Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 3 - THE RIDGE - Coastal Development Permit 08-022 Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 case A50479 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE 1 am the Citizen of the United States and a ORDINANCE 3885 by Adopted by the resident of the County aforesaid, I am over JULYC19n2cil on 010 the age of eighteen ears and not a art AN ORDINANCE IN THE 9 g Y party CITY OF HUNTINGTON to or interested in the below entitled matter BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH I am aprincipal clerk of the HUNTINGTON ZONING AND SUBDIVI SION ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of I21006 PROPERTY DE VELOPMENT STANDARDS general circulation, printed and published in AND 21012 PLANNED the Cif of Huntin ton Beach Count of SNIT DEVELOPMENT Y g Y SUPPLEMENTAL STAN C Oran e, State of California, and the DARDS AND PROVISIONS 1 g IAM AMENDMENT NO E 09 attached Notice is a true and complete copy 008) as was printed and published on the SYNOPSIS p p ORDINANCE NO 3885 IS PART OF THE DEVELOP following date(s) MENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE RIDGE A 5 ACRE 22 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE IN TERSECTION OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND LOS PATOS AVENUE PASSED AND ADOPTED July 29 2010 C Council of the ity of H the untington BeachBeach at a regular meeting held July 19 2010 by the following roll call vote AYES Carchio Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSTAIN Dwyer ABSENT Coerper I declare under penalty of perjury that the THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAIL foregoing is true and correct ABLE IN THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE This ordinance is effec five 30 days afterl ladoption CITY Executed on July 30 2010 HUNTING ONFBEACH TREET at Costa Mesa California 2NTINGT000 N BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 714 536 5227 JOAN L FLYNN .� CITY CLERK Published Huntingtoni Beach Independent July 29 2010 075 804 Signatu Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Or urge County State of Cllifornra under date of Aug 24 1994 clse A50479 PROOF OF F1l. BLICATIO"I CITY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) HUNTINGTON LEGAL NOTICE � ORDINANCE NO 3884 SS Adopted by the A �T City Coancd on COUNTY OF ORANGE ) DULY A 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DIS I am the Citizen of the United States and a TRICT MAP 33 (SEC TIONAL MAP 28 5 11) resident of the County aforesaid, I am over OF THE HU NTI BEACH ZONINGING AND AND SUBDIVISION ORDI the age of eighteen years and not a party ;NANCE TO REZONE THE to or interested in the below entitled matter REAL PROPERTY TEN ERALLY LOCATED am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON TERSECTION OF LOS SOUTHEAST OF THE IN IPATOS AVENUE AND BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper of BOLSA CHICA STREET AG general circulation printed and published in FROM RESIDENTIAL RICULTURAL COASTAL the City of Huntington Beach County of ZONE OVERLAY C TO RESIDENTIALL CZ)LOW Orange, State of California, and the DENSITY COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (RL CZ) attached Notice is a true and complete copy AMENDMENTG NOM 08 007) as was printed and published on the SYNOPSIS � SYNOPSIS ORDINANCE E DEVELOP IS following date(s) PART OF THE DEVELOP MENT ENTITLEMENTS 4 FOR THE RDGE A 5 ACRE 22 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCAT ED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BOL SA CHICA STREET AND Jul 29, 2010 S VENUE y P PAASSEEDD A ANND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held July 19 2010 by the following roll call vote AYES Carchio Green Bohr�Hiansen NOES Hardy I declare under penalty of perjury, that the ABSTAIN ABSENT C Dwyer foregoing is true and correct ORDINAN E IS AVAIL ABLE IN THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE This ordinance is e#ec trve 30 days after Executed on July 30, 2010 adoptio CITY OF UNTINGTON BEACH at Costa Mesa, California H2000 MAN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 G1 714 536 5227 JOAN L FLYNN CITY CLERK Published Huntington July S i g n a t u;R," 29a2010ndepend 075 803 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L FLYNN 4 1 CITY CLERK July 20 2010 Theresa Henry, South Coast District Manager South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 1 Oth Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4302 SUBJECT City of Huntington Beach Notice of Action Re Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 (The Ridge—22-unit single-family planned unit development) Dear Ms Henry The City of Huntington Beach transmitted to the Coastal Commission, via certified mail, a Notice of Action, dated July 12, 2010, regarding the coastal development permit referenced above The City is requesting to rescind the July 12 2010 Notice of Action and asks that the Coastal Commission disregard the notice as the coastal development permit application has been withdrawn by the applicant Thank you for your attention to this matter If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner at(714) 374-1661 Sincerely, J Flynn 4 Clerk c Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Sister Cities AnJo Japan 0 Waitakere New Zealand (Telephone 714 536-5227) ®�a City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www huntingtonbeachca gov Planning Division Building Division 714 536 5271 714 536 5241 July 20, 2010 Susan Hon Manatt Phelps& Phillips, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 for"The badge"—22-unit single- family planned unit development project Dear Ms Hon The City of Huntington Beach is in receipt of your letter, dated July 20, 2010 withdrawing the application for Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 that was approved by the City Council on July 6, 2010 The City has sent a letter to the Coastal Commission rescinding the Notice of Action, dated July 12, 2010, for the subject coastal development permit A copy of the City's letter to the Coastal Commission is enclosed In addition, the City Council's approvals of Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016, General Plan Amendment No 08- 011,Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007,Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008,Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002, Tentative Tract Map No 17294 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for the subject project("The Ridge")remain valid If you should have any questions regarding this letter or would like to discuss this matter further please contact Jennifer Villasenor,Acting Senior Planner at(714)374-1661 Sincerely Scott Hess,AICP Director of Planning and Building c Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes(project applicant) Susan K Hon manaft Manatt Phelps&Phillips LLP manatt I phelps I phill►ps Direct Dial (714)371 2528 E mail shor►@manatt com July 20, 2010 Client Matter 24970 031 VIA ELECTRONICMAIL (shess(a),surfcrty-hh ors)AND US MAIL Scott Hess Director of Planning and Building City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re Coastal Development Permit No 08-0222 (The Ridge—22-unlit Planned Unit Development) Dear Mr Hess Pursuant to our discussions with City staff, on behalf of our client,Hearthside Homes ("Hearthside'),we hereby notify the City of Hearthside s decision to withdraw the application for Coastal Development Permit No 08-0222 ("CDP )that was approved by the City Council on July 6, 2010 We understand that a Notice of Final Action(`NOFA )was sent by the City to the Long Beach office of the California Coastal Commission Receipt of the NOFA starts a 10 working day appeal period of the City s approval of the CDP Rather than have the CDP appealed to the Coastal Commission and considered in advance of the Coastal Commission s consideration of Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 ( LCPA ),which was also approved by the City Council on July 6, 2010,we wish to withdraw Hearthside s CDP application It is our understanding that City did not consider the CDP "in effect'until such time as the Coastal Commission approved the City's LCPA nevertheless,we understand that the Coastal Commission staff has taken the position that it must appeal the CDP whether it is considered `in effect or not To avoid consideration of The Ridge project in a piecemeal fashion,we are withdrawing the CDP application so that the LCPA can be considered first We understand that Hearthside s withdrawal means that the action of the City on the CDP would be nullified and that the City will retract the NOFA We also would like to confirm,however,that withdrawal of the CDP application does not in any way affect,nullify or vacate the City's approval of Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016, General Plan Amendment No 08-011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007,Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002, Tentative Tract Map No 17294, and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 and that all of these approvals remain valid and in effect 695 Town Center Drive 14th Floor Costa Mesa California 92626 1924 Telephone 714 3712500 Fax 714 3712550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington D C n1 natt manatt I phelps I phillips Scott Hess July 20,2010 Page 2 We would appreciate your confirmation of the withdrawal of the CDP application, the City s retraction of the NOFA, and the continuing validity and effectiveness of the other approvals granted by the City for The Ridge project Please contact me or Ed Mountford if you have any questions Very truly yours Susan K Hon Manatt Phelps &Phillips, LLP cc Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Meg Vaughn, California Coastal Commission Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 3001267001 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First Class Mad Postage&Fees Paid LISPS Permit No G 10 1 ° Sender Please print your name address and ZIP+4 In this box Cr�I� &,cie' Nv �o 0X /�o rr�rt���1��1��r�i�t��t= r�r1�{�t� �1�►C� �tr�tt�l�i�f€ item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired ❑Agent ® Print your name and address on the reverse ' v- ❑Addresst so that we can return the card to you B Received by(Printed Name) C Da of vei ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece or on the front if space permits D Is delivery ern 1? Yes 1 Article Addressed to If YES a t6e fiver(�ir w 0 No 1) srV� r mom' Z �C� (2104 (DZaWf9A-7�- —107 D 3 Service Type [� )KCertified Mail ❑Express Mad [/3o 0 Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandis T✓ ❑Insured Mad O C O D 4 Restricted Defivery9(Extra Fee) p Yes 2 Articl(71ane rfrom 7008 0520 0001 8218 5379 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811 February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02 M 154 3 PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange State of California I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action my business address is 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094 6 on July 13, 2010 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate 10t" Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4302 a [X ] BY MAIL - I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach California I am readily familiar with the firm s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing It is deposited with U S Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business with postage thereon fully prepaid I am aware that on motion of a party served service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit b [ ] BY MAIL - By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach California addressed to the address shown above c [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee d [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named Scott Hess Planning Department e [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to no INSERT FAX NUMBER declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on July 13, 2010 at Huntington Beach California Senior ty rlerk g/followup/appeal/I'proof of service letter')doc . o r City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Strut ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 :� ISO A OFFICE OF THECITY CLERK JOAN L FLYNN CITY CLERK July 12 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL - California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate 10t' Floor /,J Long Beach CA 90802-4302j� NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY C( - -- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022 (The Ridoe—22 unit single-family Manned unit development) Applicant Ed lountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 lrvane CA 92614 Request Recirculated MND to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments GPA top amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space— Parr (OS P) to residential Low Density (RL) ZMA to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture--Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Love Density—Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) ZTA to amend Chapter 21012— PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow Flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development LCPA to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open space— Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and to reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Text Amendments TTM to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots CDP to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single family residences common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone and CUP to permit construction on a site with greater than a three foot grade differential The applicant as part of the proposed public benefit for the PUD development is also proposing to improve an existing 30-foot wide City owned parcel north of the project site to enhance public coastal access The City-owned parcel extends from Bolsa Chica Street to the eastern boundary of the subject property Location 17202 Bolsa Chica Street (5 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Pates Avenue) Coastal Status Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastai Zone Date of Action July 6 2010 On July 6 2010 after hearing a staff report presentation conducting a p�iblic hearing and discussion the City of Huntington Beach City Council conditionally approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No 08-022 in addition to all entitlements identified in the request above fTpli hona 79d 3 Z 52,?7 Notice of Action—CDP 08-022 Page 2 July 12 2010 The motion carried by the following roll call vote AYES Carchio Coerper Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Dwyer This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone and may be appealed to the Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action (attached) by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245 32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations An appeal to the Coastal Commission shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance the action taken by the City Council is final Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval unless actual construction has begun If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact my office at (714) 536-5227 Sincerely J � Flynn Ci Clerk Attachment Notice of Action for CDP 08-022 c Jennifer Villasenor Senior Planner G CDP 08 022 The Ridge ® City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FB OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK " 1°"°a • JOAN L FLYNN o NOTICE OF ACTIRMY CLERK July 12 2010 Hearthside Homes Attn Ed Mountford 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 SUBJECT General Plan Amendment (GPA) No 08-011 Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No 09-008 Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No 09-002 and Appeal by Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy of the Planning Commissions approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 08-016 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08 046 — The Ridge — 22-unit single-family planned unit development APPLICANT Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine CA APPELLANT Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy LOCATION 17202 Bolsa Chica Street 92649 (5-acre site southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue) DATE OF ACTION July 6 2010 COASTAL STATUS APPEALABLE On Tuesday July 6 2010 the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider your application and took action to conditionally approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 08-016 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No 08-011 Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No 09-008 Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No 09-002 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for The Ridge a 22-unit single-family planned unit development Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance the action taken by the City Council is final However the entitlements shall not become effective until the Local Coastal Program Amendment is certified by the California Coastal Commission Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations S/ster Cities Anjo, Japan • Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone 714 536 5227) NOA—The Ridge Page Two July 12 2010 Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach s action on Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245 32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14 Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations Their address is South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4302 Attn Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten (10) working days Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval unless actual construction has started Attached are the findings for approval for MND 08-016 ZMA 08-007 ZTA No 09-008 LCPA No 09-002 TTM 17294 CDP 08-022 CUP 08-046 and a copy of pages 6 & 7 of the July 6 2010 City Council Action Agenda If you have any questions please contact Jennifer Villasenor Senior Planner at (714) 374- 1661 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271 Sincerely an L Flynn CIVIC City Clerk J F rl c Scott Hess Director of Planning and Building Jennifer Villasenor Senior Planner Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy Attachments Pages 6 &7 —July 6 2010 City Council Action Agenda Findings and Conditions of Approval for MND No 08-016 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 Resolution Nos 2010-47 and 2010-48 Draft copies of Ordinance Nos 3884 and 3885 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — RECIRCULATED DRAFT IVIND NO 08-016 1 Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 General Plan Amendment No 08-011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 2 Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to biological and cultural resources The proposed biological resources mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to two special status species burrowing owls and southern Tarplant with the potential to occur on the site would be less than significant The cultural resources mitigation measures require archeological and Native American monitoring during ground disturbing activities The mitigation measures also specify procedures if human remains are discovered during construction of the project The project site has undergone archeological testing and excavation and it is not anticipated that intact deposits remain on the site However, the mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during grading and construction activities 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment The project consists of an amendment to the existing General Plan and zoning land use designations as well as the Coastal Land Use Plan for the subdivision of the project site and construction of 22 single-family residences and associated open space, street and infrastructure improvements in the coastal zone The project also consists of an amendment to the Chapter 210 12 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow alternative parking configurations for planned unit developments Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design standard code requirements and the recommended mitigation measures FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007 1 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 represents a change to the Huntington Beach Zoning Map (District Map #33) to rezone the project site from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals objectives and land use policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No 08-011 which is being processed concurrently The land uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning because surrounding land uses include low density residential to the west high density residential uses to the north and low density and open space uses to the east In addition the City recently approved pre-zoning and annexation of existing County property south of the project site The approved pre-zoning designations include low density and open space uses As discussed in the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development 2 In the case of a general land use provision the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed The change proposed would be compatible with the uses in the vicinity which include low density residential uses The projects design and compliance with applicable code requirements would ensure that impacts to existing preserved open space areas east of the project site are minimized 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The change would expand opportunities for housing and address the needs of a growing population The proposed development associated with the zoning map amendment will contribute to existing recreational resources in the area through the provision of a 0 13-acre passive open space area consistent with the City s General Plan and Local Coastal Program The project will also provide for enhanced coastal access through the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel and the addition of 13 parking spaces that would be available for the general public 4 Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience general welfare and good zoning practice The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible land uses and eliminate an existing zoning designation that is no longer appropriate for the site The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and would allow the property to be rightfully developed FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL. —ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008 1 Zoning Text Amendment No 08-004 will be consistent with the objectives, policies general land uses and programs specified in the City s General Plan because the proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions in Section 210 12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance would allow projects to provide required enclosed parking spaces in a tandem configuration that would minimize the width of driveway paving and garage access that may otherwise dominate the front yard Reduction in a projects potential for garages to dominate the street frontage would then allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis on architectural quality by incorporating more landscaping porch elements and other architectural features consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan In addition the proposed zoning text amendment would clarify the requirement for a planned unit development to provide a public benefit 2 In the case of general land use provisions the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which they are proposed The proposed changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow required parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration as long as the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site The new standards would only be applicable to PUD projects and would be evaluated on a project-specific basis to ensure that projects designed to incorporate the new standards would not be detrimental to the overall design or surrounding properties 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions would allow for flexibility in land use regulations so that a more distinct development can be provided with a greater emphasis on public benefits The proposed amendment would reduce a project's potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis as an activity area with landscaping and porch elements The proposed amendment would allow for more diversity in a projects site layout and result in a better overall design while still providing for adequate parking 4 The proposed changes would be in conformity with public convenience general welfare and good zoning practice in that the provisions would allow for alternative configurations in the provision of parking spaces while still providing for adequate parking facilities within a development project PUD projects could achieve a more diverse development configuration provide more open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility the proposed amendment would provide The allowance to permit tandem parking configurations and satisfy open parking space requirements through the availability of on-street parking would be consistent with the nature of PUD projects Finally the new standard to allow tandem parking configurations is consistent with previous City decisions to allow tandem parking configurations for residential uses FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09-002 1 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 proposes to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to amend the Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density for the five acre site and to reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Text amendments The Local Coastal Program Amendment will allow for single-family residential uses on the subject property Although single-family residential is a lower priority use than recreational uses, the project site is not existing or planned for public recreational uses The amendment would allow the property owner to develop the site and in doing so, would contribute to the provision of enhanced coastal access and additional recreational resources through the proposed development consistent with the policies of the City s General Plan and California Coastal Act The Local Coastal Program Amendment would also modify the Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements to allow parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration providing for greater flexibility in a projects site layout and design while ensuring that the number of parking spaces provided is adequate and meets the requirements of the HBZSO 2 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 is in accordance with the policies standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act relative to residential development land resources and public access The Local Coastal Program Amendment promotes the City s Local Coastal Program goals and objectives by allowing low density residential uses while promoting preservation of coastal views and enhancing public coastal access 3 The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act The project proposes a 0 13-acre passive open space area and would provide 23 on-street parking spaces available to the public that do not currently exist Thirteen of the proposed on- street spaces would be in addition to the minimum number required for the development The project will preserve existing public views of the slope along the eastern perimeter of the site and views from an existing 30-foot wide City- owned parcel that is proposed to be improved with development of the project site No existing coastal access will be impacted In fact coastal access would be enhanced through the proposed development project associated with the amendment FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO 17294 1 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 for the subdivision of approximately 5 acres into 22 single-family residential lots and nine lettered lots for streets open space and landscaped areas is consistent with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) design for the project These exceptions include deviations to minimum lot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals policies and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and Coastal Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development These goals and policies call for development that protects and enhances coastal resources promotes public access and is in close proximity to other developments with adequate public services available 2 The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development The project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service circulation and drainage perspective The proposed subdivision will result in a density of 6 4 units per net acre (4 4 units/gross acre) The proposed density is below the allowable density of 7 per acre of the Residential Low Density land use designation for which the project is proposing to be designated The proposed density would be consistent with or lower than existing surrounding developments 3 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat The site has been previously used for farming and has served as a construction staging area for an adjacent single-family residential project The site does not contain significant habitat for wildlife or fish Mitigation measures require pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of special status species on the project site If special status species are present further mitigation is required including avoidance measures and relocation techniques in accordance with established protocols for the respective species to ensure that no significant adverse impacts would occur Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of existing resources adjacent to the project site 4 The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements for access or for use will be provided No existing easements for the public at large will be affected by the project The project will provide enhanced public coastal access through the improvement of an existing City-owned parcel north of the subject site FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022 1 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 for the subdivision a 5-acre parcel for the development of a 22-unit single family residential project and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone conforms with the General Plan including the Local Coastal Program The project layout is consistent with the proposed Low Density Residential land use designation on the property and the applicable provisions of the Coastal Zone overlay standards of the City s certified Local Coastal Program as well as the Residential Low Density zoning standards including exceptions allowed for PUD projects 2 The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District the base zoning district as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code The proposed development complies with all development standards except for the minimum lot width and size which are permitted deviations for PUD projects 3 At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program The proposed project will provide all required infrastructure consistent with the Local Coastal Program and City requirements 4 The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act The project will not impact existing public access or recreation opportunities in the coastal zone The project will preserve existing public views of the slope on the eastern perimeter of the project site as well as views from the 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site The project will enhance existing coastal access opportunities within the vicinity through the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel as well as the provision of 23 parking spaces that would be available to the general public Thirteen of the proposed on-street spaces would be in addition to the minimum number required for the development FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 1 Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for the development of the proposed 22-unit single-family Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood The project will be graded to minimize impacts from erosion and drainage The proposed grade differential to adjacent properties will not adversely impact surrounding undeveloped properties and open space areas The resulting elevation will be the same as the adjacent elevation of Bolsa Chica Street and result in a development that is compatible with existing development west and north of the project site 2 The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding single family residential and open space land uses The project includes two-story homes that are similar to the surrounding developments it also incorporates an adequate buffer area to preserve an existing slope along the eastern perimeter of the project site and provide for protection of environmentally sensitive habitat area east of the project site 3 The proposed project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) The HBZSO requires projects proposed to be located on a site where the difference in grade is greater than three feet to obtain a conditional use permit The project is not proposing to deviate from any other aspect of the HBZSO except for minimum lot size and width which is allowed as part of a planned unit development 4 The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan The project including the proposed grading design is consistent with existing policies of the General Plan Land Use Element that require developments to be compatible with the surrounding developments and properties The proposed project including the proposed grading concept would result in a development compatible with other developments in the surrounding area while being sensitive to existing resources below the project site In addition it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Policy ERC 6 16 Ensure that post development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat Although the site includes a grade differential greater than three feet the project is designed such that the existing eastern slope would be preserved In addition, the projects drainage concept is designed such that the slope and existing resources below the slope on the Shea property to the east would not be negatively impacted from development of the project site including the projects grading design MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological monitor to be present during all project-related ground-disturbing activities The Applicant shall also arrange for a qualified Native American monitor or a rotation of monitors from the interested bands to be present during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities In addition all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource In the absence of a determination all archaeological resources shall be considered significant If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources 2 If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend in-situ preservation or scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials 3 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity a qualified biologist shall survey the project site for presence of Southern tarplant during the appropriate blooming period May — November If feasible, the survey shall be conducted during the peak blooming period for the year Any substantial occurrence (at least 500 mature individuals) shall be preserved on-site or relocated to open space areas in the Bolsa Chica area If relocation is required a Southern tarplant relocation program shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented prior to the onset of construction 4 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the CBOC and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) established protocols on the project site ® If no occupied burrows are found the methods and findings of the surveys shall be reported to the City and DFG for review and approval and no further mitigation would be required • If unoccupied burrows are found during the nonbreeding season, the burrows shall be collapsed or otherwise obstructed to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows • If occupied burrows are found, a buffer of 165 feet (during the nonbreeding season of September 1 through January 31) or 250 feet (during the breeding season of February 1 through August 31) shall be provided The buffer area may be adjusted based on recommendations by a qualified biologist in consultation with the DFG No activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied ■ If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair a minimum of 7 5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over Because the site is only approximately 5 acres in area property outside of the project site would need to be provided in order to provided 7 5 acres If off-site property is not available then the entire subject site will serve as foraging area ■ If avoidance of an occupied burrow is not feasible on-site passive relocation techniques approved by the DFG shall be used to encourage the owls to move to an alternative borrow outside of the impact area However no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294 1 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 dated May 4 2009 shall be the approved layout except as amended per the conditions stated herein 2 The final map for Tentative Tract Map No 17294 shall not be approved by the City Council until Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, General Plan Amendment No 08-011 and Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 are approved and in effect and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 has been certified by the California Coastal Commission 3 At least 90 days before City Council action on the final maps CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Building Public Works and City Attorney s office for review and approval The CC&Rs shall reflect all access easements and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners Association The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the final map The CC&Rs shall include the following a The Homeowners Association (HOA) shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water and sewer easements, which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement, etc if the public water and sewer pipelines and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance The HOA shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving due to work performed by the City in the maintenance and repair of any public water or sewer pipelines The Special Utility Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R s (Resolution 2003-29) b The CC&Rs shall specify that landscaping for individual housing lots and recreation areas that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area shall not include any exotic invasive plant species The CC&Rs shall be binding on each of the lots, shall run with the land affected by the subdivision and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more lots in the subdivision c Disclosure shall be provided to the HOA and all property owners that the public coastal access trail north of the development site is owned and operated by the City and is open to the public 4 Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No 2008-046 and Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 conditions of approval 5 Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 6 Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required a An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230 26 of the ZSO b Final tract map review fees shall be paid pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) (HBZSO Section 254 16) c Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254 08 — Parkland Dedications The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) d All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid (ZSO 250 16) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT 08-022/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 1 The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated May 4, 2009 shall be the conceptually approved design 2 The project entitlements shall not be effective until Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 is certified by the California Coastal Commission 3 The Development Services Departments (Fire Planning and Building and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval The Director of Planning and Building may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Councils action If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241 18 4 The project shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 5 Prior to plan check submittal the applicant shall submit a report prepared by an accredited third party that the project plans have been prepared in accordance with the criteria to achieve a LEED — Silver rating and exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 percent The applicant shall also provide proof of retention of a third party inspector to ensure that the project is constructed according to all specifications as they relate to the LEED criteria Prior to occupancy of the first residence the applicant shall submit a final report by an accredited third party, stating that the project has achieved LEED — Silver certification including a breakdown of how certification was achieved and exceeded Title 24 requirements by at least 15 percent 6 Plans for the public coastal access trail shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach concurrent with the projects plan check submittal The plans for the trail shall include signage indicating public access and shall provide informational details about the entire coastal access path including length of the entire path to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and nature of the terrain beyond the landscaped trail 7 The developer shall design and improve and The Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA) shall maintain the public coastal access trail along the north property line to the City of Huntington Beach design and maintenance standards for landscaped areas The soil within the linear open space shall be tested and the results shall be acceptable to the City for landscape improvements If the soil tests reveal unacceptable and/or un-mitigable agricultural soil conditions the developer shall remove all soil within the linear open space area to a depth of thirty six inches and replace that soil with Class A topsoil that has been tested and approved by an approved testing laboratory and by the City for importation All materials used for irrigation and planting shall be approved by the City and all installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit within the tract 8 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department 9 The project shall ensure compliance with the following requirements a All street lighting exterior residential lighting and recreational lighting adjacent to resource protection areas shall minimize impacts to wildlife within the resource protection areas b Uses allowed adjacent to designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and ESHA c Prior to final inspection of the first residential unit, with exception of the model homes the following requirements shall be completed i Landscape plans shall be prepared that prohibits the planting, naturalization or persistence of invasive plants and encourages low-water plants and plants primarily native to coastal Orange County The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City s landscape architect ii A Domestic Animal Control Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering any resource protection areas, including but not limited to appropriate fencing and barrier plantings iii A Pest Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach that at a minimum prohibits the use of rodenticides and restricts the use of pesticides and herbicides in outdoor areas except necessary Vector Control conducted by the City or County iv Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney shall be recorded The CC&Rs shall be binding on each of the lots shall run with the land affected by the subdivision and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more lots in the subdivision v The project applicant shall provide any buyer of a housing unit within the project an information packet that explains the sensitivity of the natural habitats adjacent to the project site and the need to minimize impacts on the designated resource protection areas and the prohibition on landscaping that includes exotic invasive plant species on lots that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area The information packet shall include a copy of the Domestic Animal Control Plan and Pest Management Plan and be required for all sales of housing units pursuant to the CC&Rs The project applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the information packet vi Protective fencing or barriers shall be installed and maintained between the resource protection areas and areas developed for homes and recreational use for purpose of minimizing human and domestic animal presence in resource protection areas including restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas, however, public access to designated passive recreational use areas shall be provided Visual impacts created from any walls or barriers adjacent to open space conservation and passive recreational use areas shall be minimized through measures such as open fencing/wall design landscape screening use of undulating or off- set wall features, etc DRAFT ORDINANCE NO 3884 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 33 (SECTIONAL MAP 28-5-11)OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AND BOLSA CHICA STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL—COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY(RA-CZ)TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY—COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (RL-CZ) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007) WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, which rezones the property generally located southeast of the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone Overlay(RL-CZ), and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows SECTION i That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally bounded by the terminus of Los Patos Avenue to the north Bolsa Chica Street to the west and the City of Huntington Beach corporate boundaries to the south and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference SECTION 2 That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from RA-CZ (Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay) to RL (Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay) SECTION 3 That Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 201 04B District Map 33 (Sectional District Map 28-5-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 as described herein The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map A copy of said District Map as amended shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk 09 2349/42728 1 Ordinance No 3884 SECTION 4 This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission but not less than 30 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 day of ,20 Mayor REVfr APPROVED ATTEST City/Ai4mstrator City Clerk INITIATED ND APPROVED Director of Planning and B ildmg APPROVED AS TO FORM ty Attorn y W I- -10 ' Id ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Legal Description&Map Exhibit B Amended Zoning Map 09 2349/42728 2 Ordinance No 3884 Ordinance No 3884 Title No 08-259915246-MR Locate No CAFNT0925-0925-0199-0259915246 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT"A" PROPOSED TRACT NO 17294 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF j THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 11 WEST,IN � THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,CAUFORNIA,INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 6 2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED TO DONALD E GOODELL RECORDED NOVEMBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4960,PAGE 87 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY,THENCE SOUTH 890 58 30"WEST450 00 FEETALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL TO A ANGLE POINT IN PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO 92-01 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO 92-589755 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL 2 THE FOLLOWING COURSES CONTINUING SOUTH 89-58 30"WEST 323 00 FEET AND NORTH 34-02 08" WEST 604 67 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30 00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER, THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION THE FOLLOWING COURSES SOUTH 890 21 32"EAST 639 80 FEET AND SOUTH 89' 35 35 EAST 90 18 FEET, THENCE NORTH 0- 10 29" EAST 30 00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF TRACT NO 10853 RECORDED IN BOOK 513, PAGES 14 THROUGH 15 AND TRACT NO 5792 RECORDED IN BOOK 220, PAGES 8 THROUGH 11 BOTH OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THENCE SOUTH 89- 35 35" EAST 383 00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL, THENCE SOUTH 0-10 29"WEST 520 23 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED FEBRUARY 28 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO 20000104631 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN TRACT NO 15734 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 797 PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THIS 1 EGAL DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IN ANY POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE TO BE ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME IT IS PREPARATORY TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AND IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THOSE PARTIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION AND CHECKING OF SAID MAP t APN 10-016 35 2 LLTA Prel rr t ry Report Form Mod&ied(11)17106) I This Map Is being fumished as a cortvonlonce to losate the SEE SPECIAL PAGE 110-019 FOR FEE T1 TL E ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE /4. heroin described land In relation to a4lelning streets and other T 5 S4 R 11 W 40 110-0,�b r lands The Company does net guorantoe dMtenalona rS E/Alt distances bowIngsoraereapo stated thereon,not IsIt 25 O 8 9`Q d 7 28 intended to blustrato legal building sites or supersede City or !6 1 500 B County oroMutees 1 o zoning and building codes etc .� Jt N J1 1,f Official tnformsdion conoomkfg the we of arty parcel should b be obtained from local government agencies ^���0 J S 58 a f3„2 qq M1� �t Oa 21 Ada , q r 2 Aoa 31 /`At � Eby/ �� 59 e w 25 #�,,� • IAatr I , 1 1000 OUAIt A f 20 w"o slob/ ,A �4 58 V x �'� T O 159' 22 95 At J� ��/ OA 64 43?2B AC O /� , A SEE oErott 8 S9 51 100 ?,�a .� 33 AAc1/ sr0 ti 6�` eY��q` ��` r',1'22 saret4 130 35 163-22 OAt 19 163-27 163-26 .110 S0 31 9p�o e2ni6ee 0 a �b^� /�n� `2 4 72e 22 30 99 AC IS rB t OS ?j� o t6 k 23 At 4$9 AC ` 41 0,1�`�` yt► y38 sac J1 '4 24JAc19 � \^ 0 29 y4 7J 90 At 42 1 \ 166 2e At 017 52 p744 3A�1 25 49 22 e0 At t / 41 6 P6 At 10 37 a - f✓/ 6r5 B At At 40 38 ad ` 155 05 At �� In 06 c A At tioJ 39 9 6 aAeJ 30 '" a 11 M1q M1� O 31 e 12 194 AC f nt 19 9 t7 ,1 J77 Ar 1s 0 At A Ji t At (, 9 ---- y MV rD 0At 54 5 14 A7 y .�� 45 BI AC 55 r 0 f6p e( r 61 At 2 'At61 t0 9AI70 ? 9 ! sA0 6 i I A€ 12 CD 10� 2 a+ ' ! 57 i yr� co P 4 A /AC NIfI kt MAPrP 1968 REM O SIIRVF"Y R 5 i 98 IC ssF{Vln + it I e n5arrSW S Mi,i 11 r x 00LA f 1U f 1 yl fl1 0 it Ordinance No 3884 Ordinance No 3884 Amended Zoniin 11�� Np4 �b'ecL,F'S*a, �a �S - -Los--Fatos Ave Subject Site ) RL - CZ Cd U 1-4 '� td SP-15-CZ County of Orange w � (Planned Community) x� City of H B pre-zoned ' RL-CZ, OS-PR, OS-C *The City recently approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC- Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No 109 Legend RL-Residential Low Density RA- Residential Agricultural RMH -Residential Medium High Density SP15-Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) OS-PR-Open Space-Parks &Recreation OS-C -Open Space- Conservation CC -Coastal Conservation CZ-Coastal Zone Overlay URP%vT ORDINANCE NO 3885 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 210 06, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND 210 12 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008) WHEREAS pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, which amends Sections 210 06 Property Development Standards and 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance permitting tandem parking configurations for Planned Unit Developments in residential zoning districts and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows SECTION 1 That Sections 210 06 and 210 12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A SECTION 2 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 day of 20 ATTEST City Clerk Mayor INITIA ED D APPROVED REV*1EAND- APPROVED Director of Planning and Bu ldmg REVIE AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM Ci A inistrator n/y ity Attorney U Nkv 1-11 c o IJ Jo Exhibit A Legislative Draft 09 2349/42729 Ordmance No 3885 LEGISLATIVE r e No 3885 Chapter 210 Residential Districts (3268-12/94 3334-6/97 3410-3199 3455-5/00 3568-9102 3706-6105 372"2/06 3761-2/07 3832 7/09) Sections 21002 Residential Districts Established 21004 RL,RM,RMH, RH,and RMP Districts Land Use Controls 21006 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Property Development Standards 21008 Development Standards for Senior Projects 21010 Modifications for Affordable Housing 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions 21014 RMP District Supplemental Development Standards 21016 Review of Plans 21002 Residential Districts Established The purpose of the residential districts is to implement the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan residential land use designations Five (5)residential zoning districts are established by this chapter as follows (3334-6/97) A The RL Low Density Residential District provides opportunities for single-family residential land use in neighborhoods, subject to appropriate standards Cluster development is allowed Maximum density is seven(7)units per acre B The RM Medium Density Residential District provides opportunities for housing of a more intense nature than single-family detached dwelling units, including duplexes, triplexes town houses,apartments, multi-dwelling structures, or cluster housing with landscaped open space for residents' use Single-family homes such as patio homes, may also be suitable Maximum density is fifteen(15)units per acre C The RMH Medium High Density Residential District provides opportunities for a more intensive form of development than is permitted under the medium density designation while setting an upper limit on density that is lower than the most intense and concentrated development permitted in the City One subdistrict has been identified with unique characteristics where separate development standards shall apply RMH-A Small Lot Maximum density is twenty-five(25) units per acre D The RH High Density Residential District provides opportunities for the most intensive form of residential development allowed in the City, including apartments in garden type complexes and high rise where scenic and view potential exists, subject to appropriate standards and locational requirements Maximum density is thirty-five(35)units per acre E The RMP Residential Manufactured Home Park District provides sites for mobile home or manufactured home parks, including parks with rental spaces and parks where spaces are individually owned Maximum density is nine(9)spaces per acre Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 1 1,Ui GISLATIVE D]�i a No 3885 21004 RL,RM,RM II,RH, and RMT Districts Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission "ZA' designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator (3334-6197 3410-3/99) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit (3334- 6/97 3410 3199) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading,referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance Chapter 210 Page 2 LEGISLATIVE DJbkV1Fe No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS L = Limited(see Additional Provisions) (3334 /9n LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH R1VIP Additional RH Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6/97 34103/99) Day Care,Ltd P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multr-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (34103199 34555/00) 2-4 units ZA P P - (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) 5 -9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-97 3410-3M) 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334.6/97 3410-3/99) Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential,Alcohol Recovery,Ltd P P P P Residential Care,Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P (B)(D)(F)(P)(R)(S) (33348/97 3410 3/99 34555(00 3832 7109) Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (33346/97 3410 3/99) Clubs&Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Day Care,Large-family L-6 L-6 L-6 L-6 (3334-6/97 3761 2107) Day Care,General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97 3410 3199) Park& Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (33346/97 3410-3199) Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-6197 3410-3,99) Residential Care,General - L-1 PC PC (3334-6/97 34103/99) Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Communication Facilities L-5 L-5 L-5 L-5 (3568 9102) Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410-3199) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (34103/99) Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - L-4 - (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Accessory Uses P/U P/U P/U P/U (A)(G)(H)(1)(L)(M) (33346197 3410-3199) Temporary Uses (J)(M) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales P P P P (N) (3334-M7 3410-3/99 37066/ Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 3 LEGISLATIVE D r i sae No 3885 RL,RM,RMIR,RH,and RMP Districts Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10 acre(gross acreage)or greater fronting an arterial in RL District (34lo-3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted,but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Admumtrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swum clubs and tennis clubs (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts (333"/97 3410-3/99 372"2/06) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq ft or greater in RMH-A subdistrict See also Section 230 42 Bed and Breakfast Inns (3334-6/97 3410-3/99 37W-6/05) L-5 Only wireless communication facilities permitted subject to section 230 96 Wireless Communication Facilities (3568 9/02) L-6 Neighborhood notification is required pursuant to Section 24124 No architectural plans shall be required (3761 2/07) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area, or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit if any or approval of a new conditional use permit (3334-6/97 3410 3199 3761 2107) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210 08), for affordable housing (See Sections 210 10 and 230 14),or for density bonus(See Section 230 14) (C) A conditional use pernut from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that (1) abuts an arterial highway (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street, or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (D) See Section 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235 (E) See Section 210 14 RMP District Supplemental Standards In addition Neighborhood Notification pursuant to Chapter 241 is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park (333"/97 3410 3/99 3706 6105) (F) See Section 230 16 Manufactured Homes (G) See Section 230 12 Home Occupation in R Districts (H) See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures (1) See Section 230 10 Accessory Dwelling Units Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 4 LEGISLATIVE a No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Provisions (J) See Section 24120 Temporary Use Permits (K) See Chapter 236 Nonconforming Uses and Structures (L) See Chapter 233 Signs (M) Tents,trailers vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes (3334- 6197 3410-3/99) (N) See Section 230 18 Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres (333"/97 3410 3199) (P) See Section 230 22 Residential Infill Lot Developments (33346/97 3410-3199) (Q) See Section 230 20 Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee (3410-3/99) (R) Small lot development standards for RM, RMH,and RH Districts A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings See also Section 230 24 Small Lot Development Standards (3455-5/00) (S) See Coastal Element Land Use Plan,Table C-2, for permitted uses, development requirements and restrictions applicable to development within Subarea 4K as depicted in Figures C-6a and C-10 of the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. Subdivision design and development within Subarea 4K shall incorporate the information from the plans and studies required in Table C-2 for development of that Subarea If there is a conflict between the requirements and restrictions of Table C-2 and other provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance the requirements and restrictions included in Table C-2 shall prevail (3832 7109) 21006 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Districts Property Development Standards The following schedule prescribes development standards for residential zoning districts and subdistricts designated on the zoning map The columns establish basic requirements for permitted and conditional uses, letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to "Additional Development Standards" following the schedule In calculating the number of units permitted on the site, density is calculated on the basis of net site area Fractional numbers shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number except that one dwelling unit may be allowed on a legally created lot complying with minimum lot area All required setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way and in accordance with the definitions set forth in Chapter 203, Definitions Any new parcel created pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions, shall comply with the minimum building site requirements of the district in which the parcel is located unless approved as a part of a Planned Unit Development Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 5 1,E(G][SLAT][V DP PSTe No 3885 Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM -A RMH RH RMIP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Btuldmg Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac (A)(B)(C) (3419-aw) Width(ft) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334-6/97 3,410-3/99) Cut de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (33 7 3410-3/99) Muumum Setbacks (D)(R) (3334-W7 3410-3199) Front(ft) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334-97 UM3/99) Side (ft) 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 - (G)(1)(J) (3334-Ml 3410-3/99) Street Side (ft) 6,10 6,10 5 6,10 6,10 10 (H) (3334-M7 3410-3/99) Rear(ft) 10 10 75 10 10 - (1)(J) Accessory Structure (U) (333"/97 3410-3199) Garage (K) (3334-M7 3410-3/99) Projections into Setbacks (L)(R) (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Maximum Height(ft) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334M7 34103199) Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) (3410-3/99) Maximum Floor Area - - 10 - - - (3334-"7 3410-3/99) Ratio(FAR) (3410-3(99) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq ft) 6,000 2 904 * 1,742 1,244 - (3334-6/97 3410-31991 Maximum Lot Coverage(%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) (333"197 3410-3199) Minimum Floor Area (N) (333"197 3410-3/99) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (34103/99) Waterfront Lots (R) (3334-6197 3410-3199) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (333"/97 3410-3/99) Fences and Walls See Section 230 88 Lightmg (T) (3334-/97 3410-3/99) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17 64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230 76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230 78 (3410 3199) Antenna See Section 230 80 (3410-3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230 82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 & Section 21012 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 Accessory Structures See Chapter 230 08 (370"/05) * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 6 LEGISLATIVE D& > e No 3885 RL,RM,RAM,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (A) See Section 230 62 Building Site Required and Section 230 64 Development on Substandard Lots (B) See Section 230 66 Development on Lots Divided by District Boundaries (C) The mmunum lot area shall be 12,000 square feet for General Day Care, General Residential Care, and Public or Private Schools, except mimmum lot area for General Day Care in the P L district shall be one(1) gross acre (333"/97 3410 3199) (D) Building Separation. The minimum spacing between buildings including manufactured home units shall be 10 feet (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (E) Variable Front Setback for Multi-family Proaects Projects with more than 4 units in the RM District, more than 8 units in the RMH District, or more than 14 units in the RH District shall provide a minimum setback of 15 feet from any public right-of-way Mnmmum 501/)o of the garages shall be set back 20 feet from the front property line (See Section 210 12B )(3334-6/97 3410 3199) (F) Upper-story Setbacks for Multi-family Structures The covered portion of all stones above the second story in any multi-family structure shall be set back an average of 10 feet from the second floor front facade(see Exhibit) (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) average 10'setback Q D � 00 Q � D Q QD D 0 D D D � 0 210 UPSS PCX UPPER STORY SETBACK Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFTe No 3885 RL,RM,1l MR,RH,and RMEP Districts Additional Development Standards (G) Interior Side Setback (1) In the RL,RM, RMH, including RMH A subdistrict, and RH Districts, interior side setbacks shall be minimum 10%of lot width, but not less than 3 feet and need not exceed 5 feet,except as stated below (33346/97 3410-3/99) (2) For projects in the RM, RMH, including RMH-A subdistrict, and RH Districts adjoming an RL District,mtenor side setbacks shall be at least (a) 10 feet for units in single-story or two-story buildings (b) 14 feet for units above two stones Subject to approval of a conditional use pernut,the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission,may approve upper-story setbacks in lieu of an increased side setback if the second and third stones are set back the required distance (3334-6/97 3410-3199) (H) Street Side Setbacks (1) In the RL,RM,RMH(excluding RMH-A subdistrict) and RH districts, the street side yard shall be 20 percent of the lot width, minimum 6 feet and need not exceed 10 feet (333"/97 34103199) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict, street side setback shall be immimum 5 feet (3410-3/99) (3) For projects with 10 or more multi-family units(including RMH-A subdistrict),the street side setback shall be the same as the front setback (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (I) Building Walls Exceeding 25 Feet in Height The required interior side or rear setback adjoining a building wall exceeding 25 feet in height,excluding any portion of a roof and located on a lot 45 feet wide or greater shall be increased three feet over the basic requirement (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (J) Zero Side or Rear Setback (1) A zero interior side setback may be permitted provided that the opposite side setback on the same lot is minimum 20%of the lot width, not less than 5 feet, and need not exceed 10 feet and shall be subject to the requirements listed in subsection(3) below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (2) A zero rear setback may be permitted provided that the opposite rear setback for the adjacent lot is either zero or a minimum of 10 feet and subject to the requirements listed in subsection(3) below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAVIre No 3885 RI..,RM,RMR,RH,and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (3) A zero side or rear setback may be permitted subject to the following requirements (3334- 6/97 3410-3/99) (a) The lot adjacent to the zero side or rear setback shall either be held under the same ownership at the time of application or a deed restriction or agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney shall be recorded giving written consent of the adjacent property owner (33u-6t97) (b) A maintenance easement,approved as to form by the City Attorney,shall be recorded between the property owner and the owner of the adjacent lot to which access is required in order to maintain and repair a zero lot line structure Such easement shall be an irrevocable covenant running with the land No building permits shall be issued until such recorded maintenance easement has been submitted (3334-6197) (c) Separation between the proposed structure and any structure on an adjacent lot shall either be zero or a muumum of 5 feet (33U-6/97 3410-3/99) (d) No portion of the dwelling or any architectural features shall project over the property line (3334-6/97) (e) The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private nght-of-way (333"197) (f) Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and Building Division (3334-6/97) (4) Double zero side setbacks may be permitted for planned unit development projects subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with Section 210 12 B (33346/97 3410 3199) (K) Garage Setbacks Setbacks for the main dwelling shall apply, except as specifically stated below (1) Front entry garage-20 feet (2) Side entry garage- 10 feet (3) Garage with alley access- 5 feet For garages with rear vehicular access from an alley and located on a lot 27 feet wide or less the side setback adjacent to a street or another alley may be reduced to 3 feet A minimum 25 foot turning radius is required from the garage to the opposite side of the street, alley, drive aisle or driveway (3334-6/97 3410 3199) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAffiwe No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Districts Additional(Development Standards ATTACHED FRONT t t ENTRY GARAGE t t i t t Property line i t t i t i i t t i Munmum 20' from t garage to property line Street Sidewalk — — — — — — — — — - � t t i t ATTACHED SIDE t i ENTRY GARAGE t i t0 Property Line t t t � t t i Minimum 10' from t t garage to property line Min 25_j Street Sidewalk Radius Property line Alley — Minimum 25' from garage to property line on the other side of the existing alley — — — — — — — — — , =Minimum 5' from t t garage to property line t t t i t i t t: t t Property line t GARAGE WITH ENTRY FROM REAR ALLEY i t t i 4. Sidewalk Street Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 10 LEGISLATIVE D e No 3885 RL,RM,RMII,RII,and RMIP Districts Additional Development Standards (L) Projections into Setbacks (1) See Section 230 68 Building Projections into Yards (2) Balconies and bay windows may project into required setbacks and usable open space areas subject to Section 230 68,provided that balconies have open railings,glass, or architectural details with openings to reduce visible bulk Balconies composed solely of solid enclosures are not allowed to project into required setbacks (3334-6/97 3410-3199) (M) Height Requirements See Section 230 70 Measurement of Height, and Section 230 72 Exceptions to Height Limits (1) Single Family Dwellings in all residential districts, except lots in the RMH A subdistrict with less than 50 feet of frontage shall comply with the following standards (3334-6/97 3410 3199) (a) Second story top plate height shall not exceed twenty-five(25)feet measured from the top of the subfloor/slab directly below (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (b) Roofs shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch if building height exceeds thirty(30)feet (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (c) Maximum building height for Main Dwellings shall be thirty-five(35)feet, however, Main Dwellings exceeding thirty(30)feet in height shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator (3268-12/94)(3334-6/97) (d) Habitable area, which includes rooftop decks and balconies, above the second story top plate line shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator Habitable area above the second story plate line shall be within the confines of the roof volume,with the following exceptions (333"197 3410-3/99) (1) Dormers, decks and other architectural features may be permitted as vertical projections above the roof volume provided the projections are set back five(5) feet from the building exterior and do not exceed the height limits as stated above (3334 6/97) (2) Windows and deck areas above the second story plate line shall orient toward public nghts-of-way only (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 11 LEGISLATIVE D No 31185 Dormers decks and other architectural features must Habitable Areas are be setback 5 from • confined within the building ext nor roof volume • accessed from within the main dwelling • subject to conditional 5 use permit approval HABITABLE AREA ABOVE SECOND STORY TOP-PLATE LINE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS EXCEPT RMH-A SUBDISTRICT (3410-3199) (e) Access to any habitable area above the second story top plate line shall be provided within the Main Dwelling and shall be consistent with internal circulation Exterior stairways between the ground floor and a habitable area above the second story plate line shall be prohibited (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Two vertical cross-sections through the property (front-to-back and side-to-side)that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added to an existing structure to both existing and fimshed grade on the property and adjacent land within 5 feet of the property line shall be submitted in order to determine compliance with this subsection (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (2) Single Family Dwellings in the RNM A subdistrict on lots with less than 50 feet of frontage shall comply with the following standards (3334-6/97 3410 3199) (a) Second story top plate height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet measured from the top of the subfloor/slab directly below (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (b) Roofs shall have a mimmum 5/12 pitch if building height exceeds thirty (30) feet (3334 6/97) (c) In the front and rear 25 feet of the lot maximum building height for all structures, including railings and architectural features, shall be 25 feet Otherwise,maximum building height shall be 35 feet (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 12 LEGISLATIVE D No 3885 Front Property Line 1 1 I I I 1 I 35 maxunum 25 maxmium I height at top i height m the 1 of roof I 25, front and rear 25 of 25 I I the lot 1 I I -1 Street 1 I Rear I 25 25 I Property Line MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOTS LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE IN RMH-A SUBDISTRICT (d) Access to any habitable area above the second story top plate line shall be provided within the Main Dwelling and shall be consistent with internal circulation Exterior stairways between the ground floor and a habitable area above the second story plate line shall be prohibited (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Two vertical cross-sections through the property(front-to-back and side-to-side)that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added to an existing structure to both existing and finished grade on the property and adjacent land within 5 feet of the property line shall be submitted in order to determine compliance with this subsection (33346/97 3410-3/99) (3) Accessory Structures See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures Accessory structures located on projecting decks abutting a waterway shall comply with the height established in subsection(R) (3334-6/97 3410 3199) (4) Recreation Buildings The maximum height of a recreation building for multi-family, planned residential, and mobile home park projects shall be established by the conditional use permit (3334-6/97) (l) Minimum Floor Area Each dwelling unit in a multi-family building and attached single family dwellings shall have the following minimum floor area Unit Type Minimum Area(Square Feet) Studio 500 one bedroom 650 two bedrooms 900 three bedrooms 1,100 four bedrooms 1,300 All detached single family dwellings shall have a minimum 1 000 square feet of floor area not including the garage and shall be a minimum of 17 feet in width (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAVP No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards (0) Open Space Requirements (1) The mmmum open space area(private and common) for multi-family residential projects in RM,RMH, including RMH-A subdistrict,and RH Districts shall be 25%of the residential floor area per unit(excluding garages) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99 3706-06/05) (2) Private Open Space (a) Private open space shall be provided in courts or balconies within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 10 feet for courts and 6 feet for balconies A minimum patio area of 70 square feet shall be provided within the court (3334-6/97) (b) The following minunum area shall be provided Unit Type Minimum Area(Sq Ft) Units Above Ground Floor Units Ground Floor Studio/l bedroom 200 60 2 bedrooms 250 120 3 bedrooms 300 120 4 or more bedrooms 400 120 (3334-6/97) (c) Private open space shall be contiguous to the unit and for the exclusive use of the occupants Private open space shall not be accessible to any dwelling unit except the unit it serves and shall be physically separated from common areas by a wail or hedge exceeding 42 inches in height (33346/97 3410-3/99) (d) A maximum of 50% of the private open space requirement,may be on open decks above the second story subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator provided that no portion of such deck exceeds the height limit (3410 3/99 3706-6/05) (e) Patio and balcony enclosures within existing planned developments or apartment complexes shall be subject to the following conditions (370"/05) 1 A maximum of one enclosure per unit shall be allowed (3706-6/05) 2 The existing balcony or patio area shall not be enlarged (3706-6105) 3 The balcony or patio enclosure shall comply with the current setback and height requirements for the district in which the site is located (3706-6/05) 4 The enclosure shall consist entirely of transparent materials i e , no solid wails or opaque walls, except an existing solid roof may be part of the enclosure (3706-6/05) 5 No structural change shall occur to the interface wall and doorway between the enclosure and the adjacent inside room of the building unless the balcony/patio is replaced with equivalent unenclosed area for use as private open space (3706-6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 14 LEGISLATIVE Dpjgnp No 3885 6 The enclosed area shall be considered as private open space and may be counted toward current private open space requirements (3706-6/05) 7 Required egress for fire escape routes shall be maintained (37o"/m) (3) Common Open Space (a) Common open space,provided by interior side yards,patios,and terraces,shall be designed so that a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 10 feet, shall be open to the sky,and shall not include driveways,parking areas,or area required for front or street side yards (333"/97 3410-3/99 37o6 105) (b) Projects with more than 20 units shall include at least one amenity, such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, volleyball court,outdoor cooking facility, or other recreation facility (333"/97 3410-3/99 3706-06/05) (4) The Director may allow a reduction in the open space requirement to 10%of the livable area per unit for projects with less than 10 units and located within walking distance of 1,000 feet of a public park or beach (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (P) Courts Opposite Windows in RM RMH, and RH Districts(excluding the RMH-A sub- district) Courts shall be provided in all multi-family projects in the RM, RMH, and RH Districts subject to the following requirements (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (1) Courts Opposite Walls on the Same Site The minimum depth of a court shall be one-half the height of the opposite wall but not less than 20 feet opposite a living room and 14 feet opposite a required window for any other habitable room(see diagrams below) (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (2) Courts Opposite Interior Propgity Line The minimum distance between a required window of a habitable room and a property line shall be 10 feet (333"/97 3410-3/99) (3) Court Dimensions Courts shall be minimum 20 feet wide(minimum 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the required window)and shall be open to the sky Eaves may project a maximum 2 feet into a court (3334-6197 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 15 LEGISLATIVE D No ""' RL,RM,Rind,M and RMP Distncts Additional Development Standards 1 1 Section A Section B Section C 1 Living room ' window ' T I 1 112 acigM of ' ' Opposd wait � 20 @, ( 14 ft Not less than 10 ft i 1 1 liiiiiii,—� Living room window Living room iwindow 1 h Living room Living room Living room window window window h/2 —► 20 Section A Section B ',000/ Other room E=windovw oom window 14 ft. Section C 210LRT CDR COURTS OPPOSTTE WINDOWS (3334-6/9n Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 16 'JUIEGISLATIVE DftkppNo 3885 RL,IaM,RMIR,RH,and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (� All habitable rooms in a dwelling unit must be accessible from within the dwelling (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) (R) Waterfront Lots Projecting decks,wmdscreens, fencing,patio covers and solariums on waterfront lots may be permitted subject to the development standards set forth in this Chapter, Chapter 245, Chapter 17 24,and the following requirements (33346/97) (1) Projecting Decks Decks on waterfront lots may project 5 feet beyond the bulkhead provided the decks comply with the side setbacks required for the main dwelling (3334- 6/97 3410-3/99) (2) Windscreens Windscreens may be permitted if constructed of light-weight materials such as plastic, canvas,fiberglass,tempered glass or metal,except for necessary bracing and framing The maximum height for windscreens shall be 7 feet above the finished surface of the deck at the bulkhead line (3334-6/97) (3) Fencmg All portions of fencing within the required rear setback area shall comply with Chapter 230 88 and the visibility provisions below (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (4) Solanums Solanums(patio enclosures)may project a maximum of 30 inches over the bulkhead In all cases,the solanum shall maintain a 45 degree (45')visibility angle as measured from the main dwelling building line extended to the side property line The maximum height shall not exceed the top of the first floor ceiling joist (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (5) Patio Covers Patio covers(including eaves)may be permitted to project 5 feet into the rear yard setback,however construction materials shall allow compliance with visibility provisions below (3334-6197 3410-3/99) (6) Vnsib;li The portion of any windscreen, fence or patio cover in the rear yard setback or solarium above 36 inches in height shall be composed of materials and design which allow a minimum of 85%transmission of light and visibility through the structure in each direction when viewed from any angle (3334 6/97) (7) Removal Decks, solariums and windscreens projecting over waterways which do not comply with the above provisions may be removed by the city upon 30-days' written notice Such projections are declared to be a privilege which can be revoked for noncompliance and not a vested right (333"197) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 17 LEGISLATIVE DOYP No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Dnsta-nets Additional Development Standards Bulkhead Solarium Projecting deck 2 1/2' Max 151 ®^ 450 45 - - - min house 5' min Property line �ir��en�rm WATERFRONT LOT PROJECTIONS (333"197) (S) Landscaping (1) A minimum 40%of the front yard shall be landscaped For single family residences in the RMH-A subdistrict, a minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter along the front property line(excluding max 5 ft wide walkway) may be provided in lieu of the 40% requirement A maximum 18 inch high planter wall may be constructed along the front property line (3334-6/97 3410-3199) (2) All required trees specified in Chapter 232 shall be provided (3410 3/99) (3) All subdivisions shall provide a mimmum 5 foot wide landscaped area along arterial street/lughway property lines The actual required width shall be determined during the planning process Maintenance of said landscaped area shall be by a homeowners association, property owner or other method approved by the City of Huntington Beach (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) (T) Lighting A lighting system shall be provided in all multi-family projects along all vehicular access ways and major walkways Lighting shall be directed onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 18 LEGISLATIVE D No 3115 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards ([) See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures (333"/97 3410-3/99) (V) Solid patio covers open on at least 2 sides may be permitted an additional 5%site coverage Open lattice patio covers are exempted from site coverage standards (3410 3199) 21008 Development Standards for Senior Projects Thus section establishes development standards for Senior Residential Projects that may be permitted by the Planning Commission (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) A Minimum Floor Area. Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 450 square feet (33346/97 3410-3/99) B Mmunum Setbacks The project shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district applicable to the site (3334-6/97) C Minimum Distance between Buildings Minimum building separation shall be 10 feet (333"/97 3410-3199) D Building Design No structure shall exceed 180 feet in length To provide variation to building facades,two of the following architectural elements are required as part of each blulding sloped roofs,bay windows, awnings,roof eaves, cornices, balconies or patios (3334-6/97) E Open Space Requirements (3334-6197 3410 3/99) 1 Private Open Space A minimum of 60 square feet of private open space for studios or one bedroom units and 120 square feet for two or more bedrooms with nunimum dimensions of 6 feet (33346/97 3410-3/99) 2 Common Open Space A minimum of 2,500 square feet for the first 50 units and an additional 50 square feet for each unit over 50 (3334-6/97 3410 3199) 3 Commum1y Club House An enclosed community or clubhouse facility containing minimum 7 square feet per unit,and a total area of minimum 400 square feet, may satisfy up to 50%of the common open space requirement The clubhouse shall include handicapped bathrooms and kitchen facilities to be used by project residents and their guests only (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) F Elevators Buildings with more than 2 levels, including living areas or parking, shall have elevators (3334-6/97) G Parking Parking shall comply with Chapter 231 Any parking space over and above the one space per unit shall be marked for guest use (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 19 LEGISLATIVE D r No 3885 RL,,RM,RME,RH, and RMP Districts Additional(Development Standards 21010 Modifications for Affordable Housing The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit modifying the minimum property development standards in this chapter for affordable housing, as provided in Section 230 14 The proposed modifications shall be requested in writing by the applicant,accompanied by a detailed pro- forma,rental guidelines,deed restrictions, financial subsidies, and other types of documentation wtuch will serve to demonstrate the need for a reduction of development standards Modifications to the standards may include,but are not limited to,the parking requirements and open space The specific standard(s)from which the applicant is requesting relief shall be identified and alternative development standard(s)proposed (33346/97 3410-3/99) 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions This section establishes supplemental development standards and provisions that shall apply to all planned unit developments (333"197) A Planned Unit Development shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the protect as well as the general public. Examples of public benefits that may be provided in a Planned Unit Development include,but are not limited to the creation of permanent open space,usable and appropriately located recreation facilities,the conservation of natural elements, land features and energy,and other public improvements A Mans A tentative and final or parcel map shall be approved pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions (3334-6/97) B Project Design 1 Driveway parking for a mimmum of fifty percent of the units shall be provided when units are attached side by side (333"/97) 2 A maximum of six units may be attached side by side and an offset on the front of the building a mimmum of four(4) feet for every two units shall be provided (3334.6/97) 3 A minimum of one-third of the roof area within a multi-story, multi-umt building shall be one story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure's roof area. (3334-6/97) 4 The number of required parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 231 1n addition,one or more of the following alternative parking configurations may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development if it is determined that such configuration and location thereof will be accessible and useful in connection with the proposed dwelling units of the development a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 23114 b Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on-street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAIUP No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,Ili, and 1tMP Districts Additional Development Standards C Common Areas Every owner of a lot or dwelling unit shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or lot either an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities or a share in the corporation,community association, or limited partnership owning the common areas and facilities (3334-6/97) D Covenants The developer shall submit a covenant setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common areas and communal facilities Such covenant shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions,and Restrictions(CC&R's) applying to the property and shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director The CC&R's shall be approved prior to final or parcel map approval and when approved, shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder (3334-6/97) E Maintenance The corporation, community association,or limited partnerslup shall have the responsibility of maintaining the common areas and facilities as shown on the final development plans,the buildings and use of property for planned unit development (333"/97) F Sale of Lots No dwelling unit or lot shall be sold or encumbered separately from an interest in the common areas and facilities in the development winch shall be appurtenant to such dwelling unit or lot No lot shall be sold or transferred in ownership from the other lots in the total development or approved phase of the development unless all approved community bmldmgs, structures and recreational facilities for the total development, or approved phase thereof, have been completed, or completion is assured by bonding or other method satisfactory to the City (3334-6/97) G Management Agreement No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,community association,or limited partnership has been formed with the right to assess all those properties winch are jointly owned with interests in the common areas and facilities in the development to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development Said entity shall operate under recorded CC&Rs winch shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units,and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs and services The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to and receive approval of the City prior to making any such sale This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes (3334-6/97) 21014 RMP District Supplemental Development Standards This section establishes supplemental standards for the development of manufactured home parks (3334-6/97) A Individual space setbacks for manufactured homes and accessory structures shall be landscaped and are as follows Front minimum 5 feet Side 10 feet aggregate, minimum 3 feet on any side Rear minimum 5 feet (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) B Each space shall be provided with a minimum 150 cubic feet of enclosed usable storage space (3334-6/97 3410 3199) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 21 LEGISLATIVE DPJdFP No 3885 C The undercarriage of all manufactured homes shall be screened from view on all sides (333a-s/s7) D A six foot high concrete or masonry wall shall be provided along all interior property Imes of the manufactured home park In addition,a 20 foot wide landscaped berm or a 10 foot wide landscaped area and a 6 foot high wall shall be located at the minimum front setback line (33346/97 341 o-3/99) E A boat or trailer storage area shall be provided and screened from view by a 6 foot high fence or wall (3334-&97 341 a3/99) F Maximum site coverage for each individual manufactured home space shall be 75% (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 22 LEGISLATIVE D No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards G Projects in the RMP district shall provide a mimmum common open space area of 200 square feet per manufactured home space (3410-3/99) 21016 Review of Plans All applications for new construction and exterior alterations and additions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review Discretionary review shall be required as follows (3334-6197) A Zoning Admnustrator Review Projects requiring a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator, projects on substandard lots, see Chapter 241 (3334-6197 3410-3/99) B Design Review Board See Chapter 244 (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) C Planning Commission Projects requiring a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission, see Chapter 241 (33346197 3410-3/99) D Protects in the Coastal Zone A Coastal Development Permit is required unless the project is exempt, see Chapter 245 (3334-6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 23 RESOLUTION NO 2010-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 08-011 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No 08-011 proposes to amend Figure LU-5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to redesignate the land use designation of the real property consisting of an approximately 5-acre site generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Cluca Street and Los Patos Avenue, as more particularly described as Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto, from Open Space—Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density—Seven dwelling units per acre(RL-7) Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 08-011 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council and Pursuant to California Government Code the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 08 011 and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No 08-011 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows SECTION 1 That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the `Subject Property ) is generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits ' A and `B , respectively and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein SECTION 2 That General Plan Amendment No 08-011, which amends the General Plan Land Use designation from Open Space — Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per acre(RL-7) for the subject site is hereby approved The Director of 09 2349/42730 1 Resolution No 2010-47 Plammng and Btuldmg is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended band Use Map A copy of said map,as amended,shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July ,2410 M or RE AND APPROVED MrIATED4ND APPROVED CO(Adnintstrator Director of Planning and ldtng APPROVED AS TO FORM 1 1 � Attorney AV - -ld ATTACRWNTS Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B General Plan Land Use Map(Extract of Figure LU 5) 09 2349/42730 2 Resolution No 2010-47 Resolution No 2010-47 Title No 08-25991524"R Locate No CAFUT0925-0925-0199-0259915246 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT W PROPOSED TRACT NO 17294 BEING A SUBDMSION OF { THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 11 WEST,IN THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA,INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 6 2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED TO DONALD E GOODELL RECORDED NOVEMBER 5,19591N BOOK 4960 PAGE 87 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY,THENCE SOUTH 890 58 30"WEST450 00 FEETALONGTHE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL TO A ANGLE POINT IN PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO 92-01 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO 92-589755 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL 2 THE FOLLOWING COURSES CONTINUING SOUTH W 58 30"WEST 323 00 FEET AND NORTH 34*02 08" WEST 604 67 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL W FH AND 30 00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION,THE FOLLOWING COURSES SOUTH 890 21 32"EAST 639.80 FEET AND SOUTH 890 35 35" EAST 90 18 FEET" THENCE NORTH 00 10 29" EAST 30 00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF TRACT NO 10853 RECORDED IN BOOK 513, PAGES 14 THROUGH 15 AND TRACT NO 5792 RECORDED IN BOOK 220 PAGES 8 THROUGH 11, BOTH OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THENCE SOUTH 89- 35 3S" EAST 383 00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL, THENCE SOUTH 0°10 29 WEST 520 23 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED FEBRUARY 28 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO 20000104631 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN TRACT NO 15734 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 797 PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IN ANY POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE TO BE ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY,AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME IT IS PREPARATORY TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AND IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THOSE PARTIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION AND CHECKING OF SAID MAP i APN 10 016 35 2 QTA PreLmenary Report form Modified(11/17/06) I I This Map Is being furnished as a corwenienee to locate the SEE SPECIAL PAGE 110-019 FOR FEE TITLE ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE harsh described land Inrelation t0 adJobUnp afraets and other T 5 Sr R 11 W ! G� 10�, 1�0-0 1 lands The Company does not guaraitee dimensions s distances bearings orsereago stated tlareon,nor IsIt 25 �faJ��B 9�0 2T 26 Intends to Nluatrato legal building oleos or suporoodo City or ! B CoUmy ordinances l o zoning and building codes etc A� B� P. ORlcial information concerning the use of arty parcel should 0 b 58 +n be obtalned from local g"ornmentagencies �b�A ,. S w 32 tis 1� 29 C >> 6 30 AC 25 Of TA IL A W�si°45 + �Y +eb r14 56 i 302 s frAfs� t I000 0AC 4 4J:OAc a tih SEE vfutt a s9 n Or At 5 r r00 ?,�� *� 33 s 35�Ac17q?�y yoj ��� % larPr BB(eii73a'ra 82?3AJJOa else°19 V 163-27 2233 09 A 26AC �,? J is Ate G�Q�t�� 1r0 Ae e,. 23 � g� '''�,.,.tr.. �O 4 59 At 4 ,��' a 016 t t •, I sit $; ---. _---_ Qti 111��� �� 36 O A 31 � 24 At 29 @ f�D r�0 *�y 73 911�AtC 1 42 I 25 rA6 28 At ��7 t2S00 acal0q� �t�n11+ J 41 J Pf At 49 _ to 40 38 t8 019 0AC r Cr B 05 At 10 ` O ti� ° 39 6 eAC! 30 �' �$ 3t e�t 9 12 1 96 Al 114 1 `S O y% 4 rS 0 At J 0/ q ! 7 V7 At a Je O 9 ,10 O At 54 S re At R w p y� 45 91 At 55 pp(phdtp�A 2 )At 9 go 10 1t0A47U 161 At qG9 t 4 sA�J 11 r e f0 p 11b 2 ; /� sr 3 r �t sAJ �%a l�Jac y / I �, 4rt990 O`�S wT sit �'`------- •_ L23 .1A t A4ARrH 1968 REMR0 SIIRVFY R 5 1 26 t! 154E Sl(!n ti t e ASSr S 1k 4 MrA A rr r i 4rihn OU it vi It/ t t Resolution No 2010-47 Y 4 j 'l'l - x � r`3x r M a a• r u 7 MEW �Elix v 1h • Res No 2010-47 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTDNGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2010 by the following vote AYES Carchio Coerper Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Dwyer ABSTAIN None Q4*"M) e4. Vy Clerk and ex offic Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California RESOLUTION NO 2010-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09- 002 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 2—LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND LOS PATOS AVENUE AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the Land Use Plan) and Chapter 6 of the California Coastal Act and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the Califorma Coastal Act NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows 1 That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and consists of approximately five acres within the City of Huntington Beach(Exhibit A) 2 That the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect a change in the land use designation for the subject property from Open Space — Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per acre(RL-7) (Exhibit B) 3 That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Zoning Map Amendment 09 2349/42731 1 Resolution No 2010-48 No 08-007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein 4 That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 5 That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512,30513 and 30519 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of July , 20 10 ATTEST ay INITI TED D APPROVED Ci lerk Director of Planning ana B ilding REV AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM Ci i istrator ZItyAttorney Exhibits A Location Map B Amended Land Use Plan(Extract of Figure C-6 of the Coastal Element) C Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 D Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 09 2349/42731 2 Resolution No 201048 Resolution No 2010-48 Exhibit A—Location Male u ngt Warner Ave CD i Subj�ct See - _ s 01 — -� lJos Patos Ave 4 _ _ Bnc-hMater Development i { i �0 { OFO �o ds ty �t N Resolution No 2010-48 Resolution No 201048 Zone 3 i 114 12 0 �J Refer to following figure � 1/ 0 Extract of Figure C-6 -ti�cti �j for changes to band Use Plan _ O � r-s S G1) ZONE 2 LEGEND WWDEMAL f oS a # + P PUBiiC � � OPEN SPACE OSC CONSERVATION OSf TARSHORE OS-S itE � COAST,IL Z(TNE SOVNDARY (((IN7IMON BEACK CT TY UMM HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ZONE ZONE 2 LAND USE PLAN ,„ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELEMENT 9C-b IV C 21 Resolution No 2010-48 Exhibit B—Land Use Plan (Extract of Figure C7 0s �de. Subject Site R L-7 8 s Not Dewgnated Brightwater Specific Plan) County qJ Orange Legend RL-7 Residential Low Density-7 du/acre OS-P Open Space-Parks OS-C Open Space-Conservation -m-- Coastal Zone Boundary Resolution No 2010-48 Resolution No 2010-48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RMH-A RMH RN RMP Addifional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Building Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac (A)(B)(C) 04+03" Width(f1) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A f3=4WW 341G,% ) Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (3334,WW 3aWW" Minimum Setbacks (EW m 3410%" Front(ft j 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) P3340.W 3.104%" Side(ft) 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 - (G)(1)(j) (33U-%W Street Side(ft.) 6,10 6,10 5 6,10 6,10 10 (ID Rear(fL) 10 10 75 10 10 - (1)(J) Accessory Structure (U) 97 ulo,% „ Garage (K) 7 34110-"9, Projections into Setbacks (l-)(R) 7 3410-"g, Maximum Height(fL) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (333.-8=U10-V") Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) <U14.31M Maximum Floor Area - - 10 - - - (9334-WW 34=03/9% Ratio(FAR) i34=0-M" Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq ft.) 6 000 2 904 * 1 742 1 244 - (3334-W9=3410-3M) Maximum Lot _ Coverage(%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) 3410-%") Minimum Floor Area (N) =3410.3," Minimum Usable Open Space (0p) Courts ( ) (3334-6197 3410-SM) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (3410-3M) Waterfront Lots (10 c3334-SW 3430-V" Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) =34id3/99) Fences and Walls See Section 230 88 Lighting (T) (3334-fiW 3410-3t) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17 64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230 76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230 78 (U10-3M) Antenna See Section 230 80 (U10-31W Performance Standards See Section 230 82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 &Section 210 12 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 Accessory Structures See Chapter 230 08 r== > * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 -� Resolution No 201048 L GISLATWE DRAFT RL,RM,RMH,RH,and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards 21010 Modifications for Affordable Housing The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit modifying the minimum property development standards in this chapter for affordable housing,as provided in Section 23014 The proposed modifications shall be requested in writing by the apphcant,accompanied by a detailed pro- forma,rental guidelines,deed restrictions,financial subsidies,and other types of documentation which will serve to demonstrate the need for a reduction of development standards Modifications to the standards may include,but are not limited to,the parking requirements and open space The specific standard(s)from which the applicant is requesting relief shall be identified and alternative development standard(s)proposed. (333"W 34104m) 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions This section establishes supplemental development standards and provisions that shall apply to all planned unit developments (3334-s417) A Planned Unit Development shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general pubhe Eaaaiaples of public benefits that inay be provided in a Planned Unit Development include,but are not limited to the creation of permanent open space,usable and appropriately located recreation facilities,the conservation of natural elements,land features and energy,and other public improvements A Maus A tentative and final or parcel map shall be approved pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions (3334-"7) B Project Design 1 Driveway parking for a minimum of fifty percent of the units shall be provided when units are attached side by side (3s34-sr97) 2 A maximum of six units may be attached side by side and an offset on the front of the building a minimum of four(4)feet for every two units shall be provided (3334-6M7) 3 A minimum of one-third of the roof area within a multi-story,multi-unit building shall be one story less in height than the remaining portion of the stricture's roof area (3334-w97) 4 The number of required parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 231 In addition,one or more of the following alternative parking configurations may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development if it is determined that such configuration and location thereof will be accessible and useful in connection with the proposed dwelling units of the development a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 23114 b Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on-street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 20 of 22 Resolution No 201048 Resolution No 2010-48 Amended Zonut Ma L q i• e r '� rA i r. __LosTatos Ave- Subject Site RL - CZ Cd Cd F SP-15-6Z County of Orange (Planned Community) - � City of HB pre-zoned , RL-CZ, OS-PR, OS-C a� *The City recently approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC- Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No 109 Legend RL-Residential Low Density RA-Residential Agncultural RMH- Residential Medium High Density SP15-Speck Plan 15 (Bnghtwater) OS-PR-Open Space-Parks & Recreation OS-C -Open Space - Conservation CC-Coastal Conservation CZ-Coastal Zone Overlay Res No 2010-48 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2010 by the following vote AYES Carchio Coerper Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Dwyer ABSTAIN None Citylverk and ex-officio rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California PUBLIC HEARING 9 Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016, General Plan Amendment No 08-011 by adopting Resolution No 2010-47, Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 by approving for introduction Ordinance No 3884, Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 by approving for introduction Ordinance No 3885, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 by adopting Resolution No 2010-48, Tentative Tract Map No 17294, Coastal Development Permit No 08-022, and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 ("The Ridge" 22-unit single-family planned unit development - legislative amendments and appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the recirculated mitigated negative declaration and development entitlements) Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action A) Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 (Attachment No 6) with findings (Attachment No 1), and B)Approve General Plan Amendment No 08-011 by adopting City Council Resolution No 2010-47 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No 08-011 (Attachment No 2) and, C) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by appfewng introducing City Council Ordinance No 3884 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density— Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) (Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007) (Attachment No 3) and D) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving introducing City Council Ordinance No 3885 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Section 210 06 Property Development Standards and 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions (Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008), (Attachment No 4) and E) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving City Council Resolution No 2010-48 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 2 — Land Use Plan of the City s Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission (Attachment No 5) and 6 F) Approve Tentative Tract Map No 17294 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1), and, G) Approve Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) and, H) Approve Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) Assistant City Clerk Robin Lugar announced 664 Late Communications 33 Speakers Approved 5-1-1 (Hardy no, Dwyer absent) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 10 Adopt Resolution No 2010-46 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Submitting to the Qualified Electors of the City at the November 2, 2010 General Municipal Election a Measure Related to the City's Utility Users' Tax (proposed Ordinance No 3883) Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No 2010-46 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Submitting to the Qualified Electors of the City a Communications Utility Users Tax Measure Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis,' submitting a measure to reduce the telecommunications and video services percentage tax rate and to modernize the definitions of the City s Utility Users Tax (UUT) on telecommunications and video services Hardy, Bohr, Coerper, Carchio, Hansen authorized to write argument in favor Approved 6-0-1 (Dwyer absent) 11 Adopt Resolution No 2010-49 amending the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee and updating the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee Implementation Program Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No 2010-49 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting an In-Lieu Parking Fee and Implementation Plan for District 1 of the Downtown Specific Plan Continued to the July 19, 2010 City Council meeting Approved 6-0-1 (Dwyer absent) ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 12 Approve for introduction Ordinance No 3881 amending Chapter 233 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) relating to the number of political signs and placement of temporary signs Recommended Action -7- Council/Agency Meeting Held Deferred/Continued to 7 ,-�o/v �Approved ❑ Conditionally proved ❑ De ed Ci Cler Signatur Council Meeting Date July 6 2010 Department ID Number PL10-017 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY Fred A Wilson City Administrator PREPARED BY Scott Hess AICP Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 General Plan Amendment No 08-011 by adopting Resolution No 2010-47 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 by approving for introduction Ordinance No 3884 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 by approving for introduction Ordinance No 3885 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 by adopting Resolution No 2010-48 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08- 022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 ( The Ridge 22-unit single-family planned unit development - legislative amendments and appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the recirculated mitigated negative declaration and development entitlements) Statement of Issue Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No 08 011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09 002 to amend the existing Open Space — Park (OS-P) General Plan land use designation and Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone (RA-CZ) zoning designation on an approximately 5-acre parcel on the Bolsa Chica Mesa to Residential Low Density (RL) to allow for the subdivision and development of a 22-unit single-family planned unit development The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council and approved the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit on April 27 2010 The Planning Commissions approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and development entitlements was appealed by Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy and is included as part of this request Financial Impact Not Applicable Planninq Commission and Staff Recommended Action A) Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 (Attachment No 6) with findings (Attachment No 1) and -21'�- Item 9 - Page 1 B) Approve General Plan Amendment No 08-011 by adopting City Council Resolution No 2010- 47 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No 08-011 (Attachment No 2) and C)Approve Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving City Council Ordinance No 3884 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) (Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007) (Attachment No 3) and D)Approve Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving City Council Ordinance No 3885 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Section 210 06 Property Development Standards and 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions (Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008) (Attachment No 4) and E) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09 002 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving City Council Resolution No 2010-48 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09- 002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 2 — Land Use Plan of the City s Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission (Attachment No 5) and F) Approve Tentative Tract Map No 17294 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) and G) Approve Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) and H) Approve Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) Planning Commission Action on Apnl 27, 2010 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA SECONDED BY MANTINI TO APPROVE RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DCLARATION NO 08-016 WITH FINDINGS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Livengood Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 08 011 BY APPROVING THE DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE Item 9 - Page 2 -212- AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett Livengood ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09-002 WITH FINDINGS BY APPROVING THE DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCES (ZMA AND ZTA) AND RESOLUTION (LCPA) AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett Livengood ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE SECONDED BY SPEAKER TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett Livengood ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE SECONDED BY SCANDURA TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett Livengood ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE SECONDED BY MANTINI TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Speaker Mantini Scandura Delgleize NOES Farley Shier Burnett Livengood ABSENT None ABSTAIN None MOTION APPROVED -213- Item 9 - Page 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 Alternative Action(s) The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s) a Deny Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 / General Plan Amendment No 08-011 / Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 / Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 / Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 / Tentative Tract Map No 17294 / Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 / Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 with findings for denial b Continue Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 / General Plan Amendment No 08-011 / Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 / Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 / Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 / Tentative Tract Map No 17294 / Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 / Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and direct staff accordingly Analysis A PROJECT PROPOSAL Applicant Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine CA 92614 Location 17202 Bolsa Chica Street 92649 (5-acre site southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue) The project represents a request to amend the land use and zoning designations on an approximately 5-acre parcel for the subdivision and development of a 22-unit single-family planned unit development (PUD) with a 5 776 square foot common open space area in the coastal zone Specifically the project includes the following requests Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments General Plan Amendment No 08-011 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on the project site from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL— 7 Units/Acre) (Attachment No 2) Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 represents a request to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and to reflect the Zoning Map and Text Amendments described below (Attachment No 5) Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 a request to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) (Attachment No 3) Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 a request to amend Chapter 210 12 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Item 9 - Page 4 -214- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 Ordinance (HBZSO) to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development and clarify the requirement for provision of a public benefit (Attachment No 4) Tentative Tract Map No 17294 a request to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 a request to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single-family residences common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone Conditional Use Perm►t No 08-046 a request to permit construction on a site with greater than a three-foot grade differential The size of the 22 residential lots ranges from 5 114 square feet to 12 250 square feet The proposed 4 5 and 6 bedroom dwellings range in size from approximately 2 700 — 4 200 square feet and are two-stories with a two- or three-car garage The site is proposed to take access from a single point of ingress/egress along Bolsa Chica Street The project is proposing construction of infrastructure improvements including street curbs sidewalks and storm drain facilities The project is being proposed and designed as a planned unit development (PUD) which allows flexibility in lot standards while providing a common unifying public benefit The project is proposing 22 single-family parcels that do not meet all the minimum standards for lot width and size in the RL (Residential — Low Density) zoning district Six of the proposed lots are less than 6 000 square feet in size the smallest parcel being 5 114 square feet In addition 14 lots do not meet the minimum lot width of 60 feet (45 feet for cul-de-sac) instead ranging in size from 17 feet for a proposed flag lot to 55 feet in width The applicant is proposing to provide two primary public benefits for the proposed PUD project The first public benefit is the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel immediately north of the project site The parcel is currently undeveloped and would be improved with a 6-foot wide meandering trail and landscaping buffer that would connect to an existing informal unimproved path on the adjacent Shea property east of the project site to provide noticeable access to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands from Bolsa Chica Street thereby enhancing coastal access opportunities in the Bolsa Chica area The project is also proposing to be constructed as the City s first green residential project and would achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating Green features proposed to be incorporated in the project include integration of solar panels into the roofing of the homes utilization of permeable pavers for the street and driveways Energy Star-rated homes drought-tolerant landscaping and a storm drain system designed to capture low-volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground functioning as a water treatment and groundwater recharge system B BACKGROUND The approximately 5-acre project site was incorporated into the City in 1970 At the time it was incorporated both the General Plan land use and Zoning Map designations were for low density residential uses After the Coastal Act was enacted in 1976 the City submitted a proposed Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission for certification At the time a large scale -215- Item 9 - Page 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 development that included approximately 3 000 residential units was being considered by the County for the Bolsa Chica including the mesa and lowland areas In anticipation of the development the City re-designated an area that included the project site to Open Space — Recreation (subsequently changed to Open Space — Park) on the City s Land Use Plan which was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982 Then in 1984 the City re-zoned the same area to Residential Agricultural The Residential Agricultural zoning designation was reflective of the existing agricultural use of the site and was determined at the time to be consistent with the Open Space — Recreation land use designation Today the amount of development that was once contemplated for the Bolsa Chica area has been considerably scaled back in what ultimately resulted in the 349-unit Bnghtwater development with 37 acres of open space on the Bolsa Chica Mesa with no development occurring in the lowlands C PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 27 2010 to consider the proposed project There were 10 speakers that provided testimony at the hearing including the project applicant The primary issues raised during public comments included concerns regarding potential environmental impacts specifically archeological and biological resources and opposition to the request to amend the land use designation from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density There were several documents submitted on the day of and during the Planning Commission meeting These documents are provided in Attachment No 11 and include a letter from Mark Bixby a member of the public citing concerns with the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration a letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) stating the NAHC s position on the projects impacts on archeological resources a letter from the applicants legal counsel in response to the NAHC letter a letter from Patricia Martz and Virginia Bickford archeologists regarding the archeological site ORA-86 a copy of an archeological research paper on ORA-83 submitted by Joe Shaw a member of the public and a petition with 28 signatures to keep the Open Space — Park designation on the project site After lengthy discussion primarily regarding the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and the projects potential impacts to biological resources the Planning Commission approved the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit and recommended approval of the legislative amendments to the City Council The Planning Commissioners in approving the project discussed the adequacy of the mitigation measures in the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and the distance of the project site to the adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) east of the site The Planning Commission also expressed that amending the land use designation would not result in the loss of an existing or planned recreational resource and discussed the City s inability to purchase the property to develop a park or recreational facility The Planning Commissioners also noted that the Local Coastal Program Amendment would be forwarded to the Coastal Commission and the project may be modified through the Coastal Commission D APPEAL On May 6 2010 Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy appealed the Planning Commissions approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the project (Attachment No 9) The reason for the appeal was to enable the City Council to review the environmental assessment and Item 9 - Page 6 -216- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 development entitlements concurrent with the consideration of the requested land use amendments for the project E STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION General Plan Amendment The project proposes to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density Existing General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site include Residential Low Density to the west Residential Medium High Density to the north Suburban Residential (County of Orange) to the south and Open Space — Conservation and Residential Low Density to the east The Brightwater development west of the project site does not have a General Plan land use designation but is developed with single-family residential and open space/conservation uses In terms of compatibility with surrounding land use designations the proposed change from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density would be consistent with surrounding designations Although the project site is designated Open Space — Park the site is not currently used for a public park or public open space area In addition the property is not included on the City s inventory of parks and the City s Community Services Department does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use Also since the project site has been privately owned since it was incorporated into the City passive use of the property by the public has never existed Therefore the proposed general plan amendment would not result in the loss of existing park space passive public open space or planned futurepark and recreational opportunities Currently under the Open Space — Park land use designation the project site would be permitted to develop as a public park or public recreational facility No other uses would be permitted and the property owner would not be able to develop any of the uses allowed under its current Residential Agricultural zoning designation Given that the City does not intend to acquire the site for development of a public park the property owner is not afforded the opportunity to develop the property with any development in the interest of the property owner The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the property owner to develop the property and would eliminate a current inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning land use designations Zoning Map Amendment The project site is currently zoned Residential Agricultural (RA) with a Coastal Zone overlay and allows agricultural uses single-family dwellings nurseries and temporary uses such as storage yards Based on the lot size the existing zoning designation would allow up to five single-family dwellings on the property However as previously mentioned none of these uses would be consistent with the current Open Space — Parks land use designation According to the HBZSO the intent of the RA zoning district is to provide a transition or holding zone for properties with current agricultural uses Since the property has not been used for agricultural uses in over five years the RA zoning designation is no longer the appropriate zoning designation Properties to the north northwest and west are zoned and developed with single- and multi-family residential uses The Shea property to the east has zoning designations for single-family residential uses as well as open space/conservation areas The Brightwater development southwest of the project site has a Specific Plan zoning designation and is developed with single-family residential uses and open space/conservation -217- Item 9 - Page 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 areas Property to the south known as the Goodell property is located in the County of Orange and has a zoning designation of Planned Community (PC) which is a designation that allows single-family residential uses at a density of 6 — 12 units per acre In addition the City has approved pre-zoning designations for the Goodell property that include single-family and open space uses The proposed Zoning Map Amendment to RL (Residential — Low Density) with a Coastal Zone overlay would be compatible with existing zoning designations surrounding the project site as well as the proposed General Plan land use designation Local Coastal Program Amendment The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment includes the request to amend the City s certified land use plan from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density similar to the General Plan Amendment request The Local Coastal Program Amendment would also include the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment According to the Coastal Act the Open Space — Park designation is considered a higher priority land use designation than a residential land use designation because the Coastal Act places higher priority on coastal recreational resources than private residential uses to ensure that coastal recreational opportunities are provided to all people However as discussed under the General Plan Amendment analysis the site is not currently developed with a park or recreational resource In addition there is no plan for the property to be used for recreational opportunities in the future Therefore the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan will not result in the loss of a higher priority coastal recreational resource Coastal issues regarding the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and development project are discussed in subsequent sections of this report Zoning Text Amendment The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would change the planned unit development (PUD) supplemental standards and provisions of Chapter 21012 of the HBZSO to allow greater flexibility in the provision of parking spaces for a PUD development The proposed changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow required parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration as long as the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site Specifically the Zoning Text Amendment would allow a PUD to satisfy required enclosed parking spaces in a tandem configuration Currently Chapter 231 of the HBZSO requires all parking spaces to be in a side by side configuration In addition required open parking spaces could be satisfied through the availability of on-street parking The new standards would only be applicable to PUD projects and would be evaluated on a project-specific basis to ensure that projects designed to incorporate the new standards would not be detrimental to the overall design or surrounding properties This includes projects in the coastal zone such as the proposed project where the provision of parking contributes to a projects ability to enable and maintain public coastal access The proposal to allow tandem parking configurations in enclosed parking space areas is consistent with previous decisions of the City In 2008 the City approved a high density residential development allowing a portion of the required parking spaces to be in a tandem configuration More recently an update to the Downtown Specific Plan was approved wherein all single- and multi-family residential uses would be allowed to provide required parking spaces in a tandem configuration In terms of applicability for future PUD developments the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow for more diversity in a projects site layout and design PUD projects could achieve a more diverse development configuration provide more Item 9 - Page 8 -218- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility the proposed amendment would provide The proposed amendment would also reduce a projects potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis as an activity area with landscaping and porch elements The allowance to satisfy open parking space requirements through the availability of on-street parking would be consistent with the nature of PUD projects PUD projects can include a mix of multi-family and single-family developments as well as commercial components While the City does not process many requests for PUD projects they are generally residential in nature and consist of either multi-family or single-family developments Requests to allow a proposal to satisfy required open parking spaces through on-street parking should only be approved if the request contributed to the overall quality of the project design and would not result in inadequate parking for the development In terms of the proposed project the tandem garage design would allow for a more aesthetic design in which garages do not dominate the street scene The proposed tandem garage design is consistent with the overall project site layout with narrow lot widths and varied setbacks that are configured around an open space area Since 10 units are proposing tandem garage configurations only two of the three open parking spaces required for the unit can be satisfied in the driveway area Therefore 10 required parking spaces are proposed to be satisfied through the availability of on-street parking The allowance for open parking spaces to be satisfied through on-street parking in this instance is similar to existing HBZSO allowances for single-family dwellings Currently an existing single-family dwelling (1994 or earlier) that proposes to increase the number of bedrooms to five or more would be required to provide a two-car garage and three open parking spaces One of the required open parking spaces can be met through the available on-street parking adjacent to the dwelling The proposed project is consistent with this existing allowance and in addition to the required open parking spaces would be providing 13 additional on-street parking spaces that would be available to the general public In total there would be 23 new on-street parking spaces It should be noted that if the zoning text amendment is not approved the applicant would have to eliminate one to two bedrooms from each of the 10 units in order for the projects proposed site plan to comply with the City s existing parking requirements As another option the applicant could choose to re-design the projects overall site plan to gain more garage and driveway space for the 10 applicable lots The proposed zoning text amendment also includes language recommended by staff to clarify the requirement for PUD projects to provide a public benefit The HBZSO does not currently state the requirement explicitly although the definition of a PUD suggests the provision of a public benefit by stating that PUD projects are large scale developments having a predominant development feature which serves to unify or organize development Recognizing that PUD projects in the general planning sense provide public benefits the City has interpreted the existing PUD definition as a requirement for PUD projects to provide a public benefit The proposed zoning text amendment includes language that clarifies this requirement and would make the provision of a public benefit a standard for all PUD projects Appeal The appeal was filed to enable the City Council to review all of the projects requested entitlements and does not ate any specific concerns regarding the project Therefore the following analysis discusses each of the entitlements (Recirculated Mitigated Negative -219- Item 9 - Page 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 Declaration Tentative Tract Map Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit) that were approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently appealed by Mayor Pro Tem Hardy Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project site The analysis concludes that with mitigation the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts The analysis relies on a geotechnical feasibility study a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) the project plans as well as other technical information compiled for the project Because the project is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and adjacent to preserved open space areas archeological and biological resources studies were also prepared for the project Cultural Resources Impacts to cultural resources were analyzed based on an Archeological Resources Report that was prepared for the project in May 2009 The report was peer reviewed by members of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee in December 2009 The members of the peer review committee are archeologists that are selected from a list compiled by the California Coastal Commission The peer review corroborated the conclusions of the archeological report The project site contains portions of the archeological site CA-ORA-86 The archeological report for the project provides a description of prior investigations of the archeological site dating back to the 1920s In 2001 a research design program to investigate the presence of CA-ORA-86 on the entire project site was conducted The 2001 investigation consisted of a multi-phased program which included subsurface excavation Resources from the investigation were hand excavated and documented Today study of the recovered materials is still ongoing as they are being analyzed in the context of the overall archeological sites on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Nevertheless the research design program that was conducted on the entire project site in 2001 resulted in the recovery of any remaining intact resources It is unlikely that any significant deposits remain on the project site As such impacts from development of the project site on cultural resources would be less than significant As added precaution mitigation measures are recommended to require archeological and Native American monitoring during site grading and construction to ensure the proper treatment including the option of preservation in place of any resources or human remains discovered on the project site Biological Resources The potential for impacts from the proposed project on biological resources within and surrounding the project site was analyzed in Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 The analysis is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist The City retained a separate biological firm to review the biological resources assessment which agreed with the analysis and conclusions of the report The biological resources assessment determined that the project could result in potential impacts to two special status species burrowing owls and southern Tarplant Although these two species do not currently exist on the project site they have the potential to occur on the site and mitigation is required to ensure that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed development The mitigation measures require surveys to determine presence of the species on the project site prior to construction-related ground disturbance If presence Reign 9 - Page 10 -220- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 of either species is determined to be on the site further mitigation is required in accordance with established protocols for the respective species The biological resources assessment also analyzed the projects potential impacts to surrounding resources specifically the ESHA east of the project site The biological resources assessment concluded that due to several factors including the projects design the requirements of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO for development adjacent to an ESHA the adaptability of raptors that use the ESHA and the projects distance from the ESHA impacts to the ESHA would be less than significant In addition the projects drainage concept as analyzed in the Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration conclude that runoff from the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the existing slope the designated wetland area on the eastern Shea property and the beneficial use of downstream waters Tentative Tract Map (Subdivision) The proposed tentative tract map consists of 22 single-family lots and nine lettered lots Access to the tract will be taken from Bolsa Chica Street The internal streets are proposed to be designed at a standard width of 36 feet from curb to curb except where the street narrows around the common open space area In this area no on-street parking is provided Four-foot wide sidewalks will be located on both sides of the street with a rolled curb layout The design of the internal streets provides adequate access for fire engines and turnaround areas A homeowners association will maintain the streets landscaping and common area improvements including the proposed 30-foot wide landscaped access trail on the City-owned parcel A 13-foot wide landscaped parkway will be provided along Bolsa Chica Street designed to match the existing 13-foot wide landscaped parkway on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street The proposed tentative tract map has been reviewed by the Fire and Public Works Departments for compliance with applicable codes and regulations In addition the proposed subdivision can be adequately served by existing infrastructure Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing the Subdivision Committee reviewed and approved the proposed tentative tract map subject to conditions of approval which are incorporated in the conditions approved by the Planning Commission on April 27 2010 Staff and the Planning Commission support the overall access and design of the proposed tentative tract map layout because it meets the City s standards and assists in achieving the overall design concept for the project Coastal Development Permit The proposed project has been designed to comply with the provisions of the HBZSO with respect to the Residential Low Density zoning standards (with the exceptions that are proposed as part of the PUD design) as well as the standards of the Coastal Zone Overlay In addition the project is conditioned to ensure compliance with the standards for development adjacent to an ESHA as specified in Chapter 221 — Coastal Zone Overlay of the HBZSO The project is consistent with other single- and multi-family residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to density height lot size and architecture Further analysis regarding the proposed developments compatibility with surrounding land uses is discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No 10) Although not substantive in nature it should be noted that minor clean-up changes have been made to the suggested conditions of approval and included moving one condition from the coastal development permit (condition #6) to the tentative tract map (condition # 3c) -221- Item 9 - Page 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 Coastal Issues As previously mentioned the Coastal Act prioritizes open space and recreational land use designations to ensure that coastal recreational resources are provided to all people Existing recreational and open space opportunities are available in the vicinity that would serve the approximately 57 potential new residents from the project In addition a 5 776 square foot (0 13 acre) common open space area would be provided by the project thus providing a recreational resource in the Coastal Zone that does not currently exist Finally as part of the proposed public benefit a 30-foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site is proposed to be improved to provide enhanced coastal access to existing coastal recreational and open space areas Although the parcel is currently owned by the City it is an unimproved vacant lot and does not provide signage a pathway or any other noticeable demarcation of coastal access Only people that are already familiar with the area would know that coastal access exists from this parcel Thus approval of the requested coastal development permit like amending the Land Use Plan would not be inconsistent with the Coastal Act in that recreational opportunities would continue to be provided for all people and the project would be contributing to the enhancement of coastal recreational resources in the area CondItIonal Use Permit (Grade Differential) The approximately 5-acre project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa The project site is generally flat however portions of the site (from the midpoint of the site to the eastern boundary) slope gradually from west to east at elevations ranging from approximately 49 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 35 feet msl The existing elevation of the area of the project site proposed to be developed with homes ranges from approximately 50 feet msl to approximately 40 feet msl Finished pads on the west side of the project site adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street are proposed to remain relatively the same as the existing elevation and would not be elevated higher than the existing elevation of Bolsa Chica Street The eastern portion of the site (not including the slope) adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations When constructed the project would be two to three feet higher than the undeveloped property south of the project site and four feet higher than the 30- foot wide City-owned parcel proposed to be improved with a landscaped public access trail Although the site includes a grade differential greater than three feet the project is designed such that the existing eastern slope would be preserved which is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element In addition the projects drainage concept is designed such that the slope and existing resources below the slope on the Shea property to the east would not be negatively impacted from development of the project site including the projects grading design Planned Unit Development1PUD) PUD projects in general allow flexibility in land use controls and site design in order to produce a project that would not otherwise be achievable under the strict application of the zoning standards that would apply to a project The HBZSO allows PUD projects to deviate from the requirements of minimum lot size and lot width Because a PUD is afforded more flexibility in land use and site design a public benefit is generally provided The HBZSO allows PUD projects to deviate from the requirements of minimum lot size and lot width The proposed project would be deviating from the minimum 6 000 square foot lot size for six of the 22 lots The project is also proposing to deviate from the minimum 60-foot lot width in 14 of the proposed lots The project is proposing two public benefits the improvement of an existing 30- foot wide City-owned parcel for the enhancement of public coastal access and the incorporation of green building standards to become the City s first green residential project Item 9 - Page 12 -222- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed public benefits would adequately provide benefits commensurate with the projects PUD proposal Further analysis regarding the PUD design of the project is discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No 10) F SUMMARY Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the zoning and General Plan land use designations for the subdivision and development of 22 single-family dwellings and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone The proposed project will be compatible with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site In addition the proposed project would not result in the loss of an existing or planned park or recreational facility despite its existing Open Space — Parks designation The projects design will be compatible with surrounding residential uses with respect to density building height lot size and architectural design The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment The project will comply with the provisions of the HBZSO and the Subdivision Map Act and be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Coastal Act The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with recent City decisions with respect to tandem parking and will result in PUD projects with higher quality site design while providing for adequate parking The project will provide enhanced coastal access through improvement of an existing vacant City-owned parcel Finally, the project will result in the development of the City s first green residential project Environmental Status On September 2 2009 the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) approved the processing of a mitigated negative declaration for the project The draft MND concluded that the project would not have significant environmental impacts with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures that were identified for potential impacts to cultural resources The EAC determination was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission On November 10 2009 the Planning Commission upheld the EAC determination and voted to continue processing a mitigated negative declaration for the project Concurrent with the processing of the appeal a 30-day public comment period on draft MND No 08-016 commenced on September 10 2009 and concluded on October 9 2009 The Planning Department received 19 comment letters during the comment period The most common comments were in the areas of land use cultural resources and biological resources Subsequent to the comment period and in light of the discussion that occurred during the Planning Commission appeal hearing a biological resources assessment was prepared for the project Based on the information contained in the biological resources assessment revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of new mitigation measures in the biological resources impact area These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 was made available for a 30-day public review period from March 4 2010 to April 2 2010 The City received 12 comment letters on Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 All comments as well as staff s responses to comments are included in Attachment No 7 Prior to any action on the project it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 Staff and the Planning Commission -223- 11tem 9 - Page 13 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 7/6/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL10-017 are recommending that the proposed Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved with findings Strategic Plan Goal Enhance Economic Development Attachment(s) betcripifon 1 Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09 002 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08 022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08 046 2 City Council Resolution No 2010 47 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No 08 011 3 City Council Ordinance No 3884 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28 5 11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) (Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007 4 City Council Ordinance No 3885 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Amending Section 210 06 Property Development Standards and 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions (Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 5 City Council Resolution No 2010 48 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09 002 to Amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances to Amend Zone 2 — Land Use Plan of the City s Coastal Element for the Real Property Generally Located Southeast of the Intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and to Reflect Zoning Text Amendment No 09 008 and Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007 and Requesting Certification by the California Coastal Commission 6 Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 7 Response to Comments and Errata to Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 8 Site plans floor plans and building elevations dated & received May 4 2009 9 Appeal Letter dated and received May 6 2010 10 Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27 2010 11 Planning Commission Late Communication comment letters dated April 27 2010 12 Powerpoint Presentation Item 9 - Page 14 -224- -225- Item 9 - Page 15 ATTACHMENT NO 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— RECIRCULATED DRAFT IVND NO 08-016 1 Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 General Plan Amendment No 08-011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08- 046 2 Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to biological and cultural resources The proposed biological resources mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to two special status species burrowing owls and southern Tarplant with the potential to occur on the site would be less than significant The cultural resources mitigation measures require archeological and Native American monitoring during ground disturbing activities The mitigation measures also specify procedures if human remains are discovered during construction of the project The project site has undergone archeological testing and excavation and it is not anticipated that intact deposits remain on the site However the mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during grading and construction activities 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment The project consists of an amendment to the existing General Plan and zoning land use designations as well as the Coastal Land Use Plan for the subdivision of the project site and construction of 22 single-family residences and associated open space street and infrastructure improvements in the coastal zone The project also consists of an amendment to the Chapter 210 12 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow alternative parking configurations for planned unit developments Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design standard code requirements and the recommended mitigation measures Item 9 - Page 16 -226- SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007 1 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 represents a change to the Huntington Beach Zoning Map (District Map #33) to rezone the project site from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals objectives and land use policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No 08-011 which is being processed concurrently The land uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning because surrounding land uses include low density residential to the west high density residential uses to the north and low density and open space uses to the east In addition the City recently approved pre-zoning and annexation of existing County property south of the project site The approved pre-zoning designations include low density and open space uses As discussed in the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development 2 In the case of a general land use provision the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed The change proposed would be compatible with the uses in the vicinity which include low density residential uses The projects design and compliance with applicable code requirements would ensure that impacts to existing preserved open space areas east of the project site are minimized 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The change would expand opportunities for housing and address the needs of a growing population The proposed development associated with the zoning map amendment will contribute to existing recreational resources in the area through the provision of a 0 13-acre passive open space area consistent with the City s General Plan and Local Coastal Program The project will also provide for enhanced coastal access through the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel and the addition of 13 parking spaces that would be available for the general public 4 Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience general welfare and good zoning practice The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible land uses and eliminate an existing zoning designation that is no longer appropriate for the site The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and would allow the property to be rightfully developed -227- Item 9 - Page 17 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008 1 Zoning Text Amendment No 08-004 will be consistent with the objectives, policies general land uses and programs specified in the City s General Plan because the proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions in Section 210 12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance would allow projects to provide required enclosed parking spaces in a tandem configuration that would minimize the width of driveway paving and garage access that may otherwise dominate the front yard Reduction in a projects potential for garages to dominate the street frontage would then allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis on architectural quality by incorporating more landscaping porch elements and other architectural features consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan In addition the proposed zoning text amendment would clarify the requirement for a planned unit development to provide a public benefit 2 In the case of general land use provisions the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which they are proposed The proposed changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow required parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration as long as the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site The new standards would only be applicable to PUD projects and would be evaluated on a project- specific basis to ensure that projects designed to incorporate the new standards would not be detrimental to the overall design or surrounding properties 