is currently unrestricted public view of the Bolsa Chica area and the ocean. Even with the suggested mitigation measure, which calls for a IiBEB public view corridor, much of the public view will be lost. This will be due to the site being raised 4-feet and the construction of 3-story condominiums. Therefore, this checklist item should be changed from Maybe to Yes. Item 19-Recreation: The environmental assessment states that proposed plans will be submitted to the County Park Planners for review. We question if the proposed lil=)-4 10-foot landscape buffer will meet current County requirements, or must it be approved? The members of the Environmental Board appreciate this opportunity to provide our input to you and the Planning Commission. This ad hoc committee I1 agrees with the environmental assessment findings that this proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, with the above stated qualifications. Sincerely, Ad hoc Committee James Cathcart, Chair Christopher Dhaliwal Patricia McCabe Charles Montero, Chair Susan Bailey TEAQHMENT NO. G 5 APPENDIX A Negative Declaration j A11ACHMENT NO. No . 91-33 -30- STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDol SANTA ANA REGION 2010 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507-2409 % ,n. PHONE: (714) 782-4130 TELECOPIER: (714) 781-6288 October 30, 1991 Ms . Julie Osugi City of . Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 91-33 , CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE. STORY 248 UNIT, CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IN THE COASTAL ZONE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, SCH # 91101031 Dear Ms . Osugi : We have reviewed the Environmental Checklist Form/Negative Declaration for the above-referenced project and have the following comments: If dewatering becomes necessary during construction at. the site, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination' System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface waters or a Waste l Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land will be required from this Regional Board. Also, the new stormwater regulations, published by EPA on November 16, 1990 in the Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 122 , 123 and 124) , require a NPDES permit for runoff from construction sites of five acres or more. Please note that the time frame for the issuance of a permit can be as long as 180 days from the time the permit application is accepted as complete. Provided the project complies with the mitigation measures prescribed in the initial study, we have no other comments at this CRP]. time. 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 782-3292 . Sincerely, 7- Augustine Anijielo, Water Resources Control Engineer Regulations Section cc: Tom Loftus, State Clearinghouse AEA17/4039hb. nop �^ U STTACHMENT NO. 5� State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Memorandum To Douglas P. Wheeler ;rj, Dte Secretary for Resources `'. 1 ; o ' November 5 , 1991 �.�.., Julie Osugi C`''� ' Subject: Negative Declaration City of Huntington Beach No . 91-33 , Condominium. 2000 Main Street Project in the City of Huntington Beach, California 92648 Huntington Beach. SCH #91101031 . From Department of Conservation—Office ofthe Director The Department of Conservaticn ' s Division of Oil and Gas has reviewed the Negative Declaration for the proposed project and submits the following comments for your consideration . The proposed project is .located within the administrative boundaries of the Huntington Beach oil field . Presently, there DCDOG-] are two abandoned oil wells within the project boundary . There are also numerous producing, injecting and idle wells adjacent to the project . If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well , there is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division specifications . Section 3208 . 1 of the Public Resources Code DCDOG-� ( PRC) authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard . The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located . Under PRC §3208 . 1 , the reabandonment responsibilities of the owner/developer of a property upon which a structure will be located need extend no further than the property boundaries . DCDOG-3 However, if a well requiring reabandonment is on an adjacent property and near the common property line, the Division recommends that the structure be set back sufficiently to allow future access to the well . Furthermore, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required . If such damage occurs , the DCDOG-4 Division ' s district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations . Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division' s current specifications are remote, we, DCDOG-5 nevertheless , suggest that a diligent effort be__made_.to avoid building over any abandoned well . If constrt 54 Jam! ITT <:, AGHMENT NO. 10 Douglas P. Wheeler/Ms . Julie Osugi November 5, 1991 Page Two abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas I DCDOG- venting system be placed over the well . I cont. To ensure proper review of building projects within the subject area, the Division has available an informational packet entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment DCDOG- Procedures " . The packet outlines the information that a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the local building department for a copy of the site review packet . The Division is mandated by PRC §3106 to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing : (1 ) damage to life, health, property, and natural resources ; ( 2 ) damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; (3 ) loss of oil , DCDOG- gas , or reservoir energy and, (4 ) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating. water and other causes . Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor the authority to regulate the manner of drilling, operation , maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to conserve, protect , and j prevent waste of these resources , while at the same time encouraging operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of oil and gas . The scope and content of information that is germane to the Division ' s responsibility are contained in PRC 5§ 3000 et seq. , DCDOG- and administrative regulations under_ Title 14 , Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact John Jepson at the Division district office in Long Beach. The DCDOG- address is 245 West Broadway, Suite 475 , Long Beach, CA 90802 ; phone (213 ) 590-5311 . Sincerely, _ j St _p en E . Oliva En t onmental Program Coordinator CC : John Jepson, Division of Oil and Gas , Long Beach Mike Stettner, Division of Oil and Gas , Sacramento ATTACHMENT NO & - STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPC)R-..--ION AGENCY - PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 2501 PULLMAN STREET ` SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Dec`'% ` ember 10 , 1991 Julie Osugi File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#91101031 Department of Community Development ORA-1-25 . 89 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject : Negative Declaration for a three story 284 unit, Condominium project in the City of Huntington Beach. Dear Ms . Osugi: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the construction of 284 unit Condominium project located at Plam Avenue and Seapointe Avenue . The site is DOT-1 situated near Golden West and SR-1 Pacfic Coast Highway in the City of Huntington Beach. Caltrans has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of any further developments that could potentially impact our State Transportation DO'"_' Facilities . If you have questions or need to contact us , please feel . free to call Anthony P . Lee at ( 714 ) 724-2250 . Sincerely, Robert t�. J seph, Chief Advance .Planning Branch cc : Alberto Angelini, Project Management, Caltrans Ralph Neal, Right-Of-Way, Caltrans Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Tom Loftus , OPR ATTACHMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 Nov 14 , 1991 JULIE OSUGI ` = CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 Subject : NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO . 91-33 SCH # 91101031 Dear JULIE OSUGI : The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency( ies ) is ( are ) enclosed . On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete . If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project ' s eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that :. "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency . " Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation . Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act . Please contact Tom Loftus at ( 916 ) 445-0613 if .you have any questions regarding the environmental review process . Sincerely, David C . Nunenkamp _ Deputy Director, Permit -Assista-nr-P______ Enclosures Q�� cc : Resources Agency V%.1In HMENT ° � ` \ , ' �" to. °.