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The proposed changes to the Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions would allow for flexibility in land use regulations so that a more distinct development can be provided with a greater emphasis on public benefits The proposed amendment would reduce a projects potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis as an activity area with landscaping and porch elements The proposed amendment would allow for more diversity in a projects site layout and result in a better overall design while still providing for adequate parking 4 The proposed changes would be in conformity with public convenience general welfare and good zoning practice in that the provisions would allow for alternative configurations in the provision of parking spaces while still providing for adequate parking facilities within a development project PUD projects could achieve a more diverse development configuration provide more open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility the Item 9 - Page 18 -228- proposed amendment would provide The allowance to permit tandem parking configurations and satisfy open parking space requirements through the availability of on-street parking would be consistent with the nature of PUD projects Finally the new standard to allow tandem parking configurations is consistent with previous City decisions to allow tandem parking configurations for residential uses SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09-002 1 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 proposes to amend the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to amend the Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density for the five acre site and to reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Zoning Text amendments The Local Coastal Program Amendment will allow for single-family residential uses on the subject property Although single-family residential is a lower priority use than recreational uses the project site is not existing or planned for public recreational uses The amendment would allow the property owner to develop the site and, in doing so would contribute to the provision of enhanced coastal access and additional recreational resources through the proposed development consistent with the policies of the City s General Plan and California Coastal Act The Local Coastal Program Amendment would also modify the Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements to allow parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration providing for greater flexibility in a projects site layout and design while ensuring that the number of parking spaces provided is adequate and meets the requirements of the HBZSO 2 Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 is in accordance with the policies standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act relative to residential development land resources and public access The Local Coastal Program Amendment promotes the City s Local Coastal Program goals and objectives by allowing low density residential uses while promoting preservation of coastal views and enhancing public coastal access 3 The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act The project proposes a 0 13-acre passive open space area and would provide 23 on-street parking spaces available to the public that do not currently exist Thirteen of the proposed on-street spaces would be in addition to the minimum number required for the development The project will preserve existing public views of the slope along the eastern perimeter of the site and views from an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel that is proposed to be improved with development of the project site No existing coastal access will be impacted In fact coastal access would be enhanced through the proposed development project associated with the amendment -229- Item 9 - Page 19 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO 17294 1 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 for the subdivision of approximately 5 acres into 22 single-family residential lots and nine lettered lots for streets open space and landscaped areas is consistent with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) design for the project These exceptions include deviations to minimum lot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals policies and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and Coastal Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development These goals and policies call for development that protects and enhances coastal resources promotes public access and is in close proximity to other developments with adequate public services available 2 The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development The project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service circulation and drainage perspective The proposed subdivision will result in a density of 64 units per net acre (4 4 units/gross acre) The proposed density is below the allowable density of 7 per acre of the Residential Low Density land use designation for which the project is proposing to be designated The proposed density would be consistent with or lower than existing surrounding developments 3 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat The site has been previously used for farming and has served as a construction staging area for an adjacent single-family residential project The site does not contain significant habitat for wildlife or fish Mitigation measures require pre- construction surveys to determine the presence of special status species on the project site If special status species are present further mitigation is required including avoidance measures and relocation techniques in accordance with established protocols for the respective species to ensure that no significant adverse impacts would occur Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of existing resources adjacent to the project site 4 The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements for access or for use will be provided No existing easements for the public at large will be affected by the project The project will provide enhanced public Item 9 - Page 20 -230- coastal access through the improvement of an existing City-owned parcel north of the subject site SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022 1 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 for the subdivision a 5-acre parcel for the development of a 22-unit single family residential project and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone conforms with the General Plan including the Local Coastal Program The project layout is consistent with the proposed Low Density Residential land use designation on the property and the applicable provisions of the Coastal Zone overlay standards of the City s certified Local Coastal Program as well as the Residential Low Density zoning standards including exceptions allowed for PUD projects 2 The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District the base zoning district as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code The proposed development complies with all development standards except for the minimum lot width and size which are permitted deviations for PUD projects 3 At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program The proposed project will provide all required infrastructure consistent with the Local Coastal Program and City requirements 4 The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act The project will not impact existing public access or recreation opportunities in the coastal zone The project will preserve existing public views of the slope on the eastern perimeter of the project site as well as views from the 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site The project will enhance existing coastal access opportunities within the vicinity through the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel as well as the provision of 23 parking spaces that would be available to the general public Thirteen of the proposed on-street spaces would be in addition to the minimum number required for the development SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 1 Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for the development of the proposed 22- unit single-family Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet from the low to the high point will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood The project will be graded to minimize impacts from erosion -231- Stem 9 - Page 21 and drainage The proposed grade differential to adjacent properties will not adversely impact surrounding undeveloped properties and open space areas The resulting elevation will be the same as the adjacent elevation of Bolsa Chica Street and result in a development that is compatible with existing development west and north of the project site 2 The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding single family residential and open space land uses The project includes two-story homes that are similar to the surrounding developments it also incorporates an adequate buffer area to preserve an existing slope along the eastern perimeter of the project site and provide for protection of environmentally sensitive habitat area east of the project site 3 The proposed project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) The HBZSO requires projects proposed to be located on a site where the difference in grade is greater than three feet to obtain a conditional use permit The project is not proposing to deviate from any other aspect of the HBZSO except for minimum lot size and width which is allowed as part of a planned unit development 4 The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan The project including the proposed grading design is consistent with existing policies of the General Plan Land Use Element that require developments to be compatible with the surrounding developments and properties The proposed project including the proposed grading concept would result in a development compatible with other developments in the surrounding area while being sensitive to existing resources below the project site In addition it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Po%cy ERC 6 16 Ensure that post development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat Although the site includes a grade differential greater than three feet the project is designed such that the existing eastern slope would be preserved In addition the projects drainage concept is designed such that the slope and existing resources below the slope on the Shea property to the east would not be negatively impacted from development of the project site including the projects grading design Item 9 - Page 22 -232- SUGGESTED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological monitor to be present during all project-related ground-disturbing activities The Applicant shall also arrange for a qualified Native American monitor or a rotation of monitors from the interested bands to be present during all project- related ground-disturbing construction activities In addition all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited If archaeological resources are discovered during ground- disturbing activities all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource In the absence of a determination all archaeological resources shall be considered significant If the resource is determined to be significant the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources 2 If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately if the human remains are determined to be prehistoric the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend in-situ preservation or scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials 3 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity a qualified biologist shall survey the project site for presence of Southern tarplant during the appropriate blooming period May — November If feasible the survey shall be conducted during the peak blooming period for the year Any substantial occurrence (at least 500 mature individuals) shall be preserved on site or relocated to open space areas in the Bolsa Chica area If relocation is required a Southern tarplant relocation program shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented prior to the onset of construction 4 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the CBOC and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) established protocols on the project site ® If no occupied burrows are found the methods and findings of the surveys shall be reported to the City and DFG for review and approval and no further mitigation would be required -233- Item 9 - Page 23 ■ if unoccupied burrows are found during the nonbreeding season the burrows shall be collapsed or otherwise obstructed to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows ® If occupied burrows are found a buffer of 165 feet (during the nonbreeding season of September 1 through January 31) or 250 feet (during the breeding season of February 1 through August 31) shall be provided The buffer area may be adjusted based on recommendations by a qualified biologist in consultation with the DFG No activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied ® If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair a minimum of 7 5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over Because the site is only approximately 5 acres in area property outside of the project site would need to be provided in order to provided 7 5 acres If off-site property is not available then the entire subject site will serve as foraging area ■ If avoidance of an occupied burrow is not feasible on-site passive relocation techniques approved by the DFG shall be used to encourage the owls to move to an alternative borrow outside of the impact area However no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294 1 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 dated May 4 2009 shall be the approved layout except as amended per the conditions stated herein 2 The final map for Tentative Tract Map No 17294 shall not be approved by the City Council until Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 General Plan Amendment No 08-011 and Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 are approved and in effect and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 has been certified by the California Coastal Commission 3 At least 90 days before City Council action on the final maps CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Building Public Works and City Attorney s office for review and approval The CC&Rs shall reflect all access easements and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners Association The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the final map The CC&Rs shall include the following Item 9 - Page 24 -234- a The Homeowners Association (HOA) shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water and sewer easements which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement etc if the public water and sewer pipelines and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance The HOA shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving due to work performed by the City in the maintenance and repair of any public water or sewer pipelines The Special Utility Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R s (Resolution 2003- 29) b The CC&Rs shall specify that landscaping for individual housing lots and recreation areas that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area shall not include any exotic invasive plant species The CC&Rs shall be binding on each of the lots shall run with the land affected by the subdivision and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more lots in the subdivision c Disclosure shall be provided to the HOA and all property owners that the public coastal access trail north of the development site is owned and operated by the City and is open to the public 4 Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No 2008-046 and Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 conditions of approval 5 Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 6 Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval the following shall be required a An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230 26 of the ZSO b Final tract map review fees shall be paid pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) (HBZSO Section 254 16) c Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254 08 — Parkland Dedications The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) d All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid (ZSO 250 16) -235- Item 9 - Page 25 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT 08- 022/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 1 The site plan floor plans and elevations received and dated May 4 2009 shall be the conceptually approved design 2 The project entitlements shall not be effective until Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 is certified by the California Coastal Commission 3 The Development Services Departments (Fire Planning and Building, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval The Director of Planning and Building may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances new information or other relevant factors Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the City Councils action If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241 18 4 The project shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 5 Prior to plan check submittal the applicant shall submit a report prepared by an accredited third party that the project plans have been prepared in accordance with the criteria to achieve a LEED — Silver rating and exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 percent The applicant shall also provide proof of retention of a third party inspector to ensure that the project is constructed according to all specifications as they relate to the LEED criteria Prior to occupancy of the first residence the applicant shall submit a final report by an accredited third party stating that the project has achieved LEED — Silver certification including a breakdown of how certification was achieved and exceeded Title 24 requirements by at least 15 percent 6 Plans for the public coastal access trail shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach concurrent with the projects plan check submittal The plans for the trail shall include signage indicating public access and shall provide informational details about the entire coastal access path including length of the entire path to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and nature of the terrain beyond the landscaped trail 7 The developer shall design and improve and The Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA) shall maintain the public coastal access trail along the north property line to the City of Huntington Beach design and maintenance standards for landscaped areas The soil within the linear open space shall be tested and the results shall be acceptable to the City for landscape Item 9 - Page 26 -236- improvements If the soil tests reveal unacceptable and/or un-mitigable agricultural soil conditions the developer shall remove all soil within the linear open space area to a depth of thirty six inches and replace that soil with Class A topsoil that has been tested and approved by an approved testing laboratory and by the City for importation All materials used for irrigation and planting shall be approved by the City and all installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit within the tract 8 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department 9 The project shall ensure compliance with the following requirements a All street lighting exterior residential lighting and recreational lighting adjacent to resource protection areas shall minimize impacts to wildlife within the resource protection areas b Uses allowed adjacent to designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and ESHA c Prior to final inspection of the first residential unit with exception of the model homes the following requirements shall be completed i Landscape plans shall be prepared that prohibits the planting naturalization or persistence of invasive plants and encourages low-water plants and plants primarily native to coastal Orange County The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City s landscape architect ii A Domestic Animal Control Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering any resource protection areas including but not limited to appropriate fencing and barrier plantings iii A Pest Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach that at a minimum prohibits the use of rodenticides and restricts the use of pesticides and herbicides in outdoor areas except necessary Vector Control conducted by the City or County iv Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney shall be recorded -237- Item 9 - Page 27 The CC&Rs shall be binding on each of the lots shall run with the land affected by the subdivision and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more lots in the subdivision v The project applicant shall provide any buyer of a housing unit within the project an information packet that explains the sensitivity of the natural habitats adjacent to the project site and the need to minimize impacts on the designated resource protection areas and the prohibition on landscaping that includes exotic invasive plant species on lots that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area The information packet shall include a copy of the Domestic Animal Control Plan and Pest Management Plan and be required for all sales of housing units pursuant to the CC&Rs The project applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the information packet vi Protective fencing or-barriers shall be installed and maintained between the resource protection areas and areas developed for homes and recreational use for purpose of minimizing human and domestic animal presence in resource protection areas including restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas however public access to designated passive recreational use areas shall be provided Visual impacts created from any walls or barriers adjacent to open space conservation and passive recreational use areas shall be minimized through measures such as open fencing/wall design landscape screening use of undulating or off-set wall features etc Item 9 - Page 28 -238- ATTAC H M E N T #2mL] RESOLUTION NO 2010-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 08-011 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No 08-011 proposes to amend Figure LU-5 of the Land Use Element of the City s General Plan to redesignate the land use designation of the real property consisting of an approximately 5-acre site generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Cluca Street and Los Patos Avenue, as more particularly described as Exhibits "A and "B ' attached hereto, from Open Space — Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density—Seven dwelling units per acre(RL-7) Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach after notice duly given held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 08-011 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council, and Pursuant to California Government Code the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 08-011, and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No 08-011 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows SECTION 1 That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the `Subject Property') is generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits A and `B ' respectively and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein SECTION 2 That General Plan Amendment No 08-011, which amends the General Plan Land Use designation from Open Space — Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per acre (RL-7) for the subject site is hereby approved The Director of 09 2349/42730 1 Resolution No 2010-47 Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map A copy of said map as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning Department PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 th day of July 52010 A)7s- M or REVI AND APPROVED INITIATED APPROVED S� Ci "Uninistrator Director of Planning and B ildmg APPROVED AS TO FORM m� Attorney &kv 1 yA ro ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B General Plan Land Use Map(Extract of Figure LU 5) 09 2349/42730 2 Resolution No 2010-47 Resolution do 2010-47 Title No 08 259915246 MR Locate No CAFNT0925 0925 0199 0259915246 LEGAL DESCRIPTION i EXHIBIT"A" PROPOSED TRACT NO 17294 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 11 WEST IN THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA,INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 6 2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED TO DONALD E GOODELL RECORDED NOVEMBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4960 PAGE 87 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY,THENCE SOUTH 890 58 30 WEST450 00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL TO A ANGLE POINT IN PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO 92 01 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO 92 589755 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL 2 THE FOLLOWING COURSES CONTINUING SOUTH 89°58 30"WEST 323 00 FEET AND NORTH 340 02 08 WEST 604 67 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30 00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 92 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER, THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION THE FOLLOWING COURSES SOUTH 89-21 32 EAST 639 80 FEET AND SOUTH 89' 35 35 EAST 90 18 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00 10 29 EAST 30 00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF TRACT NO 10853 RECORDED IN BOOK 513 PAGES 14 THROJGH 15 AND TRACT NO 5792 RECORDED IN BOOK 220, PAGES 8 THROUGH 11 BOTH OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THENCE SOUTH 89" 35 35 EAST 383 00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL, THENCE SOUTH 0°10 29 WEST 520 23 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED FEBRUARY 28 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO 20000104631 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN TRACT NO 15734,AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 797 PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THIS!EGAL DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IN ANY POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE TO BE ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANYTIME IT IS PREPARATORY TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AND IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THOSE PARTIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION AND CHECKING OF SAID MAP APN 10 016 35 2 CLTA Preliminary Report Form Modified(11/17/06) Thl Map le b ing furnished as a convenience to locate the SEE SPECIAL PAGE 110-019 FOR FEE T I rL E ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE �o�sv�0 110-0 herein d scribed land in reiation to adjoining streets and other r 5 S R 11 W q y lands The Company does not guarantee dimensions DUAIL g �s,9 Qf^ 2T distances bearings or acreage stated thereon,nor is it 25 I S00 Deyt�16 1 28 Intended to illustrate legal building sites or a persede Clty,or 16. p J County ordinances i zoning and building codes etc 01Tc I Info matron concerningth u of rryp rc 1 hould �� @ ds` 58 t e y 29 gFFJ, be obtained from local govemment agencies ^�'y '� 32 2s>>� /n 26 2 65 00. 21 9AC5 H y I6?AC Jos 317 59 / AV �y 4 pA , P� C 25 O !PARK 9 1 1000 OErAIL A ^ 20 " ^h �a 9\% 58 z2 9s AV 0 264 43 229 AC O �� pp �� T. SEE OEJAIL -0 54 51 C0 rQ�A AC +5 l@� ^ !Bf pvCG .� 33 354A41T 1� S h6�` �. A� N AC 22 SB£B21 1 0 A. 163-2 Z ,him a y bi r DACBt9 V 163-27 163-26 59 78 37 �Q'�� w3/6BB 0 R _a �Or �fp�� A6 6812 22 30 99 A AC 'C tti�D 5 234At A }8 r BJ GN tJ�E �O �Q1� 4 59 AC 41 AC PJE �Oo- �% 53 6 5ACA 37 s!t 241AC19 29 5 77 AC jo 'JO 44 0 73 911 AC 166 26 AC o 1 7 0 SACBI 42 a ! 25 49 2252 O 80 AC AC�OPt ^_� 41 B 26 At O — .\1lb 10 j AC 40 38 15 6 5 9 AC , m C 9 4AG nC V 505 AC _ O +~9 39 6 5AC3 30 O 298 AC 5 Z B 9 12 9 9J 4 15 B AC 5 6� A /Ac 'tip O 70 N-0 4 1 177 AC 4 5e - y AV 54 5 19 Af N 55 �Oh� CD o 161 AC 2 1AC61 t0 A47 2 29 } sAV 6 1 I At I L ( v 1 2 ` AC01 _ I y 4 9A/ O S _ 1 Atli. �M ..- --�•- - -- �. _ ---.--- .� — f 0 3 1 A1ARfR 1968 waR0 11RVFY R 5 3 78 's1!^ nt< 5 u r v tr v r Resolution No 2010-47 Resolution No 2010-47 Amended General Plan Land Use May (Extract of Figure LU-5) e NI { � Y RMH-25 ?RL rL I SOS-P —Los Patos Ave- -- ---- Subject Site { M0 R L-7 WI R L-7 SOS-C V. Ia Not Designated County of Orange (Brightwater Specific Plan) (Suburban Residential), E Legend RMH-25 Residential Medium High Density— 25 du/acre RZL-7 Residential Low Density—7 du/acre OS-P Open Space—Parks OS-C Open Space - Conservation Res No 2010-47 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July £, 2010 by the following vote AYES Carchio Coerper Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Dwyer ABSTAIN None QO*e�s) y Clerk and ex-offic Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTACHMENT #3 ORDINANCE NO 3884 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 33 (SECTIONAL MAP 28-5-11)OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AND BOLSA CHICA STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL—COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY(RA-CZ)-1'0 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY—COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (RL-CZ) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007) WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, which rezones the property generally located southeast of the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chrca Street from Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone Overlay(RL-CZ), and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows SECTION 1 That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally bounded by the terminus of Los Patos Avenue to the north Bolsa Chnca Street to the west and the City of Huntington Beach corporate boundaries to the south, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit A and, incorporated herein by this reference SECTION 2 That the zoning designation of the Subject Property is hereby changed from RA-CZ (Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone Overlay) to RL (Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay) SECTION 3 That Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 201 04B District Map 33 (Sectional District Map 28-5-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 as described herein The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map A copy of said District Map as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk 09 2349/42728 1 Ordinance No 3884 SECTION 4 This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission but not less than 30 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 19 th day of July , 20 10 Azc 6L yor REV`Vr APPROVED ATTEST City/Xd4nistrator City 1&rk INITIATED AND APPROVED (�4:i-- s 9 Director of Planning and B ildmg APPROVED AS TO FORM ty Attorn y ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Legal Description&Map Exhibit B Amended Zoning Map 09 2349/42728 2 Ordinance No 3884 Ordinance No 3884 Title No 08 259915246 MR Locate No CAFNT0925-0925-0199 0259915246 LEGAL DESCRIPTION � EXHIBIT"A" PROPOSED TRACT NO 17294 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF � THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 11 WEST,IN THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA,INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 6 2 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED TO DONALD E GOODELL RECORDED NOVEMBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4960 PAGE 87 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY,THENCE SOUTH 89°58'30 WEST450 00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL TO A ANGLE POINT IN PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO 92 01 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO 92 589755 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL 2 THE FOLLOWING COURSES CONTINUING SOUTH 89°58 30"WEST 323 00 FEET AND NORTH 340 02 08 WEST 604 67 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30 00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF LOS PATOS AVENUE AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 92 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER, THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION THE FOLLOWING COURSES SOUTH 89°21 32"EAST639 80 FEET AND SOUTH 89° 35 35 EAST 90 18 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00 10 29 EAST 30 00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF TRACT NO 10853 RECORDED IN BOOK 513, PAGES 14 THROJGH 15 AND TRACT NO 5792 RECORDED IN BOOK 220, PAGES 8 THROUGH 11 BOTH OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THENCE SOUTH 89° 35 35 EAST 383 00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 6 2 ACRE PARCEL, THENCE SOUTH 0°10 29 WEST 520 23 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED FEBRUARY 28 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO 20000104631 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN TRACT NO 15734,AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 797 PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE, OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS THIS 1 EGAL DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR USE IN ANY POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE TO BE ISSUED BY THIS COMPANY, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME IT IS PREPARATORY TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE AND IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THOSE PARTIES DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION AND CHECKING OF SAID MAP I APN 10 016 3S 2 _ CLTA Preliminary Report Form Modfied(11/17146) This Map Is b Ing furnished as a convenience to locate the SEE SPECIAL PAGE 110-019 FOR FEE TITLE ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE herein d scribed land In relation to adjoining streets and other T Jr S R 11 W 1 1 0-01 lands The Company does not guarantee dimensions DETAIL 8 /s9 2T distances bearings or acreage stated thereon,nor is it 25 d Intended to illustrate legal building sites of supersede City o le I S00 0Bpa6 28 County ordinances 1 e zoning and building codes etc a `Tl s Ofrc al inf mabon concematg th use of arty parcel hould Q a 58 9 be obtained from local govemment agencies �^�A 0 w tf �32 1�'ltyf 2 A21 AC5 '� �1 62 At 5 26 05 31 AC 6 7 o, 59 47 6n3' 'I24 w 58 25 32 1 p3 PARK A , f000 h �'� pyg�T/ 9y DETAIL A TA= 20 ,`lo b ` 159� 22 95 At T. 0 264 43 229 At O �� pt� SEE DETAIL D 59 �J 1 1CC row At 1 ! 1�� ',We'paf4 33 35AA917 �� �6� �r �r AC 22 seea11130 -r �163-22 e h r10j @ACet9 163 21 %3-26 1% 59 7e 37 82131600 0 R _a y �y '`reA�� a �8?2 w 22 Tc 99 A AC 7c 0 Is y� p oy 16 C 23JAC 6 O w $4 59 AC 41 AC 3 GPKR� �O� �* 51 On t, 36 016 5A6 37 y/l 24 3Atl9 29 5 77 At V 73 912 At 42 1 166 28 AC 01 7 52 �) 3 eel 25 O 22 e0 AC ti� g 41 AC 8 2G At 49 �$_ CD �10 u 1 is A0 38 15 6 5 9 AC —S a V 5 03 At J 4 AC 0 �05 39 6 G 5A4 30 °° • 11 ti% Z5 8 9 12 2 94 AC S aTrt �O 1ph � 3 67 4 At !A C (D 0 r 4V 1 577 At tS O At 4 34 9 �_��'—'—"--• 5 Ac 5q 5 r4 Ar '_' Z sf. 45 9O1 AC 55 O OL 4 4 1 61 At 2 ;At 1 10 t 10A47 29 A W ,`10 hlyE- 6 u 5At 6 Al2 (1 1` !7� 00 OJ 0 'j'° ttt01O1 f1 / '�' r/ `J r n ,L"A 1 2 \ 5 a 4 QA �i AC _ / I � 4 9e� U _ t 4— r Jq fC111NT ,yc Jul 40/1 .+.. 123 1 Ill AIARfR 1968 RENIRD SIIRVFY R 5 i 2d ss art )15< 5 rN r n lr v r Ordinance No 3884 Ordinance No 3884 Amended Zoning Ma ,Ilk a -- 1 RM H RL -- L-os--P-atos Ave i Subject Site RL-CZ v�� RL - CZ IRA- a$ U ci U cd V O G I f County of Orange RL-CZ* SP-15-CZ '� (planned Community) i City of HB pre-zoned " RL-CZ, OS-PR, OS-C *The City recently approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC- Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the Califomia Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No 109 Legend RL- Residential Low Density RA- Residential Agricultural RMH - Residential Medium High Density SP1 S- Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) OS-PR-Open Space-Parks & Recreation OS-C -Open Space - Conservation CC - Coastal Conservation CZ-Coastal Zone Overlay Ord No 3884 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L FLYNN,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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6,2010, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 19, 2010, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council AYES Carchio, Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Coerper ABSTAIN Dwyer I Joan L Flynn CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex officio Clerk of the City Council do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 29 2010 In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L Flynn,City Clerk CU Clerk and ex-officio Vlerk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California ATTACHMENT #4 1 ORDINANCE NO 3885 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 210 06, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND 210 12 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008) WHEREAS pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 which amends Sections 210 06, Property Development Standards and 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance permitting tandem parking configurations for Planned Unit Developments in residential zoning districts, and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows SECTION 1 That Sections 210 06 and 210 12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A SECTION 2 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 19th day of July 20 10 ATTEST Cityulerk a r INITIA ED D APPROVED S4 Director of Planning and Bu Iding REVIE AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM Ci /A&Xinistrator 4ityy Attorney U MV I—- c a 10 Exhibit A Legislative Draft 09 2349/42729 Ordinance No 3885 LEGISLATIVE D r i ee No 3885 Chapter 210 Residential Districts (3268 12/94 3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3455 5/00 3568 9/02 3706 6/05 3724 02/06 3761 2/07 3832 7/09) Sections 21002 Residential Districts Established 21004 RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts Land Use Controls 21006 RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts Property Development Standards 21008 Development Standards for Senior Projects 21010 Modifications for Affordable Housing 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions 21014 RMP District Supplemental Development Standards 21016 Review of Plans 21002 Residential Districts Established The purpose of the residential districts is to implement the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan residential land use designations Five (5)residential zoning districts are established by this chapter as follows (3334 6/97) A The RL Low Density Residential District provides opportunities for single-family residential land use in neighborhoods, subject to appropriate standards Cluster development is allowed Maximum density is seven(7)units per acre B The RM Medium Density Residential District provides opportunities for housing of a more intense nature than single-family detached dwelling units, including duplexes, triplexes, town houses, apartments, multi-dwelling structures, or cluster housing with landscaped open space for residents' use Single-family homes, such as patio homes, may also be suitable Maximum density is fifteen(15)units per acre C The RMH Medium High Density Residential District provides opportunities for a more intensive form of development than is permitted under the medium density designation while setting an upper limit on density that is lower than the most intense and concentrated development permitted in the City One subdistrict has been identified with unique characteristics where separate development standards shall apply RMH-A Small Lot Maximum density is twenty-five (25) units per acre D The RH High Density Residential District provides opportunities for the most intensive form of residential development allowed in the City, including apartments in garden type complexes and high rise where scenic and view potential exists, subject to appropriate standards and locational requirements Maximum density is thirty-five (35) units per acre E The RMP Residential Manufactured Home Park District provides sites for mobile home or manufactured home parks, including parks with rental spaces and parks where spaces are individually owned Maximum density is nine (9) spaces per acre Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 1 LEGISLATIVE DkApTe No 3885 21004 RL, RM,RM H,RH, and RMIP Districts Land Use Controls In the following schedules, letter designations are used as follows "P" designates use classifications permitted in residential districts "L" designates use classifications subject to certain limitations prescribed by the "Additional Provisions" that follow "PC" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission "ZA" designates use classifications permitted on approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator "TU" designates use classifications allowed upon approval of a temporary use permit by the Zoning Administrator (3334 6/97 3410 3199) "P/U" designates that accessory uses are permitted, however, accessory uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit if the primary use requires a conditional use permit (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Use classifications that are not listed are prohibited Letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to provisions following the schedule or located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance Where letters in parentheses are opposite a use classification heading, referenced provisions shall apply to all use classifications under the heading (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 2 ]LEGISLATIVE D r iPT-c No 3885 RL,RM,RMH, RIB, and P = Permitted RMP DISTRICTS L = Limited (see Additional Provisions) (3334 6197) LAND USE CONTROLS PC = Conditional use permit approved by Planning Commission ZA = Conditional use permit approved by Zoning Administrator TU = Temporary Use Permit P/U = Requires conditional use permit on site of conditional use = Not Permitted RL RM RMH RMP Additional RR Provisions Residential Uses (A)(M)(Q) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Day Care, Ltd P P P P Group Residential - - PC - Multi-family Residential (B)(C)(D)(R) (3410 3/99 3455 5/00) 2 - 4 units ZA P P - (3334-6/97 3410 3199) 5 - 9 units ZA ZA ZA - (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) 10 or more units PC PC PC - (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Manufactured Home Parks ZA ZA - ZA (E)(F) Residential, Alcohol Recovery, Ltd P P P P Residential Care, Limited P P P P Single-Family Residential P P P P i (B)(D)(F)(P)(R)(S) (3334-6197 3410 3/99 3455 5/00 3832 7109) Public and Semipublic (A)(0) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Clubs & Lodges PC PC ZA ZA (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Day Care, Large-family L-6 L-6 L-6 L-6 (3334-6/97 3761 2/07) Day Care, General L-1 ZA ZA ZA (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Park& Recreation Facilities L-2 L-2 L-2 L-2 (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Public Safety Facilities PC PC PC PC Religious Assembly L-3 PC PC PC (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Residential Care, General - L-1 PC PC (33346/97 3410 3/99) Schools, Public or Private PC PC PC PC Utilities, Major PC PC PC PC Utilities, Minor P P P P Commercial Communication FacilitiesL-5 L-5 L-5L-5 (3568 9/02) Horticulture ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410 3/99) Nurseries ZA ZA ZA ZA (3410 3/99) Visitor Accommodations Bed and Breakfast Inns - - i L-4 - (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Accessory Uses P/lJ P//V P/V P/U (A)(G)(H)(I)(L)(M) (3334-6/97 3410 3199) Uses�LJses (J)(M) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99) Commercial Filming, Limited P P P P Real Estate Sales P P P P (N) (3334-6/97 3410 3/99 3706-6/0 Personal Property Sales P P P P Street Fairs TU TU TU TU Nonconforming Uses (K)(L) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 3 LEGISLATIVE DPAr pT-e No 3885 RL, RM, RMH,RIB, and RMP Districts Additional Provisions L-1 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required and only allowed on lots 10 acre (gross acreage) or greater fronting an arterial in RL District (3410 3/99) L-2 Public facilities permitted, but a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for private noncommercial facilities, including swim clubs and tennis clubs (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) L-3 A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required, and only schools operating in conjunction with religious services are permitted as an accessory use A General Day Care facility may be allowed as a secondary use, subject to a conditional use permit, if the Planning Commission finds that it would be compatible with adjacent areas and not cause significant traffic impacts (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3724 02/06) L-4 A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required and only allowed on lots 10,000 sq ft or greater in RMH-A subdistrict See also Section 230 42 Bed and Breakfast Inns (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3706 6/05) L-5 Only wireless communication facilities permitted subject to section 230 96 Wireless Communication Facilities (3568 9/02) L-6 Neighborhood notification is required pursuant to Section 24124 No architectural plans shall be required (3761 2/07) (A) Any addition or modification subsequent to the original construction that would result in an increase in the amount of building area or a structural or architectural alteration to the building exterior, shall require an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit, if any, or approval of a new conditional use permit (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3761 2/07) (B) A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for residential uses requesting reduction in standards for senior citizens (See Section 210 08), for affordable housing (See Sections 210 10 and 230 14), or for density bonus (See Section 230 14) (C) A conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator is required for any multiple family residential development that (1) abuts an arterial highway, (2) includes a dwelling unit more than 150 feet from a public street, or (3) includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (D) See Section 210 12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards In addition, a conditional use permit is required for condominium conversion pursuant to Chapter 235 (E) See Section 210 14 RMP District Supplemental Standards In addition,Neighborhood Notification pursuant to Chapter 241 is required for the addition of manufactured home space(s)to an existing Manufactured Home Park (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3706 6/05) (F) See Section 230 16 Manufactured Homes (G) See Section 230 12 Home Occupation in R Districts (H) See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures (1) See Section 230 10 Accessory Dwelling Units Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 4 LEGISLATIVE DRApTe No 3885 RL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts Additional Provisions (J) See Section 24120 Temporary Use Permits (K) See Chapter 236 Nonconforming Uses and Structures (L) See Chapter 233 Signs (M) Tents,trailers,vehicles, or temporary structures shall not be used for dwelling purposes (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (N) See Section 230 18 Subdivision Sales Offices and Model Homes (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (0) Limited to facilities on sites of fewer than 2 acres (3334 6197 3410 3/99) (P) See Section 230 22 Residential Infill Lot Developments (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (Q) See Section 230 20 Payment of Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee (3410 3199) (R) Small lot development standards for RM, RMH, and RH Districts A conditional use permit from the Planning Commission is required for small lot residential subdivisions, including condominium maps for detached single family dwellings See also Section 230 24 Small Lot Development Standards (3455 5/00) (S) See Coastal Element Land Use Plan, Table C-2, for permitted uses, development requirements and restrictions applicable to development within Subarea 4K as depicted in Figures C-6a and C-10 of the Coastal Element Land Use Plan Subdivision design and development within Subarea 4K shall incorporate the information from the plans and studies required in Table C-2 for development of that Subarea If there is a conflict between the requirements and restrictions of Table C-2 and other provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the requirements and restrictions included in Table C-2 shall prevail (3832 7/09) 21006 Rb,, RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Property Development Standards The following schedule prescribes development standards for residential zoning districts and subdistricts designated on the zoning map The columns establish basic requirements for permitted and conditional uses, letters in parentheses in the "Additional Provisions" column refer to "Additional Development Standards" following the schedule In calculating the number of units permitted on the site, density is calculated on the basis of net site area Fractional numbers shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number except that one dwelling unit may be allowed on a legally created lot complying with minimum lot area All required setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way and in accordance with the definitions set forth in Chapter 203, Definitions Any new parcel created pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions, shall comply with the minimum building site requirements of the district in which the parcel is located unless approved as a part of a Planned Unit Development Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 5 LEGISLATIVE I) r 'pye No 3885 Property Development Standards for Residential Districts R L RM RMH-A RMH RH RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minimum Building Site 6,000 6,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 10 ac (A)(B)(C) (34103/99) Width(ft) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 N/A (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Minimum Setbacks (D)(R) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Front(ft) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334 6197 3410 3199) Side (ft) 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 - (G)(I)(J) (3334-6197 3410-3199) Street Side (ft) 6,10 6,10 5 6,10 6,10 10 (H) (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) Rear(ft) 10 10 75 10 10 - (I)(J) Accessory Structure (ll) (3334 6/97 3410 3199) Garage (K) (3334.6/97 3410 3/99) Projections into Setbacks (L)(R) (3334-6/97 3410 3199) Maximum Height (ft) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) (34103199) Maximum Floor Area - - 10 - - - (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Ratio (FAR) (3410-3/99) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq ft) 6,000 2,904 * 1,742 1,244 - (3334 6197 34103/99) Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V`' ) (3334 6/97 3410 3199) Minimum Floor Area (N) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (3334-6197 3410 3/99) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (34103/99) Waterfront Lots (R) (3334 6/97 3410 3199) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (3334-6197 3410 3199) Fences and Walls See Section 230 88 Lighting (1) (3334 6197 3410 3199) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17 64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230 76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230 78 (34103199) Antenna See Section 230 80 (3410-3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230 82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 & Section 21012 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 Accessory Structures See Chapter 230 08 (37066/05) * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1,900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 6 LEGISLATIVE DIUYTe No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RBI, and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards (A) See Section 230 62 Building Site Required and Section 230 64 Development on Substandard Lots (B) See Section 230 66 Development on Lots Divided by District Boundaries (C) The minimum lot area shall be 12,000 square feet for General Day Care, General Residential Care, and Public or Private Schools, except minimum lot area for General Day Care in the RL district shall be one (1) gross acre (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (D) Building Separation The minimum spacing between buildings including manufactured home units shall be 10 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (E) Variable Front Setback for Multi-family Projects Projects with more than 4 units in the RM District, more than 8 units in the RMH District, or more than 14 units in the RH District shall provide a minimum setback of 15 feet from any public right-of-way Minimum 50%of the garages shall be set back 20 feet from the front property line (See Section 210 12B )(3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (F) Upper-story Setbacks for Multi-family Structures The covered portion of all stories above the second story in any multi-family structure shall be set back an average of 10 feet from the second floor front facade (see Exhibit) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) average 10' setback D 0 D O O 0 O D � 0 � 0 0 210 UPSS PCX UPPER STORY SETBACK Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFTe No 3885 RL, RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards (G) Interior Side Setback (1) In the RL, RM, RMH, including RMH-A subdistrict, and RH Districts, interior side setbacks shall be minimum 10% of lot width, but not less than 3 feet and need not exceed 5 feet, except as stated below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (2) For projects in the RM, RMH, including RMH-A subdistrict, and RH Districts adjoining an RL District, interior side setbacks shall be at least (a) 10 feet for units in single-story or two-story buildings (b) 14 feet for units above two stories Subject to approval of a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, may approve upper-story setbacks in lieu of an increased side setback if the second and third stories are set back the required distance (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (H) Street Side Setbacks (1) In the RL, RM, RMH (excluding RMH-A subdistrict), and RH districts, the street side yard shall be 20 percent of the lot width, minimum 6 feet and need not exceed 10 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (2) In the RMH-A subdistrict, street side setback shall be minimum 5 feet (3410 3/99) (3) For projects with 10 or more multi-family units (including RMH-A subdistrict),the street side setback shall be the same as the front setback (3334 6/97 3410 3199) (I) Building Walls Exceeding 25 Feet in Height The required interior side or rear setback adjoining a building wall exceeding 25 feet in height, excluding any portion of a roof, and located on a lot 45 feet wide or greater, shall be increased three feet over the basic requirement (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (J) Zero Side or Rear Setback (1) A zero interior side setback may be permitted provided that the opposite side setback on the same lot is minimum 20% of the lot width, not less than 5 feet, and need not exceed 10 feet, and shall be subject to the requirements listed in subsection(3)below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (2) A zero rear setback may be permitted provided that the opposite rear setback for the adjacent lot is either zero or a minimum of 10 feet, and subject to the requirements listed in subsection(3)below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFTe No 3885 RL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards (3) A zero side or rear setback may be permitted subject to the following requirements (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (a) The lot adjacent to the zero side or rear setback shall either be held under the same ownership at the time of application or a deed restriction or agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney shall be recorded giving written consent of the adjacent property owner (3334 6/97) (b) A maintenance easement, approved as to form by the City Attorney, shall be recorded between the property owner and the owner of the adjacent lot to which access is required in order to maintain and repair a zero lot line structure Such easement shall be an irrevocable covenant running with the land No building permits shall be issued until such recorded maintenance easement has been submitted (3334 6/97) (c) Separation between the proposed structure and any structure on an adjacent lot shall either be zero or a minimum of 5 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (d) No portion of the dwelling or any architectural features shall project over the property line (3334 6/97) (e) The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way (3334 6/97) (f) Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and Building Division (3334 6/97) (4) Double zero side setbacks may be permitted for planned unit development projects subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with Section 210 12 B (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (K) Garage Setbacks Setbacks for the main dwelling shall apply, except as specifically stated below (1) Front entry garage- 20 feet (2) Side entry garage- 10 feet (3) Garage with alley access 5 feet For garages with rear vehicular access from an alley and located on a lot 27 feet wide or less, the side setback adjacent to a street or another alley may be reduced to 3 feet A minimum 25 foot turning radius is required from the garage to the opposite side of the street, alley, drive aisle or driveway (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 9 LEGISLATIVE D r ,ETe No 3885 RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards r — — — — — — ATTACHED FRONT ENTRY GARAGE Property line Minimum 20' from i garage to property line Street Sidewalk r — — — — — — — — — ATTACHED SIDE ENTRY GARAGE i Property Line Minimum 10' from garage to property line Min 25' Street Sidewalk Radius Property line Alley — Minimum 25' from garage to property line on the other side of the existing alley Minimum 5' from garage to property line i i . � I�—Property line GARAGE WITH ENTRY FROM REAR ALLEY 4___ Sidewalk Street Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 10 LEGISLATIVE DR'ApTe No 3885 RL,,RM,RMH, RH, and RMP Distracts Additional Development Standards (L) Projections into Setbacks (1) See Section 230 68 Building Projections into Yards (2) Balconies and bay windows may project into required setbacks and usable open space areas subject to Section 230 68, provided that balconies have open railings, glass, or architectural details with openings to reduce visible bulk Balconies composed solely of solid enclosures are not allowed to project into required setbacks (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (M) Height Requirements See Section 230 70 Measurement of Height, and Section 230 72 Exceptions to Height Limits (1) Single Family Dwellings in all residential districts, except lots in the RMH-A subdistrict with less than 50 feet of frontage shall comply with the following standards (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (a) Second story top plate height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet measured from the top of the subfloor/slab directly below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (b) Roofs shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch if building height exceeds thirty (30) feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (c) Maximum building height for Main Dwellings shall be thirty-five (35) feet, however, Main Dwellings exceeding thirty (30) feet in height shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator (3268 12/94)(3334 6/97) (d) Habitable area, which includes rooftop decks and balconies, above the second story top plate line shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator Habitable area above the second story plate line shall be within the confines of the roof volume, with the following exceptions (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (1) Dormers, decks and other architectural features may be permitted as vertical projections above the roof volume provided the projections are set back five (5) feet from the building exterior and do not exceed the height limits as stated above (3334 6/97) (2) Windows and deck areas above the second story plate line shall orient toward public rights-of-way only (3334 6/97 3410 3199) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 11 LEGISLATIVE D Y No 3885 Dormers decks and other architectural features must Habitable Areas are be setback 5 from • confined within the building exterior roof volume 4 • accessed from within the main dwelling • subject to conditional 5 use permit approval HABITABLE AREA ABOVE SECOND STORY TOP-PLATE LINE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS EXCEPT RMH-A SUBDISTRICT (3410 3/99) (e) Access to any habitable area above the second story top plate line shall be provided within the Main Dwelling and shall be consistent with internal circulation Exterior stairways between the ground floor and a habitable area above the second story plate line shall be prohibited (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Two vertical cross-sections through the property (front-to-back and side-to-side)that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added to an existing structure to both existing and finished grade on the property and adjacent land within 5 feet of the property line shall be submitted in order to determine compliance with this subsection (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (2) Single Family Dwellings in the RMH-A subdistrict on lots with less than 50 feet of frontage shall comply with the following standards (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (a) Second story top plate height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet measured from the top of the subfloor/slab directly below (3334 6/97 3410 3199) (b) Roofs shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch if building height exceeds thirty (30) feet (3334 6/97) (c) In the front and rear 25 feet of the lot, maximum building height for all structures, including railings and architectural features, shall be 25 feet Otherwise, maximum building height shall be 35 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 12 LEGISLATIVE DRA7p No 3885 Front Property Line I I I I I I 35 maximum I 25 maximum I height at top height in the I of roof I front and rear 25 of 25 the lot 25 I I I I Street Rear 25 25 I Property Line MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOTS LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE IN RMH-A SUBDISTRICT (d) Access to any habitable area above the second story top plate line shall be provided within the Main Dwelling and shall be consistent with internal circulation Exterior stairways between the ground floor and a habitable area above the second story plate line shall be prohibited (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Two vertical cross-sections through the property (front-to-back and side-to-side)that show the relationship of each level in a new structure and new levels added to an existing structure to both existing and finished grade on the property and adjacent land within 5 feet of the property line shall be submitted in order to determine compliance with this subsection (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (3) Accessory Structures See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures Accessory structures located on projecting decks abutting a waterway shall comply with the height established in subsection(R) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (4) Recreation Buildings The maximum height of a recreation building for multi-family, planned residential, and mobile home park projects shall be established by the conditional use permit (3334 6/97) (N) Minimum Floor Area Each dwelling unit in a multi-family building and attached single family dwellings shall have the following minimum floor area Unit Type Minimum Area (Square Feet) Studio 500 one bedroom 650 two bedrooms 900 three bedrooms 1,100 four bedrooms 1,300 All detached single family dwellings shall have a minimum 1,000 square feet of floor area not including the garage and shall be a minimum of 17 feet in width (3334 6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 13 LEGISLATIVE Dkk7r No 3885 RIL,RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (0) Open Space Requirements (1) The minimum open space area(private and common) for multi-family residential projects in RM, RMH, including RMH-A subdistrict, and RH Districts shall be 25% of the residential floor area per unit(excluding garages) (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3706 06/05) (2) Private Open Space (a) Private open space shall be provided in courts or balconies within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimensionless than 10 feet for courts and 6 feet for balconies A minimum patio area of 70 square feet shall be provided within the court (3334 6/97) (b) The following minimum area shall be provided Unit'Type Minimum Area (Sq Ft) gnats Above Ground Floor Units Ground Floor Studio/l bedroom 200 60 2 bedrooms 250 120 3 bedrooms 300 120 4 or more bedrooms 400 120 (3334 6/97) (c) Private open space shall be contiguous to the unit and for the exclusive use of the occupants Private open space shall not be accessible to any dwelling unit except the unit it serves and shall be physically separated from common areas by a wall or hedge exceeding 42 inches in height (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (d) A maximum of 50% of the private open space requirement, may be on open decks above the second story subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator, provided that no portion of such deck exceeds the height limit (3410 3/99 3706 6/05) (e) Patio and balcony enclosures within existing planned developments or apartment complexes shall be subject to the following conditions (3706 6/05) 1 A maximum of one enclosure per unit shall be allowed (3706 6/05) 2 The existing balcony or patio area shall not be enlarged (3706 6/05) 3 The balcony or patio enclosure shall comply with the current setback and height requirements for the district in which the site is located (3706 6/05) 4 The enclosure shall consist entirely of transparent materials, i e , no solid walls or opaque walls, except an existing solid roof may be part of the enclosure (3706 6/05) 5 No structural change shall occur to the interface wall and doorway between the enclosure and the adjacent inside room of the building, unless the balcony/patio is replaced with equivalent unenclosed area for use as private open space (3706 6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 14 LEGISLATIVE D TF No 3885 6 The enclosed area shall be considered as private open space and may be counted toward current private open space requirements (3706 6/05) 7 Required egress for fire escape routes shall be maintained (3706 6/05) (3) Common Open Space (a) Common open space,provided by interior side yards, patios, and terraces, shall be designed so that a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 10 feet, shall be open to the sky, and shall not include driveways, parking areas, or area required for front or street side yards (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3706 06/05) (b) Projects with more than 20 units shall include at least one amenity, such as a clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, volleyball court, outdoor cooking facility, or other recreation facility (3334 6/97 3410 3/99 3706 06/05) (4) The Director may allow a reduction in the open space requirement to 10% of the livable area per unit for projects with less than 10 units and located within walking distance of 1,000 feet of a public park or beach (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (P) Courts Opposite Windows in RM RMH and RH Districts (excluding the RMH-A sub- district) Courts shall be provided in all multi-family projects in the RM, RMH, and RH Districts subject to the following requirements (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (1) Courts Opposite Walls on the Same Site The minimum depth of a court shall be one-half the height of the opposite wall but not less than 20 feet opposite a living room and 14 feet opposite a required window for any other habitable room(see diagrams below) (3334 6197 3410 3/99) (2) Courts Opposite Interior Property Line The minimum distance between a required window of a habitable room and a property line shall be 10 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (3) Court Dimensions Courts shall be minimum 20 feet wide (minimum 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the required window) and shall be open to the sky Eaves may project a maximum 2 feet into a court (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 15 LEGISLATIVE D c r No 3885 ICI.,,RM,ILMH, RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards Section A I Section B I Section C Living room ' window ' � I I 1/2 Height of 14 ft Opposit wall 20 1t Not less than 10 ft i Living room fflwi���, window I Living room I window 1 � h Living room Living room Living room window window window h/2 2J. , Section A Section B Other room Other room window window 14ft Section C 210 CRTCDR COURTS OPPOSITE WINDOWS (3334 6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 16 LEGISLATIVE D i ,e No 3885 RI,,RM[,t2IV H,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (Q) All habitable rooms in a dwelling unit must be accessible from within the dwelling (3334 6197 3410 3/99) (R) Waterfront Lots Projecting decks, windscreens, fencing,patio covers and solariums on waterfront lots may be permitted subject to the development standards set forth in this Chapter, Chapter 245, Chapter 17 24, and the following requirements (3334 6/97) (1) Projecting Decks Decks on waterfront lots may project 5 feet beyond the bulkhead provided the decks comply with the side setbacks required for the main dwelling (3334 6/97 3410 3199) (2) Windscreens Windscreens may be permitted if constructed of light-weight materials such as plastic, canvas, fiberglass, tempered glass or metal, except for necessary bracing and framing The maximum height for windscreens shall be 7 feet above the finished surface of the deck at the bulkhead line (3334 6/97) (3) Fencm All portions of fencing within the required rear setback area shall comply with Chapter 230 88 and the visibility provisions below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (4) Solariums Solariums (patio enclosures)may project a maximum of 30 inches over the bulkhead In all cases,the solarium shall maintain a 45 degree (45°) visibility angle as measured from the main dwelling building line extended to the side property line The maximum height shall not exceed the top of the first floor ceiling joist (3334 6/97 3410 3199) (5) Patio Covers Patio covers (including eaves)may be permitted to project 5 feet into the rear yard setback, however, construction materials shall allow compliance with visibility provisions below (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (6) Visibili The portion of any windscreen, fence or patio cover in the rear yard setback or solarium above 36 inches in height shall be composed of materials and design which allow a minimum of 85%transmission of light and visibility through the structure in each direction when viewed from any angle (3334 6/97) (7) Removal Decks, solariums and windscreens projecting over waterways which do not comply with the above provisions may be removed by the city upon 30-days' written notice Such projections are declared to be a privilege which can be revoked for noncompliance and not a vested right (3334 6/97) (Rest of page not used) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 17 LEGISLATIVE D*A7r No 3885 RIL, RM,RM H,III, and R MP Districts Additional Development Standards Bulkhead Solarium Projecting deck 2 1/2' Max �✓ 5 4 450 5 f ® 5' 10 min house ouse 5 � min ® Property line WATERFRONT LOT PROJECTIONS (3334 6/97) (S) Landscaping (1) A minimum 40% of the front yard shall be landscaped For single family residences in the RMH-A subdistrict, a minimum 3 foot wide landscape planter along the front property line (excluding max 5 ft wide walkway) may be provided in lieu of the 40% requirement A maximum 18 inch high planter wall may be constructed along the front property line (3334 6197 3410 3/99) (2) All required trees specified in Chapter 232 shall be provided (3410 3/99) (3) All subdivisions shall provide a minimum 5 foot wide landscaped area along arterial street/highway property lines The actual required width shall be determined during the planning process Maintenance of said landscaped area shall be by a homeowners association, property owner or other method approved by the City of Huntington Beach (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (T) Lighting A lighting system shall be provided in all multi-family projects along all vehicular access ways and major walkways Lighting shall be directed onto the driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director (3334 6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 18 LEGISLATIVE DkAwe No 3885 RL, RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards (U) See Section 230 08 Accessory Structures (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) (V) Solid patio covers open on at least 2 sides may be permitted an additional 5% site coverage Open lattice patio covers are exempted from site coverage standards (3410 3/99) 21008 Development Standards for Senior Projects This section establishes development standards for Senior Residential Projects that may be permitted by the Planning Commission (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) A Minimum Floor Area Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum floor area of 450 square feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) B Minimum Setbacks The project shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district applicable to the site (3334 6/97) C Minimum Distance between Buildings Minimum building separation shall be 10 feet (3334 6197 3410 3/99) D Building Design No structure shall exceed 180 feet in length To provide variation in building facades,two of the following architectural elements are required as part of each building sloped roofs, bay windows, awnings, roof eaves, cornices,balconies, or patios (3334 6/97) E Open Space Requirements (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) 1 Private Open Space A minimum of 60 square feet of private open space for studios or one bedroom units and 120 square feet for two or more bedrooms, with minimum dimensions of 6 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) 2 Common Open Space A minimum of 2,500 square feet for the first 50 units, and an additional 50 square feet for each unit over 50 (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) 3 Community Club House An enclosed community or clubhouse facility containing minimum 7 square feet per unit, and a total area of minimum 400 square feet, may satisfy up to 50% of the common open space requirement The clubhouse shall include handicapped bathrooms and kitchen facilities to be used by project residents and their guests only (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) F Elevators Buildings with more than 2 levels, including living areas or parking, shall have elevators (3334 6/97) G Parking Parking shall comply with Chapter 231 Any parking space over and above the one space per unit shall be marked for guest use (3334 6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 19 LEGISLATIVE D iFTe No 3885 RT.,RM[, RM H,RH, and RM[P Distracts Additional Development Standards 21010 Modifications for Affordable Rousing The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit modifying the minimum property development standards in this chapter for affordable housing, as provided in Section 230 14 The proposed modifications shall be requested in writing by the applicant, accompanied by a detailed pro- forma, rental guidelines, deed restrictions, financial subsidies, and other types of documentation which will serve to demonstrate the need for a reduction of development standards Modifications to the standards may include, but are not limited to,the parking requirements and open space The specific standard(s) from which the applicant is requesting relief shall be identified and alternative development standard(s) proposed (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions This section establishes supplemental development standards and provisions that shall apply to all planned unit developments (3334 6/97) A Planned Unit Development shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public Examples of public benefits that ma be provided in a Planned Unit Development include, but are not limited to the creation of permanent open space, usable and appropriately located recreation facilities,the conservation of natural elements, land features and energy, and other public improvements A Maps A tentative and final or parcel map shall be approved pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions (3334 6/97) B Project Design 1 Driveway parking for a minimum of fifty percent of the units shall be provided when units are attached side by side (3334 6/97) 2 A maximum of six units may be attached side by side and an offset on the front of the building a minimum of four(4) feet for every two units shall be provided (3334 6/97) 3 A minimum of one-third of the roof area within a multi-story, multi-unit building shall be one story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure's roof area (3334 6/97) 4 The number of required parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 231 1n addition, one or more of the following alternative parking configurations may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development if it is determined that such configuration and location thereof will be accessible and useful in connection with the proposed dwelling units of the development a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 23114 b Reguired open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on-street spaces as long as the total number of required parlung spaces is provided with the development site Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAWe No 3885 RL,RM[, 121V H, RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards C Common Areas Every owner of a lot or dwelling unit shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or lot either an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities or a share in the corporation, community association, or limited partnership owning the common areas and facilities (3334 6/97) D Covenants The developer shall submit a covenant setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common areas and communal facilities Such covenant shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) applying to the property and shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director The CC&R's shall be approved prior to final or parcel map approval and when approved, shall be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder (3334 6/97) E Maintenance The corporation, community association, or limited partnership shall have the responsibility of maintaining the common areas and facilities as shown on the final development plans,the buildings and use of property for planned unit development (3334 6/97) F Sale of Lots No dwelling unit or lot shall be sold or encumbered separately from an interest in the common areas and facilities in the development which shall be appurtenant to such dwelling unit or lot No lot shall be sold or transferred in ownership from the other lots in the total development or approved phase of the development unless all approved community buildings, structures and recreational facilities for the total development, or approved phase thereof, have been completed, or completion is assured, by bonding or other method satisfactory to the City (3334 6/97) G Management Agreement No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, community association, or limited partnership has been formed with the right to assess all those properties which are jointly owned with interests in the common areas and facilities in the development to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development Said entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units, and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs and services The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to and receive approval of the City prior to making any such sale This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes (3334 6197) 21014 R MP District Supplemental Development Standards This section establishes supplemental standards for the development of manufactured home parks (3334 6/97) A Individual space setbacks for manufactured homes and accessory structures shall be landscaped and are as follows Front minimum 5 feet Side 10 feet aggregate, minimum 3 feet on any side Rear minimum 5 feet (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) B Each space shall be provided with a minimum 150 cubic feet of enclosed, usable storage Space (3334 6197 3410 3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAIZTe No 3885 C The undercarriage of all manufactured homes shall be screened from view on all sides (3334 6197) D A six foot high concrete or masonry wall shall be provided along all interior property lines of the manufactured home park In addition, a 20 foot wide landscaped berm or a 10 foot wide landscaped area and a 6 foot high wall shall be located at the minimum front setback line (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) E A boat or trailer storage area shall be provided and screened from view by a 6 foot high fence or wall (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) F Maximum site coverage for each individual manufactured home space shall be 75% (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 22 LEGISLATIVE DApp No 3885 RL,RM, RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards G Projects in the RMP district shall provide a minimum common open space area of 200 square feet per manufactured home space (3410 3/99) 21016 Review of Plans All applications for new construction and exterior alterations and additions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review Discretionary review shall be required as follows (3334 6/97) A Zoning Administrator Review Projects requiring a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator, projects on substandard lots, see Chapter 241 (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) B Design Review Board See Chapter 244 (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) C Planning Commission Projects requiring a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission, see Chapter 241 (3334 6/97 3410 3/99) D Projects in the Coastal Zone A Coastal Development Permit is required unless the project is exempt, see Chapter 245 (3334 6/97) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 23 Ord No 3885 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L FLYNN 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 ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6,2010, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 19,2010 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council AYES Carchio, Green Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Coerper ABSTAIN Dwyer I Joan L Flynn CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex officio Clerk of the City Council do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 29 2010 In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L Flynn, City Clerk Cyy Clerk and ex-officio lerk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #5 RESOLUTION NO 2010-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09- 002 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO AMEND ZONE 2—LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND LOS PATOS AVENUE AND TO REFLECT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007 AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510 the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council for adoption and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the Land Use Plan) and Chapter 6 of the Califorma Coastal Act and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows 1 That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is generally located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue and consists of approximately five acres within the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit A) 2 That the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Element) for the Subject Property is hereby changed to reflect a change in the land use designation for the subject property from Open Space — Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per acre(RL-7) (Exhibit B) 3 That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 also consists of Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Zoning Map Amendment 09 2349/42731 1 Resolution No 2010-48 No 08-007 a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein 4 That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 5 That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 th day of July 20 10 —A&a— C-z:� ATTEST ay INITI TED D APPROVED Citplerk Director of Planning anJ B ildmg REV AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM CA" inistrator ty Attorney �-� lb Exhibits A Location Map B Amended Land Use Plan (Extract of Figure C-6 of the Coastal Element) C Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 D Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 09 2349/42731 2 Resolution No 2010 48 Resolution No 201048 Resolution No 2010 48 Resolution No 2010 48 Zone 3 ! 6 G G®J�°; i Refer to following figure Extract of Figure C-6 �{c1 for changes to Land Use PlanIN J 1 ZONE2 LEGEND Q IW41QEff9AL � I � RL RESIDENRAL LOW nENSiIY N PUBLIC P PUSUC OPEN SPRCE OS-C CONSERVATION OS- PARK OS-S SHORE EQA-CI'L ZOME BOUNDARY MINNOW i ff(.gMM ArREACHC/TYUUM I HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ZONE ZONE 2 LAND USE PLAN ,JORTH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELEMENT i _VC21 Resolution No 2010 48 Exhibit B—Land Use Plan (Extract of Figure C-6) 7 .d I,osTa it, os Tie - 4 � r s A I' Subject Site I � p ' a �' R L 1 to r s i b �I o s s Not ®ermegnated g Brightwater $pecefac Plan) County Qf Orange ri Legend RL.-7 Residential Low Density—7 du/acre OS-P Open Space—Parks OS-C Open Space—Conservation _o-- Coastal Zone Boundary Resolution No 2010 48 Resolution No 2010 48 LEGISLATIVE IDRAVr Property Development Standards for Residential Districts RL RM RNfH-A R11H RIB RMP Additional Subdistrict Provisions Minunum Buildmg Site 6,000 6 000 2 500 6,000 6,000 10 ac (A)(B)(C) r,4,0-=% Width(ft) 60 60 25 60 60 N/A (3334-"7 341"1") Cul de sac frontage 45 45 - 45 45 NIA 43334-M7 3410-IM) Minimum Setbacks (D)(R) (333"97 3410.9199) Front(ft) 15 15 12 10 10 10 (E)(F) (3334-M7 3410-"S) Side(ft) 3,5 35 3,5 3,5 3,5 - (G)(I)(J) (333441197 34,00.3/99) Street Side(ft) 6,10 6,10 5 6,10 6,10 10 (H) (3334.W97 3410-W" Rear(ft) 10 10 75 10 10 (1)(J) Accessory Structure (U) (3334-8/97 3410-%W) Garage (K) (3334-M7 3410.3/99) Projections into Setbacks Q(R) (3334-"7 3410-3r99) Maximum Height(ft) Dwellings 35 35 35 35 35 20 (M) (3334-"7 34103199) Accessory Structures 15 15 15 15 15 15 (M)(R) (3410-3199) Maximum Floor Area - 10 - - - (333"197 3410-3,99) Ratio(FAR) (3410-3199) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq ft) 6 000 2 904 * 1 742 1 244 - (3334&97 U10-3/99) Maximum Lot Coverage(%) 50 50 50 50 50 75 (V) (3334-M7 3410-3199) Minimum Floor Area (N) (333"/97 3410-3M) Minimum Usable Open Space (0) Courts (P) (33344a97 3410.3/99) Accessibility within Dwellings (Q) (34103190) Waterfront Lots (R) (33U4 M7 3410.3199) Landscaping See Chapter 232 (S) (33U-W7 3410.3M) Fences and Walls See Section 230 88 Lighting (T) (3334.9)7 3410 3/99) Underground Utilities See Chapter 17 64 Screening of Mechanical Equipment See Section 230 76 Refuse Storage Areas See Section 230 78 (3.103re9> Antenna See Section 230 80 (3410-3/99) Performance Standards See Section 230 82 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Chapter 231 &Section 210 12 Signs See Chapter 233 Nonconforming Structures See Chapter 236 Accessory Structures See Chapter 230 08 (370r,&05) * Lots 50 feet or less in width= 1 unit per 25 feet of frontage Lots greater than 50 feet in width= 1 unit per 1900 square feet N/A=Not applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 -�� �- Resolution No 2010 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT RL,RM,RMH,RH, and RMP Districts Additional Development Standards 21010 Modifications for Affordable Housing The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit modifying the minimum property development standards in this chapter for affordable housing,as provided in Section 230 14 The proposed modifications shall be requested in writing by the applicant,accompanied by a detailed pro- forma,rental guidelines deed restrictions,financial subsidies and other types of documentation which will serve to demonstrate the need for a reduction of development standards Modifications to the standards may include,but are not limited to,the parking requirements and open space The specific standard(s)from which the applicant is requesting relief shall be identified and alternative development standard(s)proposed (3334-6/97 3410-3/99) 21012 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions This section establishes supplemental development standards and provisions that shall apply to all planned unit developments (33U-6i97) A Planned Unit Development shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public Examples of public benefits that may be provided in a Planned Unit Development include,but are not limited to the creation of permanent open space,usable and appropriately located recreation facilities,the conservation of natural elements,land features and energy,and other public improvements A Maps A tentative and final or parcel map shall be approved pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions (333"/97) B Protect Design 1 Driveway parking for a mimmum of fifty percent of the units shall be provided when units are attached side by side (3334 6197) 2 A maximum of six units may be attached side by side and an offset on the front of the building a minimum of four(4)feet for every two units shall be provided (3334-6/97) 3 A minimum of one-third of the roof area within a multi-story,multi-umt building shall be one story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure's roof area (333"197) 4 The number of required parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 231 1n addition,one or more of the following alternative parking configurations may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development if it is determined that such configuration and location thereof will be accessible and useful in connection with the proposed dwelling units of the development a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 23114 b Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on-street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210 Page 20 of 22 Resolution No 2010 48 Resolution No 2010 48 Amended Zoning May �4, RL -- -Los P-atos Ave Subject Site s J RL-CZ RL - CZ _C * �i f SP-15-CZ County of Orange RL-ClZ* (Planned Community) 3 r City of HB pre-zoned ' RL-CZ, OS-PR, OS-C I *The City recently approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC— Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No 109 Legend RL— Residential Low Density RA— Residential Agricultural RMH — Residential Medium High Density SP15—Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) OS-PR— Open Space—Parks & Recreation OS-C —Open Space - Conservation CC — Coastal Conservation CZ— Coastal Zone Overlay Res No 2010-48 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I JOAN L FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 6, 2010 by the following vote AYES Carchio Coerper Green, Bohr Hansen NOES Hardy ABSENT Dwyer ABSTAIN None City erk and ex-officio rk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach California i 2 Item 9 - Page 84 -294- aria , FW1 1 PROJECT TITLE "The Ridge"22 unit Planned Unit Development Concurrent Entitlements General Plan Amendment No 08-011, Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002, Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008,Tentative Tract Map No 17294, Coastal Development Permit No 08-022, Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 EAD AGENCY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Contact Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner Phone (714)374-1661 PROJECT LOCATION 5 acre site at the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue(refer to Figure 1) 4 PROJECT PROPONENT Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle, Suite 250 Irvine,CA 92614 Contact Person Ed Mountford Phone (949)250-7760 5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OS P(Open Space—Park) 6 ZONING RA CZ(Residential Agriculture—Coastal Zone) 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Describe the whole action involved including but not limited to later phases of the project and secondary support or off site features necessary for implementation) The proposed project involves a request to amend the land use and zoning designations on an existing approximately 5 acre parcel for the subdivision and development of a 22 unit single family planned unit development (PUD) with a 5 776 square foot common open space area The size of the 22 residential lots ranges from 5 114 square feet to 12 250 square feet The proposed 4 and 5 bedroom Page 1 -295- Item 9 - Page 85 dwellings range in size from 2,700 — 4,200 square feet and are two stones with a two- or three-car garage The site is proposed to take access from a single point of ingress/egress along Bolsa Chica Street The project is proposing construction of infrastructure improvements including street, curbs, sidewalks and storm dram facilities The project site is currently zoned Residential Agricultural — Coastal Zone (RA-CZ) with a General Plan land use designation of Open Space—Parks(OS-P) The project applicant is proposing to amend the existing zoning to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone(RL-CZ)with a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density— 7 units/acre (RL-7) The project also consists of a zoning text amendment that would amend the Planned Unit Development(PUD) supplemental standards and provisions of Chapter 210 12 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to allow greater flexibility in the provision of parking spaces for a PUD development The changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow the parking to be provided in an alternative configuration provided that the total number of parking spaces required is provided withm the development site For instance the proposed project is providing the required number of parking spaces for the dwelling units however the spaces are proposed in a tandem configuration that is not currently allowed under Chapter 231 — Off-Street Parking and Loading of the HBZSO In addition required open parking spaces are provided in the driveways and on the street The project also requires an amendment to the City's certified Local Coastal Program to change the Land Use Plan from OS-P to RL-7 and reflect changes proposed to the HBZSO and zoning map Planned Unit Development The project is being proposed and designed as a planned unit development (PUD) which allows flexibility in lot standards while providing a common unifying public benefit The project is proposing 22 single family parcels that do not meet all the minimum standards for lot width and size in the RL (Residential —Low Density) zoning district Nine of the proposed lots are less than 6,000 square feet in size the smallest parcel being 5 114 square feet In addition 14 lots do not meet the minimum lot width of 60 feet (45 feet for cul de sac) instead ranging in size from 17 feet for a proposed flag lot to 55 feet in width Public Benefit The project proponent is proposing to provide two primary public benefits for the proposed PUD project The first public benefit is the improvement of an existing 30 foot wide City-owned parcel unmediately north of the project site The parcel is currently undeveloped and would be improved with a 6-foot wide meandering trail and landscaping buffer that would connect to an existing informal path on the adjacent Shea property east of the project site to provide access to the Bolsa Chica wetlands from Bolsa Chica Street thereby improving coastal access opportunities in the Bolsa Chica area The project is also proposing to be constructed as the City s first green residential project `Green' features proposed to be incorporated in the project include integration of solar panels into the roofing of the homes utilization of permeable pavers for sections of the street and driveways Energy Star- rated homes and drought-tolerant landscaping and a storm drain system designed to capture low- volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground functioning as a water treatment and groundwater recharge system Page 2 Item 9 - Page 86 -296- Construction Scenario Rough grading and mfrastructure for the project would be accomplished in one phase The project site is generally flat, however portions of the site slope gradually from west to east at elevations ranging from approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (msl)to approximately 38 feet msl Finished pads on the west side of the project site adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street will remain relatively the same as the existing elevation The eastern portion of the site adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations requiring approximately 4,200 cubic yards of cut and 10 700 cubic yards of fill Approximately 6 500 cubic yards of fill would be needed Construction of the homes would be completed in two to three phases depending on market conditions Each phase of construction would take approximately 10 months Project Entitlements The proposed project requires the following entitlement requests • General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space—Park (OS P)to Residential Low Density(RL), • Local Coastal Projram Amendment to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space— Park (OS P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and to reflect the Zoning Map and Text Amendments described below • Zoning Map Amendment to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL- CZ), • Zoning Text Amendment to amend Chapter 210 12 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development, • Tentative Tract May to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine eiOA lettered lots • Coastal Development Permit to construct 22 single-family residences and associated infractructure in the coastal zone and • Conditional Use Permit to permit construction on a site with greater than a three foot grade differential 8 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The approximately 5 acre site is generally located at the southeast corner of Bolsa Cluca Street and Los Patos Avenue Historically the site has been used periodically over the years for agricultural purposes, but has not been used for agriculture in approximately 5 years The site is currently undeveloped except for an area in the southwest portion of the property that is being utilized as temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater Development North of the project site is the previously discussed undeveloped 30-foot wide City owned parcel which is proposed to be improved with a public access trail by the project applicant to connect to the informal path on the Shea Domes (Shea) property to the east North of the 30-foot wide parcel is a multi-family condominium complex East of the project site is the undeveloped Shea property which is approved by the City for the development of a single-family residential subdivision with a park and Page 3 -297- Item 9 - Page 87 open space/conservation areas The portion of the Shea property directly abutting the project site is designated as Open Space — Conservation The 6 2 acre undeveloped Goodell property is located immediately south of the project site The Goodell property is currently located in the County of Orange and the City has initiated an application for the annexation of the property into the City West of the project site is Bolsa Chica Street and the Bnghtwater and Sandover Developments Both developments consist of single-family residential uses The Brghtwater development also consists of large open space/conservation areas Surrounding zoning and general plan land uses designations are depicted in Figures 2 and 3 Figure 4 represents the project site in relation to the surrounding properties,developments and resources that are referenced within this document 9 OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION None 10 OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED(AND PERMITS NEEDED)(i e permits,financing approval,or participating agreement) ® California Coastal Commission The Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to be approved by the California Coastal Commission prior to any development of the site Page 4 Item 9 - Page 88 -298- Figure 1—Project Location t u ington �1H our-,-- - � Wamdr Ave , u) E r Sub, ct Site J-_ U s } - - Cal � - Los Patos Ave - 13r Wa-ter Devvelopmeni J of on o o� N y Page S -299- Item 9 - Page 89 Figure 2-Existing&Surrounding Zoning Designations n " L�3 TM 3 a w (n Los P-atos Avenue s a g SP 15 iv 21 B nghtwater Specific Plan {single-family residential) ; Planned Communi _Brightwat Drive County of Orange Project Site SP15at (open spa , 1 - �- *The City recently approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC-Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No 109 Page 6 Item 9 - Page 90 -300- Figure 3—Fxasting& Surrounding Land Use Designations �X Off„ k R Srightwater Development (Not designated) Suburban Residential (County) Subject Site J r'- \ �J r� Page 7 -301- Item 9 - Page 91 I t i t i � f • t t n • i O t t i t l t I ^to �°" �t"'- ' ,�' � _>< r7 �' r � f I • f I' � /. � S y - � e _�\ � � � 'r �n 1�1 ��F.r f � ��r.� I ' ,.�I � � ">.""1'r f�+` ' /✓y ! f I a , t 14, iq I � 141 -:� �-,-r ... - _ I jrr! ..aye n x!•t<r£� tee. y. {' -..� F :' ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS P®TENTULLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact or is Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ® Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ® Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMWATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment ❑ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on nic an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact' or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided ❑ or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures t at are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is requ7 3 10 1. Signa'gie Date Printed Name Title Page 9 -303- Item 9 - Page 93 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question A `No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards 2 All answers must take account of the whole action involved Answers should address off site as well as on site,cumulative as well as project level indirect as well as direct and construction as well as operational impacts 3 "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted 4 Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less than Significant Impact The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII Earlier Analyses may be cross referenced) 5 Earlier analyses may be used where pursuant to the tiering program EIR,or other CEQA process an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D) Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist 6 References to information sources for potential impacts(e g general plans zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist A source list has been provided in Section XVIII Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions 7 The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3 Title 14 California Code of Regulations but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach s requirements (Note Standard Conditions of Approval The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance However because they are considered part of the project they have not been identified as mitigation measures For the readers information a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No 3 SAMPLE QUESTION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving Landslides? (Sources 1 6) Discussion The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area (Note This response probably would not require further explanation) Page 10 Item 9 - Page 94 -304- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigmficant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but not limited to the general plan specific plan local coastal program or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect9(Sources 12 15 20) Discussion The 5 acre project site is currently zoned RA CZ (Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay)and the General Plan Land Use designation is OS P(Open Space—Parks) The site is undeveloped although a portion of the property is currently used as a construction staging area for the adjacent Brightwater residential development Applicable plans and policies regulating the subject site include the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO)and Municipal Code the Huntington Beach General Plan and the City s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) which consists of the Coastal Element of the General Plan and an implementation program (IP) The Local Coastal Program carries out the policies and requirements of the California Coastal Act The project proposes to amend the RA CZ zoning designation to RL-CZ (Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone Overlay) In addition the project is proposing to amend the General Plan land use designation from OS P to RL 7(Residential Low Density—7 dwelling units per acre) Background The subject property was originally zoned R 1 (Single Family Residential) and the General Plan Land Use designation was Low Density Residential when it was incorporated into the City of Huntington Beach in the early 1970s When the California Coastal Act was enacted in 1976 the City began steps to certify a Local Coastal Program with the California Coastal Commission in order to obtain coastal development permit jurisdiction As part of this process the City designated an 8 acre area on the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa which included the subject site as well as a portion of what is now the Shea property for Open Space— Recreation on the 1982 Land Use Plan that was certified by the Coastal Commission After the Land Use Plan was certified the Coastal Commission required the City to zone the 8 acre area to a designation that would correspond to the Open Space—Recreation land use designation as part of its submittal of the Implementation Program of the LCP In 1984 the City re zoned the area from RI-CZ to RA CZ which was reflective of the agricultural uses on the property In 1985 the Coastal Commission certified a County Land Use Plan for that portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the 8 acre area within County Jurisdiction with a land use designation of low density residential Zoning/Land Use Consistency The proposed project including the proposed zoning and general plan designations would be consistent with surrounding land uses and existing surrounding zoning and land use designations Properties to the north northwest and west are zoned and developed with single and muth family residential uses The Shea property to the east has zoning and land use designations for single family residential uses as well as open space/conservation areas The Brightwater Specific Plan area southwest of the project site has a similar land use pattern with single family residential uses and open space/conservation areas Property to the south., known as the Goodell Property,is currently located in the County of Orange and has a zoning designation of Planned Community (PC) and a General Plan land use designation of Suburban Residential The City is euFfenfly eens.ae-tog recently approved the annexation of the Goodell property to the south Preposed In Page 11 -305- Item 9 - Page 95 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact conjunction with the annexation,the Crtv approved pre zoning designations for the property that include residential and open space/conservation designations Although the land use designation of the subject site is currently Open Space — Parks the existing zoning designation allows development of single family dwellings at a density of one unit per acre Under the current zoning designation, five single family dwellings could be developed on the site The project is proposing to develop the site with the same uses that are currently allowed but at a greater density which is consistent with the existing densities of surrounding developments The following Land Use goals objectives and policies of the General Plan Coastal Element are applicable to the project Goal C 1 Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources promotes public access and balances development with facility needs Objective C 1 1 Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible Policies C 1 1 1 With the exception of hazardous industrial development new development shall be encouraged to be located within contiguous or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it or where such areas are not able to accommodate it in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources C 1 1 3a The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development (such as but not limited to public access ways public bike paths habitat restoration and enhancement, etc) shall be phased such that the public benefit(s)are in place prior to or concurrent with the private development but not later than occupation of any private development C 1 15 New residential development should be sited and designed in such a manner that it maintains and enhances public access to the coast b) provide non automobile circulation such as bike trails and pedestrian walkways within the development d) provide for the recreational needs of new residents through local park acquisition or on site recreational facilities to assure that recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas The project while proposing a change in the Land Use Plan from Open Space—Parks(OS P)to Residential— Low Density (RL) would not conflict with the land use goals and policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan The project is proposing to improve an existing undeveloped 30 foot wide parcel north of the project site with an access trail that would connect to an existing informal path on the adjacent Shea property that would ultimately provide access to the flood control channel and the Bolsa Chnca wetlands from Bolsa Chica Street In addition to the improved coastal access the project would provide a 5 776 square foot passive open space area is proposed within the development to provide a recreational area for new residents to ensure that the new residents would not overload coastal recreation areas The project is in close proximity to similar Page 12 Item 9 - Page 96 -306- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mtigation Significant ISSUES and supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact developments is consistent with the existing land use pattern in the area and can be accommodated by existing infrastructure (refer to Section XII Utilities & Service Systems) Although the proposed project would result in development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa the existing slope adjacent to the project site would be preserved In addition the proposed drainage system would further protect the slope from potential impacts from runoff and erosion that could occur from development on the Mesa (refer to Sections III Geology and Soils & IV Hydrology and Water Quality) Other potential impacts as analyzed within this document have either been minimized through the project s design or can be mitigated so that all impacts would be less than significant HBZSO&Applicable Codes In terms of compliance with the HBZSO OP portion of LCP) the proposed project will comply with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the PUD design for the project These exceptions include deviations to minimum lot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the HBZSO The proposed project is also required to comply with other requirements of the HBZSO including regulations pertaining to subdivisions and coastal development permits as well as applicable requirements of the Municipal Code Zoning Text Amendment The project applicant is proposing a zoning text amendment that would change the PUD supplemental standards and provisions of Chapter 210 12 of the HBZSO to allow greater flexibility in the provision of parking spaces for a PUD development The changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow the parking to be provided in an alternative configuration provided that the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site For instance the proposed project is providing the required number of parking spaces for the dwelling units however the spaces are proposed in a tandem configuration that is not currently allowed under Chapter 231 — Off Street Parking and Loading of the HBZSO Of the 22 units 10 are proposing to provide a required three car garage with a tandem configuration for two of the spaces For these 10 units three open spaces are required in which one of the required open spaces is proposed to be met through the available street parking The proposed zoning text amendment is appropriate for inclusion in the PUD supplemental standards since PUDs by nature allow for flexibility in land use regulations so that a more distinct development can be provided with a greater emphasis on public benefits Additionally the proposed zoning text amendment will be consistent with the following General Plan goals policies and objectives Goal LU 9 Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic physical and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach Objective LU 9 3 Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity Policy LU 9 3 2 Require that the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following b Integrate public squares mini parks or other landscaped elements h Site and design of units and incorporate elements such as porches that emphasize front yards as an activity area and outdoor living room by located garages in the rear or side yards i Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more intimate relationship between structures to Page 13 -307- Item 9 - Page 97 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigmficant Mitigation Sigmficant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations k Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage The proposed zoning text amendment would be beneficial for future PUD developments in terms of consistency with the General Plan in that a projects site layout and design could achieve a more diverse development configuration, provide more open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility that the proposed amendment would provide The ability to provide a three car garage in a tandem configuration would allow for a more compact or intimate development pattern which would allow for more area for open space or other unique development features such as a trail plaza or community center The proposed amendment would also reduce a project s potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis as an activity area with landscaping and porch elements In terms of the proposed project the tandem garage design would allow for a more aesthetic design in which garages do not dominate the street scene The proposed tandem garage design promotes the overall project site layout with narrow lot widths and smaller lot sizes that are configured around a large open space area The proposed amendment also furthers the project s green design theme in that less impervious surface is required with the proposed garage and parking design Based on the discussion above the project will not conflict with applicable land use plans and regulations in the City of Huntington Beach and impacts would be less than significant b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 0 natural community conservation plan?(Sources 1) Discussion See discussion below c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources 3) Discussion b&c The project site is currently vacant and proposed to be subdivided for the construction of 22 single family residences A new street would be constructed as part of the project to provide access to the new homes The project will take access from Bolsa Chica Street an existing major arterial in the City of Huntington Beach Although a new street will be constructed the project does not propose to cut off existing access to or from any existing or approved developments in the area such that it would physically divide an established community In addition the project is proposing to provide a link via a 30 foot wide landscaped path to connect Bolsa Chica Street at Los Patos Avenue to the Bolsa Chica wetlands The project will not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as there are not any adopted for the City of Huntington Beach II POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly(e g by proposing new homes and busmesses)or indirectly(e g through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under c Page 14 Item 9 - Page 98 -308- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere9 (Sources 1,18) Discussion See discussion under c c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources 1 18) Discussion a—c The site is currently vacant no existing homes or residents will be demolished or displaced The project consists of a 22-unit single-family planned unit development and would not induce substantial population growth in the City of Huntington Beach The 2008 Housing Element indicates that the average household size in Huntington Beach is 2 56 persons which would result in potentially 57 new residents in the City This represents 0 03%of the total population of Huntington Beach which would not be considered substantial population growth The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on population and housing The RA zoning district permits single family dwellings at a ratio of one unit per acre whereas the RL designation allows seven units per acre The subject project is proposing a density of 6 4 units per net acre(4 4 units/gross acre) Although the proposed project represents an increase in allowable units and density than what is currently allowed the proposed residential development on the project site would not result in substantial population growth in the context of allowed General Plan growth nor in combination with anticipated and planned growth as identified in the City s 2008 Housing Element In addition the project will be required to comply with the City s affordable housing ordinance which requires the provision of 10 percent of the total units to be affordable or payment of in-lieu fees Less than significant impacts would occur III GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss,injury or death involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault 9(Sources 15 7 14) Discussion See discussion under iv ii) Strong seismic ground shaking9(Sources 15 7 14) ❑ El Discussion See discussion under ry m) Seismic-related ground failure including El liquefaction9 (Sources 15,7,14) Page 15 -309- stem 9 - Page 99 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion See discussion under ry iv) Landslides' (Sources 15 7 14) ❑ 0 Discussion a i —iv The subject site is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for construction headquarters for the adjacent and under construction Brightwater development The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and no known or potentially active faults cross the site The nearest known active fault is the Newport Inglewood fault located approximately 2 000 feet southwest of the project site The site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced slope instability or liquefaction However the site is adjacent to a Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake induced liquefaction In the event of a large earthquake at the nearby Newport Inglewood fault, the site would experience significant ground shaking A geotechnical feasibility study (LGC 2008) for the project states that the project site consists of loose to dense brown to orange brown sands gravels and cobbles and soft to medium stiff brown and grey brown silts and sandy clays It is anticipated that these materials are overlain by varying thickness of topsoil and colluvial materials Historic high groundwater levels in the vicinity of the subject site have been reported at 20 feet below the ground surface Potential for liquefaction is anticipated to be low due to the lack of shallow groundwater conditions and the anticipated dense nature of the site soils However due to the proximity of the project site to a Seismic Hazard Zone for potential liquefaction further subsurface testing on the project site will be conducted prior to preparation of construction and grading plans The report indicates that it is anticipated that the site soils have very low to medium expansion potential and negligible potential for concrete and metal corrosion The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on geology and soils The proposed development would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) which includes regulations for projects to be designed to withstand seismic forces In addition the project is required to prepare a site specific geotechnical investigation including subsurface exploration and laboratory testing to further evaluate the nature and engineering characteristics of the underlying soils The report will provide recommendations for the design and construction of the project including recommendations to address liquefaction potential Adherence to the seismic design and construction parameters of the CBC the City s Municipal Code and recommendations outlined in a site specific geotechnical investigation would ensure protection of future residents of the project from impacts associated with seismic activity Less than significant impacts would occur b) Result in substantial soil erosion loss of topsoil or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation grading or fill? (Sources 1 5 7 14) Discussion See discussion under item e c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off site landslide lateral spreading subsidence liquefaction or collapse? (Sources 15 7 14) Discussion See discussion under item e Page 16 Item 9 - Page 100 -310- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 1 B ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property9 (Sources 15 7 14) Discussion See discussion under item e e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources 15 7 14) Discussion b e The project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Although the project site is generally flat,portions of the site slope gradually from west to east at elevations ranging from approximately 50 feet above mean sea level(msl)to approximately 38 feet msl Finished pads on the west side of the project site adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street would remain relatively the same as the existing elevation The eastern portion of the site adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations requiring approximately 4 200 cubic yards of cut and 10 700 cubic yards of fill Approximately 6 500 cubic yards of fill would need to be imported According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study(LGC 2008) over excavation and recompaction of near surface soils is anticipated to occur during site preparation and grading Based on other projects in the vicinity it is anticipated that the depth of over excavation would not exceed five to 10 feet According to the geotechnical feasibility study the on site soils are considered generally suitable for use as compacted fill and support the planned improvements including the proposed drainage system However a site specific geotechnical subsurface investigation will further evaluate the underlying soils and provide design recommendations to be implemented with the project The project proposes to develop on a currently undeveloped site and would increase the potential for on site and off site erosion Off site erosion could occur if stormwater were conveyed over the adjacent slope However the project is proposing to direct dry weather and low volume storm flows into a planned catch basin that would allow the water to infiltrate back into the ground Large volume storm flows are proposed to be directed into the existing storm drain in Bolsa Chica Street which flows into a concrete vault that treats the water before discharging In addition the project is required to prepare an erosion control plan subject to review by the Public Works Department Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary The State Water Resources Control Board and the City s Municipal Code require erosion and sediment controls for construction projects with land disturbance The requirements include preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) with construction period and erosion and sediment controls preparation and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan describing both construction period and permanent erosion and sediment controls and construction site inspection by the City The project is subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) The project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent(NOI)to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and must comply with all applicable requirements including the preparation of a SWPPP applicable NPDES Regulations and best management practices(BMPs) The SWPPP must describe the site the facility erosion and sediment controls runoff water quality monitoring means of waste disposal implementation of approved local plans control of sediment and erosion control measures maintenance responsibilities and non stormwater management controls Page 17 -311- Item 9 - Page 101 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The site has a low to moderate potential for expansive soils The project is required to comply with Section 1802 2 2 Expansive Soils of the City s Municipal Code and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code in addition to implementing the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation to address potential impacts from expansive soils In addition the existing sewer system constructed in 2006 for the Bnghtwater Development,would accommodate the proposed project and as such the project would not require an alternative wastewater disposal system Compliance with all applicable codes and requirements, in addition to implementation of site specific recommendations of a required geotechnical investigation would ensure less than significant impacts would occur IV HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑x substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e g the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources 1348) Discussion See discussion under p c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (Sources 1,3,4 8) Discussion See discussion under p d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El ❑x site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? (Sources 1348) Page 18 1 Item 9 - Page 102 -312- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant ( upp g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion See discussion under p e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff9 (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (Sources 13 4,8) Discussion See discussion under p g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under] h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources 1348) Discussion See discussion under] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources 134,8) Discussion See discussion under] j) Inundation by seiche tsunami or mudflow? (Sources ❑ ❑ ❑ 1348) Page 19 -313- Item 9 - Page 103 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion g—j The proposed project site is designated as Flood Zone X in the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which is not subject to Federal Flood Development restrictions The project site is not situated within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped in the FIRM The elevation of the site above mean sea level(ranging from 38 —50 )and insulation provided by the inner Bolsa Bay suggest that the probability of experiencing adverse effects from tsunamis and seiches is low at the site Furthermore the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element does not identify the subject site within a tsunami run up area No impacts would occur k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction ❑ ❑ ® _ actrvtties9 (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post El El lig construction activities9 (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage vehicle or equipment fueling vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing) waste handling hazardous materials handling or storage delivery areas loading docks or other outdoor work areas9 (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters9 (Sources 13 4 8) Discussion See discussion under p o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm9 (Sources 1 3 4,8) Discussion See discussion under p p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources 13 4 8) Page 20 Item 9 - Page 104 -314- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—f&k—p The approximately 5 acre project site is currently undeveloped A portion of the site is currently used for construction staging headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater development The project proposes construction of a 22 unit single family planned unit development and associated site improvements which include infrastructure and street improvements a 5 776 square foot open space area and a dry weather and low stormwater flow retention/infiltration system The project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Water bodies in the vicinity of the project site include the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the East Garden Grove— Wintersburg Channel The project does not propose to alter the course of an existing stream or river After construction the project site would consist of approximately 51%landscaped area 3%porous pavement and 46%impervious surface The project does have the potential to increase runoff rate and volume during construction and post-construction which could impact water quality The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on hydrology and water quality Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be addressed in the project design and development phase pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works Construction Runoff and Erosion The State Water Resources Control Board and the City s Municipal Code require erosion and sediment controls for construction projects with land disturbance The requirements include preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) with construction period and erosion and sediment controls preparation and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan describing both construction period and permanent erosion and sediment controls and construction site inspection by the City The project is subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) The project applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI)to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and must comply with all applicable requirements including the preparation of a SWPPP applicable NPDES Regulations and best management practices(BMP) The SWPPP must describe the site the facility erosion and sediment controls runoff water quality monitoring means of waste disposal implementation of approved local plans control of sediment and erosion control measures maintenance responsibilities and non stormwater management controls Implementation of a SWPPP and applicable City and SWRCB requirements would ensure that runoff from construction of the project will not result in substantial erosion or flooding on and off site and impacts would be less than significant Post-construction Runoff and Erosion The proposed storm drain system for the project incorporates a continuous deflection system(CDS)unit to treat stormwater flows as well as a manhole diversion structure designed to divert the first flush storm water runoff and dry weather nuisance flows to the proposed open space area where it will be infiltrated into the ground through a corrugated metal pipe retention system Surface runoff will flow to catch basins connected to the CDS unit which will function to remove debris sediment,oil and grease from the street runoff prior to infiltration into the ground In addition porous pavers proposed in the driveways and on street parking areas will intercept nuisance flows and first flush stormwater runoff and pre treat the runoff prior to retention and infiltration In addition to capturing runoff the proposed drainage system would also facilitate water quality enhancement through removal of dissolved nutrients bacteria and sediment through the soil s natural filtering ability as well as act as a groundwater recharge system Larger storm flows are proposed to bypass the retention system and flow into an existing privately owned 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe in Bolsa Chica Street which would be treated and ultimately discharged into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Page 21 -315- item 9 - Page 105 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact In addition the project is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)for post-construction compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works A preliminary WQMP identifies Routine Source Control and Structural BMPs as well as Site Design BMPs to be incorporated into the project Although the project does have the potential to contribute additional runoff which may create other impacts such as floodmg erosion and increased demand on the existing storm dram system the project s proposed storm drain system would limit the amount of post construction runoff to ensure that impacts would be less than significant The proposed storm drain system would function to recharge groundwater thereby limiting the amount of low volume storm flows and dry weather flows that enter the storm drain system In addition runoff water from larger volume storm flows would be pre treated prior to entering the storm drain system which would limit the amount of polluted runoff that is ultimately discharged into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands during larger storm events As such the project as designed and with implementation of a WQMP would not result in substantial increases in the rate and volume of post construction runoff which would impact the beneficial use of downstream waters Finally the proposed storm drain system would serve to protect the adjacent slope from runoff that could cause environmental harm to the slope and sensitive resources below the slope Less than significant impacts would occur Due to the relatively small size of the proposed residential project the potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies is minimal Also as discussed above the project s retention/infiltration system would function to recharge the groundwater supply Therefore impacts to groundwater would be less than significant The project s design as well as required SWPPP WQMP and hydrology and hydraulic studies to be submitted in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standard development requirements will identify project design features and BMPs for ensuring no significant impacts associated with polluted runoff and erosion would occur In addition the project design and drainage system would function to treat water which would then recharge the groundwater supply(for dry weather and first flush flows)or discharge into downstream waters (larger volume storm flows) As such impacts to water quality would be less than significant Page 22 Item 9 - Page 106 -316- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V AIR QUAI ffY The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations Would the project a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources 19 16) Discussion See discussion under e b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? (Sources 19 16) Discussion See discussion under e c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people9 (Sources 19 16) Discussion See discussion under e d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ © ❑ applicable air quality plan9 (Sources 19 16) Discussion See discussion under e e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources 19 16) Page 23 -317- Item 9 - Page 107 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Nhtigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—e The proposed project consists of the subdivision of an approximately 5-acre parcel for the development of 22 single-family homes and associated site unprovements The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) The entire Basin is designated as a national level nonattamment area for Ozone Carbon Monoxide(CO) respirable particulate matter(PM10)and fine particulate matter(PM2 5) The Basin is also a State level nonattamment area for Ozone PM10 and PM2 5 Sensitive receptors in the area include residents in nearby developments to the north and west The nearest sensitive receptors would be residents of the multi-family residential area north of the project site approximately 40 feet from the project site boundary The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on air quality Impacts from objectionable odors could potentially occur during construction of the project However,impacts would be intermittent and short term and would not persist once construction was completed Residential uses in general are not sources of objectionable odors Potential odors would be limited to typical household wastes which are stored in refuse containers and picked up on a weekly basis As such impacts from odors would be less than significant The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)is the region s applicable air quality plan and was prepared to accommodate growth to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under junsdiction of the SCAQMD to return clean air to the region and minimize the impact on the economy Projects that are considered to be consistent with the General Plan are considered to be consistent with the AQMP Although the proposed project is proposing a general plan amendment to change the land use designation the growth in population size and number of housing units as a result of the project is consistent with the growth accounted for in the General Plan(refer to discussion under Section H Population and Housing) Therefore the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant Short term The construction of the project may result in short term au pollutant emissions from the following activities the commute of workers to and from the project site grading activities delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site fuel combustion by on site construction equipment and dust generating activities from soil disturbance Emissions during construction were calculated using LIRBEMIS2007 program(version 9 2 4) The allotment of equipment to be utilized during each phase was based on defaults in the URBEMIS2007 program and was modified as needed to represent the specifics of the proposed project In addition,the emissions estimate assumes that the appropriate dust control measures would be implemented Bunny-each phase as required by SCAQMD Rule 403— FuQitive Dust and that all other appropriate mitigation such as,but not limited to,routine equipment maintenance,frequent watering of the site and use of low VOC coatings has been used The URBEMIS model calculates total emissions on site and offsite resulting from each construction activity which are compared to the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds A comparison of the project s total emission with the regional thresholds is provided below A project with daily construction emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have a less than significant effect on regional air quality Page 24 Item 9 - Page 108 -318- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) r-- Emissions VOC NOx PM10 PM2 5 SOZ WEstimmatedCouction for proposed 14 26 Z 2505 �6 � 001 project Significance Threshold 550 75 100 150 55 150 Exceed Threshold9 NO I NO NO NO I NO I NO Based on the aforementioned table construction of the project would not exceed the regional emissions thresholds nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated Localized Significance Thresholds Localized Significance Thresholds(LSTs)represent the maximum emissions from a protect that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedence of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and are applicable to the following criteria pollutants NO,,CO,PM,(, and PM7,5 LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of a pollutant for each source receptor area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor to determine a project's localized air quality impacts The SCAOMD has developed LSTs for protects 5 acres or less in total area The City of Huntington Beach is in the North Coastal Oran a County source receptor area Although the use of LSTs is voluntary,the proposed prolect's localized emissions from construction are shown in the table below mmil Milli Localized Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) CO NOx PMIo PM,-5 Significance Threshold 1,711 197 14 9 Estimated Construction 1473 2505 406 174 Emissions for proposed project — Exceed Threshold9 NO NO NO NO Based on the table above construction of the project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated Long term Post construction emissions were also calculated using the URBEMIS2007 program version (9 4 2) The program was set to calculate emissions for the proposed 22 unit single family development The default URBEMIS2007 variables were used for the calculations Page 25 -319- Item 9 - Page 109 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Regional Significance Threshold(Lbs/day) CO VOC NOx PMI0 PM,, SOZ Estimated project Enussions for proposed 1994 293 221 345 067 002 project Significance Threshold 550 55 55 150 55 150 Exceed Thresholds NO I NO I NO NO NO NO Based on the aforementioned table post construction emissions from the proposed project would not exceed the regional thresholds nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated In addition the project does not come close to exceeding established thresholds for any pollutant including the identified nonattamment pollutants(Ozone CO PMIo and PM2 5)and ozone precursors(NOx and VOC)both for construction and post construction and therefore would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in these pollutants Greenhouse Gases AB 32 codifies the state s goal to reduce its global warming by requiring that the state s greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012 In order to effectively implement the cap AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board(CARB)to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor greenhouse gas emissions levels In addition,the Natural Resources Agency recently adopted amendments to the CEQA guidelines (effective March 18,2010)that require an evaluation and determination of the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions The amendments require the lead agency to make a good faith effort in describing,calculating or estimating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project usmg qualitative and/or quantitative analyses and methodologies - State Offiee of Planafag and Resear-e pr-ep sed— to the C;EQA gtWelineswas released in April 2009 and states t4at a leeal ageney most The proposed project would result in a total of approximately 350 75 tons of CO2 emissions during construction Post construction CO2 emissions would be approximately 447 57 tons/year Therefore the project would produce GHG emissions Other GHG emissions could result from increases in electricity and natural gas usage and solid waste production all of which would occur with the proposed project Although the amount of post-construction GHG emissions from the project(447 57 tons/yr)represents a negligible percentage of the overall state of California GHG emissions(484 400 000 tons/yr 2004) since there are no adopted thresholds of significance established yet any contribution of GHG emissions can be considered cumulatively significant However,due to the project's small incremental contribution to GHG emissions in addition to reduction measures described below,the prolect's incremental cumulative contribution would be less than significant Page 26 Item 9 - Page 110 -320- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The proposed project would be the City s first green residential project and as such,incorporates design features that promote energy efficiency and a reduction in GHG emissions both directly and indirectly For instance,the project is proposing to utilize Energy Star rated products in all of the units a storm dram system designed to capture low-volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground thereby reducing the amount of water that enters the storm dram system drought tolerant landscaping solar roof panels and pervious surfaces for driveways and portions of the street In addition the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes and requirements pertaining to energy efficiency and water use efficiency as well as applicable requirements for construction equipment that would limit truck and equipment idling times exhaust and dust The identified project design features and applicable requirements are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies recommended by the California Climate Action Team(CCAT) the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association(CAPCOA)and the California Attorney General s office Therefore due te the projea s small een4ibutten to GHG emissions in additien to pr-ejerat design features dia4 weii impacts would be less than significant VI TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e g result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections? (Sources 1 11 18) Discussion See discussion under g b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of 0 service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources 1,11,18) Discussion See discussion under g c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources 1 11 18) Discussion See discussion under g d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 (e g sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources 1 11 18) Discussion See discussion under g Page 27 -321- Item 9 - Page 111 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigmfcant Mitigation Sigmfcant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access9 (Sources ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,11 18) Discussion See discussion under g f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 11 18) Discussion See discussion under g g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ transportation(e g bus turnouts bicycle racks)? (Sources 1 11 18) Discussion a—g The proposed project is a 22 unit single family subdivision with associated site improvements The proposed street configuration is a typical single family residential street with on-street parking and one travel lane in each direction The surface for the on street parking is proposed to have permeable pavers and the street surface would consist of concrete pavers Existing intersections near the project site include Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street and Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue According to the Department of Public Works—Transportation Division the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is currently experiencing capacity issues A draft General Plan Circulation Element Update indicates that future intersection capacity improvements will be needed at this intersection The intersections at Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street are both operating at acceptable levels based on City standard criteria The proposed development will generate an average 264 new daily vehicle trips of which 17 will occur in the AM peak hour and 22 in the PM peak hour The intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street and Warner Avenue were evaluated for traffic impacts The results of the evaluation are summarized in the following tables Existmg Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)and Level of Service(LOS) Intersection AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Hour—ICU Hour—ICU Warner/Bolsa Chica 073 C 071 C Warner/Algonquin 048 A 056 A Project Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)and LOS Intersection AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Hour—ICU Hour—ICU WamerBolsa Chica 073 C 071 C Warner/Algonquin 048 A 056 A Page 28 Item 9 - Page 112 -322- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact No changes in existing intersection capacity utilization(ICU)or level of service(LOS)would occur at either of the intersections with the proposed project The intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is a Caltrans intersection and was not evaluated using City of Huntington Beach criteria However given that the two closest signalized intersections would not result in changes to existing intersection operations similarly it is expected that no changes in LOS or ICU from the project would occur at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway Less than significant impacts would occur Construction related traffic may have an impact on existing parking vehicle circulation,and pedestrians by construction vehicles along side entering or exiting the project site Specifically grading of the site would require approximately 464 truck trips to import the required amount of fill soil for the project These trips would occur during the grading phase which would be approximately 20 days As a result vehicle delays may result along Bolsa Chica Street adjacent to the project site However impacts would be temporary and would not impact a large number of surrounding residential uses since the project site is located at the terminus of Los Patos Avenue and near the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street These potential impacts would be reduced through implementation of code requirements requiring Department of Public Works approval of a construction traffic control plan The project is proposing to provide a two- or three car garage for each dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 231 —Off Street Parking and Loading of the HBAO Of the 22 units 10 are proposing to provide a required three car garage with a tandem configuration for two of the spaces For these 10 units three open spaces are required in which one of the required open spaces is proposed to be met through the available street parking The total number of parking spaces required for the project is provided within the development site in addition to 13 additional on street parking spaces As such the proposed project will not result in significant impacts due to inadequate parking capacity The proposed text amendment to the HBZSO would not result in inadequate parking capacity for future PUD developments since the changes do not allow reductions in the overall number of required parking spaces that would be required for a project In addition any alternative parking configuration proposed in a future PUD project would be analyzed as part of the development review process for that particular subdivision and any other required entitlements Less than significant impacts would occur The proposed site access and street configuration does not propose privacy gates sharp curves or dangerous intersections and is designed to comply with City standards In addition the project has been reviewed by the Huntington Beach Fire Department for adequate access and is required to comply with City Specification 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access As such the project would not result in inadequate emergency access The project does not require bicycle racks since it is a single family development and would not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation Less than significant impacts would occur VII BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or ❑ ® ❑ through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources 1 18 21 23) Page 29 -323- Item 9 - Page 113 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion See discussion under item f b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under item f c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including but not limited to marsh vernal pool coastal etc)through direct removal filling hydrological interruption or other means? (Sources 1,18 21 23) Discussion See discussion under item f d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under item f e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under item f f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources 1 18) Discussion a—f The approximately five acre project site is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the property that is used for construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater development which is under construction Historically the site has been used periodically for agricultural purposes but has never been developed Them are no tFees or-sensitive vegetat4ea existing on the stte dial would pfevide habiteA fe Page 30 T Item 9 - Page 114 -324- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A designated wetlands area is located approximately 200 feet east of the subject property at the closest point The subject property is entirely outside of the required buffer area for the adjacent wetlands designation To the east of the proposed project on the Shea property is a stand of eucalyptus trees that have been determined by the California Coastal Commission to be an environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA)because of their value to raptors for nesting and perching In January 2010,a biological resources assessment was prepared by LSA,Inc,for the 5-acre subject property According to the report,the site consists of two types of habitat approximately 3 2 acres of fallow agricultural land and 15 acres of barren land(gravel) The following discussion on the protect's potential impacts to biological resources is based on the Biological Resources Assessment,which was also peer reviewed by SWCA Environmental Consultants in February 2010 SWCA verified that the information in the report was accurate and agreed with the conclusions of the report Existing Plant Species The 1 5-acre gravel area was found to be barren with nearly no vegetation other than a few tumble mustard and dwarf nettle individuals The most common species observed in the 3 2-acre agricultural area included amaranthus,lamb's quarters,nettle-leaved goosefoot,Italian thistle,common horseweed and shortpod mustard Existing Wildlife Species Several wildlife species commonly associated with ruderal habitat types have been observed within the proiect site In 2009,one reptile,40 bird and four mammal species were observed or detected within the proiect site Birds regularly using the site include mourning dove,Anna's hummingbird,black phoebe, California towhee,western meadowlark and house finch Migrant species include Cassm's kingbird, yellow-rumped warbler,Savannah sparrow and white-crowned sparrow Common mammals include the California ground squirrel,Botta's pocket gopher,Audubon's cottontail and co-vote The western fence lizard has also been observed on the project site Although regular use of the surrounding area by raptors is well documented,little activity within the proiect site itself has been documented Due to the small mammal populations that occur on the site,it is likely that there is occasional raptor foraging However,raptor activity would be hmited to foraging from the air since there are no structures or vegetation for perching or nesting within the project site Special Status Species Plants There is only one special-status plant species,Southern tarplant,with a moderate to high probability of occurnng on the protect site Scattered Southern tarplant populations have been found on the Bolsa Chica Mesa including the Goodell property immediately south of the proiect site Because Southern tarplant is tolerant of and favors disturbed growing conditions,small numbers could occur on the protect site However,according to the LSA Biological Resources Assessment,soil conditions are marginal and unlikely to support a substantial population of the species Even though the presence of Southern tarplant on the project site is unlikely 2 a pre-construction survey is necessary to ensure that potential impacts to Southern tarplant will be less than significant The following mitigation measure is recommended BIO-1 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity,a guahfied biologist shall survey the prolect site for presence of Southern tarplant during the appropriate blooming period,May—November If Page 31 -325- 0$em 9 - Page 115 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact feasible,the survey shall be conducted during the peak blooming period for the year Any substantial occurrence(at least 500 mature individuals)shall be preserved on-site or relocated to open space areas in the Bolsa Chica area. If relocation is required,a Southern tarplant relocation program shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented prior to the onset of construction Animals One butterfly and two avian special status species have been found on the proiect site However,several additional species are known to occur in the vicinity of the protect site and,as such,may occur on the project site These species include the monarch butterfly,which is primarily found among the off-site eucalytpus trees,and the white-tailed lute,Cooper's hawk,Allen's humminebird,coastal California gnatcatcher and Belding's Savannah sparrow,all of which have nested in the vicinity of the protect site Most of the special-status species have a low probability of occurring on the protect site However,some have moderate to high potential for occurring or were observed within or adtacent to the protect area Habitat within the protect site is relatively small and margmal in quality for most of these species In addition,nearly all of the special status species that may occur within the protect area unmanly utilize urban development for nestine and foraging or the off site eucalyptus ESHA or pickleweed salt marsh Both of these habitats will be preserved as part of another protect in the vicinity Given that the protect site does not contain any environmentally sensitive habitat area,wetlands or habitat of significant value, impacts to special status species would be considered less than significant In addition to the field surveys that LSA conducted to identify plant and animal species,focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted in accordance with the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (BOC)protocol LSA did not observe any burrowing owls or potential owl burrows within or adjacent to the protect site during the surveys However,small mammal burrows on the protect site as well as rodent burrows outside the protect area were present that burrowing owls can modify for their own use Regular surveys of the surrounding Bolsa Chica Mesa area over the last decade have observed burrowing owls only durine the wintering season from October to March According to the