� o=^~~.~. = --h =.t, °~ u^. ~=_... Ck °"' - "*",~"u =zracr cD"~r=v ="=="3o~=nL "=�,T2^="'n" "= � i� ~~,^= =u ^. ~-. ..--;_==== w. o°'-11:^ 11p"cx__--_- xz01113 �in L L�!31orl-Beach �_-_-' 4______ `^ ^'~ ='~^'-aalm'Axe.nvn/seupoiuts�. "� ~"~ ^.� ~~N) -.'.Pacific-ocean °.� _-�^'^` "� �'^~ "`. A-°~`°~�^ =^'^�z wu- ^'~_o_u. " ".�__~~ u.~. °. _°'.~. ,.. ^ _'--_---_-_ "` -_"` "� -'^..^ "~ �. __m" °� _�.,. "- �. ,` "_-' _- " \�. .--=^^ "� --� ~~� =~`^~� '~^ �� --^-' ```---- v{ ' .". ^ —``-'----'---'- ' x''°'onnuitinnaz use Permit N/A ' _-",.. ^� �. -,A.. o~"" `" -�~~~^.^` ~^~.. " -�`^. ^~`~ ^ '.`=. ~. -�'^�~^~=���~'~^ " --^,'^^ " -x x/^~= �. -x, '.. ,.,,~ ... -x�^,.~,,~.^..`. �-�A_-____'-- ^^`^ NA `_-NA-_-'_----_ " xiqx oansit, nesiuertial land use and u«-zy-o-cx (xish Density aeaiuenti^l- u�z e-oiz-coaatal zone) zoning designations. ' Construction of a 284 unit three story condominium project on 9.8 acres located within the n1-29-0-cx zoning district. The site is located adjacent to the proposed boundary of the aolaa cxica Linear Park.. CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: n= Lof tu" (nm) ^m'voo oyr SHT oHr unz 4bRosources State Consumer Syci STATE REVIEW BEGAN: 40-Coastal Comm DEPT REV TO AGENCY: )\- __J --- SCH COKPLIANCE tFigh ame. —AN Parks Rec/OHP SWRCB:--Wtr Quality- --- 1Yeig 01,qCB1 .v.~'..^~`-��� `.....^~..����-�_y - | .� � LJ&8���[� ��� ^. l",u / � "_LH-'"h � ��� Kf���[l!V�[.�� � o�»wv" -~ ����� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Hk*a*#croN BEACH To: Gabrielle Restivo, Community Development C L From: Steve Parker, Fire Departmen Subject: SURFCREST NORTH/NEGATIVE DEC LARATIbN',"f51Sn,;UCT 328 Date: February 12, 1992 Three factors mitigate the response time concerns of the Fire Department: 1. Garfield Street Improvements - The extension/improvement of Garfield from Golden West to Seapoint will improve Fire Department response times to the project. 2. Developer Paramedic Fees - These fees will provide for paramedic service delivery from Gothard Fire Station, which will improve emergency medical services to the project. 3. S_=int-Pacific Coast Highway Connection - The new street between Seapoint and Pacific Coast Highway will improve emergency access to the project; thus, reducing response times. In addition, this.project is required to provide funding for a temporary fire station facility in the future, at a site to be determined, that best serves the needs of the city as a whole. These elements of the Surfcrest North project sufficiently mitigate the concerns of the Fire Department. SP/sr a:scnorth.wp P�3 ACHMENT NO. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14135 "SURFCREST NORTH" PROJECT Prior to the Recordation of the final tract map, and/or the receipt of a Certificate of Compliance from the City, owner of record of the real property shall enter into a School Facilities. Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement, with the Huntington Beach City School District or shall have said condition waived by the Board of Trusties of the Huntington Beach City School District . Said Agreement shall. provide for the adequate mitigation of impacts on the school district by providing adequate funding of school facilities necessary to serve the student populati-on generated by the development of said tract . - - - - - r rA' --;NT N®® Urban ��7� �-� r '� �� �� Suite � ���� � /�°������ ����� � '����0�������n�� ^» /'\] ���(l���P�l`V ��ll1 �F` [UU �~ � � ' /-� l ' ���\,� /� 1 ^} 1 '� .� [� ,� -] �� '7(� ���� T- tn /\/U [\ll � /` , , , \^_,�� | ` t[)T�l ` �l ^�\ /���� L � � l~ \ � ) _� �� ^�^ l _y / Surfcrest North Project Narrative Accompany Re-application for Conditional Use permit No. 89 Planned Residential Development, and Tentative Tract Map No. 14135' Application: | ' The application is for aConditiona1 Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a Planned Residential Development, consisting of 284condonniniunn units. Lo cation and Surrounding Uses: The 9.8 acre nite \s located west nf the intersection of Palnn Avenue and 3capoint Avenue. The site is currently vacant and is generally level. Surrounding uses are: North - vacant, South - vacant (subject ofa separate approved residential project), East - Existing multifamily residential, and VYeat - oU production. � The site is designated for high density residential development. Existing