Biological Resources_report,there is a very low chance that the burrowing owl would occur on the site prior to development However,pre-construction surveys would be necessary to verify absence of the species or their burrows as well as to implement protective measures in the event that burrowing owls are found to be_present on the site No permanent habitat preservation is necessary since there is no recent history of breeding burrowing owls on the protect site and ample opportunity for the establishment of breeding area in surrounding unoccupied preserved habitat is available The following mitigation measure is recommended BIO-2 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity,focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the CBOC and Department of Fish and Game(DFG) established protocols on the protect site ■ If no occupied burrows are found,the methods and findines of the surveys shall be reported to the City and DFG for review and approval and no further mitigation would be required • If unoccupied burrows are found during the nonbreedina season,the burrows shall be collapsed or otherwise obstructed to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows • If burrows are found,a buffer of 165 feet(during the nonbreeding season of September I through January 31)or 250 feet(during the breeding season of February 1 through August 31) shall be provided The buffer area may be adiusted based on recommendations by a qualified biologist in consultation with the DFG No activity shall occur within the buffer area until a Page 32 Item 9 - Page 116 -326- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact qualified biologist conrrms that the burrow is no longer occupied ■ If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair,a minimum of 7 S acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over Because the site is only approximately S acres in area,property outside of the protect site would need to be provided in order to provided 7 S acres If off-sate property is not available then the entire subject site will serve as foraging area. ■ If avoidance of an occupied burrow as not feasible,on-sate passive relocation techniques approved by the DFG shall be used to encourage the owls to move to an alternative borrow outside of the impact area. However,no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that tuvendes from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure will ensure that impacts to burrowing owls will be less than significant Impacts from development of the project site on surrounding habitat areas,including the adjacent eucalyptus ESHA east of the subject property,could occur from the intrusion of people and pets in the area as well as from noise,light,dispersal of nonnative plants and introduction of pests and feral species It should be noted that these impacts already occur due to the proximity of other residential development to the habitat areas The proposed project includes several design measures that would reduce or eliminate these impacts such as perimeter fencing to separate and deter humans and pets from disturbing the preserved habitat areas and dark sky lighting as well as restrictions on the type of exterior lighting that residents of the project can use in the future Standard requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO)require a Domestic Animal Control Plan,a Pest Management Plan and other performance standards for developments adjacent to an ESHA to minimize impacts In addition,raptor species that would nest in the adjacent eucalyptus ESHA are very tolerant of human activity In fact,according to the Biological Resources report,previous Cooper's hawk nests were constructed within 50 feet of the residential condominium complex north of the eucalyptus ESHA These hawks were also frequently observed foraging in existing residential areas LSA has also noted that average distances at which perching raptors were flushed by approaching humans in the Bolsa Chica area range from 24 to 57 feet depending on the height of raptors in the trees The property boundary for the proposed project is approximately 140 feet from the closest point of the ESHA The closest residential lot is 160 feet from the ESHA and the farthest is approximately 250 feet Furthermore,the Biological Resources report states that raptors are more likely to habituate to stationary human presence associated with residences than they are to hikers,dog walkers and bird watchers that currently frequent the area As part of the approval of a Land Use Plan for the Shea property in 2008 the Coastal Commission required that 23 acres surrounding the ESHA be designated as buffer/open space to maintain foraging habitat for raptors and to protect against any significant disruption of habitat values The 23 acres includes the land between the proposed project and the eucalyptus trees as shown on the proposed tentative tract map for the project(Refer to Attachment 2) Implementation of the approved land use plan to preserve these 23 acres will provide protection of the resources that does not currently exist In addition there is a signifieant topegraphie Given the 23 acres that have been designated as open space for raptor foraging habitat on the Shea property in addition to standard code requirements for development adajacent to an ESHA,the project's design, Page 33 -327- Item 9 - Page 117 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and the adaptable nature of raptors that use the area, impacts to adiacent resources,including the eucalyptus ESHA are less than significant The proposed project does not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan as no such plan exists for the City of Huntington Beach Less than significant impacts would occur The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on biological resources VIH MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the states (Sources 1) Discussion See discussion under item b b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ ❑x mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan specific plan or other land use plan (Sources 1) Discussion a&b Although Huntington Beach has been the site of oil and gas extraction since the 1920s oil production has decreased over the years and today oil producing wells are scattered throughout the City The subject site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and as such would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or recovery site No impacts would occur The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on mineral resources IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 13 El 19 ❑ environment through the routine transport use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources 13 18) Discussion See discussion under b b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the © 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources 13 18) Discussion a&b The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The site was historically used for agricultural purposes and as such may contain traces of pesticides in the soil The site is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the Page 34 Item 9 - Page 118 -328- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact adjacent Bnghtwater development The proposed residential units do not represent uses that involve the routine use or transport of hazardous materials beyond typical household wastes and cleaning products To the extent possible on site soils will be used for grading however all fill soil(on site and imported)shall meet City Specification#431 92—Soil Cleanup Standards and would be submitted to the Fire Department for review and joint approval with the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit Discovery of additional soil contamination during ground disturbing activities is required to be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification 4431 92 Less than significant impacts would occur The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on hazards and hazardous materials c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ acutely hazardous material substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school9 (Sources 13 18) Discussion The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The nearest school Marine View Middle School is located approximately%mile from the project site The proposed residential units do not represent uses that involve the routine use or transport of hazardous materials beyond typical household wastes and cleaning products Less than significant impacts would occur ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 5 and as a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources 13 13 18) Discussion The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The project site is not listed on any list of hazardous sites As such no impacts would occur e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources 13 18) Discussion See discussion under f f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources 1,3,18) Page 35 -329- Item 9 - Page 119 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant l&tigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion e&f The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single-family dwellings and associated improvements The City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,but is not located within two miles of a public or private airport However given the nature and size of the proposed project no impacts would occur g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan9 (Sources 13 18) Discussion The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The site was historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brghtwater development The project site does not serve any role in the implementation of an emergency response plan nor would the proposed project impair an emergency evacuation plan No impacts would occur h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources 13 18) Discussion The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The site was historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Bnghtwater development The site is also disced twice a year for fire protection The project site and surrounding properties are not considered wildlands and are not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as mapped by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Less than significant impacts would occur X NOISE Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ © ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies9 (Sources 1 15) Discussion See discussion under item d b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels9 (Sources 1 15) Discussion See discussion under item d Page 36 Item 9 - Page 120 -330- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ ❑ project9(Sources 1 15) Discussion See discussion under item d d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? (Sources 1 15) Discussion a—d The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single-family dwellings and associated improvements The project site is located at the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Bnghtwater development Surrounding land uses include multi family residential to the north and northwest and single family residential to the west Properties to the south and east are undeveloped although single family residential and open space/conservation uses are approved for property east of the project site Existing sources of noise and groundborne vibration in the area include motor vehicle traffic on the surrounding roads as well as construction noise from the adjacent Brightwater development Applicable City regulations include the General Plan Noise Element which identifies goals policies and objectives to ensure that new development does not create an unacceptable noise environment through siting design and land use compatibility and the City s Noise Ordinance which regulates noise produced by uses equipment construction and people The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on noise The project will generate short term noise impacts during construction including noise generated by earth moving equipment,haul trucks and power tools However the project will be subject to compliance with Chapter 8 40—Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code which restricts all construction activities to the hours between 7 00 AM and 8 00 PM Monday Saturday Construction activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays In addition the project applicant is proposing to utilize noise mufflers on all heavy construction equipment Accordingly construction related noise impacts would be less than significant Noise generated by the proposed residential uses would not be significantly different than existing conditions in the area and would likely generate less noise than the multi family residential uses to the north and northwest Also,there may be an increase in daytime noise from the improvement of the 30-foot wide parcel for enhanced public coastal access as more people may use the path However,this City owned parcel is currently being used by the public and the level of use is not expected to increase significantly over current levels of use such that there would be a substantial increase in ambient noise As such the proposed project will not result in exposure of persons to excessive temporary or permanent noise levels or groundbome vibration exceeding existing levels or as established by the General Plan Noise Element and the City s Noise Ordinance Less than significant impacts would occur e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources 1 15) Discussion See discussion under item f Page 37 -331- (tern 9 - Page 121 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project expose people rending or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 the project area to excessive noise levels (Sources 1,15) Discussion e&f The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single-family dwellings and associated improvements The project site is located at the southeast comer of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue The site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos but is not located within two miles of a public or pnvate airport Less than significant impacts would occur XI PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance — objectives for any of the public services a) Fire protection (Sources 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion See discussion under item e b) Police Protection (Sources 1) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Discussion See discussion under item e c) Schools? (Sources 1) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion See discussion under item e d) Parks? (Sources 1 2) ❑ ❑ © ❑ Discussion See discussion under item e e) Other public facilities or governmental services? ❑ ❑ © ❑ (Sources 1,2) Discussion a—e The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements The proposed residential development is proposing to provide a 5 776 square foot open space area The project site is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater development The nearest police station is the Harbour Substation,located approximately half a mile from the project site at 16889 Algonquin Street The nearest Fire Station is Station No 7 located at 3831 Warner Avenue at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway The project site is located within the Ocean View School District(grades K 8)and the Huntington Beach Union High School District Five City parks Bolsa Chica State Beach and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are all located within one mile of the project site The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on public resources Page 38 Item 9 - Page 122 -332- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigmficant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The Fire and Police departments have reviewed the proposed development and have not indicated that the project would impact acceptable service levels The Community Services Department has reviewed the request to amend the General Plan land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Low Density Residential and has determined that impacts to parks would be less than signficiant due to the proximity of other parks within the area of the project site as well as the relatively small number of units proposed In addition although the project is proposing to amend the general plan and zoning land use designations the increase in population and housing is within the allowable growth considered in the General Plan Although the proposed project would not create a substantial increase in demand for public services the project would be required to pay park(in accordance with Ch 254 of the HBZSO) school and library fees to offset any additional increase in demand for services Less than significant impacts would occur XII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources 1 3) Discussion See discussion under item b b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources 1 3) Discussion a&b The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 5 acre parcel for the construction of a 22 unit single family planned unit development and associated improvements including a 5 776 square foot open space area The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on utilities and service systems The project will take access from Bolsa Chica Street which was extended in 2006 for the Bnghtwater development When the extension of Bolsa Chica Street was constructed in 2006 sewer domestic water and storm dram improvements were constructed in the street for the Brghtwater development Those existing sewer water and storm dram Imes are readily available in Bolsa Chica Street and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)provides regional wastewater collection treatment and disposal services for the City of Huntington Beach Based on current OCSD flow factors the proposed project would generate approximately 1 488 gallons of wasterwater per day per acre All connections to existing wastewater infrastructure will be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Huntington Beach and the OCSD Compliance with applicable Waste Discharge Requirements as monitored and enforced by the OCSD would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB)with respect to discharges to the sewer system Less than significant impacts would occur c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities the construction of which could cause significant Page 39 -333- Item 9 - Page 123 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact environmental effects? (Sources 13 4) Discussion As discussed in Section IV Hydrology and Water Quality the project is proposing a storm dram system that would divert the first flush storm water runoff and dry weather nuisance flows to the proposed open space area where it will be infiltrated into the ground through a corrugated metal pipe retention system Surface runoff will flow to catch basins connected to the CDS unit which will function to remove debris sediment oil and grease from the street runoff prior to infiltration into the ground In addition,porous pavers proposed in the driveways and on-street parking areas will intercept nuisance flows and `first flush stormwater runoff and pre treat the runoff prior to retention and infiltration In addition to capturing runoff the proposed drainage system would also facilitate water quality enhancement through removal of dissolved nutrients bacteria and sediment through the soil s natural filtering ability as well as act as a groundwater recharge system This system would be constructed with the project and would not create additional construction impacts beyond those already being considered with the project Less than significant impacts would occur d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources 1 3) Discussion The Public Works Department has reviewed the project plans and did not identify any concerns regarding impacts to water supplies due to the relatively small number of units The project would not result in an increase in water consumption such that it would present a significant impact to water supplies In addition the project is subject to compliance with the City's Water Ordinance including the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements as well as Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures which ensure water consumption is minimized In addition the project is proposing the homes to be Energy star rated which maximizes appliance efficiency The water demand for the proposed project can be accommodated by the City s water service capacity and less than significant impacts would occur e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? (Sources 1 3) Discussion See discussion under item a f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 11 capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs9 (Sources 1 3) Discussion See discussion under item g g) Comply with federal state and local statutes and El regulations related to solid waste? (Sources 13 15) Page 40 Item 9 - Page 124 -334- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion f&g The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 5 acre parcel for the construction of a 22 unit single family planned unit development and associated improvements including a 5 776 square foot open space area Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal,under an exclusive contract with the City Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed The remaining solid waste is transferred to the Orange County landfill system which has capacity to operate until 2067 Even so given the size and use of the project it is not expected to generate a substantial amount of daily waste products in the long term nor as a result of construction Accordingly the project is not anticipated to noticeably impact the capacity of existing landfills that will serve the use The project is subject to compliance with all federal state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and no exceptions to those standards are proposed Less than significant impacts would occur h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ control Best Management Practice(BMP) (e g water quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources 13 4,15) Discussion Refer to item X1I c above In addition a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) for the project identifies Best Management Practices(BMPs)to reduce impacts to water quality However the proposed storm drain system and identified BMPs would not create additional environmental impacts as discussed in this section and in Section IV Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant impacts would occur JIIII AESTHETICS Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under item d b) Substantially damage scenic resources including but ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 not limited to trees rock outcroppmgs and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under item d c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources 13 18) Discussion See discussion under item d d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources 13 18) Page 41 -335- Item 9 - Page 125 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—d The project consists of a 22 unit single family planned unit development and associated improvements on an existing 5 acre lot The project proposes an architectural design character of an American Seaside Village with six coastal architectural styles including Light Craftsman Light Victorian American Traditional The Hamptons Laguna Beach Cottage and Florida Seaside These styles present a quality architectural design utilizing various exterior colors and materials finishes The project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and is currently undeveloped although a portion of the site is currently being used as a construction staging site for the adjacent Brightwater development The project site is not located along a state scenic highway There are no historic resources rock outcroppings or trees on the project site The Bolsa Chica Mesa and slope is identified as a visual resource in the Coastal Element and existing policies in the Coastal Element call for the preservation of public views to and from the slope - Construction of the project would permanently alter the existing visual environment of the project site The undeveloped character of the site would be developed under the proposed project Views of the project site from the flood control channel east of the project site and Pacific Coast Highway(PCH)further in the distance would be altered However views of the project site from the channel and PCH which are at a lower elevation can be considered in the context of the overall view of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and slope Currently views looking toward the project site consist of the slope open space and residential uses Development of the project site would maintain existing views of the slope in accordance with Coastal Element policies and would bring residential uses into a closer context but the overall view from the channel and PCH would essentially remain the same Therefore the proposed project would not substantially affect scenic views of the project site from off site vantage points In addition improvement of an existing undeveloped 30 foot wide City owned parcel north of the project site would provide public access to an informal path on the adjacent Shea property from Bolsa Chica Street and would also provide public views from the slope edge at the eastern point of the site Since the project site is currently undeveloped the project would introduce a new source of light and glare in the area due to lighting from the residences car lights and nighttime street lights However the project is proposing single family residential uses in an area that is developed with single and multi family uses and light sources from the project would be similar to existing light sources in the area The proposed lighting plan for the project indicates that all lighting will be shielded to minimize light cast onto adjacent properties hi addition the project site lighting will include dark sky features that were implemented in the adjacent Brightwater residential project and have already been determined to be appropriate for and sensitive to the Bolsa Chica area The project is proposing two story homes at approximately 25 to 30 feet in height Existing residential uses north and west of the project site are two and three stories in height and private views from these residential uses would be impacted by the project However neither the General Plan Coastal Element nor the Coastal Act protect private views Nevertheless the project site is separated from adjacent multi family residential properties to the north with a 30 foot wide parcel The 30 foot wide area would be unproved with a 6 foot wide path and a landscape buffer Distances from the proposed residences to the multi family residential units to the north would range from 40—90 feet These distances combined with landscaping proposed for the 30 foot wide area would function to buffer aesthetic impacts to existing residential units from development on the project site In addition the project is required to comply with the City s design guidelines and is subject to review by the Design Review Board to ensure that the project s design architecture and landscaping for the project is compatible with and would enhance the area In conjunction with other past present and future projects the proposed project would incrementally Page 42 Item 9 - Page 126 -336- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact contribute to aesthetic changes in the area and the change from an undeveloped to a developed condition may be viewed by some people as a negative impact However aesthetic impacts are somewhat subjective and others may view the development of new homes landscaping and a 30 foot wide coastal access link as an improvement from the undeveloped condition of the property The proposed project presents a high quality architectural design with a large amount of landscaping that is compatible with the surrounding uses In addition the adjacent slope would be preserved as a significant scenic resource and the project would provide for public views from the project site via the proposed 30-foot wide access path The proposed zoning text amendment would provide options for parking in PUD developments that may have an aesthetic impact For instance dwelling units that would require a three car garage may be designed with a tandem configuration such that the garage appears as a two car garage Aesthetically this would be a benefit to projects since the options provide greater design flexibility front yards could be emphasized and garages would not dominate the street scene in a development Required parking spaces could be provided in driveways and on the street This would allow less driveway space to occupy the front yard of a unit but may also result in more on street parking spaces being occupied more often However any parking configurations proposed under the proposed zoning text amendment would be analyzed for appropriateness as well as aesthetics as individual PUD developments are proposed Less than significant impacts would occur Based on the analysis above aesthetic impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant XIV CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 0 a historical resource as defined in 615064 5? (Sources 6 22) Discussion See discussion under d b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 815064 5? (Sources 6 22) Discussion See discussion under d c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources 6 22) Discussion See discussion under d d) Disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources 6 22) Page 43 -337- Item 9 - Page 127 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—d The proposed project involves the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre site for the construction of 22 single family dwellings and associated improvements including a 5,776 square foot open space area The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the site that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater development The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on cultural resources An archeological report was prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys(SRS) Inc in May 2009 and discusses previous investigations of the archeological site CA ORA 86 According to the report the project site contained remnants of CA ORA 86 which has been the subject of 33 separate archeological investigations including nine surveys five site form recordations five surface collections five excavation programs one grading monitoring program two site inspections one research design and nine evaluations of the site for significance CA-ORA 86 has been modified in size and shape through time and is frequently combined with CA ORA 144 The Water Tower Site and CA ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site ,although it is recorded as a distinct site The site was first formally mapped in 1961 along the slope edge east of Bolsa Chica Street on the subject site and extending northeast where residential development is now located CA ORA 86 was first formally recorded in 1964 and showed essentially the same boundaries as the 1961 map Since the site was first recorded it has been disturbed through agricultural activities a soils enhancement program in which peat deposits were mixed into the sediments and residential construction in the northern portion of the site(north of Los Patos) In the 1960s and 1970s several investigations were conducted west of Bolsa Chica Road to verify that the site boundaries were confined to the slope edge east of Bolsa Chica Street However investigations in the 1980s and early 1990s re recorded the site and extended the boundaries west of Bolsa Chica Street and east of the slope edge down into the lowlands Subsequent archeological investigations in 1999 showed that the property west of Bolsa Chica Street(now the Sandover residential development)did not contain intact deposits of CA ORA 86 In 2001 CA ORA 86 was investigated and the entire project site was subjected to a multistaged program that included a surface survey surface artifact collection a systematic auger program backhoe trenching and hand excavations One small deposit was found in the southeast corner of the property on the slope edge Geophysical investigations revealed an oval depression at the deposit site that was identified as the subterranean remains of a single structure The subsurface remains of the structure were completely removed by hand excavation which recovered the entire small deposit No other intact deposits of CA ORA 86 were found on the project site Because the project site was previously investigated for presence of archeological site CA ORA 86 it is not anticipated that significant deposits will be discovered during construction of the project However the following mitigation measures shall be implemented in the event that unanticipated resources are encountered during grading and construction CR-1 The Applicant shall arrange for a qual f ed professional archaeological monitor to be present during all project related ground disturbing activities The Applicant shall also arrange for a qualified Native American monitor or a rotation of monitors from the interested bands to be present during all project related ground disturbing construction activities In addition all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited If archaeological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource Page 44 Item 9 - Page 128 -338- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact In the absence of a determination all archaeological resources shall be considered significant If the resource is determined to be significant the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources CR-2 If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric the Coroner must notes the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) which will determine and notes a Most Likely Descendent(MLD) The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials It should be noted that the May 2009 SRS report was reviewed by archeologists from the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee The peer reviewers confirmed that required mitigation would be limited to monitoring during grading and ground disturbing activities The peer reviewers also concluded that mitigation measures requiring preservation or additional data recovery are not necessary Therefore with implementation of mitigation measures CR 1 and CR 2 potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant XV RECREATION Would the project a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ neighborhood,community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Sources 1) Discussion See discussion under c b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environments (Sources 1 18) Discussion See discussion under c c) Affect existing recreational opportunities9(Sources 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion a—c The project consists of the development of 22 single family homes and associated site improvements including a 5 776 square foot(0 13 acres)open space area that would primarily serve the development The project does have the potential to increase usage of recreational facilities in the City due to the introduction of new housing and potentially new residents to the area The established standard for parks per the City s General Plan is five acres for every 1 000 residents The proposed development would require 0 29 acres of parkland to meet the established standard for the project The project is required to pay park fees and/or provide dedication of land in accordance with Chapter 254 of the HBZSO The proposed Zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on recreation The project,as part of its public benefit,is proposing to improve an existing 30 foot wide parcel located immediately north of the project site with a landscaped trail that would provide access from Bolsa Chica Street Page 45 -339- item 9 - Page 129 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact to an existing informal path on the adjacent Shea property which ultimately connects to the wetlands Although this parcel is currently used by people that are familiar with the area,the improvements will provide for noticeable access from Bolsa Chica Street and will enhance public access opportunities In this respect,the project would further recreational opportunities in the Bolsa Chica area The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space—Parks(OS P),which is proposed to be amended to RL(Residential Low Density) However the site is not developed with a park or recreational facility and is not listed on the City s inventory of parks The site is privately owned and, according to the Community Services Department,no such facilities are planned for the project site In addition the Community Services Department has reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and due to the small size of the project and the proximity of four parks within a half mile of the project site,has indicated that the proposed change in land use designation would not present a significant impact in terms of existing or planned parks and recreational facilities Therefore the project s impacts on parks and recreational facilities including existing recreational opportunities would be less than significant XVI AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland Would the project a) Convert Prime Farmland Unique Farmland or Farmland of ❑ 11 Statewide Importance(Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non agricultural use? (Sources 1 2) Discussion See discussion under c b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 19 El Williamson Act contract? (Sources 1 2) Discussion See discussion under c c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland to non agricultural use? (Sources 1 2) Discussion a—c Much of Huntington Beach was developed with agricultural fields for many years until approximately the late 1950s when the City started to experience tremendous growth Today there is little land zoned or used for agricultural purposes Most of the remaining agriculturally zoned property is limited to the existing Southern California Edison Right of Ways which are generally utilized for commercial nursery operations The proposed zoning text amendment will not have any impacts on agricultural resources The project includes Page 46 Item 9 - Page 130 -340- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Nhugation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impart Incorporated Impact No Impact development of a 5 acre site with 22 single family homes and associated site improvements The property is currently undeveloped except for a portion in the southwest corner that is used for temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater development Historically the property has been used intermittently over the years for agricultural purposes,but has ceased agricultural operations for the last five years The site is not shown on any map of the California Resources Agency as important unique or prune farmland The project site is currently zoned Residential Agricultural(RA)and allows agricultural uses,single family dwellings nurseries and temporary uses such as storage yards The proposed zoning map amendment to RL(Residential—Low Density)would result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural uses However,as mentioned the site is not currently used for agricultural purposes According to the HBZSO the intent of the RA zoning district is to provide a `transition or holding zone for properties with current agricultural uses Since the property is no longer used for agriculture the RA zoning designation is no longer the appropriate zoning designation and impacts from the change in zoning designation from RA to RL would be considered less than significant XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels threaten to eliminate a plant or annual community reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources 1 23) Discussion The protect does have the potential to impact special status species,specifically southern Tarplant and Burrowing Owls However,the recommended mitigation measures discussed in Section VH Bioloarical Resources will ensure that impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level As discussed in Section XIV Cultural Resources the project site is within a recorded archeological site Although it is not anticipated that mtact resources exist at the site due to previous excavation mitigation measures have been incorporated to address impacts to cultural resources in the event that intact deposits are encountered during project grading and construction As discussed thoughout this initial study potential impacts that would degrade the quality of the environment would be less than significant b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable9 ( Cumulatively ® 0 considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects) (Sources 1 23) Discussion As discussed in Sections Ito XVI,the project is not anticipated to have significant cumulatively considerable unpacts due to the relatively small scale and nature of the project as well as implementation of project design features and standard City codes and policies that would further reduce impacts Although the project is proposing to amend the General Plan land use designation the project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of foreseeable growth in the City It does not represent a significant negative impact to the environment or goals of the City Less than significant impacts are anticipated Page 47 -341- Item 9 - Page 131 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either 11 ❑ 0 11 directly or indirectly? (Sources 1 23) Discussion As discussed in Sections I to XVI all potential impacts that could have environmental effects on humans as a result of the project have been found to be less than significant due to the relatively small scale and nature of the project as well as implementation of project design features and standard City codes as well as other applicable codes and policies As such impacts would be less than significant Page 48 Item 9 - Page 132 -342- XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where pursuant to tiering program EIR,or other CEQA process one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D) Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis Reference# Document Title Available for Review at 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept Plammng/Zomng Information Counter 3rd Floor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zonmg and Subdivision Ordinance 3 The Ridge Permit Documentation(March 10 2009) 4 Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan(October 31 2008) 5 Geotechnical Feasibility Study(October 31 2008) 6 Archeological Abstract CA ORA-86 Scientific Resources Surveys Inc (May 2009) 7 City of Hutmgton Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report 8 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(February 18 2004) 9 CEQA Air Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 10 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook 11 Trip Generation Handbook,78'Edition Institute of Traffic Engineers 12 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos(Oct 17 2002) 13 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 14 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map 15 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code 16 URBEMIS Air Quality Assessment(July 2009) Page 49 i 3 7 -343- Item 9 - Page 133 17 Summary of Mitigation Measures Attachment No 1 19 Code Requirements Letter(November 25 2008) Attachment No 3 2g— _-Draft pregosed 2mmg-Tsxt-Amendment-Ale-09-00$--- City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept 21 Biological Resources Assessment(January 2010 Revised Plannmg/Zonmg Information Counter 3rd March 2010) Floor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach 22 Archeological Peer Review letter(December 10 2009) 23 Biological Resources Peer Review(February 2010) Page 50 Item 9 - Page 134 -344- Attachment No 1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Descnytion of Impact Mitigation Measures ® Have a substantial adverse BIO-1 Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity,a qualified effect either directly or biologist shall survey the project site for presence of Southern tarplant through habitat _during_the appropriate blooming period,May—November If feasible,the modifications on any survey shall be conducted during the peak blooming penod for the year species identified as a Any substantial occurrence(at least 500 mature individuals)shall be candidate sensitive or preserved on site or relocated to open space areas in the Bolsa Chjca area special status species in If relocation is required,a Southern tarplant relocation program shall be local or regional plans prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented prior to the onset of III policies or regulations or construction by the California +++ Department of Fish and BIO-2 Game or U S Fish and Prior to construction-related ground disturbing activity,focused burrowing Wildlife Service owl surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the CBOC and Department of Fish and Game(DFG)established protocols on the project site ® If no occupied burrows are found,the methods and findings of the surveys shall be reported to the City and DFG for review and approval and no further mitigation would be required e If unoccupied burrows are found during the nonbreedjng season,the burrows shall be collapsed or otherwise obstructed to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows ■ If occupied burrows are found,a buffer of 165 feet(during the nonbreeding season of September 1 through January 31)or 250 feet urmg the breeding season of February 1 through August 31)shall be provided The buffer area may be adjusted based on recommendations by a qualified biologist in consultation with the s DFG No activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied ■ If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair,a minimum of 7 5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breedine season is over Because the site is only approximately 5 acres in area,property outside of the project site would need to be provided in order to provided 7 5 acres If off-site property is not available then the entire subject site will serve as foraging area ® If avoidance of an occupied burrow is not feasible,on site passive relocation techniques approved by the DFG shall be used to encourage the owls to move to an alternative borrow outside of the impact area However,no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive methods that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival -345- Item 9 - Page 135 IDescnytion of Impact Mitigation Measures Cause a substantial CR-1 The Applicant shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological adverse change in the monitor to be present during all project related ground disturbing activities The significance of a historical Applicant shall also arrange for a qualified Native American monitor or a resource as defined in rotation of monitors from the interested bands to be present during all project 43150645 related ground disturbing construction activities In addition all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the ■ Cause a substantial event of a potential find until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the adverse change in the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate significance of an measures to protect or scientifically remove the find Construction personnel archaeological resource shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is pursuant to 815064 5 prohibited If archaeological resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the ■ Disturb any human archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource In the absence of a remains including those determination all archaeological resources shall be considered significant If the interred outside of formal resource is determined to be significant,the archaeologist shall prepare a cemeteries research design and recovery plan for the resources CR 2 If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth moving activities no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately If the human remains immediately If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent(MLD) The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials Page 2 Item 9 - Page 136 -346- �J1 HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNriNGTON BEACH DATE DECEMBER 1 2008 PROJECT NAME HEARTHSIDE HOMES ENTITLEMENTS PLANNING APPLICATION NO 08-046 PROJECT LOCATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CA PLANNER JENNIFER VILLASENOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714)374 661/jvillasenor@surfcity hb org PLAN REVIEWER FIRE DARIN MARESH FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714)536-5531/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT A SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT FOR 22 SFR ON 5 ACRES ACROSS FROM THE SANDOVER AND BRIGHTWATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS - The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated November 10 2008 The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied dunng the various stages of project permitting and implementation A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s) if any will also be provided upon final project approval If you have any questions regarding these requirements please contact the Plan Reviewer Fire DARIN MARESH FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED Environmental SOIL SAMPLING SCHEDULES Imported Soil Plan All imported sod shall meet City Specification#431-92 Soil Cleanup Standards When required by the Fire Department off-site sod importation exceeding 50 cubic yards requires an Imported Sod Plan to be submitted to the Fire Department for review and joint approval with the Public Works Department prior to sod importation onto the site Initial sample schedule 0 1 sample per 1000 cubic yards of imported fill (pnor to import) ATTACHMENT NO .t2, -347- Item 9 - Page 137 Page of Public Works may also have plan requirements for grading stockpiling haul routes storm water pollution prevention erosion and/or dust control Note Grading Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a Public Works grading permit Standard Fire Department notes are required to be on the plans on oil industry impacted sites Additional requirements will be necessary for the development of former oilfield property Sod testing results must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a budding permit (FD) SITE DEVELOPMENT Fire Apparatus Access Small Lot Development-Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access Driving surface shall be capable of supporting a fire apparatus(75 000 Ibs and 12 000 lb point load) Minimum fire access road width for declared small lot development is thirty six feet(36)wide curb to curb with thirteen feet six inches(13 6 )vertical clearance NOTE All buildings or structures within the declared small lot development must be protected with automatic fire sprinklers throughout For Fire Department approval reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans (FD) Fire Lanes as determined by the Fire Department shall be posted marked and maintained per City Specification#415 Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private Residential Commercial and Industrial Properties The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs both in location and length of run The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification#415 For Fire Department approval reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans (FD) Secured Vehicle Entries shall utilize KNOX@ activated access switches (Knox switches for automated gates Knox padlocks for manual gates) and comply with City Specification#403 Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates & Buildings Reference compliance in the plan notes (FD) Secured Automated Vehicle Entry Gates (Residential)shall utilize a combination Strobe- Activated Switch and Knox Manual Key Switch" and comply with City Specification#403 Fire ATTAC HMENT NO Item 9 - Page 138 -348- Page 3 of 7 Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings Reference compliance with City Specification#403 Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings in the plan notes (FD) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Fire Hydrants and Water Systems Fire Suppression Systems Fire Alarms Fire Alarm System is required For Fire Department approval shop drawings shall be submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval For Fire Department approval reference and demonstrate compliance with UBC 305 9 on the plans A C-10 electrical contractor certified in fire alarm systems must certify the system is operational annually (FD) Fire Sprinklers Small Lot Developments(SFD)-Residential(NFPA 93D)Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required for Small Lot Developments NFPA 13D automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code for new residential one and two family dwellings and manufactured homes with a declared Small Lot Development designation Separate plans (three sets)shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval Automatic fire sprinkler systems must be maintained operational at all times For Fire Department approval reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code NFPA 13 and City Specification#420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes ATTACHMENT NO -349- Item 9 - Page 139 Page 4 of 7 NOTE When buildings under construction are more than one(1)story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed in-service inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above (FD) Modirication, additions, or deletions to an existing automatic fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system shall require that separate plans(three sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval Any extended interruption of the fire sprinkler system operation will require a fire watch approved by the Fire Department Reference compliance with City Specification#420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems and NFPA 13 in the plan notes (FD) Residential(NFPA 13D)Automatic Fire Sprinklers Systems Supply Residential NFPA 13D fire sprinkler systems supply shall be a minimum of a one inch(1 )water meter service installed per Fire Department Public Works and Water Division Standards Depending on fire sprinkler system demands larger water service may be required Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval and permits and must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit The water service improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer Contact Huntington Beach Public Works Department(714-536-5431)for water meter requirements (FD) Fire Sprinkler Underground On-Site Fire Service Piping(FSP)Application for permit shall be made for on-site Fire Service Piping (FSP) including but not limited to private fire service mains and underground sprinkler laterals Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps Additionally application for permit shall be made for fire protections systems(sprinklers alarms chemical fire pumps etc )as applicable Permits may be obtained at the City of Huntington Beach Department Fire Department by completing a Fire Permit Form (available at Fire Administration)and submitting such plans and specifications as required by the bureau of fire prevention A permit constitutes permission to begin work in accordance with approved plans and specifications The permit fee includes plan checking and inspections by an authorized fire prevention inspector Development reviews/approvals by the bureau of fire prevention during planning do not constitute approval to perform FSP or fire protection system work unless otherwise noted (FD) Connection to the Public Water Supply-Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department detailing the connection piping valves and back flow prevention assembly (DDCA)for approval and permits Approval by Public Works and the Fire Department must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit The dedicated private fire water service off-site ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 140 -350- Page 5 of 7 improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer (FD) Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entnes shall utilize a KNOX®Fire Department Access Key Box installed and in compliance with City Specification#403 Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at(714)536-5411 for information Reference compliance with City Specification#403- KNOX®Fire Department Access in the budding plan notes (FD) Addressing and Street Names Residential(SFD)Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428 Premise Identification Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches(4 )high with one and one half inch (% ) brush stroke For Fire Department approval reference compliance with City Specification #428 Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the budding (FD) GIS Mapping Iformabon a GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements Minimum submittals shall include the following ➢ Site plot plan showing the budding footpnnt ➢ Specify the type of use for the budding ➢ Location of electrical gas water sprinkler system shut-offs ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections(FDC) if any ➢ Knox Access locations for doors gates and vehicle access ➢ Street name and address Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD rom to the Fire Department ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3809 ➢ File format shall be in shp AutoCAD AUTOCAD MAP(latest possible release ) drawing file- DWG (preferred)or Drawing Interchange File - DXF ATTACHMENT NO -351- Item 9 - Page 141 Page 6 of 7 ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane Zone 6 Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Projection ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets drawing names pen colors and layering convention and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification#409 —Street Naming and Addressing For specific GIS technical requirements contact the Huntnngton Beach GIS Department at(714)536-5574 For Fire Department approval reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION a Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14 Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition (FD) b Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426 Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites (FD) OTHER a Discovery of additional sod contamination or underground pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431 92 Sod Clean Up Standards (FD) b Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant developer or other responsible party (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street 5w floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 or through the City s website at www.surfcity-hb org If you have any questions please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714)536-5411 ATTACHMENT N® . Item 9 - Page 142 -352- i J�' HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINOON BtAIN SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE DECEMBER 9,2008 PROJECT NAME THE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS GPA 08-011,ZMA 08-007, EA 08 016,CUP 08-046,CDP 08-022, TTM 08-125 PLNG APPLICATION NO 2008 0220 DATE OF PLANS OCTOBER 31 2008 PROJECT LOCATION 17202 BOLSA CHICA ST APN 110-016-35 SOUTHEAST4990 "A"STREET "B"STREET AND"C"STREET(EAST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA,SOUTH OF LOS PATOS) PLANNER JENNIFER VILLASENOR,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-1661/JVILLASENOR@SURFCITY HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-1692/DDEBOWC-SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION HEARTHSIDE HOMES HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE PARKS, RESPECTIVELY TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) THE 5 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ACROSS FROM THE SANDOVER AND BRIGHTWATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THE FOLLOWING CONDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A PRECISE GRADING PERMIT 1 The developer shall design and Improve and The Ridge Homeowners Association (HOA)shall maintain the linear open space along the north property line to the City of Huntington Beach design and maintenance standards for landscaped areas The soil within the linear open space shall be tested and the results shall be acceptable to the City for landscape improvements if the soil tests reveal unacceptable and/or un mitigable agricultural sod conditions the developer shall remove all soil within the linear open space area to a depth of thirty six inches and replace that soil with Class A topsoil that has been tested and approved by an approved testing laboratory and by the City for importation All materials used for irrigation and planting shall be approved by the City and all installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final inspection of the first dwelling unit within the tract ATTACHMENT NO -353- Item 9 - Page 143 e HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUWIN&ON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE DECEMBER 9,2008 PROJECT NAME THE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS GPA 08-011,ZMA 08-007, EA 08-016,CUP 08-046, CDP 08-022, TTM 08 125 PLNG APPLICATION NO 2008-0220 DATE OF PLANS OCTOBER 31 2008 PROJECT LOCATION 17202 BOLSA CHICA ST APN 110-016-35 SOUTHEAST4990 A' STREET "B'STREET AND C' STREET(EAST SIDE OF BOLSA CHICA, SOUTH OF LOS PATOS) PLANNER JENNIFER VILLASENOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E MAIL 714-374-1661/JVILLASENOR@SURFCITY HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E MAIL 714-374-1692/DDEBOW(&-SURFCITY HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION HEARTHSIDE HOMES HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE-PARKS RESPECTIVELY TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) THE 5 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ACROSS FROM THE SANDOVER AND BRIGHTWATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above The Items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach s Municipal Code (HBMC) Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO) Department of Public Works Standard Plans(Civil Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP) and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting implementation and construction If you have any questions regarding these requirements please contact the Plan Reviewer ATTACHMENT Item 9 - Page 144 -354- Page 2 of 9 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO DEEMING THE APPLICATION COMPLETE 1 The developer shall submit detailed geological sewer drainage flood control soils traffic and other reports deemed necessary by the City Engineer to permit a complete review of the design and improvements for the subdivision The developer shall also submit a fiscal impact report prepared by an independent economic analyst evaluating the projected impacts the development may have on city services This report shall also include marketing and cost benefit information for the project (ZSO 252 04) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL VESTING TRACT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED 2 The site plan received and dated October 31 2008 shall be the conditionally approved layout except for a The proposed 4-inch deviated wedge curb shall be replaced with City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No 216 Curb height shall be determined pursuant to the approved hydrology and hydraulic study b Sewer and Water pipeline design shall be shown in C Street c Design and specifications for all public facilities including but not limited to on and off site sewer water drainage roads and other improvements 3 Final Vesting Tract Map shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a title report to indicate the fee title owner(s) as shown on a title report for the subject properties The title report shall not be more than six(6)weeks old at the time of submittal of the final Vesting Tract Map 4 The Final Vesting Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract map (ZSO 253 14) 5 The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Final Vesting Tract Map (ZSO 230 84A&253 10K) a A utility easement covering the public water and sewer facilities and appurtenances located within A Street B Street and C Street The water easement shall be a minimum total width of 10-feet clear (5-feet either side of the water pipeline or appurtenance) unobstructed paved or landscaped surface pursuant to Water Division standards Where access is restricted or impacted by structures walls curbs etc the easement width shall be 20-feet to allow for equipment access and maintenance operations The sewer easement shall be per Huntington Beach Standard Plan No 500 The City shall have access to public sewer and water facilities and appurtenances at all times with access rights in over across upon and through A Street B Street and C Street for the purpose of maintaining servicing cleaning repairing and replacing the sewer and water system as dedicated to the City b An easement over A Street B Street and C Street for Police and Fire Departments access c A pedestrian easement at the entrance of A Street and Bolsa Chica Street for north/south pedestnan path of travel ) AT TAC HMENT N® � -355- Item 9 - Page 145 Page 3 of 9 d A 2-ft public utility easement for A Street B Street and C" Streets per Huntington Beach Standard Plan No 104 6 The water system and appurtenances for the entire project shall be a public system 7 The sewer system and appurtenances for the entire project shall be a public system 8 The storm dram system located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association 9 A final hydrology and hydraulic analysis for the runoff from this project(10 25 and 100-year storms and back to back 100 year storms shall be analyzed)and its impact to the existing downstream storm drainage system shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval with first submittal of the Precise Grading Plan In addition this study shall include 24-hour peak back to-back 100-year storms for onsite attenuation analysis Possible mitigation measures to manage increased storm water runoff may include on-site attenuation and/or construction of downstream drainage improvements The study and the proposed drainage improvements shall include on-site privately maintained BMPs to control the quality of rim off water from the development The study shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements and City Standard Plan No 300 (ZSO 230 84) 10 A will serve letter from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to accept the discharge from the new development into the existing OCSD sewer in Los Patos Ave shall be obtained A copy shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 11 A qualified Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed sods and geotechnical analysis This analysis shall include Phase it Environmental on site sod sampling in areas not previously investigated and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading chemical and fill properties liquefaction foundations landscaping dewatenng ground water retaining walls pavement sections and utilities (ZSO 251 06&253 12) 12 A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted for review and approval for this project (GP) 13 Applicant shall provide a consulting arbonst report on all the existing trees Said report shall quantify identify size and analyze the health of the existing trees The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk (Resolution 4545) a Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36 box tree or palm equivalent (13 14 of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8 9 of brown trunk) 14 Documentation including closure calculations shall be provided to establish the boundary Imes of the tract 15 A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation 16 The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7 9 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual Subarticle 18 for the following item a Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor b Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange ATTACHMEN`f NCB Item 9 - Page 146 -356- Page 4 of 9 17 Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria a Design Specification i Digital data shall be full size(1 1)and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6(Lambert Conformal Conic projection) NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809 u Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits) iu Digital data shall have units in US FEET IV A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet v Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets drawing names pen color and layering conventions vi Feature compilation shall include but shall not be limited to Assessors Parcel Numbers(APN) street addresses and street names with suffix b File Format and Media Specification I Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred) • AutoCAD(version 2000 release 4)drawing file _DWG • Drawing Interchange file DXF n Shall be in compliance with the following media type • CD Recordable(CD-R)650 Megabytes 18 All improvement securities(Faithful Performance Labor and Material and Monument Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney if it is desired to record the final map or obtain budding permits before completion of the required improvements (ZSO 255 16) 19 A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney (ZSO 253 12K) 20 The grading and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts (ZSO 25516C&MC 17 05) 21 A Homeowners Association(s)(HOA)shall be formed and shall include responsibility for the maintenance and replacement of the following for the total project area a Required landscape on Bolsa Chica Street b Items within the Maintenance License Agreement(including landscaped area along the northerly project boundary c Lot G and Lot D d Common onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements e Private storm drainage systems f Best Management Practices(BMP s)as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) ATTACHMENT NO -357- Item 9 - Page 147 Page 5 of 9 CC&R s shall be required for the development and the aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development s CC&R s 22 The Homeowners Association(HOA)shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water and sewer easements which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement etc if the public water and sewer pipelines and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance The HOA shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving due to work performed by the City in the maintenance and repair of any public water or sewer pipelines The Special Utility _ Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R s (Resolution 2003 29) 23 The Final Vesting Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Vesting Tract Map (ZSO 253 04) 24 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid (ZSO 250 16) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A PRECISE GRADING PERMIT 1 The final Vesting Tract map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to issuance of a precise grading permit 2 Separate plans for removals stockpiling surcharge and other independent or phased remedial or earth moving operations shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 05 140) 3 If soil remediation is required a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No 431-92 and the conditions of approval The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation- related impacts on the surrounding properties details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment (MC 17 05 150/FD Spec 431-92) 4 A Precise Grading Plan prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval Final grades and elevations on the grading plans shall not vary by more than 1 foot from the grades and elevations on the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map and site plan unless otherwise required by these development requirements and/or conditions of approval and as directed by the Department of Public Works (MC 17 05/ZSO 255 04A) 5 Street Improvement Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 05/ZSO 230 84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines The following improvements shall be shown on the plan a Curb gutter and ADA compliant sidewalk shall be provided for along A Street B Street and C Street per CHB Standard Plan No 202 ADA compliant meandering sidewalk shall be provided for along Bolsa Ch►ca Street ADA compliant access shall be provided through all improvements including off-site locations where improvements are included in project related plans All sidewalks shall meet ADA Title 24 and Pubic Works standards to the maximum extent feasible ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 148 -358- Page 6 of 9 b Curb ramps compliant with current ADA requirements shall be installed on the east side curb returns at the Intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and A street (ADA) c Curb ramps compliant with current ADA requirements shall be installed at the intersections of B Street and C Street (ADA) d Intersection sight distance shall be provided at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and A Street Sight distance criteria shall be based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 400 e The sewer facilities shall be designed per the approved final Sewer Study and City Standards f Each dwelling unit shall have a new sewer lateral installed connecting to the main in the street (ZSO 230 84) g All drainage facilities shall be designed per the approved final hydrology and hydraulics study and City Standards (ZSO 255 04A) h Each separate landscaping area (i a Home Owners Association (HOA) property public -common landscaping areas park site etc) shall have separate irrigation meters and services The irrigation water services shall be a minimum of 1-inch In size (Resolution 2003 29 ZSO 232) 1 Each dwelling unit shall have a separate domestic water service and meter installed per Water Division Standards and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC) The domestic water service shall be a minimum of 1-Inch in size (ZSO 230 84) j Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Standards for all domestic and irrigation water services (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) k Street lighting plans on Bolsa Chica Street along the project frontage and on A Street B Street and C Street shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval A photometric plan shall be submitted to Public Works which indicates the existing relocated and proposed street lights and the adequacy of such lighting Lighting shall be per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plans (ZSO 230 84 City Standard Plan No 411) I A signing and striping plan for Bolsa Chica Street shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval The plans shall be prepared according to the City of Huntington Beach Signing and Striping Plan Preparation Guidelines (ZSO 230 84) m A new 8-inch water pipeline shall be constructed per Water Division Standards along the new A Street B Street and C n No modifications to the sewer or water facilities and pavement located within the easement shall be allowed without proper notification and written approval from the City In advance Such modifications may include but are not limited to connections to the water and sewer systems and pavement overlay (ZSO 255 04E) 6 A Landscape and Irrigation Plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments (ZSO 232 04) ATTACHMEN i NU� }� -359- Item 9 - Page 149 Page 7 of 9 a Smart irrigation controllers and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed (ZSO 232 04D) b Standard landscape code requirements apply (ZSO 232) 7 All landscape planting irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications (ZSO 232 04B) 8 Landscaping plans should utilize drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible (DAMP) 9 The Consulting Arbonst (approved by the City Landscape Architect)-shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees Said Arbonst report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architects plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements The report shall include the Arbonst s name certificate number and the Arbonst s wet signature on the final plan (Resolution-4545) 10 The Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall address the City s plan check comments from the Conceptual WQMP dated September 26 2008 and shall conform to the City of Huntington Beach s Project WQMP Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006 and prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance and shall include the following a Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable) b Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas maximizing permeability minimizing directly connected impervious areas creating reduced or zero discharge areas and conserving natural areas c Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan( DAMP) d Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP e Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs f Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs g Describes the mechanism for funding the long term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs h Includes an Operations and Maintenance(O&M)Plan for all structural BMPs i After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works three final WQMPs(signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record)shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance After acceptance two copies of the final report shall be retuned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes i The 11 by 17 Site Plan in TIFF format(400 by 400 dpi minimum) u The remainder of the complete WQMP in PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet owner's certification sheet Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet appendices attachments and all educational material j The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file ENT N® 3 ATTACHM Item 9 - Page 150 -360- Page 8 of 9 11 Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP The WQMP shall follow the City of Huntington Beach Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006 The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan 12 The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site (ZSO 232) a Existing trees to remain on site shall not be disfigured or mutilated (ZSO 232 04E)and b General tree requirements regarding quantities and sizes (ZSO 232 08B and C) 13 An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City s right of way (MC 12 38 010/MC 14 36 030) 14 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid per Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO 232) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING THE IMPROVEMENT OPERATIONS 1 The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works (MC 17 05 210) 2 Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the sod damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations (California Stormwater BMP Handbook Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) 3 All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8 00 a m or leave the site no later than 5 00 p m and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only (MC 17 05) 4 Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded in the late morning and after work is completed for the day (WE-1/MC 17 05) 5 All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas (DAMP) 6 Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets (DAMP) 7 Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403 particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas (AQMD Rule 403) 8 Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site (DAMP) 9 Remediation operations if required shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas 10 All construction materials wastes grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of sods aggregates sod amendments etc shall be properly covered stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind ram tracking tidal erosion or dispersion (DAMP) ATTACHMENT NO -361- Item 9 - Page 151 Page 9 of 9 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION 1 Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall a Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices(BMPs)described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications b Demonstrate all drainage courses pipes gutters basins etc are clean and properly constructed c Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP d —Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers 2 Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of occupancy The current rate of$163 per net new added daily trip is adjusted annually This project is forecast to generate 264 new daily trips for a total traffic impact fee of$43 032 00 or$1 956 00 per residential unit (MC 17 65) 3 All landscape irrigation and hardscape improvements for the park shall be completed 4 Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading street improvement and landscape plans (MC 17 05) 5 All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect (ZSO 232 04D) 6 Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images (in City format)and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped Permanent File Copy prior to starting landscape work Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record 7 All new utilities shall be undergrounded (MC 17 64) 8 The Water Ordinance#14 52 the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger (MC 14 52) 9 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid per Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO 232) ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 152 -362- x HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Ht cta� �rac+i PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE DECEMBER 3 2008 PLANNER JENNIFER VILLASENOR PROJECT NAME HEARTHSIDE HOMES REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW 22 LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PROJECT LOCATION SE CORNER OF BOLSA CHICA STREET AND LOS PATOS AVE PLAN REVIEWER JAN THOMAS TELEPHONE/E MAIL (949)348 8186 lckthomas@cox net The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s) if any will also be provided upon final project approval If you have any questions regarding these requirements please contact the Plan Reviewer Conditions lasted below shall be completed before fmal mspection SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Recommendation Lot D shall include no berms It shall remain level with the street Following are three reasons 1 Visibility to and around the homes and neighborhood will remain open 2 Balls will not as readily roll into the street (Possibly add a small fence at the east end of the park) 3 Parents are able to watch their child play in that area,if the parent is watching from Ins/her home Recommendation The meandering trail and landscape lot to the north of the project should be lighted throughout all hours of darkness Landscaping in this area shall be designed and maintained to allow users to view their surroundings Potential offenders should have no dense landscaping to use for concealment ATTACHMENT NO -363- Item 9 - Page 153 %, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY HUNrINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE DECEMBER 3 2008 PROJECT NAME HEARTHSIDE HOMES PLANNING APPLICATION NO PLANNING APPLICATION NO 08-0220 DATE OF PLANS OCTOBER 31 2008 PROJECT LOCATION APN 110-016-35 PROJECT PLANNER JENNIFER VILLASENOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER JASON KWAK PLAN CHECK ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714)536-5278/ikwak0_surfcfty-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING GP DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE-PARK (OS-P) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM-15) TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 22 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received as stated above The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation This list is not intended to be a full and complete list and serves only to highlight possible budding code issues on the proposed preliminary plans Electrical plumbing and mechanical items are not included in this review If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact the plan reviewer I SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1 None II CODE ISSUES BASED ON PLANS&DRAWINGS SUBMITTED 1 Project shall comply with the 2007 California Budding Code 2007 Califomia Mechanical Code 2007 California Plumbing Code 2007 California Electrical Code 2007 California Energy Code and the Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC) Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit i i ATTACHMENT NO.3 Item 9 - Page 154 -364- -365- Item 9 - Page 155 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-016 I This document serves as the Response to Continents on Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 This document contains all information available in the public record related to the"The Ridge' 22-Unit Planned Unit Development Project as of April 2 2010 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 Draft Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 016,and Appendix The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies,groups, organizations and individuals as of April 2,2010 The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment The Errata to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08- 016 is provided to show clarifications and corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Recirculated 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 Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08- 016 Based on the information contained in the public record,the decision-makers 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 A draft MND was made available for public review from September 10,2009 to October 9 2009 Subsequent to the comment period a biological resources report was prepared for the project site Based on the information contained in the technical report revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of new mitigation measures in the biological resources impact area These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 was made available for a 30 day public review period from March 4,2010 to April 2 2010 The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups organizations and individuals that Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 had been prepared for the proposed project The City also used several methods to solicit input dunng the review period for the preparation of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation distribution,and review of ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 156 -366- Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 A cover letter and copies of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 016 were fled with the State Clearinghouse on March 4 2010 The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 2009091043 to the proposed project A copy of the cover letter and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach,Planning and Building Department,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach California 92648 An official 30-day public review period for Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 was established by the State Clearinghouse It began on March 4,2010 and ended on April 2,2010 Public comment letters were received by the City of Huntington Beach through April 2 2010 Notice of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on March 4 2010 as well as advertised on the City's website Notices were also sent to property owners and tenants within a 1,000 radius of the project site Copies of the document were made available to agencies groups, organizations,and individuals at the following locations City Hall—City Clerk's Office City Hall—Planning&Zoning Counter Central Library On the City s website III COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of April 2 2010 are contained in Appendices A&B of this document All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages Since the project included two 30-day comment periods one on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 and one on Recirculated draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 all comments are included in this section Comments on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 016 are included in Appendix A Comments on Recirculated draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 are included in Appendix B All comments are referenced by number with the responses directly adjacent to the reference number for clarity Responses to Comments for each comment that was submitted on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 and Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 that raised an environmental issue are contained in this document IV RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 was distributed to responsible agencies interested groups organizations,and individuals The report was made available for public review and comment for a penod of 30 days The public review period for Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Retire MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO -367- Item 9 - Page 157 016 was established by the State Clearinghouse on March 4,2010 and expired on April 2 2010 The City of Huntington Beach received comment letters through April 2,2010 Copies of all documents received as of April 2,2010 are contained in Appendices A& B of this report Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered Responses are presented for each comment that raised a significant environmental issue Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 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"or similar reference This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration RESPONSE TO COMMENTS—DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND NO 08-016 State Departments Department of Transportation DOT-1 This comment states that the DOT does not have comments at this time Comment acknowledged California Coastal Commission CCC-1 This comment summarizes the project Comment acknowledged CCC 2 This comment indicates that the final land use designations will be subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission The comment also notes that the project site is in the appealable area of the coastal zone and the coastal development permit may be appealed to the Coastal Commission The comment outlines three areas of concern which are addressed in the comments/responses that follow the higher priority Open Space—Parks use over the lesser priority residential use identified and potentially present sensitive habitats and species adjacent to the project site,and archeological/cultural resources Comment acknowledged CCC 3 Section I Land Use and Planning of the recirculated draft MND analyzes the proposed change in the land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Residential Low Density The analysis states that although the land use designation would be changed from the higher priority open space designation to a lower priority residential designation the project would not be inconsistent with the Coastal Act in that recreational opportunities would still be afforded to all people particularly people in the vicinity of the project area In addition there would not be a substantial loss in existing recreational opportunities from the proposed project as the City does not plan or intend to utilize the privately owned project site for a public park and does not include the project site in the current park inventory Existing recreational G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO _ Item 9 - Page 158 -368- opportunities are available in the vicinity that would serve the approximately 57 potential new residents from the project In addition,a 5,776 square foot common open space area would be provided by the project A 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site is proposed to be unproved to provide enhanced coastal access to existing coastal recreational and open space areas Although the parcel is currently owned by the City,it is unimproved and does not provide noticeable coastal access other than to people that are already familiar with the area Finally,the current zoning of the site would allow for up to five dwelling units to be developed on the site CCC-4 The proposed project does not include private use of the street and on street parking spaces and would be accessible for use by the general public There are no entry controls or parking restrictions proposed for the project in accordance with the referenced Coastal Element policy CCC-5 The proposed 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site is proposed to be improved to provide enhanced coastal access Although the parcel is currently owned by the City,it is unimproved and does not provide noticeable coastal access other than to people that are already familiar with the area The 30-foot wide public access trail is proposed to provide a public benefit in conjunction with the Planned Unit Development(PUD) and not to offset the loss of land designated for open space As discussed in Recirculated MND No 08-016 the proposed change in land use and zoning designations does not result in significant impacts such that rmtigation(i e — offsetting the loss of open space)would be required See response CCC-3 CCC 6 The proposed language for the zoning text amendment was included as Attachment 4 to the draft MND that was forwarded to the Coastal Commission In addition the zoning text amendment would be submitted to the Coastal Commussion for review and certification as part of the Local Coastal Program amendment request CCC-7 The variable width buffer that was approved for the Land Use PIan for the Parkside/Shea project is specific to the Parkside/Shea site and is not applicable to other properties adjacent to the Parkside site including the proposed project site Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 includes an analysis substantiated by a biological resources assessment prepared by a qualified biologist,on the project's potential impacts on the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(ESHA)east of the project site The analysis points out that raptors species have been observed foraging in existing residential areas near the project site and nests were constructed within 50 feet of an adjacent residential condominium complex It is also noted in the analysis that raptors are very tolerant of human activity and even more tolerant of stationary human presence associated with residences Therefore,the proposed buffer of 140 to 160 feet would be adequate The proposed buffer also meets the minimum buffer requirements of the City s certified Local Coastal Program for development adjacent to an ESHA Worth noting the variable width buff or that was approved for eucalyptus ESHA for the Bnghtwater project includes buffer widths in the range of the proposed project CCC-8 The comment states concerns regarding construction grading that would occur for the proposed project on the adjacent ESHA Although the comment does not specify what those concerns are the project is required to comply with requirements for erosion and G\VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 4 ATTACHMENT NCB - -369- Item 9 - Page 159 sediment controls during construction As stated in Section III Geology and Soils of the recirculated draft MND,these requirements include preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Implementation Plan(SWPPP)and incorporation of Best Management Practices that would include erosion and sediment controls,runoff water quality monitoring maintenance responsibilities and non- stormwater management controls In addition,the project is required to comply with Chapter 17 05—Grading and Excavation Code of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code,which specifies requirements for the protection of adjacent properties during grading operations The recirculated draft MND determined that construction unpacts, including site grading on-and off-site would be less than significant CCC-9 There is currently no heavy,woody vegetation on the Shea property adjacent to the project site that would constitute a fuel load and require fuel modification Existing vegetation currently consists of primarily mustard and other weedy species In addition the proposed project includes a landscape area on the eastern sloped perimeter of the site that would be irrigated thus providing an"imgation zone' adjacent to the homes In addition,the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed development and did not identify a requirement for fuel modification at the project site CCC-10 Impacts to biological resources on the project site were re analyzed in Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 The analysts is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project by a qualified biologist The analysis notes that due to the absence of trees and structures for perching and nesting on the project site raptor foraging opportunities are hmtted and thus,impacts from the loss of raptor foraging opportunities on the project site are less than significant While the analysis does note the 23 acres that will be preserved on the Parkside/Shea property,it does not rely on those 23 acres in determining the significance of potential impacts the proposed project will have on the adjacent ESHA Potential impacts on the ESHA specifically the proximity of the proposed development to the ESHA were determined to be less than significant due to various factors including observations of raptors and nests to existing residential areas to the vicinity of the project site,previous raptor flushing studies,and project design features that would minimize disturbance from residential development in the area See response CCC-7 CCC-11 As noted in the previous responses a biological resources assessment was prepared for the project and included in the analysis of potential impacts to biological resources in the recirculated draft MND In addition to analyzing impacts to the adjacent ESHA (see responses CCC-7 and CCC-10) the report also identified potential impacts to sensitive species and habitats from the proposed project on the project site Because the project site generally consists of fallow agricultural and barren land, impacts to special status species would be less than significant Also,because there are no structures or vegetation for perching or nesting,raptor foraging opportunities on the project site are limited The report did identify two special status species with the potential to occur on the site and that have been known to occur in the vicinity of the project site As such mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that impacts to these species would be Iess than significant The analysts in the recirculated draft G\VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO 95 - Item 9 - Page 160 -370- MND also states that the project site is outside of the approved buffer area for the wetland on the Parkside/Shea property Direct impacts from construction and development of the project site on the Brtghtwater open space habitat area and the Bolsa Cluca restoration area would not be significant due to the substantial distance from the project site to these areas Impacts from the proposed land use and zoning designation amendments would not result in significant impacts Although the project site has a land use designation of Open Space—Parks,it is privately owned and not currently utilized for recreational purposes Therefore,changing the open space designation would not indirectly result in more people utilizing the aforementioned open space areas because they could no longer use the project site In addition the potential increase in 57 new residents that would be able to utilize the Brightwater and Bolsa Chica open space areas is not substantial and would not create significant impacts to those areas as an indirect result of population growth in the vicinity CCC-12 Comment acknowledged Recirculated draft MND No 08-16 notes that the May 2009 Archeological Report was peer reviewed by members of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee The peer-reviewers agreed with the conclusions of the report and the recommended mitigation measures In addition,notices of the draft MND and recirculated draft MND were sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)as well as the tribes identified on the NAHC tribal contact list All comments regarding the proposed zoning land use and development applications will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council CCC-13 Mitigation Measure CR-2 has been revised(see Section V —Errata)to include the option to preserve in place in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during construction Mitigation Measure CR-1 already includes language to protect or scientifically remove cultural resources that may be discovered during construction This would provide for both preservation in place or archeological excavation Local/Regional Agencies Huntington Beach Environmental Board EB 1 The comment indicates that the full Board did not review the EA and that the reviewing Board members have conflicting opinions with respect to the draft MND and the developer s financial capabilities Comment acknowledged EB 2 The comment summarizes the project and indicates that the Board would generally not support the requested entitlements However because the project would be a"green project the Board would consider this adequate mitigation or exchange for the project s entitlements Comment acknowledged EB 3 Comment acknowledged The comment states that the proposed project should serve as an example for future projects and provides suggestions for the green aspects and certification of the project G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc N4ND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO -371- Item 9 - Page 161 EB4 Comment acknowledged The comment is related to financial capabilities of the developer Omanizations/Individuals Elizabeth Kennedy KEN 1 Comment acknowledged Also,refer to Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 and Section V Errata for an analysis of biological and archeological impacts Based on technical studies,the analysis concludes that the project with mitigation,will result in less than significant impacts in these areas Anna Friesen FRIES-1 Comment acknowledged The comment states the commenter s objection to building homes in the Bolsa Chica area and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration FRIES-2 Comment acknowledged Also refer to Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 for an analysis of potential impacts to land use and planning,which includes the proposed change in land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Residential Low Density and concludes less than significant impacts The comment is expressing opposition to the proposed change and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration Chloe and Ed Mieczkowski MIEC-1 Comment acknowledged The comment is expressing opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Isabelle Chasse CHAS-1 Comment acknowledged Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 includes an analysis of potential impacts on biological resources The analysis is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist for the proposed project The analysis identified sensitive species and habitats with the potential to occur on the project site The analysis concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation While views of the project site would change,the recirculated draft MND concludes that view impacts to and from the project site would be less than significant(refer to Section XIII Aesthetics) It should also be noted that while the subject property is designated Open Space—Parks the property is not developed for park purposes and is a privately owned parcel Any use of the site that currently exists would be considered trespassing on private property CHAS-2 Comment acknowledged Refer to Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 for analysis on potential impacts to noise air quality public services and traffic/transportation, which concludes less than significant impacts in these areas CHAS-3 Comment acknowledged The comment indicates that the Cogged Stone' archeological site(CA-ORA-83)extends onto the subject site However based on a technical report prepared for the recirculated draft MND CA-ORA-83 does not extend onto the subject property In addition as stated in Recirculated draft MND No 08 G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe r 7 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 162 -372- 016,the subject property has undergone archeological testing and excavation and it is not anticipated that intact archeological resources would be encountered during project construction CHAS-4 Comment acknowledged The comment states opposition to the project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Amigos De Bolsa Chica ABC 1 The comment states a concern regarding the processing of a negative declaration in an area'known for it critical biological importance' Comment acknowledged The determination to process a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project is based on an analysis of the environmental impacts including impacts to biological resources Impacts to biological resources were further analyzed based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project With the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources are anticipated to be less than significant Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration would be the appropriate level of environmental processing for the proposed project In addition,the determination to process a mitigated negative declaration was approved by the City s Environmental Assessment Committee as well as the Planning Commission ABC-2 Impacts on the adjacent ESHA to the east were analyzed in Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project by a qualified biologist See responses CCC-7 and CCC-10 regarding a discussion on adequacy of the proposed buffer See also response ABC-4 below ABC 3 The open space requirement that is referenced in the comment is for required open parking spaces Open parking spaces are proposed to be provided on the street The streets and driveways are not proposed to satisfy open space requirements related to recreational uses This point is clarified in Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 on page two ABC-4 Draft MND No 08-016 did not identify mitigation measures with respect to protection of the ESHA as the comment states In addition preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(referenced in the comment as an Environmental Impact Statement)is not a means of requiring technical studies to fully analyze the potential impacts of a project Techmcal studies are utilized to assess the significance of potential impacts from a project and can be utilized in conjunction with any level of environmental review in accordance with CEQA The analysis in Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 regarding impacts to the ESHA is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist The biological resources assessment fully investigated potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties including the ESHA east of the project site The recommended mitigation measures in the biological resources assessment are incorporated in the recirculated draft MND and would ensure that impacts from the project would be less than significant G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc Q s AT NCB i -373- Item 9 - Page 163 Liz UlUte WHYT-1 The comment states that the project site would be carving up wetland space for Hearthside" The project site does not contain any wetlands The remaining portion of the comment states that wildlife(i e —squirrels and coyotes)is displaced to the backyards of existing homes The biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project notes that wildlife such as squirrels and coyote utilize a variety of habitat types and have been observed within and in the vicinity of the project site However,habitat for sensitive species on the project site is limited because the site consists of fallow agricultural and barren land types Impacts to sensitive species with the potential to occur on the project site are addressed in the recirculated draft MND and recommended mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant Finally archeological testing and excavation of the subject property has already occurred The project site does not have the potential to yield significant archeological resources Nonetheless,mitigation measures requiring archeologist and Native American monitoring at the site are recommended in the event that resources are recovered during ground disturbing activities Merle Moshiri MOSH-1 The commenter is objecting to the construction of 22 homes built at or near a sacred site' The commenter is referring to the archeological site CA-ORA-83 and refers to the site earlier in the comment as the Cog Site Archeological testmg and excavation have occurred at the subject property and CA ORA-83 is not present on the site In addition,development of the project site near CA ORA-83 would not impact the archeological site since the project is not proposing construction or grading outside of the project area Karna Bramble BRAM 1 Comment acknowledged The comment states the commenter s objection to building homes in the Bolsa Chica area and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Although the site is designated for open space it is privately owned and is not currently utilized for recreational open space for the public Therefore,there are no current recreational opportunities afforded to children on the project site The project would also be required to pay park in-lieu fees in accordance with City requirements In addition based on the analysis of biological resources impacts in the recirculated draft MND the project does not provide significant habitat for sensitive species such that the project site would need to be preserved in order to protect wildlife Finally,the project site is currently zoned Residential Agricultural and would allow development of up to five single family homes absent the request for a change to the zoning designation Barbara Rose ROSE-1 Comment acknowledged The comment states the commenter s objection to building homes in the Bolsa Chica area and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration See response BRAM-1 and WHYT 1 Rita A ustines AGUS 1 Comment acknowledged 'Be comment states the commenter s objection to building homes in the Bolsa Chica area and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 9 ATTACHMEN C NO 7 - Item 9 - Page 164 -374- consideration See response BRAM-1 and WHYT-1 It should be noted that the project site is not considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area In addition the project is proposed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa,not the Wetlands,and would not result in disturbance to the wetlands AGUS-2 The proposed project would not result in the loss of habitat at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands See response BRAM-1,WHYT-1 and CCC 11 regarding impacts from the proposed change in the land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Residential Low Density and raptor foraging opportunities on the project site Jody Graham GRAH-1 Comment acknowledged The comment states the commenter's objection to building homes in the Bolsa Chica area and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration See response WHYT 1 In addition Recirculated draft MND No 08- 016 concluded that impacts to traffic and public services as a result of the project would be less than significant Mark Brxby MBIX-1 The recirculated draft MND describes and analyzes the proposed public benefit of improving the existing City-owned 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site for enhanced coastal access from the standpoint of potential environmental impacts The public benefit is proposed to meet in part the requirement of PUD projects to provide a public benefit The merits of the proposed public benefit are not an environmental issue and would be considered by the Planning Commission during consideration of the proposed coastal development permit As this comment relates to the project,it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration MBIX-2 The approvals for the Parkside project require that the development shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of the wetlands' on the Parkside site This would require that a permanent water source to the wetlands be maintained regardless of development that occurs outside of the Parkside project site which is beyond the project s control Although development of the project site may result in less stormwater flowing to the Parkside site stormwater flows from the project site were not identified as the only water source and would not be relied upon to provide water to the wetland in the future In addition the Parkside approvals are clear in that a water source must be established and maintained as part of the responsibility of the Parkside project The attached study submitted by the commenter will be attached to the record and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration MBIX-3 Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 re analyzed impacts to biological resources and provides an updated discussion on potential impacts on the ESHA east of the project site As a result the discussion from the draft MND(prior to recirculation)that is cited in the comment is no longer part of the analysis for determining the significance of the impacts The revised biological resources analysis is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project by a qualified biologist See response CCC 7 and CCC-10 G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 10 ATTAGHMEN I NO -375- Item 9 - Page 165 MBIX-4 The impacts discussed in the comment letter are either not environmental issues (public benefit)or have been analyzed in Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 and impacts were determined to be less than significant The comment letter does not identify significant impacts that were not considered in the environmental analysis such that an EIR would be required Gary Trudeau TRUD 1 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed public benefit of the project and does not raise any environmental issues The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration TRUD-2 The comment states that the City owned parcel north of the project site in its current unimproved condition reflects the nuisances characteristic of vacant lots such as litter and drug paraphernalia The comment also states that the parcel is used by homeless and local youths as an `unsupervised hang out The comment also states that prior to the parcel being transferred to the City( city's easement )the area was home to various bird and wildlife species The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration It should be noted that the environmental analysis includes an assessment of current conditions and reflects the proposed changes of the City-owned parcel from an unimproved condition to an improved condition and does not consider prior conditions of the parcel TRUD 3 The comment also compares the existing state of the City-owned parcel north of the project site to the previous condition prior to conveyance to the City The comment does not raise any environmental issues and is acknowledged However it should be noted that the proposed improvement of the City-owned parcel would likely reduce some of the disturbances that the commenter states are currently occurring as a result of the unimproved condition of the parcel The comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration TRUD-4 The comment suggests that the proposed public benefit will lower property values of the new homes in the proposed project and does not raise any environmental issues The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration TRUD 5 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed public benefit of the project and suggests eliminating the easement/access area and does not raise any environmental issues The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Jan Vandersloot VAN-1 The comment states that the project should be analyzed by a full EIR rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration The comment further identifies several issues that need further evaluation which are identified and addressed in the following responses Finally,the comment states that there is no public benefit to changing the land use designation of the property It should be noted that the proposed public benefit is required because the development is proposed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) G\VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 11 ATTACHMENT NO 7�f - Item 9 - Page 166 -376- A PUD development typically requires a public benefit in order to have more flexibility with respect to the project design and layout than the strict interpretation of traditional zoning standards would allow The public benefit is not related to the request to change the land use designation of the property VAN 2 The comment states the commenter s viewpoint that the zoning should be changed to be consistent with the Open Space—Parks designation of the General Plan and certified Land Use Plan It should be noted that the recirculated draft MND analyzes the proposed project's request to amend the land use designation and does not provide recommendations for changes to the project request The comment also states the significance of the open space parcels of-the entire Bolsa Chica area,including the Shea/Parkside site,due to the habitat value for raptor foraging The comment states that an EIR should evaluate impacts of the project and the loss of this area as raptor foraging habitat Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 analyzed impacts of the project with respect to impacts to raptors The analysis which was based on a biological resources assessment prepared by a qualified biologist and peer-reviewed by a separate biologist concludes that the project site itself presents limited raptor foraging opportunities since the site is devoid of trees and structures for perching and nesting The analysis also concluded that impacts on the raptors using the ESHA east of the project site would not be significant due to the project s design features such as Dark _ Sky lighting,the proposed buffer from the ESHA which was determined to be adequate in the biological study and the project's requirement to comply with the provisions of the City's certified Local Coastal Program for development adjacent to an ESHA VAN 3 The comment states that the project site is designated as Open Space—Parks and that Huntington Beach has a deficiency of park space The comment states that an EIR should examine the loss of even more park space and that this is a sigmficant impact The proposed project would not result in the loss of park space or existing recreational opportunities since the project site is not developed as a park Also since the project site is privately owned passive use of the property by the public does not exist In addition the property is not included on the City s inventory of parks and the City s Community Services Department does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use As analyzed in the recirculated draft MND the project would be required to provide 0 29 acres of park space to meet the current General Plan standard of 5 acres of park space for every 1 000 residents The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance HBZSO)requires a project s park requirement to be met either through the dedication of open space or payment of in-lieu fees The Community Services Department has indicated that the project would be required to pay in-lieu fees to satisfy the project s park requirement In addition the project is proposing a 0 13 common open space with passive park amenities While the City has an overall existing deficiency in park space according to the General Plan standard the project s contribution would be less than significant as the project would be providing for its total park requirement through in lieu fees plus an additional 0 13 acres of open space area VAN 4 The recirculated draft MND analyzes the project s impact on aesthetics including the change from an undeveloped area to a developed one as well as the project s impact on G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc j 12 AT`[Al.HMLNT k14 q0 t , ! — - -377- Item 9 - Page 167 scemc vistas Refer to pages 41-43 of the recirculated draft MND for a discussion of the project's impacts on aesthetics,which includes analysis of the points brought up in the comment VAN-5 The project's emissions and potential impacts on air quality are addressed in the recirculated draft MND on pages 23-26 The project s construction and operational emmssions would not result in an exceedence of established significance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) VAN-6 According to the recirculated draft MND,the project potential to increase the City s population by 57 residents would represent approximately 0 03%of the City s population and concludes that this would be a less than significant impact Impacts on the"loss of open space are analyzed in the Land Use,Recreation and Aesthetics sections of the recirculated draft MND Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is recommended VAN-7 The comment states that the property is part of the Bolsa Cluca ecosystem,which is a hotspot of regional and national importance See response VAN 2 above for a discussion of the project s impacts to raptor forging areas and the proximity to the ESHA See also response CCC-10 VAN-8 The comment states that a report regarding archeological findings for the Brightwater project was due on February 10 2010 Comment acknowledged See response MOSH-1 The project site does not contain the archeological site ORA-83 In addition the project site has undergone a multi-phased research design program including excavation Since the site has already been excavated it is not likely that resources would be discovered during construction However mitigation measures are recommended in the unlikely event that resources are found during grading and construction VAN 9 A greenhouse gas analysis is provided in the recirculated draft MND The analysis does consider different types of sources of greenhouse gas emissions(GHG) including emissions from vehicle and household heating systems The analysis on page 26 of the recirculated draft MND concludes that the project s cumulative contribution of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant Mitigation is not recommended since the project has been designed to incorporate GHG reduction strategies of the Califorma Climate Action Team and the California Attorney General s Office VAN-10 See response VAN 1 In addition the site is not currently used for park purposes It is privately owned and not open to the general public The green building aspects of the project are not related to the proposed change in land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Residential Low Density VAN 11 The comment states that an EIR is required However the recirculated draft MND concludes that all potential direct and indirect impacts from the project are less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 13 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 168 -378- Julie Bixby JBIX-1 The recirculated draft MND was updated to disclose that the public can currently access the 30-foot wide parcel which is proposed to be unproved and connects to the existing informal path on the Shea property The recirculated draft MND states that the Shea path is informal which implies that it is unimproved The recirculated draft MND will be clarified to state that the existing informal path is unimproved The path is described as connecting to the flood control channel and ultimately the wetlands in the Land Use and Planning section on page 12 JBIX-2 The comment questions the improvement of coastal access via the improvement of the 30-foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site Currently the site does provide access but is unimproved and does not provide any discerning qualities to the general public that they could access the coast from that parcel As such,the improvement of the 30-foot wide parcel would provide for enhanced coastal access, which was clanfied in the recirculated draft MND The improvement of the 30-foot wide parcel as part of the project s proposed public benefit is analyzed from the standpoint of environmental impacts The analysis of environmental impacts does not provide a recommendation or discuss the adequacy of the benefit to the public that is required as part of the PUD development To this end,the comment s argument as to the adequacy or degree that the public would benefit from the proposed improvement of the 30 foot wide parcel will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration JBTX-3 The project's second proposed public benefit of the incorporation of green building practices is proposed as part of the PUD development of the project and not to reduce environmental impacts As the comment questions the adequacy of the benefit to the public,this comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration The comment also states that green building practices should be standard for all developments While the City has made efforts to require sustainable development practices in many new plans and projects the City has not adopted any comprehensive changes to existing policies any codes that would require sustainable development practices in all projects JBIX-4 As stated in the recirculated draft MND no previous environmental document has been done for the projector project site Previous environmental documentation that analyzed development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa did not include the project site In addition,a project has not been proposed on the site in the past that would have necessitated environmental review Therefore NONE would be a true and correct statement JBIX 5 The recirculated draft MND does address the City s current General plan policy of 5 acres of park space for every 1 000 residents in the Recreation section on pages 45 and 46 See response VAN-3 for further response to this comment JBIX-6 See response JBIX-2 In addition,although other coastal access opportunities exist in the area,the proposed public benefit would enhance another opportunity to access the coast which is consistent with General Plan policies for promoting coastal access G\VillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO - -379- Item 9 - Page 169 The recirculated draft MND does not provide opinion as to which coastal access opportunity is better JBIX-7 The existing slope adjacent to the project site would be preserved in that no development would be constructed on it. JBIX-8 The deviations to minimum lot size and width are proposed as part of the PUD development The City's zoning ordinance allows these deviations as part of a PUD development JBIX-9 A tandem parking configuration is one in which two cars would park one behind the other instead of side by side The project is proposing to allow 10 of the required open spaces to be provided in the available on-street parking This would leave an additional 13 on-street parking spaces for the general public In addition it should be noted that the City allows existing single-family residences to count available on-street parking spaces toward one of the required open parking spaces per unit JBIX 10 The comment is referring to the improvement of the City-owned parcel as a public benefit The recirculated draft MND was clarified to state that the public could currently access the parcel and that the project is proposing to provide enhanced coastal access JBIX-11 See response VAN 2,CCC 7 and CCC-10 JBIX 12 There is nothing in the record for the Parksnde/Shea project that concludes that the Coastal Commission determined the adequacy of the Shea buffers based on the current land use designation of the project site The recirculated draft MND provides an analysis of the project s proximity to the ESHA The analysis is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist and peer reviewed by a separate biologist JBIX 13 See response JBIX-5 and VAN 3 JBIX 14 The recirculated draft MND has been clarified in the Errata to state that the project would preserve public views from the slope edge at the eastern point of the site Views from the east to the project site were analyzed in the Aesthetics section on pages 42 and 3 of the recirculated draft MND It should be noted that the existing slope would be preserved as a significant scenic resource JBIX 15 The Goodell property does not have a proposal to build homes In addition land use designations have not been approved for the property and it is not foreseeable to assume that homes would be built on the Goodell property at this time Impacts to public views from any future development proposal on the Goodell property would be analyzed as part of the environmental review for that specific project JBIX 16 Comment acknowledged As part of the CC&Rs for the project as well as the suggested conditions of approval the use of Dark Sky"lighting at the project site G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 15 ATTACHMENT NO � Item 9 - Page 170 -380- would be enforceable by the project's Homeowners'Association as well as the City's Code Enforcement Division JBIX 17 The project is proposing(and a condition of approval is recommended)to provide `Dark Sky'lighting to minimize impacts to raptors in the ESHA JBIX-18 See response JBIX-7 and JBIX-14 JBIX 19 The archeological monitor or the proposed project site is subject to review by the City to ensure that the applicant retains a qualified archeological monitor Prior or existing enforcement actions on another project do not change the conclusions of the recirculated draft MND regarding impacts to cultural resources JBIX-20 See response JBIX 14 - JBIX 21 See responses VAN-3 and JBIX-5 JBIX 22 See response VAN-2 Also,the project is required to comply with City code — requirements and conditions of approval that require Dark Sky' lighting,a Domestic Animal Control Plan and a Pesticide Management Plan to minimize impacts o the ESHA Because these are either already project design features or required by code, no nutigation is recommended JBIX-23 There is nothing in the record for the Bnghtwater and Parkside/Shea projects that indicate that those projects were approved based on the existing land use designation of the project site References to the project site to provide a description of the surrounding area does not deem previous planning efforts and project approvals invalid JBIX-24 See responses VAN-3 and JBIX-5 JBIX-25 The points in the comment A-H were addressed in the previous responses(JBIX-1 to JBIX-24) The commenter is stating that an EIR is required due to each of these points However,not all of the points address environmental impact issues In the case where the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the recirculated draft MND does come up in the comments the responses indicate that these issues were addressed in the recirculated draft MND In addition,the comments do not raise any new information or provide substantial evidence that impacts would be significant such that an EIR would be required Sandra Genis GEN 1 This comment summarizes the project Comment acknowledged GEN 2 This comment provides a description of the area surrounding the project site Comment acknowledged The comment also states language from a 2008 letter from the NAHC to the Coastal Commission which states that it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground The excerpt from the letter is in reference to the Brightwater project site which is located west of the project site across Bolsa Chica G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 16 ATTACHMENT NO I kq _ -381- Item 9 - Page 171 Street The letter does not refer to the project site and as the project site has already been tested and excavated for cultural resources the statement would not apply to the project site GEN-3 This comment references CEQA and case law regarding the requirement for preparation of an EIR This comment also asserts that adoption of a MND for the project is inappropriate and indicates that the project would result in the potential for significant adverse impacts This comment summarizes the points made in the next several comments regarding potential impacts in several topical areas,which are responded to below Comment acknowledged GEN-4 This comment restates the topical areas in which the commenter believes there are potentially significant impacts GEN-5 This comment describes the various biological resources in the vicinity of the project site including the eucalyptus ESHA east and south of the project site and delineated wetland areas southeast of the project site on the Parkside/Shea property GEN-6 The comment provides information on ESHA buffers as it relates to the Parkside/Shea project and includes excerpts from the Coastal Commission staff report,which cites recommendations and analyses from the Coastal Commission staff ecologist as well as other biologists Comment acknowledged GEN-7 The distance of the proposed project to the ESHA to the east was analyzed in recirculated draft MND No 08 016 based on a biological resources assessment prepared by a qualified biologist See responses CCC-7 and CCC-10 In addition, reference regarding the topographical separation of the tops of trees to the proposed residences was deleted from the recirculated draft MND GEN-8 The recirculated draft MND states that large storm flows will bypass the proposed retention and infiltration system and flow into an existing 24-inch concrete pipe in Bolsa Chica Street The recirculated draft MND also states that prior to discharge,the stormwater flows will be treated The recirculated draft MND also states that the project is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)for post- construction compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements The WQMP will be required to comply with the MS4 Permit governing storm water discharges to the public storm drain system within the North Orange County jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board It should be noted that CEQA does not require exhaustive technical details in environmental documents but should provide sufficient information to enable decision makers to make a decision on the project In this case,the pertinent information is that the discharge water will be treated prior to discharge in addition to information that the project is required to comply with applicable water quality and water discharge requirements In addition the technical information submitted for the project that was utilized in preparation of the environmental analysis in the recirculated draft MND is incorporated by referenced and identified on a source list in the document See response MBIX 2 G WillasenorhThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Retire MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 17 ATTAGHMEN I N® 7/7, Item 9 - Page 172 -382- GEN-9 The project is required to comply with existing City requirements of the HBZSO that would prohibit the planting,naturalization and persistence of mvasive plant species for projects adjacent to an ESHA Recirculated draft MND No 08-016 references HBZSO provisions for development adjacent to an ESHA on page 33 of the Biological Resources section The project's compliance with these requirements would ensure that impacts related to the potential proliferation of invasive species adjacent to the - ESHA would be less than significant GEN-10 The project is required to comply with an existing City code requiring a Domestic Animal Control Plan for development adjacent to an ESHA This code is specifically required to ensure that impacts from development adjacent to an ESHA would be minimized Since this is an existing code requirement,no mitigation measure requiring preparation of a Domestic Animal Control Plan is recommended In addition,the project is proposing perimeter fencing to deter domestic animals from entering the Shea/Parkside site and the ESHA GEN-11 The comment states that potential impacts due to increased light,glare and noise would impact sensitive species The analysis in recirculated draft MND concludes that impacts from light and glare and noise from the project would not result in sigmficant impacts The comment states that lighting directed downward would result in lighting directed toward the ESHA to the east of the project site The project is proposing to utilize `Dark Sky lighting which has been accepted and approved as appropriate for other projects in the Bolsa Chica area, and would he required,pursuant to the HBZSO, to provide lighting such that impacts to the ESHA would be minimized The comment also reiterates the points made in the comments that were responded to in GEN-7 GEN-8,GEN-9 and GEN-10 GEN-12 The Air Quality section of the recirculated draft MND has been updated to identify the project s localized emissions with a comparison to the localized emissions thresholds of the SCAQMD The project would not result in an exceedence of the thresholds and therefore impacts would be less than significant GEN 13 While the properties surrounding the project area would experience a temporary increase in ambient noise during construction of the project construction noise is not subject to the noise standards of the City's Noise Ordinance of the Municipal Code This includes construction noise from haul trucks along the truck haul route It should be noted that the project is required to obtain a haul route permit from the City s Public Works Department prior to the onset of construction Because construction noise is exempt from the standards of the City s Noise Ordinance,the project s impacts from construction noise would be considered less than significant In addition because impacts would be considered less than significant it is not necessary to quantify the extent of noise reduction from noise mufflers on construction equipment since the mufflers would be used to further minimize noise and not reduce the significance of the impact GEN-14 The comment states that impacts to aesthetics due to loss of views to and from the site would be significant The comment states that the most significant impacts would be loss of public views across the site to coastal resources below the site While views G\VillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc ATTACNIENT N 3-1 is O -383- Item 9 - Page 173 from the 30-foot wide parcel would be altered,public views from the existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel would still be available from the eastern edge of the parcel This is mentioned in the recirculated draft MND Also views of the site are analyzed in the recirculated draft MND on pages 41-43 Although,existing views of the site would be altered,the analysis concludes that impacts would be less than significant GEN-15 See response MBIX-2 The geotechmcal feasibility study states that the conditions of the project site would support the proposed project drainage concept This is pointed out in the Geology and Soils section of the recirculated draft MND Drainage for the project would not be directed toward the existing slope on the eastern edge of the site In fact,the proposed drainage concept would ensure that impacts due to erosion of the slope from runoff would be less than significant This is discussed in the Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the recirculated draft MND GEN-16 See response VAN-3 GEN-17 Traffic impacts during construction of the proposed project would not be significant The significance of project traffic impacts during construction is related to duration and delays As the project is located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue,the potential to create delays to residences in the area is limited to the homes in the Brightwater and Sandover developments Traffic delays to this area would be temporary during construction of the project with the potential for maximum delay time occurring during project grading which is anticipated to last approximately 20 days See response to JBIX-9 above In addition,the project would be providing a minimum of 13 additional public parking spaces that are not currently provided GEN-18 Unlike previous projects in the Bolsa Chica area the entire project site has already undergone a research design program that included excavation of the entire site Since the site has already been excavated it is not anticipated that intact subsurface deposits would be uncovered during construction In addition the project would not result in the loss of additional cultural resources that would result in significant adverse effects since it is not anticipated that cultural resources exist on the project site due to the previous archeological work As a precautionary measure MM CR-1 recommends archeological monitoring during construction in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during construction The mitigation measure requires that if intact deposits are discovered,all work shall stop the resources would be investigated for significance and a research design and recovery program be implemented The mitigation measure also provides for in situ preservation of the resources A comparison of the archeological resources and issues at the Brightwater site to the proposed project site does not constitute a reason why an EIR would be required to evaluate impacts to cultural resources from the project An EIR would only be required if there existed substantial evidence that impacts would be significant The comment does present any new information that was not already considered in the analysis of environmental impacts Because of the work that has already been conducted on the site, impacts are appropriately determined to be less than significant with mitigation G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 19 ATTACHMENT NO q P Item 9 - Page 174 -384- GEN-19 The project's contribution in the context of cumulative projects would be considered less than significant with respect to impacts on air quality,noise traffic and loss of open space The project's impacts on loss of habitat would be considered less than significant with mitigation due to the potential for sensitive species to occur on the project site Although it is unlikely that the species would occur on the project site due to the existing condition of the site,the species have the potential to occur in the area, and thus,the project site Environmental review for the Goodell project and the proposed project is separate because they are two distinct and separate projects The Goodell project does not include development and as such,physical impacts from development cannot be analyzed at this time GEN-20 Based on all of the information in the record,including the analysis in Recirculated draft MND No 08-016,incorporating by reference all source documents and the comments and responses to comments,the project would not result in significant adverse impacts The comment states that impacts can and likely will occur The recirculated draft MND acknowledges that the project may result in potential impacts However,the significance of the impacts was determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation The comment states that the proposed MND should not be adopted The comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration RESPONSE TO COMMENTS—RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION(MND)NO 08-016 State Departments Department q f Transportation DOT 1 This comment states that the DOT does not have comments at this time Continent acknowledged Oreanzzathons/Indrvtduals Michelle O Brien OBRI-1 The comment states opposition to the proposed project and discusses the need to preserve the Bolsa Chica Wetlands The comment states that the project will have a negative effect on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands but does not state what those negative effects would be The proposed project is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and would not result in the removal or loss of wetlands The analysis in Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 concludes that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands David Hamilton HAM-1 The comment mostly discusses the history of the Parkside project site,which is not the subject of the proposed project and environmental assessment The comment also correctly states that the project site has a land use designation of Open Space—Parks in the City of Huntington Beach Comment acknowledged G\VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 20 ATTACHMENT NO -385- Items 9 - Page 175 HAM-2 The comment discusses previous approvals for a park on the Parkside project site and states that the 30-foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site(referenced as part of the"Ridge"parcel in the comment)is no longer adjacent to the proposed park on the Parkside site Although this comment does not raise any environmental issues, it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration The comment also states the project site is no longer designated as Open Space—Parks but is now a proposed 22-umt housing development Comment acknowledged However,it should be noted that the current land use designation of the project site is Open Space —Parks and the project applicant is proposing to amend the land use designation to Residential Low Density in conjunction with the 22-unit development proposal HAM-3 The comment states that active park space is needed in"this area of HB"and states that the planning process for approval is `rather piecemeal As projects are proposed, environmental impacts are analyzed based on existing conditions and are not required to speculate with respect to potential for future projects In addition the analysis in Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 discloses potential environmental impacts of the project as well as the significance of the potential impacts In determining land use impacts, specifically the proposed change in land use designation from Open Space— Parks to Residential Low Density surrounding land uses and previous projects were considered when relevant to the disclosure and analysis of potential impacts The purpose of an environmental assessment is not to provide justification for any aspect of a proposed project nor does it make recommendations for approval or denial of a project The project is subject to review and approval by the City s Planning Commission and City Council as well as the California Coastal Commission As the comment does not raise any environmental issues the comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration R Rubel/S Rubel RUB 1 The comment is stating opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration Although it should be pointed out that the zoning of the property is currently Residential Agricultural and the General Plan Land Use Designation is Open Space—Parks Comment acknowledged Huntington Beach Tomorrow HBT 1 The comment states that lower intensity zoning would result in less grading and fill than the proposed 6 4 units per acre " While the comment does not raise any environmental issues,it should be noted that the project is proposing the lowest density zoning designation that exists in the City In addition the analysis in the recirculated draft MND concludes that the proposed grading on the project site would result in less than significant environmental impacts HBT 2 The project site is currently in the City of Huntington Beach corporate boundaries and does not require annexation HBT 3 The project is proposing two and three-car garages in accordance with the number of garage spaces required per the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The project is also proposing a zoning text amendment to allow required three-car G\VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public continents\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 21 ATTACHMENT NUJ Item 9 - Page 176 -386- garages to be provided in a tandem configuration rather than a side by side configuration through changes to the provisions for Planned Unit Developments In addition,each driveway is proposed to accommodate two to three cars to meet the required open parking space requirement As part of the zoning text amendment request,the project applicant is proposing that a portion of the required open parking spaces be provided through the available on street parking spaces The applicant is not requesting a variance to deviate from the overall number of required parking spaces for the development The analysis in the recirculated draft MND includes this information and concludes that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts due to inadequate parking capacity HBT-4 The comment states that the project is proposing too much cut and fill and that the proposed conditional use permit should not be approved Although this does not raise any specific environmental issues in the recirculated draft MND,it should be noted that the volume of cut and fill was analyzed in the Geology and Soils section of the document Impacts were determined to be less than significant In addition according to the geotechnical feasibility study for the project,the project site is not in an area of shallow groundwater Nevertheless a site specific geotechnical investigation will be- required for the project and would provide design recommendations for the project to ensure that the construction would account for all soil conditions on the site HBT 5 The analysis on pages 16 and 17 of the recirculated draft MND for the project indicates that the potential impacts from the project as a result of construction on unstable soil would be less than significant The analysis of impacts is based on the conclusions of a geotechnical feasibility study that was prepared for the project In addition the recirculated draft MND states that the project is required to incorporate design recommendations of a required site specific geotechnical investigation that would ensure that the construction of the project would account for all soil conditions on the site Finally there are no alleys proposed for the project however pervious surfaces would be maintained by the Homeowners Association HBT 6 The project s design is based on a geotechnical feasibility study which did not identify soil issues described in the comment In addition the project is subject to a site- specific geotechnical subsurface investigation to further evaluate the underlying soils Based on the investigation the project would be required to implement the design recommendations of the soils investigation HBT-7 The comment is stating opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Comment acknowledged Gerald Chapman CI IAP-1 The archeological report that was prepared for the project states that the archeological site CA ORA 86(not the project site)has been the subject of 33 prior investigations I his information is provided as contextual background information and is not provided as a basis for determining potential impacts to cultural resources The conclusions regarding impacts to cultural resources are based on the fact that the project site was the subject of a multi phased research design program which included exca`ation of the entire project site Subsurface deposits were recovered from the southeast comer G NillasenorJ\The Ridge PUDICEQA\Recuc MND public commentsWraft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 22 ATTACHMENT NO -387- Item 9 - Page 177 of the project site and no other intact deposits were discovered Because the project site has already been excavated it is not anticipated that significant deposits would be discovered during construction of the proposed project Nevertheless mitigation measures are proposed in the unlikely event that resources are discovered The analysis in the recirculated draft MND states this information and appropriately concludes less than significant impacts,with mitigation,would occur The archeological report with the details of the research design program on the project site has been available to the public throughout the process and, as such,extension of the comment period is not necessary It should be noted that comments from this commenter were not received during the initial comment period on draft MND No 08- 016 CHAP-2 While peer review is not a necessary component of the environmental analysis the peer review was completed in response to a comment from the Coastal Commission and to provide an unbiased review of the archeological report that was submitted by the project applicant The archeological report was reviewed by three archeologists that are members of the Bolsa Chica peer review committee and were selected by the California Coastal Commission from a list compiled by the California Coastal Commission The peer reviewers are not paid for any work they do as peer reviewers The letter was written by Henry Koerper and reviewed and signed by the other two signers According to the project applicant the peer reviewers have worked with SRS in the past on projects unrelated to the Bolsa Chica area In addition one of the peer reviewers continues to work with SRS today It should be mentioned that the peer review is not the basis for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources ( approving the RDMND ) but provides further validation of the archeological report the contents of which provide the basis of the analysts in the recirculated draft MND CHAP 3 The comment states that there is a fair argument that the proposed project will cause significant negative impacts to the CULTURAL RESOURCES and asserts that an EIR is required to properly analyze impacts and provide mitigation However the comment letter does not present any substantial evidence that the project would result in significant impacts nor is any new information presented that includes potentially significant impacts that were not addressed in the recirculated draft N ND that would necessitate preparation of an EIR Finally appropriate mitigation measures are recommended that would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level Amigos de Bolsa Chica ABC I The comment states concerns regarding nuisance and stormwater runoff impacts on wildlife The comment states that the explanations of how nuisance runoff is dealt with is incomplete However pages 21 and 22 of the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the recirculated draft MND provide a detailed discussion of the project s drainage concept including a description of how runoff is proposed to be treated The open space area that is referenced reters to a large common open space area that would be landscaped similar to a pack 1 he project does not propose a lake or a lagoon and surface retention is not proposed therefore vector control is not an issue ABC 2 The porous surface proposed for the project would capture 1 unoff that with impervious surface would otherwise runoff the project site into the stonn drain G NillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQA`Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 23 ATTACHMENT N0 di Item 9 - Page 178 -388- system The runoff water is directed to catch basins which will remove debris, sediment,oil and grease from the street runoff prior to infiltration The natural filtering ability of the soil under the porous surface will also facilitate water quality enhancement through the removal of dissolved nutrients, bacteria and sediment The use of pervious materials is one aspect of the project s drainage concept,which is described on pages 21 and 22 of the recirculated draft NIND that would limit the amount of runoff from the site to ensure that impacts would be less than significant ABC-3 As discussed in the Utilities and Service Systems section on page 39 of the recirculated draft NM,existing storm drain lines are adequately sized and have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project ABC4 The comment states that Cooper s hawks are the most tolerant of humans and that `the same thing cannot be said of the other raptors that use the ESHA However, according to the biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist Cooper's Hawks are the only raptor species that have been observed in the northern ESHA(ESHA east of the project site) In addition the biological resources assessment states that Cooper's Hawks were removed from the California Department of Fish and Game s Bird Species of Special Concern list in part because of their ability to adapt to trees and landscaping associated with residential uses The report also states that other raptor species with the potential to occur in the ESHA are very tolerant of humans This is not specific to Cooper s Hawks The buffer that is referenced in the comment is regarding the Parkside project Appropriate buffers are not constant and different buffers would be appropriate for different projects As an example the Parkside project,which includes the subject ESHA was approved with a variable width buffer ranging from 297 feet to over 650 feet(a difference of over 350 feet)from the smallest to the largest buffer The Brightwater project west of the project site also was approved with a variable width buffer It should be noted that the buffer of the proposed project is similar to buffers that were approved for the Brightwater project and meets the minimum buffer requirements of the City s certified Local Coastal Program for development adjacent to an ESHA ABC 5 The comment requests clanfication of the issues outlined in the body of the letter and requests that the project be redesigned to comply with a 100 meter buffer to the ESHA The issues have been clarified in the above responses A 100-meter buffer has not been established as a requirement of the project In addition the project s buffer to the ESHA east of the project site has been evaluated by a qualified biologist and determined to be adequate from the standpoint of potential environmental impacts Julie Bixby JBIX I See response JBIX 4 for draft NIND No 08 016 In addition mention of potential dedication in the Sandover MND that resulted in the dedication of the City-owned parcel does not constitute previous environmental analysis JBIX 2 The primary point of the comment states the commenter s viewpoint that the proposed public benefit of enhanced coastal access is not enhancing public access such that the public is benefitting from it The description and analysis of the proposed public benefit in carious sections of the recirculated draft MND serves to disclose G WillasenorAThe Rid&e PUD\CEQAUtecirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 24 ATTACHMENT NO -389- Item 9 - Page 179 environmental impacts as a result of the project and associated public benefit and does not provide discussion as to whether the proposed public benefit is sufficient to approve the project s request for a Planned Unit Development which is the reason the public benefit is proposed The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration It should be noted that while the recreation section does discuss the proposal for the improvement of the 30-foot wide parcel for enhanced coastal access furthering recreational opportunities in the area,it is not analyzed as a component of the project that is necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level JBIX-3 The conclusions of the analysis are twofold First previous flushing studies indicate that raptors would be tolerant of approachmg humans(i e —hikers joggers dog walkers)as close as 24 feet depending on the height of the raptors in the trees Second,the analysis discloses that raptors are even more tolerant of stationary human activity associated with residences,which indicates that while the residences would be closer to the raptors in terms of height,the raptors would be more tolerant of residential structures and human activity within the structures JBIX-4 The comment states that the RMND is now at odds with itself(no impact from project vs potential impact from project) The recirculated draft MND is not at odds with itself since it discloses that raptors are tolerant of human activity and even more tolerant of human activity associated with residential structures In both cases impacts to raptors in the ESHA were determined to be less than significant While there may be increased use of