zoning is E<4-29-0-CZ which allows up to 302units, The project, 284 units at 29 units per acre, meets existing zoning, which is 29 units per acre. The 284condonniniuno units will range in size from 740sf, to l,J57sf. and will be constructed in clusters of eight and sixteen unit buildings, with one twenty unit buUding. The unit mix is as follows: Plan 8& Total Townhonneu B. i 1,274 2 + Den/Br 58 C, l 1,357 2 + Den/Br 28 | [).l l,6O0 3 8{� 20 � 106 Flats /\ 740 . l 16 8 774 1 + Den 58 C 857 l + Den ZO D 1, 100 2 + Den/Br 20 E 1,205(ay.g) Z 56 178 Total 284 ` �� / J /� y�UNY�0T 0,� ATTACHMENT �U��^ The architecture is Mediterranean with traditional European accents to be harmonious with the existing development of the area. The design provides for 6 clusters of condominiums each with interior landscaped courts. Covered security parking (476 spaces) .for homeowners will be provided on a lower level with an interior atrium garden. Guest parking of 121 spaces will be provided by covered spaces on the atrium parking level in addition to 21 spaces distributed on grade throughout the site. The project will have one main entry and one secondary entry, both on Seapoint Avenue. A carefully designed landscape plan will compliment the project architecture and blend with the existing neighborhood and the plantings along Patin Avenue. Plantings will consist of trees, shrubs and ground cover including color per the submitted landscape concept plan. All plants are drought tolerant and appropriate for Xeriscape. All interior streets will be private and will be maintained by a master homeowners association. A main private recreation area of 12,000 sq.ft. consisting of a swimming pool, spa and restroom, secondary recreation area of 6,000 sq..ft. will be provided to meet the recreation needs of the homeowners and will :)e maintained by a master horeowners association. Over 113,000 sf of open space is provided, while building coverage of the site is 50%, meeting city requirements. All roads, water mains, sewer lines, drainage .facilities and utilities will be located in public rights of way or easements subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Pei ATTACHMENT NO. � z J Urban ���� �� � ° �� ` ���������= ����`��V, �������������[��[����^, F�F(l��(l����\/ - � - - - �� � � ' '� � ' � ' ° /� d ��1 7 1 /� ° -Santa � ���� 1� �� l�/f '�1l � /- � [ /� / l �(`T7l 1 � ��U+tU / / � � U \ � `� ^� ~ .~ �^ " " .`~ . `' ^ ^ . ~~�" � .- ^^ ^ . ` ' . ^ ^ ^ .. . . ' ~ � \ _, ~ / , . . March 25, 1992 K4u, Gabrielle Reativo Associate Planner CITY OF 8UNTlNGTON BEACH �� �� D `� 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 D'|�nnt D»x3. Ele: Surf crest North Tract 14135 Affordable Housing Dear k4a. Eleotivo: This letter confirms that we accept the following staff proposed affordable ` housing condition of approval for the SurfcrestNorth project, Tentative Tract Map No. 14135: /\n affordable housing plan shall be submitted for rc,iewand approval to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit for any unit. The affordable housing plan shall be for 20 96nf the 204 housing units (57 units) . for persons or households earning between 80 96 to 120 96ofthe Orange County median income levels (with an average affordability level of 100 Y6ol median income). The affordable housing shall be provided as three housing types: I bedroom, 1 bedroom-den, and 2hedrmonn units, shown on the technical site plan dated March 5, 1992 as plans /\, 8, C, D and E. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the ^ condominium clusters. The affordable units shall be made available as aficot time buyer program with a covenant for first right of refusal for resale to the City of Huntington Beach subject to mutually agreeable language. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Tom Zanic Vice President cc: Members of the Planning Commission Michael Adams, Director of Community Development | HmwardZelefuky, Planning Director | � Hal Simmons, Senior Planner ' � �—��y�LJK�%� | � ^����� �V\QL~�� U NK0° ' ~�~�~~�_�y� HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane, P.O.Box 71, Huntington Beach, California (714)964-8888 April 7, 1992 Mrs. Jan Shomaker Chairperson Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 14135 Agenda of April 7, 1992 Dear Chairperson Shomaker: the Huntington Beach City School District and Seacliff Partners have reached tentative agreement regarding school impact mitigation for the above project. The Agreement is based upon the Holly Seacliff Agreement and will go to the Governing Board for final action. We have reached tentative agreement with the developer of the project regarding school impact mitigation which meets the District's concerns. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, 4- Dr. Duane Dishno Superintendent cc: Members of the Planning Commission Michael Adams, City of Huntington Beach Howard Zelefsky, City of Huntington Beach Steve Lazarus, City of Huntington Beach Tom Zanic, Seacliff Partners Craig Rice, Seacliff Partners Al WAMENT NO. ` ++ MICHAEL M.RUANE DIR TOR, EMA :. .yam;}•. _ 1 4 U N TY O F iz-t� ROBE G. FISHER r DIRECTOR OF HARBORS, BEACHES& PARKS 2 1 a: LOCATION: :< 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST 5 3 R A N G E- 10TH FLOOR SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY P.O. BOX 4048 HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS SANTA ANA,CA 92702 4048 TELEPHONE: January 13, 1992 (714)568-5100 - FAX#568-5111 ' Mike Adams, Director Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Surfcrest North Development Dear Mike: I recently met with Tom Zanic of Urban West Communities to review the latest plans for Surfcrest North. The conceptual plans appear to be acceptable except for the proposed buffer between the regional park and development . The plans call for a 10-foot "on-site" landscape buffer between the project property line and to.wnhomes, with an additional 10-foot "off-site" landscape buffer on regional park property. While I think a 20-foot buffer between the park and the development is minimal, I would prefer the 20-foot buffer remain entirely within the development boundary. If the City does not require a 20-foot buffer within the project boundary, I recommend a 10-foot buffer within Surfcrest North and an additional 10-foot landscape buffer easement on park property, with installation and continuing maintenance of the buffer by the developer/Home Owners Association. I discussed this position with Tom Zanic and indicated I would follow up our discussion with this letter to you. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this further, please call me. Very truly yours, Robe t G. Fisher, Director Harbors, Beaches & Parks MM:pac 2011010371477 cc: Gabriele Restivo, Assoc. Planner, Dept. of Community Development ATTACHMENT NO. 1d_____ OISPOS.14 o co ;z P.O. BOX 1026 HUNTINGTON BEJ4'g, CA 92647 • PH: (714) 847-3581 FAX: (714) 841-4660 March 13 , 1992 j✓Ate 1 Ms. Gabrielle Restivo Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000. Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Surfcrest North Condominiums Refuse Collection MV&P Job #89-121 Dear Gabrielle: Rainbow Disposal Company has reviewed the refuse collection plan for the above referenced project. The project consists of two and three story units over one level of parking garage. Trash will be taken by the tenant to the trash chute located. adjacent to the elevator at each floor. At the bottom of the chutes will be a trash room containing multiple three yard (3 yd. ) contain- ers. There are two options for the routing of these containers to the trash collection vehicle. Option 1: On-site maintenance personnel will wheel the container , to a point accessible to the collection vehicle. Option 2 : Rainbow Disposal Company (for a fee) will enter the garages to retrieve the containers. Note: Either option is acceptable to Rainbow Disposal Company. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call. CIS Richard R. Timm Manager RRT: sm PWNICO ON RffYCLEO PAPER AmlgQS P.O. Box 3748, Huntington Beach, CA 92603-3748 (714) 897-7003 Am B61sa -,r, Chica R ED E i:: Mm-ch 27, 191)2 i,. .. . Huntington Brach Planning Commission Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main SLr'CCt Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laclics and GcntICI11Cn: SuhjCCt: -Fcntatl\'c Tract 14135 (SurlcrCst 1Or111) Coasud Dc,elopmcnt Permit No. 91-26 Negative Declaration No. 91-11 For sonletinlc we have v icwcd various plans for the Suhject dCVCIupmCnt and ha%'C conunCntCd on its many negative impacts on the adjoining Linear Park. The present development Flan has dons; nothing to Chill'10C our opinion. Solve ol' our spCcil'ic concerns are as follows: 1. If' ;l pro.1cct, flke this one. hits ;t si,-nificant impact on adjoining open space, it Should he SL11 ICICntly screened and/or rccicsigned to recluse the impacts. The landscaped hul'Icr area should he