the 30-foot wide coastal access path the nature of the use and human activity would not be different than what currently exists such that impacts from human activity would be sigmficant and mitigation required JBIX-5 The comment states that fair argument exists that these increased disturbances could have significant negative impacts upon the adjacent ESHA and therefore an EIR is required under CEQA While the comment claims that a fair argument exists nothing in the comment letter presents substantial evidence to find that the project would result in significant impacts such that an EIR is necessary The comment letter points out references to the City owned parcel in a previous environmental document and takes issue with the proposed public benefit which is proposed as part of the PUD aspect of the project and not to mitigate an environmental impact The comment letter also requests clarification for statements made in the recirculated MND and asserts that the document is at odds with itself(responded to above) but does not present substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental impacts Mark Bixby MBIX I The comment states that the vegetation survey neglects to consider herbicide use on the project site The conclusions from the biological resources assessment are based on existing site conditions and historical knowledge of the site It should be noted that herbicide use has not killed all the vegetation on the site as the comment states as the biological resources assessment as well as the recirculated draft MND discuss several types of vegetation that exist on the site The documents also disclose the potential for other types of vegetative species to occur on the site based on the project area G WillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Retire MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doe 25 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 180 -390- MBIX-2 The recirculated draft MND discloses the potential for southern Tarplant to occur on the site and recommends mitigation measures for pre-construction surveys and requires preservation on-site or if necessary,relocation of substantial populations MBIX-3 Although the project proposes perimeter fencing to deter domestic animals,the project is also required to prepare and implement a Domestic Animal Control Plan subject to the review and approval of the City of Huntington Beach As such,impacts would be considered less than significant MBIX-4 The comment states that the impacts disclosed in the recirculated draft MND do not consider the existing use of the area and thus cumulative impacts are not considered However,the biological resources assessment on which the analysis in the recirculated draft MND is based upon considers the existing conditions of the area including use of the area by hikers walkers,cyclists etc The conclusions that impacts would be less than significant as a result of the project consider the potential impacts of the proposed residences in conjunction with the existing conditions MBIX-5 See responses CCC-7 CCC-10 and VAN-2 MBIX-6 The comment states that an EIR is required because fair argument exists that the project will result in significant impacts on the ESHA east of the project site The first two comments are related to vegetation on the project site and are not related to impacts on the ESHA The third comment is related to domestic animals entering the ESHA I lowever the potential impacts are analyzed in recirculated draft MND No 08-016 and based on the project s design and standard cod requirements for a Domestic Animal Control Plan impacts would be less than significant The final two comments are related to the project s proximity to the ESHA east of the project site While the comments do present information that larger buffers were approved for another project the buffer for the proposed project was determined to be adequate by a qualified biologist There is no evidence presented supporting the comment that a larger buffer is required for the proposed project other than information that a larger buffer was approved for another project adjacent to the proposed project site In addition the proposed project meets the minimum buffer for development adjacent to an ESHA required by the HBZSO and the City s certified Local Coastal Program Bolsa Chica Land Trust BCLT-1 This comment states the opinion of the commenter on the archeological consultant that prepared the archeological resources report Comment acknowledged BCLT-2 The comment states that the peer review letter lacks serious consideration of development impacts to ORA 86 Again this is stating the commenter s opinion The peer revie A was conducted by archeologists that are members of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee The list of peer reviewers has been approved by the California Coastal Commission It should also be noted that ORA 86 and the project site are not one in the same BCLT-3 The comment raises issues with the applicant s consulting archeologist Comment acknowledged G WillasenorJ The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 1 110 doc 26 ATTACHMENT Na _ -391- Item 9 - Page 181 BCLT-4 The comment provides excerpts from the applicant s attorney regarding archeological sites on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Comment acknowledged BCLT-5 The comment provides excerpts from the Coastal Commission s findings for the Brightwater development which is adjacent to the proposed project site across Bolsa Chica Street Comment acknowledged BCLT-6 The comment includes a list of archeological resources recovered during excavation of the Bnghtwater project and states that the Coastal Commission was unaware of the resources when making findings for the Brightwater project Comment acknowledged BCLT-7 The comment summarizes the findings of a public records request related to the archeological sites CA-ORA-83 and CA ORA 85 Comment acknowledged BCLT-8 The comment references a communication between the Coastal Commission and the Brightwater project applicant(also the proposed project applicant)regarding non- compliance of conditions of the project regarding archeological resources Comment acknowledged BCLT-9 The comment cites another letter between the Coastal Commission and the Brightwater project applicant with respect to the above-referenced non-compliance issue Comment acknowledged BCLT-10 The comment cites an excerpt from a letter from the Coastal Commission to the City during the first comment period on draft MND No 08-016 The comment is addressed in responses CCC 12 and CCC 13 in Responses to Comments for draft MND No 08 016 BUT I 1 The comment states that the project applicant has consistently viewed the important archeological sites at Bolsa Chica as insignificant This is stating the commenter s opinion of the project applicant I he comment also states that mitigation measures for other projects have been ignored This is not raising any environmental issues in the recirculated draft MND The comment states that there is a fair argument that the project will result in significant environmental impacts and an EIR is required The comment letter does not provide any substantial evidence or raise an new information with respect to potentially significant impacts from the proposed project Brian Faun FAG-1 The comment states that the commenter strongly disagrees with the conclusions of the cultural resources impacts of the recirculated draft MND Comment acknowledged FAG-2 The comment summarizes the conclusions of the recirculated draft MND Comment acknowledged FAG 3 The comment notes that human remains were found during construction grading monitoring for the Sandover project which consisted of a portion of CA-ORA 86 G \VillasenorJ\The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recire MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc ATTACHMENT NO I ' Item 9 - Page 182 -392- Comment acknowledged The comment states that the peer review letter does not mention this information The information noted would not be mentioned in the peer review letter since the peer review letter only reviewed the archeological report and conclusions for the portion of CA-ORA 86 on the proposed project site Discoveries on the Sandover project site do not warrant discussion in the analysis or peer review of impacts to cultural resources from the proposed project FAG 4 The peer reviewers are members of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee and were selected by the California Coastal Commission in part due to their knowledge of the archeological history of the Bolsa Cluca area The peer reviewers are not required to conduct a site visit,but may do so at the individual s discretion if deemed necessary for their own review It is not known if any of the reviewers visited the site as part of their review or in the past FAG-5 The comment raises several questions as to the extent of the peer reviewers involvement m the process including if the reviewers inspected the excavation work As the research design program occurred in 2001 the peer reviewers would not have been involved in the project as it relates to their work as peer reviewers See response FAG-4 above In addition it is not the responsibility of the peer reviewers to determine whether to process a mitigated negative declaration for the project (certifying that a mitigated negative declaration is possible) The peer review was -- undertaken to provide a professional review of the archeological report that was prepared for the proposed project It is the information in the report specifically the research design program that occurred in 2001 that provides the basis for determining that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation The peer review determined that the methods and conclusions discussed in the report are adequate FAG-6 The peer review letter assumes that there is no further undisturbed occupation deposit in the site because the entire project site was the subject of a research design program that included excavation of the entire site The May 2009 Archeological Report includes a detailed description of the 2001 research design program Because the site was excavated it is not likely that intact deposits remain The mitigation measures require archeological monitoring in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during grading and construction The mitigation measures are precautionary rather than cursory as the comment states The mitigation measures would require monitoring even though the site has already been excavated and remaining resources discovered FAG 7 The comment states that to offer a negative declaration for these archeological deposits would be an inexcusable tragedy and that anv undisturbed deposits should be thoroughly investigated or left intact A negative declaration is not being offered by the project A recirculated draft IVIND is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project because all impacts from the proposed project would be considered less than significant or less than significant with mitigation The project site was thoroughly investigated when it was the subject of a multi phased research design program if there are undisturbed resources on the site,Mitigation Measure CR 1 would require the project to stop the resources would need to be evaluated for significance and if necessary a research design and recovery program G WillasenorAThe Ridge PUD\CEQARecirc MND public comments draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 28 ATTACH ENT ki -393- Item 9 - Page 183 would be necessary The mitigation measure also provides for in situ preservation of the resources FAG-8 The comment offers alternative mitigation for the project The archeological report is available for review at the City The comment also includes mitigation for complete excavation of the site It should be noted that this has already occurred in accordance with standard accepted methodologies The details of the excavation and the finds are included in the May 2009 Archeological Report See response FAG-4 regarding selection of the peer reviewers Sandra Gems GEN-1 See response to GEN-I from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-2 See response to GEN-2 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-3 See response to GEN-3 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-4 See response to GEN-4 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-5 See response for GEN-5 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 GEN 6 See response for GEN 6 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-7 See response for GEN 7 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 In addition the recirculated draft MND discloses that impacts could occur from people and pets as well as from light,dispersal of nonnative plants and introduction of pests and feral species as indicated in the comment However the analysis concludes that due to the project s design as well as compliance with code requirements for development adjacent to an ESHA the project s impacts on the ESHA would be considered less than significant GEN 8 See response for GEN 8 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-9 See response for GEN 10 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 Although the details of the Domestic Animal Control Plan are not detailed in the recirculated draft MND the purpose and intent of the plan would be include measures to ensure that impacts to the adjacent ESHA from domestic pets would be mmirmzed as the comment is requesting Given that a Domestic Animal Control Plan is required to minimize impacts on the ESHA impacts from domestic animal disturbance would be less than significant GEN 10 The biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project indicates that existing wildlife species that may use the site include coyotes However given that coyotes are not designated as sensitive or special status species potential impacts on coyotes would be less than significant from this standpoint Inasmuch as coyotes are valued as predators for midlevel species with the potential to impact the ESHA(i e — cats) existing controversy regarding the issue of coyotes in urbanized areas would not be resolved through the recirculated draft MND for the proposed project The addition G Willasenoi- The Ridge PUD\CEQA\Rectrc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 29 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 184 -394- of 22 single family units would not result in a substantial increase in calls for coyote control that would then result in significant impacts to coyotes GEN-I I See response for GEN I I from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN-12 The comment notes revisions to the recirculated draft MND to include the localized air quality emissions from the project The comment also notes the revised emission calculations due to the use of mitigation assumptions in the URBEMIS program and implementation of Rule 403 of the SCAQMD The comment states that the emissions reduction would only be limited to frequent watering of the site,which can reduce emissions up to 50 percent While it should be noted that use of localized emissions thresholds is voluntary the analysis was revised to include localized air quality emssions due to comments received during the first comment period The revised emissions analysis indicates that the URBEMIS mitigation assumptions would reduce the PMio emissions by approximately 75 percent from the initial analysis in draft MND No 08-016 However even if the emissions are reduced by a maximum of 50 percent as the comment suggests the project's PMio construction emissions would not exceed the localized significance threshold of 14 pounds per day Therefore localized PM10 emissions would be less than significant In addition emissions from PM2 5 would be below the threshold of nine pounds per day with or without the URBEMIS mitigation and impacts would be less than significant All source documents are available at the Planning and Building Department for review GEN 13 See response for GEN-13 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN 14 See response for GEN-14 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN 15 See response for GEN-15 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08-016 GEN 16 See response for GEN 16 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 GEN 17 See response for GEN 17 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 GEN 18 See response for GEN 18 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 GEN-19 See response for GEN 19 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 GEN 20 See response for GEN-20 from Response to Comments for Draft MND No 08 016 G Nillasenodd he Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc 10 ATTACHMENT NO "JU -395- Item 9 - Page 185 V ERRATA TO RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-016 The following changes to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08- 016 and Initial Study Checklist areas 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 Revisions are below as excerpts from the Initial Study text,with a lie tkough deleted text and bold and double-underlined font beneath inserted text In order to indicate the location in the Initial Study where text has been changed,the reader is referred to the page number of the Initial Study Page 3—Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North of the project site is the previously discussed undeveloped 30-foot wide City owned parcel which is proposed to be improved with a public access trail by the project applicant to connect to the informal unimproved path on the Shea Homes (Shea)property to the east Page 12—Land Use and Planning The project is proposing to improve an existing undeveloped 30-foot wide parcel north of the project site with an access trail that would connect to an existing informal -mimproved path on the adjacent Shea property that would ultimately provide enhanced access to the flood control channel and the Bolsa Chica wetlands from Bolsa Chica Street Page 29— I raffic/I ransportation For these 10 units three open spaces are required in which one of the required open spaces is proposed to be met through the available street parking The total number of parking spaces required for the project is provided within the development site in addition to 13 additional on street parking spaces that do not currently exist As such the proposed project will not result n significant impacts due to inadequate parking capacity Page 33 —Biological Resources Impacts from development of the project site on surrounding habitat areas including the adjacent eucalyptus ESHA east of the subject property could occur from the intrusion of people and pets to the area as well as from noise light dispersal of nonnative plants and introduction of pests and feral species It should be noted that these impacts alreadv occur due to the proximity of other residential development to the habitat areas fhe proposed project includes several design measures that would reduce or eliminate these impacts such as perimeter fencing to separate and deter humans and pets from disturbing the preserved habitat areas and dark sky lighting as well as restrt-ttons on the type of exterior hghting that residents of the project can use to the future Standard requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO) require a Domestic Animal Control Plan a Pest Management V\Ulllasenoi-P fhe Ridge PUD\C1 QA\Rewrc N1ND public comments\drttt response to comments 4 11 10 doe 31 ATTACHMENT NO � Stem 9 - Page 186 -396- Plan and other performance standards for developments adjacent to an ES14A to numnuze impacts Other performance standards include the prohibition of lighting that would impact the ES HA and prohibition of the planting,naturalization and persistence of invasive plant species. Page 36—Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site and surrounding properties are not considered wildlands and are not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Seventy Zone as mapped by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection There is currently no heavy,woody vegetation on the Shea property adjacent to the project site that would constitute a fuel load' and require fuel modification Existing vegetation currently consists of - primarily mustard and other weedy species In addition,the proposed project includes a landsca a area on the eastern sloped perimeter of the site that would be imgated thus providing an"irrigation zone adjacent to the homes In addition.the Citv of Huntington Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed development and did not identify a requirement for fuel modification at the project site Less than significant impacts would occur Page 42—Aesthetics In addition,improvement of an existing undeveloped 30 foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site would provide enhanced public access to an informal unimproved path on the adjacent Shea property from Bolsa Chica Street and would also rem provide public views from the slope edge at the eastern point of the site Page 43—Aesthetics In addition the adjacent slope would be preserved as a significant scenic resource and the project would preserve prevjde fer public views from the project site via the proposed 30-foot wide access path Page 44—Cultural Resources CR-2 If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth moving activities no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 509798 The Counhy Coroner must be notified of the find immediately If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent(MLD) The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend in situ preservation or scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials Page 45—Recreation The project as part of its public benefit is proposing to improve an existing 30 foot wide parcel located immediately north of the project site with a landscaped trail that would enhance provide access from Bolsa Chica Street to an existing informal unimproved path on the adjacent Shea property which ultimately connects to the wetlands C Willasenoffilhe Ridge PUD\CEQA\Recirc MND public comments draft response to comment,4 11 10 doc 3-2 AMR TTACHMENT NO J - -397- Item 9 - Page 187 Page 46—Recreation The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space— Parks(OS-P) which is proposed to be amended to RL(Residential Low Density) However,the site is not developed with a park or recreational facility and is not listed on the City s inventory of parks The site is privately owned and,according to the Community Services Department no such facilities are planned for the project site Therefore, changing the open space designation would not indirectly result in more people utilizing the aforementioned open space areas because they could no longer use the project site In addition,the potential increase in 57 new residents that would be able to utilize the Bnghtwater and Bolsa Chica open space areas is not substantial and would not create significant impacts to those areas as an indirect result of population growth in the vicinity 6 WillasenorEThe Ridge PUD\C> QA\Recirc MND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc C� ;1 ATHc�r-�[vILl� ( [ Item 9 - Page 188 -398- APPENDIX A Comments on Draft MND No 08-016 (Comment Penod 9/10/09—1019109) G`V ll]dsenorJ\The Ridge PUDNCEQA\Recirc MND public comments,draft response to comments 4 11 10 doc �L l ATTACHMENT NO - -399- Item 9 - Page 189 STATE OF CAIIF0RN1A—BUS 4M TRANSPORTATION AND HOi7SING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENECGMCtovernor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION astnct 12 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 Irvine CA 92612-8894 Tel (949)724 2267 IL Fax (949)724 2592 _ �r�I Be au rV efc em1 oc-, o 12009 September 25,2009 Hu-t-i tc-Peach P! it IDlta DLPT Ms Jennifer Villasenor JR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH# 2009091043 2000 Main Street Log# 2350 Huntington Beach CA 92648 SR-1 Subject "The Ridge"22-unit Planned Unit Development Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for "The Ridge" 22 unit Planned Unit Development project. The proposed project involves a request to amend the land use and zoning designations on an existing approximately 5 acre parcel for the subdivision and development of a 22-umt single family planned umt development(PUD)with a 5 776 square foot common open space area The project site is located at the southeast comer of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach - -4 �t The California Department of Transportation, District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time Please continue to keep us informed of tlus project and any future developments which could potentially impact State transportation facilities If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call Zhongping(John)Xu at(949)724 2338 Sincerely 62qow-�-I/C-� CHRISTOPHER HERRE Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review c Terry Roberts Office of Planning and Research Call ans improves mobility across California ATTACHMENT NO 131 Item 9 - Page 190 -400- STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Amoid Schwarzennegger Govemor CAUFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office Z00 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 October 14 2009 =` Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner QGT 15 20�g City of Huntington Beach h,jn,1 gion(;each 2000 Main Street ?,t t o DEPT Huntington Beach CA 92W Re Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 "The Ridge"22-unit Planned Unit Development Dear Ms Villasenor Coastal Commission staff received the above referenced document on September 15 2009 The City is in the process of soliciting comments from interested parties on Mitigated Negative Declaration (MNDYEnvironmental Assessment (EA) No 2008-016 prepared for a land use designation and zone change and residential development of the subject site The subject site is an approximately 5 acre site located at the southeast corner Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach In the City s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP)the site is currently land use designated Open Space-Parks and Recreation (OS PR)and zoned Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay(RA CZ) The MND/EA contemplates changing the land use designation to Residential Low Density—7 units/acre (RL—7)and the zoning to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone (RL—CZ)in order to accommodate a 22 unit planned residential development Thank you for forwarding the document for Coastal Commission staff review Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to comment early in the process Following are our comments As noted in the MND the land use designation and zone change contemplated for the subject site would need to be approved by the Coastal Commission via a Local Coastal Program amendment Development of the site with the 22 unit residential development will require approval of a coastal development permit by the City The subject site is in the appealable area of the coastal zone Commission staff has concerns with the proposed land use designation and zone change as described in further detail below The most sigrficant �CC areas of concern are with the adequacy of the proposed land use designation and zoning to protect 1)the higher priority Open Space Parks and Recreation use over lesser priority residential use 2) identified and potentially present sensitive habitats and species adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject site and 3) archaeological/cultural resources that may be present on site Land Use and Planning The standard of review for an amendment to the certified Land Use Plan is conformity with and adequacy to carry out the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act Section 30222 of the Coastal Act places a higher priority on coastal recreational uses than on private residential C((J �ises In addition Coastal Act Section 30223 requires that upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses be reserved for such uses where feasible Section 30210 of the ATTACHMENT NO - -401- stern 9 - Page 191 Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 The Ridge"22-unit Planned Residential Development Page 2 Coastal Act requires that recreational opportunities be provided for all the people The contemplated land use designation change from the higher priority Open Space—Parks and Recreation to the lower priority Residential Low Density is not consistent with the Coastal Act eC( 3 policies requiring protection and promotion of public recreational opportunities within the l coastal zone CrM{ c In addition it is not clear from the information reviewed but it appears that the contemplated residential development may be a private development with private streets The City's certified Land Use Plan includes the following policy - C247 The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first public road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the general public for vehicular ACC bicycle and pedestrian access General public parking shall be provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance gates and private streets shall be prohibited All public entry controls(e g gates gate/guard houses guards signage etc)and restnct►ons on use by the general public (e g preferential parking districts resident-only parking penods/permds etc) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited The subject site is located between the sea (Bolsa Chica wetlands)and the first public road (Los Patos Avenue) Thus if the subject residential development is contemplated as a private community with private streets that would be inconsistent with the above cited policy of the certified LUP The overall project includes improvement of a 30 foot wide property currently owned by the City with a six foot wide meandering trail and landscaping As this 30 foot wide property is F already in public ownership these improvements will not adequately offset the contemplated - loss of five acres currently designated as Open Space Parks and Recreation The MND/EA also refers to Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 to amend Chapter 210 12— PUD [Planned Unit Development]Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD However the text of the Zoning Text Amendment was not included in the information reviewed Chapter (CC- 210 10 is part of the City s certified LCP implementation Plan and as such changes to it would require approval of an LCP amendment Without having the text to review no comments are given but we may have comments once the text is available for review Biological Resources The MND/EA recognizes the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) located on the adjacent site to the east(known as the Shea or Parkside property) In it s action on the LUP _ amendment to incorporate that site into the City s certified Land Use Plan the Coastal cc( - Commission found that the grove of trees commonly referred to as the Eucalyptus grove ATTACHMENT NO D-7 Item 9 - Page 192 -402- Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 The Ridge 22-unit Planned Residential Development Page 3 constitute ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions the grove provides to a suite of raptors In approving that LUP amendment(LUPA 1-06 Parkside) the Commission required a buffer area to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the ESHA In its action the Commission approved a variable width buffer The minimum buffer width to ensure protection of the ESHA approved by the Commission for the Shea site ranged from 297 to 650 feet from the ESHA The MND/EA states that the subject site property boundary is 140r, feet from the closest point of the ESHA the nearest residential development is 160 feet from C the ESHA and the furthest residential development is 250 feet from the ESHA This raises concerns with regard to whether an appropriate buffer/setback area will be accommodated at the subject site The contemplated project includes The eastern portion of the site adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations requiring approximately 4 200 cubic yards of cut and 10 700 cubic yards of fill Approximately 6 500 cubic yards of fill 1 would be needed This earth movement adjacent to the Shea property raises concerns with regard to protection of the ESHA on the site The MND/EA should also address whether the land use designation/zone change and contemplated residential development would result in allowing development where it would necessitate the need for fuel modification vegetation clearance within the Open Space C�C� Conservation area on the adjacent Shea property site This too raises concerns with regard to protection of the ESHA on that site Development should be set back far enough from the Open Space Conservation area to avoid the need for future vegetation clearance within the ESHA and ESHA buffer The MND/EA finds that given the 23 acres that have been designated as open space for -- raptor foraging habitat on the Shea property and the distance of the proposed residential lots from the ESHA coupled with the topographical separation [the subject property is on a bluff approximately 40 feet above the base of the trees in the ESHA] the impacts to the ESHA are less than significant However even with the preservation of 23 acres of the Shea site as Open Space Conservation area over 26 acres that had been available for raptor foraging will ��� be lost when the residential portion of the Shea project is implemented The area reserved for raptor foraging on the Shea property only mitigates for the development anticipated on that site Any impacts that occur as part of the planned Ridge project need to be addressed in that project without reliance on the Shea project Also the MND/EA does not cite a Biological Assessment upon which the conclusion that impacts to the ESHA will be less than significant is based A Biological Assessment addressing the subject site and surrounding area must be prepared and should include discussion of appropriate setback/buffer areas The Biological Assessment should also consider whether any biological resources exist on the subject site The Biological Assessment should consider impacts of the land use designation change/zone change and related contemplated development will have on in addition to the subject site the eucalyptus grove ESHA on the Shea site the wetlands at the Ca- Shea site the habitat open space on the Brightwater site and on the nearby Bolsa Chica Restoration area It is also not clear how the topographical separation protects the ATTACHMENT NO - -403- Item 9 - Page 193 Mitigated Negative Declarabon/Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 The Ridge 22-unit Planned Residential Development Page 4 eucalyptus ESHA from impacts of the contemplated residential development when the ESHA habitat serves raptors which fly and for whom the topographic separation would not seem to be significant This too should be addressed in the Biological Assessment The Assessment �'C should be prepared prior to decisions on appropriate land use at the site In any case,such a Biological Assessment will be required at the time an LCP amendment is submitted for C 4- Commission review Cultural Resources The subject site is within an area of known archaeological significance The MND/EA states that an archaeological report was prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS) Inc in May 2009 The May 2009 Archaeological Report includes according to the MND/EA discussion of the previous investigations of the archeological site The May 2009 Archaeological Report CCC prepared by SRS should be subject to peer review as well as review by appropriate Native American groups that are likely descendants of Native Americans that previously occupied this area The resulting comments should be considered in the entitlement process The land use designation zoning and any future development of the site should take these comments under consideration and make modifications accordingly The MND/EA in the second mitigation measure of the MND (CR-2) states that if pre-historic human remains are discovered the Most Likely Descendent shall inspect the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items C( (< associated with Native American burials The option of preservation in place should be an ` option available to the Most Likely Descendent in the event prehistoric human remains are encountered Furthermore preservation in place should also be considered if any significant cultural resources are discovered at the site Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed pre-zoning and Mitigated Negative Declaration Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments Sincerely / 1 , V Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst cc Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Ridge MND 10 14 09 my ATTACHMENT NO � J� Item 9 - Page 194 -404- + CITY OF HUNTING°TON BEACH H Iff ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD October 9, 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention Ms Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 08-016 (Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - The Ridge 22-unit Planned Unit Development) Dear Ms Villasenor The full Environmental Board has not yet reviewed this EA Comments by the 3 members assigned reflect very divergent opinions about this Environmental Assessment and the uncertain financial capacity of the developer to perform The Board s ad hoc committee offers the following comments and recommendations for your consideration A) CHANGE IN STATUS FROM RA-CZ TO RL-CZ Hearthside Homes is requesting that the project site currently zoned Residential Agriculture - Costal Zone (RA-CZ) with a General Plan Land Use of designation of Open Space - Parks (OS-P) be amended to Residential Low Density - Coastal Zone (RL-CZ) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density - 7 units/acre (RL-7) They are also requesting a variance for some of the proposed parcels that not meet the minimum standards for RL-7 Additionally, Hearthside is proposing a parking ]" arrangement that is not allowed under Chapter 231 of the HB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance An amendment to the Zoning Text is being proposed to allow this parking design Ordinarily, the Environmental Board would be opposed to all of these changes However, since Hearthside proposes to make this HB s first green residential project (see comment B), the Board sees this as a conditionally adequate mitigation or exchange for some of these variances B) INCLUSION OF GREEN FEATURES IN PROJECT ATTACHMENT NO -405- Item 9 - Page 195 The project already proposes to include the following green features and we suggest • Integration of solar panels into the roofing of the homes • Utilization of permeable pavers for sections of the street and driveways • Energy Star rated homes • Draught-tolerant landscaping • Storm drain system designed to capture low-volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground The ad hoc committee is pleased that Hearthside plans to make this a green residential project It is recommended that green features represented by LEED be mandated as part of the project in exchange for the changes and variances requested Furthermore, this project should be used as an example for future proposals that seek variances, zoning changes, and/or code text amendments To verify that these plans are in fact accomplished with sustainable criteria is essential Otherwise the trade off is but a failed exchange We recommend that the project meets specified criteria under LEED Gold or Platinum and be 5% greater than the State Energy Requirements required by Title 24 We are also concerned that sufficient space be provided in the kitchens to store recyclables and to assure space for trash, recycle, and green waste carts Tandem parking makes this problematic Upon successfully attaining LEED Gold or Platinum status, Hearthside should be recognized for this achievement --� C) FISCAL CONTINGENCIES Given the uncertain fiscal capability of the developer, the City could protect itself and nearby residents from the consequences of developer bankruptcy These issues are currently beyond our scope, but others within the City should be consulted so that we avoid Beach City problems We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing this project Please contact us with any questions or concerns Very truly yours, HB ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD /s/ Bo-b--S wutiv Phi tD Bob Smith, Ph D , Chairman Cc Huntington Beach City Council ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 196 -406- Vlllasenor,Jennifer From Elizabeth Kenneday[kenneday@csulb edul Sent Wednesday September 30 2009 7 56 AM To Villasenor Jennifer Subject. Plans to build an additional 22 houses on open space at Bolsa Ch[ca I wish to comment on these plans very simply Pleas do not allow further deterioration of this important ecological and archaeological site by Hearthside Homes There is very little open land left and the greed of the developers should not be allowed to destroy what little is left There are so many existing homes available in the area that it is criminal to develop this small open parcel that is left Elizabeth Kenneday-Corathers PhD F ,TTACHMENT N0 -407- item 9 - Page 197 Page I of 1 Villasenor,Jennifer From anna fnesen[annafnesen@mac com] Sent Wednesday September 30 200910 27 AM To Villasenor Jennifer Subject Los Patos Parkside I read with dismay that Hearthside wants to do away with the park designation and build their"Bolsa Chica Ridge" project--22 residential units--next to the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and next to the Cogged Stone site It is time to stop the gradual erosion of open space in Huntington Beach Open space in Huntington Beach is an asset as valuable as clean air and clean water, and is associated with the maintenance of both Open space is an important , component of what makes our city a desirable place to live and to visit Open space is what attracted us to live here 22 years ago, and is what keeps us here Anna Friesen 9181 Willhelm Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 10/22/2009 ATTACHMENT NO _LJ15L Stem 9 - Page 198 -408- Page 1 of 1 VeNasenor,Jennder From ed777chloe@aol com Sent Wednesday September 30 2009 1140 AM To VEllasenor Jennder Subject Hearthside Homes Plans A vehement NO on ANY construction by Hearthside Homes NO NO NO NOV Chloe&Ed Mieczkowski 19556 Grandview Circle Huntington Beach 92648 5571 - 10/22/2009 ATTACHMEN r NO -409- Item 9 - Page 199 Page 1 of 1 Villasenor,Jennifer From Chasse Isabelle M[Isabelle Chasse@uhc coml Sent Thursday October 01 2009 7 39 AM To Villasenor Jennifer Subject Cogged Stone Site and budding Hello I am a resident of HB I live on Bolsa Chica St and Los Patos The last thing we need is to have more houses built on that small bit of road that runs from Los Patos down the where the Bnghtwater neighborhood beings There are habitats already there-rabbits and birds and ground squirrels There is C - a view of nature that is gomg to be destroyed to many ways if buildmg is done there Young boys have #} a place to ride their boards and bikes a place they have developed over the years a place that is safe and free healthy activity that you just can't find anywhere else in this neighborhood I can t imagine more noise more cars more pollution Where will the sewage go? Where will trash go? Is there no place that can remain wild? Must we build sunply because there is an open space that C0AS can generate huge amounts of cash and tax revenue but that will be enjoyable for only the few who can afford to live there and no one else? The Brghtwater development isn t even finished yet and homes are not selling as well as was expected Why build more homes when some are sitting empty already? Besides that the Cogged Stone Site is right next to where the building will be and I have no doubts at all that the site extends farther that we �TlS anticipate it does It is a site that is important to the Smithsonian Institute too it s the only place of its - kind on this continent) That should be more precious to Huntington Beach than the revenue that would be generated --- Please consider not allowing building there Once it s done it can never be unbuilt and the ruin will 1; a shame and a blight on what is now natural space that is contributing to the green of our planet Isn t it ttkc V r better for all concerned to keep it that way? ' Respectfully Isabelle M Chasse Sr Underwriting Coordmator Cypress CA 714 226 4829 This e mail including attachments may include confidential and/or proprietary information and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed If the reader of this e mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited If you have received this e mail in error please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e mail immediately 10122/2009 /�TT��, h AEN- N Item 9 - Page 200 -410- .A ideBolsa PO Box 1563 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Phone/Fax 714 840 1575 info@amigosdebolsachica org www.amlg 013a*Morg-------. October 6 2009 OCT 08 2009 F1,11 y - act Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner PLANNING DEP r City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 90048 Subject Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 08 016(The Ridge) Thank you for the opportunity of submitting comments regarding the above DMND We are deeply concerned that the development of a parcel that is within an area that is known for its critical /� biological importance be passed off with a mere negative declaration A We are primarily concerned that the eucalyptus ESHA immediately east of the development is not afforded a sufficient buffer As shown in the developer s Tentative Tract Map the distance from the ESHA to the nearest Ridge property line is 150 feet Based on advise from Coastal Commission technical staff setbacks on the east side of the ESHA on the Shea development were set at a mmmjum of 270 feet The developer of the Ridge project claims that because the residences are on pads that are about 40 feet higher that the base of the ESHA a `topological separation affords added buffer It seems to us that if houses are near eye level with roosting birds (raptors in this case) it would cause greater negative impact on the birds than if the houses were below the bird s Imes of sight Such a critical question can only be answered by a thorough expert review of the developer s claims that would come from a full environmental impact statement In addition,we are astonished that the developer is claiming streets and driveways as credit for open space Open space requirements are intended to afford residents areas'accessible for outdoor living recreation, pedestrian access or landscaping (HB Zoning Code Chapter 302) somelhing that streets and driveways hardly )VK- provide In summary the developer of The Ridge claims mitigation measures to protect an ESHA that can only JAavalidated by a full investigation through an Environmental Impact Statement Thank you for your consideration Sincerely David Carlberg Pres dent ATTACHMENT NO - -411- Item 9 - Page 201 Page 1 of I Vdlasenor,Jennifer From Dzwhytel@msn com Sent Thursday October 01 2009 8 48 AM To Vllasenor Jennifer Subject 22 more homes Re Hearthside I am sure my comment will not count for anything but I am going to leave it anyway 1 am outraged that we are considering carving up more wetland space for Hearthside They canno sell the homes they have already built Meanwhile all the wildlife has to roam our neighborhood looking for space to live in We have squirrels swimming in our pool and digging up our gardens and rats eating our vegetables I meet coyotes on my morning walk►Don t you think the environment has taken enough punishment not to mention the ruination of an extremely important archaeological site Liz Whyte 10,22/2009 ATTACHMENT NO I Item 9 - Page 202 -412- Page 1 of 1 Villasenor,Jennifer From PARS41@aolcom Sent Thursday October 01 2009 6 24 PM To Vllasenor Jennrfer Subject. Bolsa Chica Ridge I am writing to protest the building of another 22 homes or any homes at all on the remaining Bolsa Chica area That this company would choose to build near the Cog Site is an abomination They just never give up 22 homes at or near a sacred site thousands of years old is a travesty The developer's greed must be met M�S with firm resolution to preserve this entire area Merle Moshin 8802 Dorsett Dr Huntington Beach CA 92W 714 536 2017 1 0/2 212 0 0 9 �TTm I E f N O I ` - -413- Item 9 - Page 203 Page 1 of 1 Villasenor,Jennifer From Kama Bramble[kama bramble@gmad com] Sent Friday October 02 2009 9 52 AM To Villasenor Jennifer Subject Bolsa Chica Ridge project Dear Ms Villasenor I am writing as a member of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to request that you deny the Bolsa Chica Ridge project. I do not believe this is an appropriate project for the area as the few houses that will be built will only benefit a few while the greater good of the area will be lost. Is it not better when we have the chance to protect areas not yet developed? There are always places to build homes,but once built then use of that land is lost forever We need the open spaces for its environmental impact as well as the opportunity it offers for our children and wildlife Again,I request that this project be denied Sincerely Kama Bramble Member BCLT 291 Covina Ave Long Beach CA 90803 10/22/2009 ATTACHI'VIEN1 NO Item 9 - Page 204 -414- Drainage Alterations vwll Impact the Shea AP/EPA Wetlands Development of The Ridge"will reduce surface sheet flows of stormwater into the nearby Shea AP/EPA wetlands The attached Exponent drainage study was submitted by Shea as part of the November 2007 CCC Parkside LCPA hearing and shows that a sizable portion of The Ridge is part of the drainage area that drams into the AP/EPA wetlands V x Shea maintained and the CCC concurred that the AP/EPA wetlands are the result of stormwater 1 surface sheet flows rather than groundwater Thus development of`The Ridge will redirect a portion of these sheet flows via infiltration and a storm dram which will cause significant negative impacts to the AP/EPA wetlands Insufficient Setback from Shea Eucalyptus ESHA The EA states that the closest residential lot is 160 feet from the ESHA However the CCC approved Parkside LCPA requires a much greater ESHA setback for the Parkside development A minimum buffer width of 297 to 650 feet shall be established between all residential development or active park use and raptor habitat within the eucalyptus groves The Ridge should be held to the same 297 foot setback standard as Shea Parkside The EA is I flawed m using tree top height relative to pad height as justification for less than significant impact upon the ESHA The EA neglects to mention that the Shea property slopes gently down,A and from the eastern edge of The Ridge down to the base of the eucalyptus ESHA Thus while the tree top heights may only be a few feet taller than the pad heights because of the slope of the terrain raptors perching or nesting well below tree-top height will still have an unimpeded view of The Ridge and be exposed to associated noise lighting and other visual impacts not considered by the EA This will result in significant negative impacts to raptor usage of the i eucalyptus ESHA EIR Required C7iven the significant negative impacts to the wetlands and ESHA of the adjacent Shea property an EIR should be required for The Ridge and the project should be redesigned to mitigate these impacts to less than significant Sincerely Xuk .D0 KZV Mark D Bixb} 17451 Hillgate I n Huntington Beach CA 92649 4707 714 625-0876 mark@bixby org Attachments Exponent drainage study 6TT6CHM NT No J - -415- Item 9 - Page 205 Al --rwnEw-T --o r vim (DmCWT Exponent Failure 3nallsis Associates Technical Memorandum Water Availability Estimates for the EPA Area at the Shea Homes Property Prepared for Mr Ron Metzler Shea Homes 603 South Valencia Avenue Brea,CA 92823 Prepared by Doug Hamilton Exponent ) �® 320 Goddard Suite 200 Irvine CA 92618 y i� d Z October,) 2007AT�o ©Exponent,Inc Doc\o \-B1024,0O6 A OT0 0907 TTCC 1 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 206 -416- Technical memorandum October 5 2D07 Executive Summary - The analysis presented herein is a vtater balance created to calculate the maximum amount of water that is available on an annual basis to an approximately 8 acre area at the northwest corner of the Shea Homes property formerly delineated by the EPA as a wetland The objective of this water balance is to use available data(e o rainfall records-soils and Iand use information and water demand of wetland plants)foribe 8 acre area to create an accounting system that tracks the rainfall infiltration losses and contributing runoff to quantify the maximum amount of water that is available to wetland plants If the long term maximum amount of available water based on rainfall infiltration losses and runoff is less than the amount of vv ater necessary for vv etland plants to survive then the area does not have sufficient water to support a vv etland Wre complex analyses that consider factors such as estimates for evaporation(over ponded locations) and transpiration(release of v,ater vapor from vegetation) are excluded This makes the vv ater availability calculations presented in this report conservative over estimates of the actual amount of vv ater available for assessment of wetland viability Financial Accounting Analogy to Hydrologic Water Balance The hydrologic water balance presented in this memorandum can be compared to a financial accounting system similar to a standard checking account Income or deposits to an account are similar to the inflow of rain and runoff over a watershed area Expeiises or vvithdravvals from an account ai a similar to the infilti ation losses(absorption of vv ater by soil)and ocher vv atershed losses experienced on the natural landscape When one balances an account determining the difference between deposits and withdrawals the total remaining in the account is analogous to the maxvnuin water availability in the water-,lied Periods of high income and/or love expenses correspond to high savings vdiereas periods of low income and/or Ivah expenses correspond to lower savings Similarly periods of high amount of rainfall generally correspond to periods when the vv ater availability is greatest ri a-,N-tershed and periods of low rainfall corespond to periods vi hen the v,,ater av aiI,biIity is Iovv ei I o be fiscally censer\aIr e one vv o.ild vv ant to N. 2..4'JCS AC C ' ATTACHMENT NO -417- item 9 - Page 207 Technical Memorandum October 5 2W7 keep expenses both realistic and proportional to one s income in order to maximize one s savings As such in this eater balance conservatively low infiltration loss rates are selected based on published values and losses are taken to be proportional to the rainfall totals recorded to estimate the maximum possible eater availability Summary of Results of Water Balance The results from all drainage area conditions indicate that while there are occasional)ears when the water availability estimates exceed the threshold Nalue of 24 6 Inches(the minimum water demand for wetland plants) in the majority of years this is not the case The percentage of }ears when the tN ater availability estimates are less than 24 6 inches ranges from a low of 72 3 percent to a high of 91 )percent for the various drainage area conditions Table 1 provides a summary of the results Table 1 Summary of water availability estimates Years with Available Years with Maximum Minimum Median Water Greater Than Available Water Water Water Watershed Water or Equal to 24 6 Less Than 24 6 Available Available for this for this Condition Availability inches inches Watershed Watershed Condition Condition in f I in in 1970 1385 14 9% 85 1% 3509 410 1980 1423 17 0%0 83 0% 3602 4 20 1980a 1880 27 7% 72 3% 1` 4750 556 1997 1160 8 5% 91 5% { 2937 343 2005 1407 17 0% 83 0% f 3562 416 N�"2 7'3 AC 3 7-C 2 , ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 208 -418- Technical Memorandum October 5,2007 Water Availability Estimates for the EPA Area at the Shea Homes Property Introduction Exponent,A as requested to revisit the October 2006 studies of the annual availability of water to potential pond ing areas located at the Shea Homes property The objectiv es of the current w ork include using daily precipitation data for a 47 }ear period of record as opposed to a 29 year subset,evaluating the relevancy of incorporating evapotranspiration losses in the calculation of water availability considering the 8 acre EPA area paired with four different corresponding contributing watershed areas and analyzing one scenario with the 8 acre EPA area paired w ith w atershed areas with different loss rates Ultimately the goal of this work is to determine the median water availability estimates at the 8 acre potential ponding area for each of the five drainage area scenarios Previous Work In October 2006 Exponent presented annual A ater availability estimates for three conditions at the Shea Homes site WP Post-2005i W`P Pre 200:)' and CP Pre 2005 Each condition had a unique pairing of direct and contributing watershed areas summarized in Table 2 A schematic illustrating the ty pes of areas and,,alues included in the annual water availability estimates is presented in Figure I i Water Availability Estimate for WP Post 200--) Area Exponent Technical Niemo-andum D Hamilton October 3I 2006 ' Water ANaTIabihty Ettimate for WP Pre 200:)Area Exponent Tecl nical'vlcmorandum D Hamilton October 31 2006 Water Availability Estimate for CP Pre 2005 Area Exponent Technical Memorandum D Hamilton October-l 2006 z D AJ 0 7 C, ATTACHMENT NO - -419- Stein 9 - Wage 209 Techn►cal Memorandum/-- October 5 2007P, Table 2 Summary of direct and contribubog watershed areas Contnbubng Condition Direct Area Watershed Area Acres acres WP Post 2005 097 157 WP Pre 2D05 097 267 CP Pre•2005 100 323 Rainfsll Contribubng �maFali Area Runoff Direct Area 4 Legend Corn?vnn,Area D Du=t aea(e g WP Pre 0 D'AT Post_0GD CP Prt 00D) Figure 1 Schematic of areas and input included in October 2006 Exponent water availability estimates Hourly rainfall data from the Long Beach Daugherty Gave from 1977 to 2003(29 year period of record)and a loss rate of 0 2 inches/hour(conservati,ely selected for Soil Group D) published in the Orange County H)drology'Manual«ere used to calculate the water a.atlability for tl ese conditions Figure 2 shows me annual rainfall depths recorded at the Daugherty Gage 4 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 210 -420- Technical Memorandum Octobers 2007 35 i I 3Q 0 25 u c t 20 c ro m 15 E 0 m 10 5 : 0 (1 All Water Year{July 1 June 30) Figure 2 Total annual rainfall at Long Beach Daugherty Gage The total amount of«ater a,%ailable to the direct area tN as determined by adding the volume of rainfall that fell on the direct area to the volume of«aier that floe ed as runoff from the contributing watershed area to the direct area The annual Mailable v ater H as calculated using the growing season definition of a water year beginning July I of the previous year and ending June 30 of the designated,ear For example the 2005 v ater)ear begins Jul) 1 2004 and ends June 30 200--) A summary of the results of this study can be found in Table 3 These results illustrated the variability to water availabil ty based on the measurements for the direct and contributing Natershed areas O-,erall the median anrival aN ailable water esoma es ranged from I I D3 inches to 20 81 niches Importantly the a-%ei age rainfall loss ircurred m ei the period of record Naas approximately 87 percent This loss,,a-ied fiom about 80 percent to about 97 percent for 28 out of 29)ears The c\ception NNas 63 9 peace it i i 1978 The spread of d e loss is fairly narrow and the mean(86 8 percent)and median (97 2 percent)are v ery close togeihLr Because r, C a 2T k7 C9.7 r-C ATTACHMENT NO -421- Item 9 - Page 211 Technical Memorandum October b 2007 the vanability across years is very small the use of a single average value is appropriate This observation was apphed to the current analysis assuming that for most ears the average rainfall loss values Aould be close to 87 percent Table 3 Summary of results from October 2006 Exponent Water Availability Estimates Condition Median Maximum Year of Minimum Year of Maximum Minimum In in in .rz WP Post 2005 1153 4481 1978 189 2W2 WP Pre 2005 1325 5640 1978 212 2002 CP Pre 2005 2081 112.38 1978 322 2002 Using the v etland plant water needs in the Glenn Lukos Associates October 2006 memorandums to Coastal Commission staff the minimum available«ater required of wetland vegetation was 24 6 inches per}ear based on the annual NN etland plant species with the lowest water demands Perennial wetland specie, require about twice as much water or more per year These results indicated that wetland species u ould not be supported based on the surface t,,ater availability estimates in the majority of)ears Current Analysis As in the October 2006 analysis the total amount of A ater available to the potential wetland area(analogous to the direct area in the prev ous study)is calculated by adding the volume of rainfall over the potential ponding area to the N olunie of eater that flow s as runoff from the contributing«ateished area to the potential pond mg area The important differences between the previous and current studies relate to the precipitation and loss data available and the defined potential ponding area and contnbutmg Naatershed areas ' hater Balance Budget foi VVP and CP and EN aluation of Vegetation in W''i and AP using Prevalence Index Glen Lukos Associz es memorandum to Dr J Dixon and N4 Vaualui T Boniki up October 31 2006 6 ATTA HMEN T N0 1 (0l Item 9 - Page 212 -422- Technical Memorandum Octobers 2007 Precipitation Data In the current analysis a key objectin a is to expand the climatic penod of record considered to order to obtain a broader understanding of the conditions at the potential ponding site over a longer time period In doing so,daily rainfall data from the Orange County Los Alamitos Gage record for 19D to 2005 is used Figure 3 shows the annual rainfall depths recorded at the Los Alamitos Gage - I} 25 00 I 20 00 m —er 15 00 — L C m A 10 0D g m LC l Soo f 0 DO Wateffear(July 1 June 30) Figure 3 Total annual rainfall at Orange County Los Alamitos Gage Comparing the time period when the Long Beach(hourly summed to daily)and Orange County P P J Cl Y Y) g n (daily)precipitation gage records overlap the recorded depths at the Long Beach gage are generally slightly higher than those at the Orange County gage The Long Beach gage recorded depth is less than that recorded at the Orange County gage for only four of the?ears when the gage records overlap in general ho A ever the magnitudes of the recorded values are similar Figure 4 presents a comparison of the annual precipitation totals at each of the gages 1CZ2 �0.A , 31 7 ATTACHMENT NO -423- Item 9 - Page 213 Technical AAemorandum October 5,2007 3500 E o Orange County Gage 1 ®Long Beach Gage 30 DO 25 00 t _ I a 20 00 m O v 15 DO 0 m 1 10 DO 500 0 00 4 Water Year(July 1 June 30y —1 Figure 4 Companson of recorded precipitation depths at Long Beach Daugherty and Orange County Los Alamitos gages Infiltration tosses To account for infiltration losses it%Nas not possible to directly incorporate the hourly loss rate published in the Orange County H}drolo_-y Manual since the available data from the Los Alamitos Gave is recorded daily Therefore the results from the previous work with hourly rainfall data from Long Beach Nkere consulted The calculations from the October 2006 study indicate that o,,er the 29 )ear pexiod of record approximately 87 percent of rainfall is lost as infiltration Since the climatic conditions at bottz gages are not decidedly different,as evidenced b} the similarity in the magnitudes of the recorded precipitation values and the geographic proximity of the gages it is expected that the intensities of the storm eN ents Mould generally be similar at Doth locales The intensity of a oven stone e-veiit coninbutes to the amount of infiltration Iosses To maintain consistencv«ith the Long Beach«ork and to objecti%ely apply Iosses to *4 v Taut ass.a„DOD C g ATTACHMENT NO (,o5 item 9 - Page 214 -424- Technical Memorandum October 5,2007 the daily data,an 87 percent average rainfall loss was applied to calculate the excess water available for runoff:from all of the contributing watershed areas for the 1970 1980 1997 and 200D drainage area conditions The 1980 drainage area condition is of particular interest because the extent of potential wetlands were based on the 1980 topography in conjunction with%o aerial photographs from March 1982 analyzed by Thomas Bilhom' An alternate evaluation of the runoff conditions is considered for the 1980 drainage areas and is referred to as the 1980a scenario In this case because of the possibility that runoff from the 22 acre Cabo del Mar area could have been higher due to the modifications in soil conditions resulting from construction occurring at the site two different loss rates are applied to the contributing watershed areas An 87 percent average loss based on a 0 2 inch/hour loss rate is applied to the tributary area and a 69 percent average loss is applied to the Cabo del Mardi-,ersion This new loss rate is determined by a conservatively assuming a 0 1 inch/hour loss rate for stone events recorded at the Long Beach precipitation gage (This assumes a loss rate that is�0 percent Iow er than estimated for Soil Group D in the Orange County Hv drology N4anual) Ov er the period of record at the Long Beach Rage the average loss is approximately 69 percent. Potential Evaporation It should be noted that incorporating potential evapotranspiration losses in this w ater balance was also considered however it was not included in this analysis Evapotranspiration is a process by which w ater(in liquid or solid phase)stored on the land surface—in open bodies of water plant leaN es exposed soil etc is coin erted to m ater vapor It is a complicated value to estimate dependent on many factors including wind vapor pressure relative humidity solar radiation air temperature and w ater availabihty Thus it is difficult to accurately account for and incorporate such losses in a simple water balance model with readily available data In anv ' Agricultural Area Del meation Balsa Chica Orange County California Prepared for the Signal Bolsa Corporation T W Billion) I987 N.-224QTA 003) C9 9 ATTACHMENT NO -425- Item 9 - Page 215 Technical Meinorandutn October 5 2007 case including evapotranspiration losses would serve to further reduce the water available to the potential pondmg area. Therefore the w ater availability estimates presented here are conservative estimates of the annual maximum water availability Analysts Once the annual water availability estimates were calculated for each drainage area scenario the median w ater availability w as determined The median value corresponds to the 50t'percentile of water availability estimates At the median of a population of values one half ofthe values are greater than the median value and the second half of the values are less than the median Wetland delineation authorities including the California Coastal Commission have stated that any«etland criterion must be exhibited in an area in the majority of years For the particular criterion ofwater aN ailability the test is water a,,ailability of 24 6 inches or more in a majority of years for the most drought tolerant annual wetland indicator species with an indicator status of Facultative(FAQ or«etter In this study this criterion is evaluated with the median water availability defined to be the value such that half of the years considered a ould have a water availability estimate greater than the median and half of the}ears considered would have a water availability estimate less than the median If the median value is greater than 24 6 inches more than half of the years would have a water availability of 24 6 inches or more conversely if the median is less than 24 6 inches less than half of the years would have a water availability of 24 6 inches or more Thus the median w ater availability measures whether fa-,orable conditions v.ould exist for the most drought tolerant w etland indicator species to be sustained in a majority of years To meet the threshold water aN ailability value required for wetland vegetation to grow in a majority of)ears the median eater availability must be greater than 24 6 inches Water Availability Estimates In this analysts fig e different drainage scenarios ai e considered Foui of the scenarios(for 1970 I980 1997 and 200D)are evaluated based on drainage aiea maps prepared b} Hunsaker 1'2 433tA T9 a"7-'C1 10 ATTACHMENT T NO Item 9 - Page 216 -426- Technical Memorandum October 5,2DD7 and Associates for the Shea Homes property delineating-various drainages at the site based on land use conditions from those years In these scenarios an 87 percent average rainfall loss is applied to all of the contributing drainage areas A fifth scenario labeled as 1980a,assumes different average ramfall losses for two different soil conditions at the tributary and off site drainage areas,as previously described In all five scenarios,an 8-acre potential ponding area coupled with different contributing watershed areas are studied The drainage area maps are shown as Figures 5 through 9 Using the areas shown on these plans and a nominal 8 acre potential ponding area,the watershed area contributing runoff to the potential ponding area for each map is calculated Also included in the calculations,but not shown on the maps of the contributing watershed areas for 1970, 1980 1997 and 200� are the temporary contributions of runoff diverted from the Harbor Bluffs alone(-i acres)and the Harbor Bluffs plus Cabo del Mar (22 acres)off site areas These temporary diversions w ere 5 acres under the 1970 drainage area condition and 22 acres under the 1980 drainage area condition The latter scenario is investigated as 1980a A general schematic illustrating the relationships among the areas used in the calculation of the water availability esthnates is shown in Figure 10 Additionally for each of the five scenarios an estimated tributary watershed area«as calculated that would generate a median tN ater a%ailability of 24 6 inches of rainfall based on the total areas determined from the Hunsaker and Associates drainage area maps A summary of the areas used for each scenario is shoii n in Table 4 Table 4 Area summaries for four scenarios evaluated using Les Alamitos Gage data Contributing Watershed Areas Condition Total Area Tnbutary Area OffSite Area Direct Area Acres Acres acres acres 1970 3877 2577 500 Boo 1980 4123 11 23 2200 800 1997 2374 1574 000 800 2005 4017 32 17 000 Boo 43 Z24W5.A0TJ T Gt 11 (_CQ ATTACHMENT NO C(Jl -427- Item 9 - Page 217 M w wx ly Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 N C0 u 10 3J 77 i i �2 I LEGEND w� c�uuwu M _ j onuua 7+�w wv voa m�ato wtt�ww Figure 5 1970 Hunsaker and Associates drainage area map Total drainage area 33 77 acres plus 5 acre diversion from north(not illustrated) = 38 77 acres z 0 --.7 NB10224 DDDAOTD WOO T7C1 V ` 12 m� V Technical Memorandum October 6 2007 a � i II � / I 4EOEND i 1 B D"Mot twipal i Q n tau�(n r tll J w �11�t ,t a CMAMWo r"tau .. "AOt•H77T♦to11 ! tY Figure 6 1980 Hunsaher and Associates drainage area rnap Total drainage area 19 23 acres plus 22 acre diversion from north (not illustrated)=41 23 acres NO I Q44 000 AOT0 0907 TTC 1 N 13 a Po- fD '0 s� Technical Memorandum N October 3 2007 lwl 1 W � �I 8» wa of 6 r n z non►+s�_ 0 Figure 7 1980a Hunsaker and Associates drainage area map Black line delineates total drainage area Total drainage area 19 23 acres plus 22-acre diversion from north (Illustrated)=4123 acres InfiWatlon loss of 87%applied to 11 23 acre tributary area and 69%applied to 22 acre off-site tributary area N610224 DOG AM DWY T7CI 1 } W"Aw IF M7 Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 1 z e W �410 a � e I njjQjHD V e woos oeun.ar 10 ru uu 1 a> Q 11 M .�, more�oll4 wM �— Figure 8 1997 Hunsaker and Associates drainage area map Total drainage area 23 74 acres cs 0, sy F c� N Po- fD Wu Technical Memorandum tD October 5,2007 N N N —^) -. r I tL.a_, I � t � } F O 1 1 I t t ✓ 1 t t l a it1 I 11t t./ I II � I � N ` I LEGEND ouwac wuHuui f 10 u64I us) C r C 7 ("') 1 l'i 11 �� GIWIAY6 IVfA IW IOOI TMC17 lull�lf4b M11 Figure 9 2005 Hunsaker and Associates drainage area map Drainage area 40 17 acres z Q N010274000AOTO0907TTCt 16 Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 Rainfall . of-sde Areas) Runoff Rainfall Area Tributary Area Rainfall Runoff i i i Runoff Runoff Poteiihat Wetland Legend Off srtc a.-aMaec arras)(e g temporary runoff from Harbor BUM and/or Cabo del Mar) PotentW wetland arcs D Tnb at umry watershed area contnbir g to potanual wcdand area Q Total&wna_e arez combined contnbut)on from the ® mbutary watersbed,the potc ma3 wetland area,and off site arca(s) Figure 10 Schematic of areas and input included in September 2007 Exponent water availability estimates Hs czz oD,F a^3 t—ct 17 11 lJ Oil 1" l� H��Ei�T NO - -433- Item 9 - Page 223 Technical Memoranduriy October 5,2DDf 1970 The 1970 drainage area scenario has a total area of 38 77 acres of which 25 77 acres are from The tributary drainage area, 3 acres are temporarily diverted from the Harbor Bluffs development,and 8 acres are designated as the potential ponding area Figure 1 I presents the annual water availability estimates for the 1970 scenario The median water availability is 13 86 inches The annual water availability ranges from a high of 35 09 inches in 2005 to a low of 4 10 inches in 1961 The water availability in 1970 is 9 66 inches below the median for the period of record and less than the minimum 24 6 inches required for wetland vegetation Of the 47 years analyzed,83 1 percent of years have a water availability estimate less than or equal to — 24 6 inches Only seven years of the period of record have a water availability estimate greater than 24 6 inches of available water These results indicate that wetland vegetation would not be sustained in most years under tlus scenario However a 2 81 acre potential pondmg area,Nvith a 33 96 acre drainage area,v.ould have a median water availability of 24 6 inches 40 DO Median- 13 86 inches 35 DD Ubimnd Rare VftW RetimWora 24 a muea 3D DO u2a D0 .----- —^-- — _'---- c 66 in 20 DO 0 � 15 D0 1000 5 DD 0 DI 1959 9�4 1939 19 4 1979 1994 12189 1-94 1-9 2004 WaterYear(Jutyi June30) Figure 11 1970 Drainage Areas water availability estimates for potential ponding area by water year N310224 J h J D3 T T"W 18 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 224 -434- Technical Memorandum October 5,2DD7 1980 The 1980 drainage area scenario has a total area of 4123 acres of which 1123 acres are from the tributary drainage area,22 acres are temporarily diverted from the Harbor Bluffs and Cabo del Mar developments and 8 acres are designated as the potential ponding area. Figure 12 presents the annual water availability estimates for the 1980 scenario The median water availability is 14233 inches The annual m ater availability ranges Emma high of 36 02 inches in 2005 to a low of 4 20 inches m 1961 The water availability in 1980 is 25 21 inches -greater than the median for the period of record and greater than the mnumum 24 6 inches required of wetland vegetation Of the 47 years analyzed,83 percent of years have a water availability estimate less than or equal to 24 6 inches Only eight years of the period of record have a water availability estimate greater than 24 6 inches of available water These results indicate that wetland vegetation could not be sustained in most years under this scenario Howe\er a 2 99 acre potential ponding area,with a 38 24 acre drainage area would have a median water availability of 24 6 inches 1 4D 07 Median 14 23Inches s DD Nltlena Para Wit®Repur rtnnt 33DO Ksewhrs m 2521 n 2 DJ _.--- — ———— -- w 23 00 e e a' 1 D DD D7 0W 13'9 t954 1999 1 74 Im 1984 1929 1994 1939 2TA W ter Year(July 1 June 3O) Figure 12 1980 Drainage Areas water availability estimates for potential ponding area by water year 113,0224 D33A 703a 7 FC 19 ATTACHMENT NO _ -435- Item 9 - Page 225 RP Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 1980a The 1980a drainage area scenario has a total area of 4123 acres,of which 1 l 23 acres are from the tributary drainage area,22 acres are temporarily diverted from the Harbor Bluffs and Cabo del Mar developments and 8 acres are designated as the potential pondmg area As previously described,an 87 percent loss rate is applied to the tnbutary drainage area and a 69 percent loss rate is applied to the temporary diversion Figure 13 presents the annual water availability estimates for the 1980a scenario The median water availability is I8 80 inches The annual water availability ranges from a high of 47 60 inches in 200D to a low of>>6 inches in 1961 The water availability in I980 is 33 31 inches greater than the median for the period of record and greater than the minimum 24 6 inches required of wetland vegetation Of the 47 years analyzed 72 3 percent of years have a water availability estimate less than or equal to 24 6 inches Only 13 years of the penod of record have a water availability estunate greater than 24 6 inches of available water These results indicate that wetland%egetation would not be sustained in most years under this scenario However a o 2 acre potential ponding area with a 36 03-acre drainage area,Mould have a median water availability of 24 6 inches 50 00 M 01 a. e5.00 1R80 irxrtes Nkabv RrltM�s wms�-/ a0� 35 W 33 31 in 3000 i 25 03 3 n 2000 a 15 oD 000 500 0 3D 13.a 1954 19S9 is 4 1579 1954 1999 1 94 1999 2004 W ter Y (July 1 J 3D) Figure 13 1980a Drainage Areas water availability estimates for potential ponding area by water year N51=400•-A 00307—C1 ?" 11 AT 1rUMP TENT NO Item 9 - Page 226 -436- Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 1997 The 1997 drainage area scenario has a total area of 23 74 acres of,,vhich 15 74 acres are from the tributary watershed area(no diversion)and 8 acres are designated as the potential pondmg area Figure 14 presents the annual N-,ater availability estimates for the 1997 scenario The inZedian water availability is 11 60 inches The annual water availability ranges from a high of 29 37 inches in 2005 to a low of 3 43 inches in 1961 The water availability in 1997 is 13.31 RP inches less than the median for the penod of record and less than the minimum 24 6 inches required of A etland vegetation Of the 47 years analyzed 91 5 percent of years have a water 10 ar ailability estimate Iess than or equal to 24 6 inches Only four years of the period of record have a water availability estimate greater than 24 6 inches of available water These results indicate that wetland vegetation`Mould not be sustained inmost years under this scenario However a 1 72 acre potential ponding area,iN ith a 22 02 acre drainage area,would have a median viater availability of 24 6 inches s D3 Mrdian 11 60 inches 3]DD W00AW PMa WaW Requrormu 24 6 Chim 13 31 in 2 DO --- ——— -- ———— .�� C 20 DO w is DD 1 O DO D DO 13a3 1954 19-9 19 4 1979 19S4 999 1 34 1 9 =4 ' fWeter Year ifuyl Juoe 3D} Figure 14 1997 Drainage Areas water availability estimates for potential ponding area by water year A31C724 MSAC 37-C 21 ATTACHMENT No -437- Item 9 - Page 227 Technical Memomridum October 5,2007 2005 The 200>drainage area scenario has a total area of 4017 acres of%hick 32 17 acres are from the tributary drainage area(no diversion)and 8 acres are designated as the potential ponding area. Figure 15 presents the annual water availability estimates for the 200.�,scenario The median water Mailability is 14 07 inches The annual water availability ranges from a high of 35 62 inches in 200o to a low of 416 inches in 1961 The water availability in 2005 is 35 62 inches greater than the median for the period of record and greater than the minimum 24 6 inches required of wetland vegetation Of the 47 years analyzed,83 percent of years have a water availability estimate less than or equal to 24 6 inches Only eight years of the period of record ha,.e a water availability estimate greater than 24 6 inches of available water These results indicate that wetland vegetation w ould not be sustained in most years under this scenario Howe,,er a 2 91 acre potential pondmg area,with a 37 26 acre drainage area,would have a median water availability of 24 6 inches 40 DO � Madnn- 14 07 inCims 35 62 I 3500 W.=,d Nn VNe.r Requrertern 3300 245MC m 0 u 25D0 20 00 m 15 00 I 0WO SW 0 00 19Z9 1904 19.9 974 1979 1954 1969 1994 1909 2004 W ate r Ys r(July f June 30) Figure 15 2005 Drainage Areas water availability estimates for potential ponding area by water year ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 228 -438- Technical Memorandum October 5 2007 Conclusions The results from all drainage area conditions indicate that while there are occasional years when the water availability estimates exceed the threshold value of 24 6 inches,in the majority of )ears this is not the case Table.