sul'I'iCiCIlIIV large Cnough to screed the projCCt and should he IOCaICCI Ott the property within the development. The proposal to split it 20-Foot hul'l'cr area equally within and outside ol' the project is simply unacccptahlc. Open space is too important to he used as part of' the area necessary to screen it developers project. To further saddle the homeowners' association with the maintenance responsihility seems ill-advised and Will prohahly only Icacl to conflicts atld pn)hle.ms in the future: It does not seem unrealistic. given the Size of" this development, to require at least 20 I'cct ol' landSsapCd hul'l'er area and to increase the hul'Ier area by it ratio of' onC additional I'Oot I'or Cash foot of structure height above 20 feet. This hCigllt I'iLurC should he mCaSurCc1 I'rom tl.le ICVCI of the ground at the CdgC of the Structurrc. 2. This project states that there arc 7 three-story structures but the project will he viewed as seven parking structurCS topped with over 20 thrcc- story structures. All of these vertical Sides will rites the edge of the Linear Park like it giant wall. The truC height of the structures nearest the park is not dcCinecl hecause the 15-foot elevation we have hcen. advised is measured From it point on Scapoint Street and the lance slopes downward towards the bluff face and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. From it perspective within the Linear Part: these buildings will loom much larger than their thirty-five feet may appear to indicate. The VIC\% easterly within the park v.-ill he of it massive residential wall. I ATTACHMEN c �0. ..��-a rya Huntington Beach Planning Commission Page 2 March 27, 1992 3. Original structures proposed Cur the project %%crc also vertical in nature and there was signil'icant discussion anti direction to terrace the hulldrngs with lower heights nearest the Linear Park houndary and rising the Further away the stl-ucturc was Drum the hark. What we ,cc Incorporates none 01' these design suggestions and instead I)resents us Once more with vertical high walls. 4. The Linear- Park has hCCIl under continual pressurc which has reduced its SIZC and the width uC the 1.11)lillid 1)ortion. Originally envisioned as it 400 acre hark ringing the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, it was educed down to roughly 110 acres. The Cit% Council agreed uI)un it I I.i acre park, the the dcvcloper continually nlodil-icd street aliLnnlcnts, etc., to down size It to the present MO acre.\. I l:allilot I-clllelllhcr ally I-call"llrllelll or cllgirlcerlllg work that C011ti-Ihllled l( w<lyds the cxI)ansiOn Of the park. S. The Regional Park Citizens Advisory Cunlmiltcc was composcd of various dlvcISC Will Ill u[lily and Spcnl ;I signilicant amount of link planning what the Dark should cont;lin. Several goals were always present. First, was the desire to huht the reductions in size and to use what resources were ;R'allahlc to increase the Dark's size, I)articularly it.\ 1.11)I:lnd acreage and width. Sccond, was to keel) the majority ol* the (lark passive with it variety of trails and vice ( l)I)ortunitics. Third, was the desire to keel) structures and (heir size. iC absolutely nccdcd, to it n11111111LI111 within the Dark. "The vary nature and size Of the Ill-oI)oscd projcct does nothing to enhance the achievement of these goals. 6. Lastly, like the one residential development On the 1)uhlic heath, this 1)rojcct is on the wrong side OI* the mild ,Ind intrudes too deel)ly into the I)uhlic's Dark. 1 Although, as stilted ;Ihove. there ,Ire sonic n )(1111calions Ihal could reduce the very ncSativc impacts of this dcvclopmcnt uI)on the Linear Park, maybe it is time to hying the Dark hack to its original size and deny the prl)jccl altogether. This pI,ojcet hits heCll around ;t while ;lad it has changed very little Ill tCrills of its nc,ative Impacts on the Linear Park. Perhaps it is time to visualize how beautiful the area and views would he il- the projcct did not exist here at all. Sincerely. / C// t Terry A. Dolton President TAD:vnl Connie Brockway,City Clerk =i City of Huntington Beach i w \ �': .a:;:.•, Office of the City Clerk r"•�err.r'i.:� �.;� c� �,a:-'. x,� i, e� 11 •:1 a _ i, • .. P.O.Box 190 I a G! + Huntington Beach,CA 92648QVD , ,• ( _ ' `"S OFU,94 v� 'f APN: 110-015-50 I, 9ry Inc. S i gnasky Park Circle oga�RUN 17 $� I r$v i n 90 CA 92714 INGtpy� Attn: D. Go Nahin y ppUNTY CP` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC�NEARING