�,provides a summary of the water availability estimates The percentage of years when the water availability estimates are less than 24 6 inches ranges from a low of 72 3 percent to a high of 91 5 percent for the various drainage area conditions Table 5 Summary of water availability estimates Years with Available Years with Maximum Minimum Median Water Greater Than Available Wate Water Water Watershed Water or Equal to 24 6 Less Than 24 6 Available Available Condition Availability inches Inches for this for this Watershed Watershed Condition Condition in in In 1970 13 86 14 9% 85 1% 3509 410 1980 1423 17 0% 83 0% 3602 420 1980a 1880 27 7% 72 3% 4760 556 1997 1160 8 5% 91 5% 2937 343 2005 1407 17 0% 83 0% I 3562 416 Evaluating the potential for additional runoff generated by the Harbor Bluffs and Cabo del Mar diversions illustrates how the water availability estimates increase with a decrease m estimated infiltration As a result,a maximum of 5 2 acres of annual wetland vegetation might hypothetically be supported with a 36 03 acre tributary area The results observed using the Orange County Los Alamitos precipitation gage data and the drainage areas from 1970 1980 1980a 1997 and 2005 are consistent with the results observed using the Long Beach Daugherty precipitation gage and the areas detennined for the WP Pre 200.) WP Post-2005 and CP Pre-2005 N3=4 OX AD 0 9J7 rC 2� iAT TACHMENT NO I -439- Item 9 - Page 229 Gary Trudeau 5096 Tortuga Drive#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 garytzone com@yahoo com Tel 714 840 3469 October 2,2009 Comments on the MIND for"The Ridge" The"Meandering Trail' like the City's opening of the easement that preceded it appears to follow the "Bridge to Nowhere" school of civic planning i e open a thoroughfare to an uncertain destination and then ignore the results The "Meandering Trail' improvement will no doubt only U� add to the blight the current dirt path has visited upon the community and the environment Effects on the environment Before the current dirt path that resulted from the city's easement,this field and the eucalyptus grove was home to red tailed hawks hummmg birds heron possum,owls and other wildlife All have fled,the easement has effectively sterilized tlus last scrap of mesa habitat A short walk would show it's devastating effects what was once a recovering natural mesa habitat has been transformed into an urban vacant lot crisscrossed by dusty paths littered with beer bottles,dog -- droppings, drug paraphernalia,condoms and broken glass If someone wants access to nature they will not use this path as it only provides access to what is now a unsightly vacant lot Access to the Bolsa Chica wetlands is already provided by the entrance a hundred yards away at the end of Bolsa Chic,a Avenue and at Graham as well as t ice" Glenroy Drive The current pathway simply serves as • A minor shortcut for those wishing to walk from the south end of Graham to the west end of Warner • A dirt track for motorbikes and motor skateboards • A place to walk dogs without having to cleanup after them • An unlit unpatroled and unsupervised hang out for local youths and the homeless at night Ironic that in lieu of any real planning an easement that should have provided access to a natural habitat should be the instrument of it's destruction Effects on the community Before the easement the area was host to the occasional bird watcher or nature lover Since the easement has wiped all traces of nature the bird watchers have been replaced by motorbikes and dog walkers during the day and at night local youths looking for a dark place to party and the occasional homeless person This new group of visitors are considerably more noisy than the birdwatchers The dirt path is just a few vards away from the bedroom windows of over a dozen � �� homes Unlike a park which is patrolled and has restrictions on late night use people can use this pathway at any hour talking singing or yelling freely and they do Residents have learned that they must keep shut their windows shut which is probably a good thing since lone figures can been seen peering into the bedroom windows at night from time to time AT`C,ACHIMENT NO Item 9 - Page 230 -440- Gory Trudeau 5096 Tortuga Drive#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 gory tzone com@yahoo com Tel 714 840 3469 Effects on the Ridge's bottom line There will be a cost to keep these areas clean and well maintained When prospective homeowners look out through second floor windows or walk around the property they will I probably not miss the litter strewn vacant lot that is adjacent They may even be treated to a RZ) motorbike ripping up the Meandering Trail"tastefully landscaped and decorated with dozens of dog droppings and beer bottles The valuations of the Ridges'homes will be affected by what lies outside its walls Solution Rather than building upon an already bad idea by upgrading the dirt path easement close it down Police won't be continually called out as they are now resulting in motorcycle police —riding along the trail or noisy police helicopters hovering overhead at night The Ridge could benefit from having a quiet Bolsa Cluca Mesa meadow,a small sanctuary for wildlife in it s backyard or it can struggle to maintain what has already proven to be a blight on the community ATTACHMENT NO 170 -441- Item 9 - Page 231 Page 1 of 2 Villasenor, Jennifer From JonV3@aol com Sent Friday October 09 2009 11 13 AM To Villasenor Jennifer Subject Comments on The Ridge Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration no 08 016 October 9 2009 Jennifer Villasenor Department of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re Mitigated Negative Declaration No 98 016 The Ridge Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above MNegDec for the proposed Ridge development This project must be evaluated by a full EIR rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration There are several VA 0> significant issues that need further evaluation including Land Use and Planning Recreation Biology Cultural Resources Air Quality Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas emissions and Climate Change Furthermore there is no public benefit to changing the land use designation of this property 1 Land Use and Planning The project conflicts with current land use planning including the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan which designate the site as Open Space Park The General Plan takes precedence over the zoning designation The zoning designation must be changed to be consistent with the General Plan and CLOP not the other way around This open space is very significant because it is adjacent to and contiguous with the Bolsa Chica ecosystem The Bolsa Chica land use designations have been through many political and legal V ` 1 battles the open space/park designation was hard fought and the proposed loss of this open space is intolerable The Bolsa Chica open space including the parcels known as Shea/Parkside contains many areas of ESHA and this open space is significant for its value as raptor foraging habitat The EIR should examine in detail the requirements of raptor foraging habitat and the loss of this area for raptors utilizing Bolsa Chica and mitigation required 2 Recreation This open space is designated as park in the General Plan available for passive recreation such as hiking and nature watching Huntington Beach has a deficiency of park space The EIR should examine the impacts of 0 j H_ losing even more park space including the cumulative loss of parks in Huntington Beach and how this loss will V be mitigated This is a significant impact that needs evaluation in a full EIR 3 Aesthetics The building of 22 houses on this ecological open space will dramatically change the aesthetics of the area from one of natural open space to one of houses a significant change that will degrade the visual qualities of the area This is a significant change and should be evaluated from the perspective of people visiting the VAQ-t ecological open space of the preserved areas of Bolsa Chica under public ownership The site is part of the scenic vista of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem and building houses on it is a significant impact 4 Air Quality This project will significantly increase air emissions from gas appliances fireplaces energy use and automobile traffic from the 22 houses significantly more so than its use as an open space passive park The VA EIR should examine these significant impacts and mitigate them 4/8/2010 ATTACHMENT NO E ' Item 9 - Page 232 -442- Page 2 of 2 5 Population and Housing Budding houses on land designated open space in the General Plan will cause a significant impact on the population in this area from one of open space with no houses to one totally occupied by houses and — permanent residents This permanent impact and loss of open space requires mitigation 6 Biological Resources This property is part of the Bolsa Ch►ca ecosystem which is a hotspot of regional and national importance The loss of this part of the ecosystem especially its impacts on raptor foraging areas and proximity to the ESHA s of �N Bolsa Chica and the Shea/Parkside property need further evaluation and mitigation This is a significant impact and requires mitigation proposals 7 Cultural Resources This property is adjacent to the significant cultural resource areas ORA-83 ORA 85 and ORA-86 where collections of ancient human remains have been discovered often after development has commenced ORA- 83 has been accepted for the National Register of Historic Places and is known as the cogstone site with only `f Q A a couple of places in the world where these have been found It is likely that the Ridge site contains the same V mil," cultural resource value In addition full disclosure of the archeological findings of ORA 83 and ORA 85 are due by February 10 2010 The Ridge EIR should contain a report of these findings in a full EIR 8 Greenhouse Gasses Climate Change This project requires an evaluation of greenhouse gases and climate change as part of a full EIR not a MND The development of houses burning fossil fuels and automobiles burning fossil fuels where none exist in an 1 /� 1 ' open space area needs evaluation This is a significant impact for this area requiring a mitigation strategy V IV- 9 No public benefit The proposed public benefit of a trail is a negative impact compared to the existing use of the land as open spacelpark where people are able to traverse the land at will The proposed use of green budding for the 22 _ houses is a negative impact compared to the natural open space which is now available as the land use in the ` r A General Plan Again thank you for the opportunity to comment A full EIR is required rather than a Mitigated Negative `(�` jN' ` 1 Declaration Please put me on the list for public notifications relating to this project V Sincerely Jan D Vandersloot MD 2221 E 16th Street Newport Beach CA 92663 ATTACHMENT No 4/8/2010 -443- item 9 - Page 233 October 8 2009 City of Huntington Beach Attn Jennifer Villasenor Planning 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE Environmental Assessment No 2008 016 The Ridge Ms Villasenor, I have the following public comments,concerns, and questions(MND original text in CAPS since the City does not provide a copy/paste version) Page 2 Public Benefit THE FIRST PUBLIC BENEFIT IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF AN EXISTING 30- FOOT WIDE CITY OWNED PARCEL IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND WOULD BE IMPROVED WITH A 6 FOOT WIDE MEANDERING TRAIL AND LANDSCAPING BUFFER THAT WOULD CONNECT TO AN EXISTING INFORMAL PATH ON THE ADJACENT SHEA PROPERTY EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET THEREBY IMRPOVING COASTAL ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA I he MND s claims of the so-called public benefits of this project are without merit- ])Public Benefit Claim#1 provide access / improved access opportunities I he MND repeatedly notes the 30 FOOT WIDE CITY-OWNED PARCEL but I do A not see anywhere here it states the LENGTH(distance)of this parcel 30 feet by how long? Google Farth says about 425 feet or less than 1/102h of a mile The MND does not state if the City owned parcel is accessible to the public now (whether people can walk on it) The public has access to the parcel now The MND does not state if the City owned parcel connects to the informal Shea path now The parcel connects to the Shea path now The MND does not state the condition of the informal Shea path The informal path is unpaved steep in parts without rails or stairs And the Shea path itself does not connect to the coast but to another path (the I evee trail) that leads to the coast The entire coastal access route from this point is over a mile long uneven and unpaved ATTACHMENT N � Item 9 - Page 234 -444- How is the City defining improvement ? The dictionary says improved means expanded increased get better The access the City is talking about is not expanding or increasing—it already exists That leaves the get better criterion How do you define better coastal access? Is the improvement creating a short cut? No Is the improvement making it easier for handicapped persons to navigate the path? Well for the first 1/10ih of a mile,but then there's the informal steep unpaved Shea path that it connects to and the uneven unpaved trails beyond that,so the I/10`h mile improvement isn t giving the handicapped better access to the coast via this route any more so than they have now So again,it begs the question exactly how is coastal access/opportunity for coastal access being improved by this project? These are the facts r ® The City-owned parcel is accessible to the public now TU— G ® The informal Shea path is accessible to the public via the City owned parcel now ■ The project s improvement of the 1/10`h mite long City-owned parcel is not creating new or expanded access( opportunity )that did not exist before ® The project s improvement of the I/101h mile long City-owned parcel is not making coastal access any better' than it is now(i e it s not making the distance shorter or making the coast more accessible to the handicapped) The fact of the matter is that there s no there there The so called improvement is merely to the APPEARANCE of a I/10`h of a mile pathway NOT to COASTAL ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA In short it s a beautification project trumped up to look like it s more of a benefit than it actually is Page 2 Public Benefit THE PROJECT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS THE CITY S FIRST GREEN RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 2)Public Benefit Claim 42 Building 22 houses using p_reen features is a public benefit worthy of granting the project special status TW- 3 I wholeheartedly applaud green building practices However the) should be standard practice in the City of Huntington Beach for ALL development not singled out as a stand alone public benefit on one small project to give that project a special wain er In this MND green practices are being trumped up as a public benefit when the benefit is ATTACHMENT NO -445- item 9 - Page 235 really to the applicant,so that their project obtains a special status thus letting the developer get around certain rules and regulations Does building green mean less construction truck traffic during construction? Probably not Does building green shorten the amount of time it takes for construction? Probably not Does building green decrease the air quality impacts of construction? Probably not Does building green decrease the noise of construction? Absolutely not In short there are no obvious short term public benefits to green construction of this project What about long-term public benefits? The houses will use less electricity and water than SBIX-3 comparable houses which might be a small benefit to their PRIVATE owners but how does that benefit the other 200 000+Huntington Beach residents—the public supposedly C �1 benefiting from this project? Unlike an EIR an MND does not explore the alternatives that would be of GREATER public benefit than the proposed project Two alternatives are 1)creating a park as per the existing certified land use plan and 2)no project at all All HB citizens could benefit from parkland since it would be available to ALL of its 200 000+citizens And if there is no project at all then the electricity and water savings do benefit the public at large because there would be more of both to go around Air quality and traffic would also be better with no project since there would be fewer car trips without houses Will the fact that the city has 22 green units of the tens of thousands of housing units the city has make life better for the 200 000+citizens of Huntington Beach? No There is no overriding public benefit of budding 22 green units to give this project special { status Page 4 Other previous related environmental documentation 3)The MND states NONE Seriously? None of the prior EIR s related to Bolsa Chica (and there are several)relate to these 5 acres even though they are part of the Bolsa Chica Mesa? Even the Goodell MND No 08 017 admits that it is part of the Bolsa Cluca Mesa and notes previous Bolsa Chica EIR s accordingly NONE is a lazy insufficient answer and serves to implicate this project as part of piecemeal planning rather than cumulative planning ATTArHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 236 -446- Page 11 Zoning/Land Use Consistency The Environmental Checklist asks, WOULD THE PROJECT A)CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE LAND USE POLICY OR REGULATION OF AN AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE GENERAL PLAN 5)The MND does not discuss the Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan which states THE CITY HAS SET ITS PARK STANDARD AT FIVE ACRES PER 1 000 PEOPLE (RCS Policy 2 1 1) Furthermore Park Acquisition Goal RCS 2 states, Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach J According to the recent(2009)EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan the city is presently SHORT of the 5 acres per 1 000 residents policy This MND wants to remove 5 acres of useful parkland(OS P)from the General Plan which is a) inconsistent with the 5 acre RCS Policy 2 1 I and b) inconsistent with RCS Goal 2 How does this MND reconcile its proposed amendment removing 5 acres of useful parkland from the state certified I and Use Plan with General Plan Policy RCS 2 1 1? I cannot see that it does t Page 12 Land Use Policies THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING UNDEVELOPED 30 FOOT WIDE PARCEL NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE WITH AN ACCFSS TRAIL THAT WOULD CONNECT TO AN EXISTING INFORMAL PATH ON THE ADJACENT SHEA PROPERTY THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET i D 1 6)A restatement of the alleged public benefit of page 2 1 he dictionary says improved means expanded increased get better The MND fails to explain how the paving and artificial landscaping of 425 feet equates to expanded increased or better coastal access 7)The claim of improved access is in conflict with existing s►gnage Right now several signs on Bolsa C.hica Street state that public trails are SOUTH at the end of Bolsa Chic-1 ATTACHMENT NO -447- Item 9 - Page 237 Street Those are formal established trails which already PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET ' This MND implies that it wants to lead people EAST to the `informal Shea trail W►I1 the applicant have to put up signs indicating access to the east thereby confusing the public SIM on which way to go? Is this MND saying that a paved trail connecting to an INFORMAL Mkt path is a better' access point to Bolsa Chica than a paved sidewalk connecting to a FORMAL path(at the intersection of Bolsa Chica St&Bnghtwater)? Page 13 Zoning/Land Use ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT ON THE BOLSA CHICA MESA THE EXISTING SLOPE ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE WOULD BE PRESERVED 8)Preserved how9 The MND does not state how the slope will be preserved (( Page 13 HBZSO&Applicable Codes 9)The text notes that EXCEPTIONS and DEVIATIONS are required to make the project comply with Code Changing the rules to make things comply is not compliance its getting around the rules that everyone else must follow Why doesn t the City make the applicant comply with existing code without exceptions and dev►ations9 Page 13 "Zoning Text Amendment 10)The text talks about TANDEM CONFIGURATION for parking spaces but does not describe for the lay person what that is FOR TI IESE 10 UNITS THREE OPEN SPACES ARE REQUIRED IN WHICH ONE —S�)� OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACES IS PROPOSED TO BE MET THROUGH THE AVAILABLE STREET PARKING 11)If street parking is used for something that should be on pr►%ate property then that means less street parking for the general public right? Page 14 Zoning Text Amendment IN ADDITION THE PROJFCT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE A LINK VIA A 30 ,. FOOT WIDE LANDSCAP> D PAT H TO CONNECT BOLSA CHICA STREET AT ` O LOS PATOS AVENUE TO THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS 1 r ATTACHMENT NO q � Item 9 - Page 238 -448- 12)False claim In order to'provide a link the link must not already exist Which it already does—in two directionsi Currently the public has access to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands via the City owned parcel at Bolsa Chica St&Los Patos Ave which leads to both a) the Informal ungroomed Shea trail to the east, m b) the paved sidewalk of Bolsa Chica Street which leads to the Formal,groomed Bnghtwater trail to the south It is accurate to state that the project is proposing to landscape an existing pathway If you want to include the disclaimer unofficial pathway then that's factual too Just don t mislead the public and claim the project will provide'a service(access/link)that already exists Page 30 Biological Resources THE HEIGHT OF THE ESHA IS APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET ON AVERAGE SO THE TOPS OF THE TREES ARE APPROXIMATELY AT THE PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION 13)The MND claims that having people and dogs visible at tree top level 200 feet awav is a less than significant impact on raptors that use the ESHA What raptor expert said that? Do}ou have a study to back up that claim? Raptors use the middle-to upper _ portions of trees not the base root of treesi �-��� s The project would only be 160 feet from the Eucalyptus ESHA on the west The ESHA is also hemmed in by the Cabo Del Mar condos to the north and the Shea project to the east What raptor in their right mind would use trees surrounded by development in such away? If the ESHA is surrounded tightly on 3 sides isn tit degrading the ESHA to such an extent that it becomes useless and worthless to the raptors? Has a raptor expert been consulted on any of this? 14)The Coastal Commission made its determination of Shea buffers based on the OS P land use designation of Hearthside s 5 acres To change the designation could change the premise of the buffer size Won t the CCC have to go back and refigure the Shea buffer based upon the Iand use changing from Open Space to Residential? Otherwise don t you have a case of piecemeal planning? Page 34 35 Public Services ATTACHMENT NO -449- Item 9 - Page 239 15)While the project s impacts to existing parks would be less than significant as noted previously the impact to the General PIan policies concerning parks is Potentially Significant There is no mitigation for loss of potential parkland in this MND _J V Page 38 Aesthetics IN ADDITION IMPROVEMENT OF AN EXISTING UNDEVELOPED 30-FOOT WIDE CITY OWNED PARCEL NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE WOULD PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AN INFORMAL PATH ON THE ADJACENT SHEA PROPERTY FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET AND WOULD ALSO PROVIDE PUBLIC VIEWS FROM THE SLOPE EDGE AT THE EASTERN POINT OF THE SITE 16)Agam the MND is purporting to provide something that already exists Not only x does access to the informal Shea path already exist but the public views from the slope edge also already exist Landscaping the City parcel to the north has no effect on either access or the view from the east' On the other hand building 2 story houses could serve to BLOCK the existing public view from this vantage point 17)The MND seems to ignore Goodell MND No 08 017 which plans 3 2 acres of Residential adjacent to the Ridge s Residential Those future houses could also interfere with the public view being provided Page 38 Aesthetics Lighting THE PROPOSD LIGHTING PLAN FOR THE PROJECT INDCATES THAT ALL LIGHTING WILL BE SHIELDED TO MINIMIZE LIGHT CAST ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN ADDITION THE PROJECT SITE LIGHTING WILL INCLUDE DARK SKY FL,A TURES THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE ADJACENT BRIGHTWATER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN C DETERMINED REA TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR AND SENSITIVE TO THE BOLSA H l 8)1 wholeheartedly applaud the use of dark sky lighting However I m surprised to hear that it s supposed to be used at Brightwater also developed by applicant Hearthside Homes Brightwater s public (common)areas have manv landscaping lights that point skyward to illuminate vegetation If the dark sky rules are not being enforced there why should it be assumed the policy will be enforced at the Ridge? !� 19)It was previously stated (page 30)that the height of the ESHA tree tops would be about even with the housing pads Any exterior houselights or street lights—pointing 5v`H1 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 240 -450- down from above tree height--will impact the raptors since their eyesight is much sharper Has anyone consulted a raptor expert on this issue? How can light pollution not have a significant impact on natural resources at this location? JU Page 39 Aesthetics IN ADDITION,THE ADJACENT SLOPE WOULD BE PRESERVED AS A SIGNIFICANT SCENIC RESOURCE AND THE PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE FOJR PUBLIC VIEWS FROM THE PROJECT SITE VIA THE PROPOSED 30 FOOT WI ACCESS PATH 20)Same issues as previous page If anything building 2-story houses will obscure so of the existing scenic views And the path paved or not—won t make any differencthe view And same issues as before—a)cannot provide an access path which already exists,an the methodology for preserving the slope is not stated Page 40 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 THE APPLICANT SHALL ARRANGE FOR A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR TO BE PRESENT DURING ALL PROJECT RELATED GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 21)Is the City aware that the applicant Hearthside Homes was admonished by the state Native Americans Heritage Commission for its archaeological mismanagement of Brightwater and ORA 83? J !� Is the city aware that the issue of poor handling of remains was brought before the state Coastal Commission and that the Commission reprimanded Hearthside for violations of condit,ons of approval? Bad behavior should NOT be rewarded The mitigation measure should be amended to state that Hearthside CANNOT use the same archeological firm that did the poor handling of remains at Bnghtwater& ORA 83 Page 41 Recreation THE PROJECT AS PART OF ITS PUBLIC BENEFIT IS PROPOSING TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING 30 FOOT WIDE PARCEL LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE WITH A LANDSCAPED TRAIL THAT WOULD 1 a� PROVIDE ACCESS FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET TO AN EXISTING INFORMAL PA fH ON THE ADJACENT SHEA PROPERTY WHICH UL fIMATELY ATTACHMENT NO -451- Item 9 - Page 241 CONNECTS TO THE WETLANDS IN THIS RESPECT THE PROJECT WOULD FURTHER RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA 22)Again with the wishful thinking—no matter how many times you repeat it doesn t make it any more valid Access already exists from the 30 foot 1/10`i`mile long City (J� parcel to the informal path,therefore a)nothing is being provided and b)nothing is being added to( further opportunities ) Nothing is being given to the public that they don t already enjoy Page 42 Recreation IN ADDITION THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED rHE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND HAS INDICATED THAT THE PROSED CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATION WOULD NOT PRESENT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IN TERMS OF EXISTING OR PLANNED PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 23)Is the city also proposing to change RCS Policy 2 1 1 of the General Plan Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5 0 acres per 1 000 persons which includes the beach in the calculation Because unless the City is changing RCS Policy 2 1 1 then there WILL be a significant impact in terms of land use planning The city is currently in violation of RCS Policy 211 tt That s not the worst of it Projects in the pipeline will only serve to worsen the parkland to residents ratio a) The Pacific Cit} development will add hundreds of new residents but is not adding any new parkland b) The high-density Amstar Red Oak project will be adding hundreds of new residents yet has no place for parkland c) The Village at Bella Terra project proposes to increase maximum development density thereby adding hundreds of new residents without any place for parkland d) The Downtown Specific Plan Update proposes to facilitate development opportunities within the DTSP area by revising development standards including increases in allowable densities yet has no place for parkland So where does the city plan to get more parkland to comply with RCS Policy 2 1 1 ATTACHMENT NO � 11 Stem 9 - Page 242 -452- Page 43 Mandatory findings of Significance The Checklist asks DOES THE PROJECT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES THREATEN TO ELIMINATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY 24)What is the MND doing to protect the raptors that use the Shea Eucalyptus ESHA? ® What mitigation/protection is there from lighting directed downward at tree top height? • What mitigation/protection is there from dog disturbance/human activity in the backyards of the Project? ■ What mitigation/protection is there from dogs/human activity along the east slope access to the public views(pgs 38 39)? A raptor expert should be consulted before proceeding further with these plans and the MND s assumptions of insignificant impacts to biological resources DOES THE PROJECT HAVE IMPACTS THAT ARE INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE? 25) The MND does not address the issue of piecemeal planning Sandover by Hearthside Homes was built in isolation Brightwater by Hearthside Homes was built with the assumption the OS P designation was in effect The plans for Shea Parkside were approved with the assumption the OS P designation was in effect If the OS P designation is overturned then all previous planning is invalid ALI HOUGH THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND I HE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IN TERMS OF FORESEEABLE GROWTH IN THE CITY IT DOES NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE FNVIRONMENT OR GOALS OF THE CITY 26) Phis project is horribly inconsistent WITH THE GENERAL PLAN IN TERMS OF FORESEEABLE GROWTH IN THE CITY See what I wrote above about parkland in relation to projects in the pipeline Zoning and Plan amendments are being approved right and left in isolation without looking at the larger picture the larger impact on the city and its residents This MND is inconsistent with goal RCS 2 of the City s General Plan It prohibits the City from achieving policy RCS 2 1 I of the General Plan because 1)it removes useable parkland from the General Plan and 2)the cumulative impact of removing useable ATTAvHMENT NO - -453- Stern 9 - Page 243 parkland when other development projects in the city have not been developing parkland j either but have been submitting in-lieu fees instead That is a significant negative impact to the city and its citizens In summary,this Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate in many respects A It supposes to create a public benefit of access which already exists B The improvement' claim applies solely to appearance,not to any actual increased access or opportunity for access C It supposes to create a public benefit of utilizing green building techniques which have no practical effect—positive or negative short term or long term—on the general public it is supposed to benefit D It does not explain how the eastern slope will be preserved or how dark sky _ lighting will be enforced E It does not adequately mitigate potential impacts on raptors and their habitat F It gives too much leeway to the applicant to choose an archeologist when the applicant has a very poor track record when dealing with archeological(cultural) remains G It willfully defies Huntington Beach General Plan policies and goals conceiving recreation(parkland) H It does not address the piecemeal planning that has been occurring(and continues to occur)in the Bolsa Chica area specifically and the City of Huntington Beach in general and does not address the cumulative impacts of several nearby development projects on the Bolsa Chica ecosystem An EIR is necessary to address these serious issues i Sincerely Po IF &� Julie E Bixby Huntington Beach CA MT TIC f ANT N0 Item 9 - Page 244 -454- SANDRA GENIS,PLANNING RESOURCES 1M6 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA CA 92626 PHONEIFAX(714)7544814 October 9 2009 Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject MND for The Ridge(SCH#2009091043) Via hand delivery and e-mail Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Ridge project(MND No 08 016 SCH#2009091043)located on approximately 5 acres of property in the City of Huntington Beach,Orange County These comments are submitted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and myself The applicant proposed to construct twenty—two dwelling units roadways,drainage improvements private open space amenities and related infrastructure on the project site The project would be developed as a Planned Unit Development In order for development to proceed the following discretionary approvals would be needed ^ Ltt� • General Plan Amendment changing the site s land use designation from Open Space- Park(OS P)to Residential Low Density(RL) • LocaI Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment changing the site s LUP land use designation form Open Space Park(OS-P)to Residential Low Density(RL) • Zoning Amendment changing the site s zoning designation from Residential Agriculture Coastal Zone Overlay(RA CZ)to Residential Low Density Coastal Zone Overlay(RL-CZ) • Amendment to Chapter 210 12 of the Zoning Code to allow greater flexibility 14 provision of required parking including provision for tandem parking • Tentative Tract Map • Coastal Development Permit • Conditional Use Permit The site is highly sensitive as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Resources in the immediate area include an environmentally sensitive habitat area to the east and important cultural resources Cultural resources include Ca- f Ora 83 which is listed by the Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites and was recently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places The portion of Ca Ora 83 on the Bnghtwater property to the west was found to contain human Page t of 12 �— ATTA HME►�T NO -455- Stern 9 - Page 245 remains and was Iikely a prehistoric cemetery In an April 8 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission,Larry Myers the Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Commission states the following- The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates locations and fN _0- details of burial discoveries At this point based on information available and the I { large number of burials recovered and associated items,it appears that the whole area maybe a burial ground [emphasis added] The Process In accordance with Section 21080(d)of the California Environmental Quality Act If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment an environmental impact report shall be prepared Section 21080(e)defines substantial evidence as follows (1)For the purposes of this section and this division substantial evidence includes fact a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact or[emphasis added]expert opinion supported by fact (2)Substantial evidence is not argument speculation unsubstantiated opinion or narrative evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence of social or 1 economic impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment The courts have held that relevant personal observations by area residents may be properly considered substantial evidence (Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento(2004) 124 Cal App 4th 903 Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn Inc v Montecito Rater Dist (2004) 116 F! Cal App 4th 402 Arvty Enterprises Inc v South Valley Area Planning Con: (2002)I01 1 Cal App 4th 1347 Melia v City of LosAngeles(2005) 130 Cal App 4th 322) As stated in Citizens for Responsible&Open Government v City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal App 4th 1323 t c CEQA provides that generally the governmental agency must prepare an EIR on any project that may have a significant impact on the environment (§§21080 subd (d) 21100 subd (a) 21151 subd (a) Pala Band of Mission In&ans v County of San Diego(1998)68 Cal App 4th 556 570-571 [80 Cal Rptr 2d 2941 quoting Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation Inc v City of Encinitas(1994)29 i Cal App 4th 1597 1601-1602[35 Cal Rptr 2d 470])Whenever there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment an EIR normally is required (§21080 i subd (c)(1) Guidelines § 15070 subd (a) Gentry City ofMurrieta(1995)36 Cal App 4th 1359 1399[43 Cal Rptr 2d 1701 Pocket Protectors v City of 1 t ` I Page 2 of 12 (� ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 246 -456- Sacramento(2004) 124 Cal App 4th 903 927[21 Cal Rptr 3d 791](Pocket Protectors))"The fair argument standard is a low threshold test far requiring the preparation of an EIR A mitigated negative declaration is one in which (])the proposed conditions avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and(2)there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project,as revised may have a significant effect on the environment (§21064 5 italics added) (Architectural Heritage Assn v County of Monterey supra at p 1119 see also Citizens C om to Save Our Village v City of Claremont(1995)37 Cal App 4th 1157 I I67[44 Cal Rptr 2d 288]) As stated in Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento(2004)124 Cal App 4th 903 Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared,neither the lead agency nor a court may weigh"conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an ETR must be prepared in the first instance Guidelines section 15064 subdivision (1)(1)provides in pertinent part if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a sigruficant effect on the environments the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (*o OilL � supra) 13 Cal 3d 68) Thus as Claremont itself recognized "Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration (City of Carmel-by-the Sea v Board of Supervisors(1996) 183 Cal App 3d 229 244-245[227 Cal Rptr 899] Friends of B Street v City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal App 3d 989[165 Cal Rptr 514) (Claremont supra ` 37 Cal App 4th at p 1168) ' It is the function of an EIR not a negative declaration,to resolve conflicting claims based on substantial evidence as to the environmental effects of a project I (See No Oil supra 13 Cal 3d at p 85} Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this case inasmuch as the clear potential for sigmficant adverse impacts on the environment exists These include but are not limited to impacts on biological resources cultural resources land use noise air quality coastal access hydrology and aesthetics Potential Impacts As noted above potential impacts may occur on biological resources cultural resources land use noise air quality coastal access hydrology and aesthetics These are described in more GE 0 detail as follows I Page 3 of I ATTACHMENT No -457- Item 9 - Page 247 i Biological Resources As described in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element,(pp C IV-77 and 78) important biological resources exist on the Parkside site which abuts the Ridge property on the east There are existing and previously delineated wetlands areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of being restored Those areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space Conservation and uses allowed within these areas are lunited In addition on the site s western boundary at the base of the bluff is a line of eucalyptus trees that continues off ne to the west These trees are used by raptors for nesting,roosting and as a base from which to forage The trees within this eucalyptus grove within or adjacent to the subject sites western boundary constitute an environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA)due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The Eucalyptus trees along the southern edge of the Bolsa Chica mesa are used for perching roosting,or nesting by at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Although it is known as the eucalyptus grove" it also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless this eucalyptus grove has been recognized as ESHA by multiple agencies since the 1 late 1970 s(USFWS 1979 CDFG 1982 1985)not because it is part of a native ecosystem, or because the trees in and of themselves warrant protection but because of the important ecosystem functions it provides Some of the raptors known to use the grove include the white tailed kite sharpshinned hawk E Cooper s hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the nearby upland areas for their food These Eucalyptus trees were recognized as ESHA by the Coastal Commission prior to its 2006 certification of this section of this LCP most recently in the context of the Coastal Commission s approval of the adjacent Bnghtwater development (coastal development permit 5-05-020) I The Eucalyptus grove in the northwest corner of the site although separated from the rest of the trees by a gap of about 650 feet,provides the same types of ecological functions as do the rest of the trees bordering the mesa At least ten species of raptors have been observed in this grove and Cooper s hawks a California Species of Special Concern,nested there in 2005 and 2006 Due to the important ecosystem functions of providing perching roosting and nesting opportunities for a variety of raptors these trees also constitute ESHA 1 Additional information regarding the Eucalyptus trees is provided in a July 26 2006 Coastal !I Commission staff report on what is known as the Parkside Project(p 31 Agenda Item Tu Sc August 6 2006) ATTACHMENTINO T 1? Item 9 - Page 248 -458- € t The Eucalyptus ESHA in the northwest corner is known to have supported a ' nesting pair of white tailed kites in the spring of 2005 In addition to the nesting r kites this area of the Eucalyptus ESHA provides similar roosting and perching G opportunities for the suite of raptors The need for adequate buffers was then discussed(July 26 2006 Coastal Commission staff' u�vl report pp 31-32 Agenda Item Tu Sc,August 6 2006) In order to assure the ESHA is protected and remains viable m addition to precluding nonresource dependent development within the ESHA,a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance The distance between the ESHA and development the buffer zone must be wide enough to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA. t For purposes of establishing protective buffers the eucalyptus grove ESHA boundary should be considered to fall along the drip line of the outermost trees of the grove(see exhibit) The specific area of an appropriate buffer is more difficult to quantify There is to some degree a subjective approximation element in assigning t dimensions to protective habitat buffers or development setbacks For example it probably would not be possible to distinguish the different biological effects of a ' 100-foot buffer compared to a 110-foot buffer or those of a 300 foot-buffer from a I00-meter(328-foot)buffer We tend to choose round numbers in whatever units we are using However the difference between a 100-foot buffer and a 100- meter buffer would provide discernable benefits to wildlife Commenting on a proposed development that borders the eucalyptus grove ESHA on its western i side(coastal development permit application number 5 05 020 Brightwater) wildlife agencies recommended a buffer width of 100 meters However the applicant s consultant s for that project recommended a 100 foot buffer These large differences reflect differing opinions concerning the sensitivity of raptor species to disturbance and differences in opinion concerning the acceptable risk of disturbance impacts to raptors especially raptors that have the potential for nesting at Bolsa Chica. In an urban environment development setbacks are usually inadequate to protect all individuals of wildlife species of concern from significant impacts In an urban setting a buffer is usually no more than one to several hundred meters and usually less whereas in a natural setting a buffer of two kilometers has been found to be significantly more protective For example Findlay and Houlahan(1997)found a ATTALAMENTV 12 -459- Item 9 - Page 249 negative correlation between species richness in wetlands and the density of roads on land up to 2000 meters from the wetland and concluded that narrow buffer zones were unlikely to protect biodtversity Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas Again,with regard to the Bnghtwater development,buffer recommendations from the same ESHA included a 150-meter buffer recommendation by Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa CDFG and USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100 meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommended a minimum 100-meter buffer around the eucalyptus ESHA In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus ESHA,Dr Dixon(staff ecologist)stated The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a _ 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200m to 1500 m in width,with the exception of 50 m buffers from p ! A` visual disturbance for kestrels and raise falcons In an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100 foot(30 m)buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t}hey descnbe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds The 100 meter buffer recommended by USFWS(1979) CDFG(1982) and by staff is necessary to prevent disturbance to raptors that utilize the eucalyptus ESHA,and,based on raptor expert Peter Bloom s estimates of foraging distances is also large enough to provide significant foraging opportunities close to the nest This is particularly important because distant foraging increases the risk of nest predation White tailed kites a fully protected species in California,have frequently nested at Bolsa Chica,and are generally considered relatively sensitive to human disturbance Therefore buffers that are adequate to protect nesting white tailed kites should be adequate for most of the other species that are likely to nest in the eucalyptus ESHA The following minimum spatial buffers have been recently recommended for nesting white tailed kites 100m(Bloom,2002) 100m(Holmgren 6 7 2002) 50m(J Dunk(raptor researcher)in person communication to M Holmgren 2002) 46 61 in(with low-frequency and non disruptive activities Froke 2002) These estimates suggest that a 100-m buffer is probably adequate but not overly conservative Page 6 of 12c, ATTACHMENT NO (teen 9 - Page 250 -460- In addition grading was to be prohibited within 500 feet of any active nest (April 1 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 9 12 26 28 68 Agenda Item Th 7a,April 14 2005) According to EA No 2008-016(p 30) the proposed project would extend to within 140 feet o the ESHA with the nearest residential lot 160 feet from the ESHA. Construction in this area would involve heavy machinery for grading The proposed buffer,under 50 meters from the ESHA,less than half the 100 meters considered probably adequate,but not overly conservative by Coastal Commission staff would fall far short of the buffer needed for adequate protection of the ESHA Thus,it is likely that disturbance of raptors utilizing or I attempting to utilize the Eucalyptus ESHA would sustain adverse impacts Exacerbating the situation,fill on the site will result in a situation with the tops of the treesI ` ^f approximately at the proposed pad elevation'(EA p 30) Incredibly the EA then notes that �v tlus will increase topographical separation (EA p 30)As noted by Coastal Commission staff ecologist John Dixon(April 1 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 8,12 Agenda Item Th 7a April 14 2005 September 24,2004 Coastal Commission staff report pp 4155 Agenda Item W 12g,October 13 2004 July 29 2004 Coastal Commission staff report pp 36 38 Agenda Item Th 23e August 12 2004)raptors nest in the tops of the trees Raptors tend to seek out high points hence the use of the trees for roosting and nesting in the first place Thus topographical separation will decrease not increase Nearby activities at and possibly even above the level of potential nesting sites would be highly disturbing Thus construction on elevated pads will increase not decrease impacts on the resource EA No 2008-016 indicates that drainage will be directed to a pipe in Bolsa Chica Street and ultimately into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands after treatment(p 21) The EA does not provide information as to what the treatment ��) will entail or its effectiveness in removing urban pollutants including such materials as petroleum residues tire residues landscape chemicals and heavy metals Unless treatment is one hundred percent effective in removing such materials adverse impacts on the wetlands could occur In addition,the proposal would redirect drainage currently flowing to the wetlands on the Parkside site potentially resulting in impacts on those wetlands Conditions were imposed on both the Parkside and Brightwater projects to reduce sigmficant impacts due to propagation of additional introduced invasive plant species(November 1 2007 Coastal Commission staff report pp 10 4145 76 Agenda Item W 16a,November 14 2007 , Q September 22 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 4 30 31 106 Agenda Item Th 1 I a, f October 13 2005) EA No 2008 016 fails to mitigate or even identify this potentially significant impact Absent measures which would ensure that invasive species are not planted on the site it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur Conditions were imposed on both the Parkside and Brightwater projects to reduce significant impacts due to predation by domestic pets including cats and dogs(November 1 2007 Coastal Commission staff report pp 1141 45 Agenda Item W 16a,November 14 2007 September 22 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 20 27 28 29 34 Agenda Item Th 1 I a,October 13 61 E'v_ f 2005) EA No 2008 016 fails to mitigate or even identify this potentially significant impact Absent measures which would ensure that domestic pets are fully controlled at all times it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur Page 7 of 12 AT IACHMENT NO f I -461- Item 9 - Page 251 r Potential impacts would occur due to increased light,glare and noise,with potential impacts on / sensitive species Even if lighting were directed downward,this could result in lighting directed ` down toward ESHA to the east iV All of these significant impacts on biological resources must be examined in an environmental impact report. Air Quality EA No 2008-016 provides information regarding air pollutant emissions during construction and concludes that no impact will occur based on the project s contribution to regional emissions (EA p 24) However the project fails to take into consideration localized effects The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)has developed methodology for determining the localized significance of air emissions For construction projects of i approximately 5 acres in the North Coastal Orange County Source Receptor Area SCAQMD has developed the following localized significance thresholds Localized PMio Emissions Thresholds for Construction North Coastal Orange County(SRA 18) Receptor distance II (meters)from sde 11 bound" 25 50 100 200 500 LST b/da 14 44 571 85 167 Source SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,Table C4 PM10 f Emission Thresholds for Construction !E As noted in EA No 2008-016(p 24) the proposed project is anticipated to generate 26 26 pounds per day of PMio i e fine particulates less than 10 microns in diameter thus exceeding the localized significance threshold for source receptors within twenty five meters (approximately eighty-two feet)of the site boundary This would affect nearby residents natural habitat and the thirty-foot-wide pathway at the northerly site boundary which is utilized by large numbers of school children daily on their way to school Construction emissions will result in a significant localized air quality impact which must be examined in an environmental impact report Noise Development of the site will result in increased noise during construction and upon occupation of the site Noise from concrete mixers(85 dBA at 50 feet) generators(81 dBA at 50 feet)and k other construction equipment(74 to 98 dBA at 50 feet)would be well above ambient noise t� levels affecting nearby residents as well as wildlife Page 8 of 12 n ATTAIM MENT NO ® Item 9 - Page 252 -462- i Construction haul routes are not identified in the EA Noise would also be generated along those routes with fully loaded trucks typically generating noise levels of 88dBA at fifty feet At least a portion of any haul route would be along residential streets,creating noise levels well in excess of ambient noise levels in residential areas EA No 2008-016 indicates that the the applicant is proposing to utilize noise mufflers on all - heavy equipment (p 33) However EA No 2008-016 fails to reveal how much the proposed ' mufflers would reduce the clearly significant noise impact nor ensure that what the applicant"is proposing would actually be unplemented - ►�.1 Construction noise is a significant impact which must be examined in an environmental impact report Aesthetics Views of the site will sustain significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the proposed project Open space would be replaced by housing and night time views would include additional outdoor lighting Views across the site from existing public streets and paths toward the Reserve and other open space would be lost Impacts would be greatest from the existing public pathway in the thirty-foot-wide city parcel extending along the northerly boundary of the site Numerous people currently utilize the `_ L pathway for recreational purposes and as a pleasant transportation alternative to riding a bicycle 4`� on the street with vehicular traffic As shown in cross sections in Attachment 2 1 to the EA,a solid wall up to eight feet in height will be constructed totally blocking any views from the public parcel and creating a tunnel effect similar to that created along Los Patos by the Brightwater development The public wig lose all visual access to coastal resources in tlus area No meandering pathway or landscaped buffer' (EA p 2)can compensate for this loss Aesthetic impacts particularly loss of views from public areas must be examined in an environmental impact report Hydrology and Water(Duality EA No 2008-016 indicates that drainage will be directed to a pipe to Bolsa Chica Street and ultimately into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands after treatment(p 21) thereby altering existing drainage patterns Surface water currently flowing to the wetlands on the Parkside site would thus be reduced ,- The EA indicates that low flows would be retained on site(p 21) This would be consistent with California Water Resources Control Board Order No WQ-2000 11 and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No R8-2009 0030 NPDES No CAS618030 which require the retention or treatment of low flows up to an 85`h percentile storm event Low flows from the proposed project would percolate into the ground although no information is provided regarding subsurface conditions Future lateral movement E of what will become subsurface waters must be considered Will drainage ultimately travel to Page 9 of 22 ATTAGHJVJ ENT N (C -463- item 9 - Page 253 the bluffs resulting in increased bluff erosion? Bluff erosion is an ongomg process at Bolsa Cluca. Recently plans for a foot bridge along Warner west of the project site had to be revised to respond to the several feet of bluff erosion that had occurred in just the few short years of the planning process for the foot bridge Any increase in drainage in bluff areas would thus be }� potentially significant l 1 Impacts on drainage must be examined in an environmental impact report ( J Land Use The proposed project would result in the development of approximately five acres of open space Iand currently designated for open space under the general plan and local coastal program This is a significant impact made all the more sigmfrcant when considered in conjunction with other proposed and recent development in the area,including the Bnghtwater project Parkside development,and the Goodell parcel The project would eliminate five acres of potential future parks while creating a demand for an additional 0 29 acres(12 415 square feet)of park land based on a future population of 57 — residents(EA p 15)and a general plan standard of five acres of park land for each one thousand residents(EA p 41) While the applicant would be required to dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees,this would not necessarily eliminate potential impacts In lieu fees must be utilized to provide park facilities for the project from which they are generated(Government Code Sec 66477(aX3)) The Huntington Beach Recreation and Community Service Element does not identify any new locations in the nearby area for future local parks which would be available to serve future residents of the proposed project The project thus fails to meet general plan goals f for park land These significant impacts on land use must be examined in an environmental impact report Transportation/Access EA No 2008 016 identifies potential impacts on parking circulation and pedestrians during construction particularly during earth hauling activities(p 28) The EA then notes that the project would not impact a large number of surrounding residential uses implying that some not large number of residents would sustain an impact possibly a significant one The EA farts to define not large Would the dozens of dwelling units taking access to Bolsa Chica Street at Dorado Drive be not a large number 9 What about the seventy-one unit apartment building on Bolsa Chica Street? In any case impacts would be sigmficant even if only a couple — of homes were affected The proposed project would provide a portion of the required parking as tandem spaces As noted in EA No 2008 016(p 39) This may result in more on-street parking spaces being occupied more often This would then reduce available street parking for guests and other # visitors such as repair people A dearth of available street parking would potentially spill out onto nearby public streets resulting in reduced parking available for the general public seeking to access coastal resources This is a significant impact Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT No to Item 9 - Page 254 -464- Impacts due to construction and proposed parking configurations must be examined in an environmental impact report GIN r Cultural resources The project site contains CA-ORA-86 a site which is often considered in conjunction with CA ORA 144 and CA-ORA.83 As noted in EA No 2008 016(p 40) the site has been subject to previous studies It is extremely disappointing that the EA belittles the significance of on site archaeological resources,describing the site as disturbed and likely to yield little of value in language reminiscent of environmental documents for the Brightwater site which had also been subject to numerous previous studies As we now know CA-ORA-83 at the Brightwater development site to the west has yielded numerous cog stones and human remains not acknowledged or anticipated in environmental documents for the project resulting in a tragic loss of cultural values and desecration of burial sites CA ORA 83 extends east of the Brightwater site across the Bolsa Chica Street alignment In any case the loss of any additional cultural resources in this area would constitute a significant adverse effect even if resources are documented and recovered As stated by Susan Stratton supervising archeologist at the California Office of Historic Preservation commenting on CA-OR.A 83 �� b I don t see how you can mitigate for this Let s say you completely destroy a building How are you going to compensate for the destruction?Maybe you build a replica But in this case you have an archeological site and it s a non-renewable resource so whatever remains of this particular site it s forever It will never be duplicated You can t build a replica of this Archaeological sites are fragile and non renewable Archaeological recovery is a destructive process It is essential that on site cultural resources be preserved at their existing location for future generations with advanced archaeological techniques that can provide answers to the questions we cannot answer with today s technology and that is non destructive Impacts on cultural resources must be examined in an environmental impact report in light of what has occurred on the Brightwater site to the west Cumulative Impacts In addition to the many significant environmental impacts to be created by the proposed project when considered on its own,the project will contribute to cumulative impacts generated by other related development in the area including projects at Brightwater Parkside and the t Goodell site which is also currently in process This will result in significant cumulative \�r impacts on air quality noise traffic loss of habitat,and loss of open space to name a few It is particularly puzzling that separate MNDs would be processed for the adjacent Ridge and Goodell sites at the same time rather than exarruning the impacts of development of the area in one environmental document f Page 11 or 12,ATTA H E T N0 2 /c)Z/ - -465- Item 9 - Page 255 i I Conclusion Based on the above It cannot be assured that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project On the contrary it is likely that impacts can and will occur Thus the proposed MND should not be adopted Thank you for the opportunity to comment Please keep us informed as this project proceeds Yours Truly Sandra L Gems i ATTAtfWNT NO fU Item 9 - Page 256 -466- APPENDIX B Comments on Recirculated draft NIND No 08-016 (Comment Penod 3/4/10—4/2/10) G VillasenorJ\'I he Ridge PLD\CEQA\Recirc HIND public comments\draft response to comments 4 11 l0 doc 35 ATTACHMENT NO -467- Item 9 - Page 257 STATE OF C&UFORNIA--BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 t �� 1 s 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 Irvine CA 92612 8894 APR 0 2010 Tel (949)724 2267 Flex your power! Fax (949)724 2592 I Be energy efcienii Ft W1 is DEPT April 5,2010 Ms Jennifer Villasenor File IGRICEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH# 2009091043 2000 Main Street Log# 2350B Huntington Beach CA 92648 SR-1 Subject "The Ridge"22-unit Planned Unit Development Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for "The Ridge" 22-unit Planned Unit Development project The proposed project involves a request to amend the land use and zoning designations on an existing approximately 5 acre parcel for the subdivision and development of a 22 unit single-family planned unit development (PUD)with a 5 776 square foot common open space area The project site is located at the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue In the City of Huntington Beach t-.l The California Department of Transportation, District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time r Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developmc,nts which could potentially impact State transportation facilities If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call ZhongpIng(John)Xu at(949)724 2338 i I Sincerely J CHRISTOPHER HERRF Branch Chief I oca) Development/Intergovernmental Review c Terry Roberts Office of Planning and Research Colt nro mp o es mob 1 ry cc nss Cobfio nin ACYACHIVIET INC. Item 9 - Page 258 -468- From Michelle O'Brien Member of Bolsa Chica Land Trust APR 0 5 2010 HLrbngton Beam 16282 Serenade Lane PLANNING DEFT Huntington Beach CA 92647 To Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hi Jennifer This is a request for your department to deny approval for building anything on "The Ridge' The City of Huntington Beach needs this open space for the wildlife that resides there Once it is built upon, it is too late to change it back It will have a negative effect on the wetlands if it is developed The Bolsa Chica Wetlands are unique, rare and very majestic We should do everything we can t preserve this area it is a sanctuary for both people and birds to visit Adults an kids alike are working together to restore the wetlands back to their natural state Future generations need to be able to visit and see for themselves how beautiful the wetlands really are I am not an environmentalist, but I do understand the need to leave this space untouched and open Thank you for taking the time to read my letter Sincerely 61 Michelle O Brien Concerned HB Resident ATTACHMENT NO -469- Uterus 9 - Page 259 04/02/2010 2 14 PM FRCM F x TO 17143741648 PAGE 001 OF 001 David R Hamilton 5401 Kenilworth Dnve Huntington Beach CA 92649 _ _ ,r f P r Phone (714)840-8901 E marl de hannhon@verrzon net APR 05 2010 April 2,2010 Puntington Beach PLANNING DEPT City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Attn Jewifer Villasenor 2000 Mani Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fax letter 7I4 374-1648 Re Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 C The Ridge Dear Ms Villasenor I am confused about the subject proposed development How does a resident of HB make life choices when planning documentation seems to lack mtegnty? I purchased my home on Kenilworth Drive m large part to be near open space The Shea/Parkside parcel was then owned by MWD and designated open space/wetlands on City and County planning maps Since then, the MWD parcel was sold to Shea Homes a housing developer A development was O A proposed that included an 8-acre active park,hence the name `Parkside This 8 acre park was repeatedly used as justification for the development due to a shortage of active park space in this region of Huntington Beach. Subsequently the north 30 feet of the `Ridge parcel was dedicated/deeded for public access from the west to the adjacent 8 acre park within `Parkside Also planning maps had the 5 acre `Ridge"parcel designated as open space park. Fast forward to the present `Parkside was approved with the 8 acre active park reduced to one acre The 30 foot Anp of the `Ridge parcel is no longer adjacent to this I acre park (Should we call the strip f` n `Public access to nowhere'?) Also this l acre of active park is no longer adjacent to even the]i rt i Kenilworth tract. The real head scratcher though is that the Ridge parcel is no longer designated as j open space park but is now a proposed 22 unit housing development. J1 From my viewpoint,the overall plannmglapproval process for this area seems rather piecemeal. We do need some active parkspace in this area of HB—that s a given How does this given need go from justification in one process to `unnecessary in another? These processes look more Ile developer ���,� accommodation than true planning I in confused and concerned by the seeming inconsistencies in Huntington Beach s residential planning 1 would appreciate you or someone from the planning department addressing my concerns I look forward to your comments Regards David Hamilton Huntington Beach Resident de hamrlto7i(a verr�on net Ph (714)840 8901 ATTACE1T Item 9 - Page 260 -470- FAX 714-374-1646 Friday Aprd 2 2010 R.Rubel and S Rubel - - L =' 5421 Neargate Drive Huntngton Beach CA 92649 APR 0 5 2010 at r I P� Scott Hess Director of Planning 714-536-5271 fax 714-374-1648 SUBJECT PLEASE KEEP THE PARK ZONING PROTECT THE WILDLIFE AND THE BEAUTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH We want to protect the"park zone status for the 5 acres at the southeast corner of Los Palos and Bolsa Chita St It is zoned for a park- DO NOT BUILD ` HOUSES ON THIS WILDLIFE RESERVE We want to keep the zoning as a park to protect the wildlife and to keep the last parks and beauty that Huntington Beach deserves and desperately needs We must protect our wildlife PROTECT THE PARK --�— R Rubel concur S Rubel ATTACHMENT NO /M -471- Item 9 - Page 261 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P O BOX 865 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow Phone (714)840-4015 E-Mail mfo@hbtomorrow org Websrte www hbtomorrow org March 31 2010 Jennifer Viliasenor Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach t ZQ�O 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 Subject The Ridge Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 Dear Ms Villasenor and Planning Commission Huntington Beach Tomorrow requests additional consideration of the following regarding Hearthside Homes request 0 Lower intensity zoning would result in less grading and fill than the proposed 6 4 units per acre] proposed on a sandy soil base • Does annexation come before or after taking action? T o` O More parking must be provided for the proposed 22 resi ences at 2700 to 4200 sq ft Tandem and open parking on a driveway is not sufficient Where will guests and v►sitors park d only one parking N�T� space is required and in 10 of 22 units parking is identified by street parking?One tandem car space in a 3-car garage might work on 55 wide lots backing to an alley but not on these more narrow lots Where will residents park for street sweeping? ® A conditional use permit for more than three feet grade differential should not be issued Grading at t street grade near Bolsa Chica then adding three to nine feet of fill on the eastern edge of the Shea C property is too much volume of cut and fill dirt The water table adjacent to wetlands vanes and i tends to be much higher than can be determined by one test in one part of the site When the sandy subsoil is subjected to the weight of nine feet of fill added to the digging out of eight feet of soil in the higher part of the site it will affect the adjoining wetlands Compacting sandy soil is not a safe way to build even with drainage pointed northward to Bolsa Chica rather than as now into the wetlands ® illc(page 16)should be labeled potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated Onsite drains-1, are needed with this volume of site coverage by the footprint and weight of the structures on fill soil Using pavers for drives does allow for some percolation of water but requires more weeding Who would maintain pavers by the alleys? ® Efflorescence is an ongoing problem in the Landmark Bolsa tracts adjoining the wetlands Further investigation is needed of whether special concrete foundations to resist mineral deterioration should be used The boron in soil comes up the salt comes up it would more likely come up in sandy soil l' than in clay soil found in the Landmark Bolsa tracts adjoining Talbert Springdale and Edwards This parcel was designated to be park open space when the Hearthside Brightwater project wa 'Y_ approved and should not be developed Karen Jackie President ATTACHMENT NO `�-�=-- - Item 9 - Page 262 -472- Gerald L.Chapman 6742 Shure Circle Huntington Beach,California 92648 714-842-3345 r' F`( l I� April 2,2010 APR 0 2 2010 Huntin4tci,B9ach Jennifer VilIasenor PLANNING DEPT City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re Recirculated(Draft Mitigated Negative(Declaration for The Ridge No 2008-016 Dear Ms Villasenor I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Ridge project No 2008-016 These comments are submitted on behalf of me and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. I also request that my previous comments on this project's Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration be included in the public record for the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration CUTIJRAL RESOURCES The archaeological report prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc in May 2009,reports that 33 separate archeological investigations were made on the Ridge property and that the results of those investigations show that it is not anticipated that significant deposits will be discovered during construction of the project. These same conclusions were previously made by SRS for the nearby Hearthside project and were found to be wrong as shown in documents presented `J - by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration process for this project The 33 investigations have not to date been made available for public review during RDMND process If the City is basing the RDMND on those investigations,it should have reviewed them and should make them available for public review during the process The comment period for the RDMND should be extended until these investigations are made available and the public has had time to review them PEER REVIEW Following section CR-2 the RDMND states that It should be noted that the May 2009 SRS report was reviewed by the archeologists from the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee The peer reviewers confirmed that required mitigation would CHAP ` 'be limited to monitoring during grading and ground disturbing activities The peer reviewers also concluded that mitigations measures requiring preservation or ATTACHMENT NO -473- item 9 - Page 263 additional data recovery are not necessary Therefore,with the unplementation of mitigation measures CR-1 and CR 2,potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant." The developer's past history of not following these same mitigations on the Hearthside project makes one question their value in protecting the cultural resources on this project In order for Peer Review to meet its objective of an unbiased review,it must be truly independent with no perception of a conflict of interest. This brings up many questions as to how independent the three reviewers on the committee are I Who wrote the peer review committee letter? It appears to have 1, J'\� been compiled from at least two separate letters as the fonts and the �1 lines in the signature section of the letter do not match (attachment) 2 Who put together the list of qualified peer reviewers? If it was done by C ' rl the project s archeologist,it is not independent `mil 3 Who selected the peer reviewers? If it was the project s archeologist,it is not independent 4 Were the peer reviewers paid? It they were,who paid them? 5 Have the peer reviewers ever worked for SRS? t These questions should be answered before the Bolsa Chica Peer Review t Committee s letter can relied upon for approving the RDMND There is a Fair Argument"that The Ridge development will cause significant negative impacts to the CULTURAL RESOURCES therefore CEQA requires an r EIR to properly analyze the impacts and to provide mitigation to a less than significant level Sincerely Ge ld L Chap an Attachment Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee letter ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 264 -474- December 10,2009 Dr Nancy Anastasia Vifiley Scientific Resource Surveys inc 2324 N Batavia Street,Suite 109 Orange,CA 92865 Re Status and Recommendations for CA-0RA-86, Bolsa Chica Area,Orange County Dear Dr Desautels, I have reviewed "Archaeological Abstract- Archaeological Site CA--ORA-86 Hemng"s Site E" prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc. (SRS) and dated May, 2009 The report demonstrates that CA ORA-86 has been the subject of 33 archaeological investigations beginning in the 1920s These investigations indicate that the site has been greatly disturbed and most of the remaining madden has been redeposited as a result of twentieth century agricultural activities(chisel plowing,ripping,terracing, and deposbon of peat from the marsh) In addition, the northern part of the site has been destroyed by residential development The most recent investigation by SRS in 2001 was especially comprehensive and consisted of surface survey surface artifact and shell collection a systematic auger program, a backhoe trenching program, and hand excavation The results of this investigation showed that the only intact archaeological deposit: in the site was located In the southeastern pat of the son Q bluff edge This area yielded a subsurface feature (an oval depression), largequantity unbroken shell, and artifacts Data recovery was carried out to document the fepture and recover the associated artifacts and ecofacts Now that data recovery has been completed in the only intact portion of the site and,given that the rest of the site is no longer intact,CA-0RA 86 has no more potential to yield data important in prehistory and, therefore is not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 4 Therefore other than grading monitoring, mitigation measures that would require preservation or data recovery are not necessary I recommend that grading and other ground disturbing activities at CA-ORA 86 be monitored by archaeological and Native Arnerican monitors so that although unlikely, any remaining intact deposits will be identified Sincerely, pa� Roger D Mason PhD, RPA Archaeoi p rebaeolo a Archaeologist Member lsa Circa Member Bolsa Cluca Member, Bolsa Circa Peer Review Committee Peer Review Commritce Peer Review Committee ATTACHMENT NO 7 fJ'/ -475- Item 9 - Page 265 MR-2-2010 02 5W FROt1 TO 17143741540 P I Amigos de Botsa p i ca PO Box I563 Hu=ngton Beach,CA 92647 Phone/Fax 714 8401575 mfo@amtgosdebolsachica org www amigosdebolsachica org April 2 2010 Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA Via FAX(714)3741540 RE Hearthside/Ridge PUD. Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments regarding the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ridge project Our main concerns have to do with the handling of nuisance and storm runoff and the impact the project would have on wildlife The applicant s explanations of how nuisance runoff is dealt with is incomplete It r ` uc— I appears that the runoff is simply diverted into open space possibly a lagoon or lake? if this is true what provisions are being planned for maintenance such as vector control algal growth and- safety? The use of porous pavers to allow runoff to percolate into the sotf below parking spates and driveways seems ill advised.What becomes of the toxic fluids that invariably leak firom /� ` vehicles that will accompany the runoff?The explanation refers to the pavers aspri treating the A runoff How does that wKk? Storm runoff wilt apparently be diverted to the outfall that serves the applicant s Bnghtwater development is the capacity of that system sufficient to accommodate the Ridge R —3 storm runoff? In discussing the project s impact on raptors in the nearby eucalyptus ESHA,while the applicant has dropped its explanation of the project s-impact m terms of a"topographic separation the fact remains that a 100 meter buffer is the standard for the protection of such A 6 C—q ESHAs In this project the closest residential lot is 53 meters from the ESHA and the furthest is 87 meters It has been established (July 28 2006 and January 31 2007 memos from Dr John ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 266 -476- AM-2-2010 02 59P FROM TO 17143141540 P 2 Hearthside/Ridge PUD 2 Amigos de Bolsa Chica comments Dixon to the California Coastal Commissiorr}tbatpassrve recreational activities could be allowed within the outer 33 meters of the 100 meter buffer zone and where feasible be limited to the outer 10 meters The closest residential lot in the Ridge project penetrates the more sensitive buffer zone by 13 meters or 43 feet "Passive recreational activities"involve hiking and bird watching while backyard recreational activities normally involve active pursuits such as, 1—� net sports and swimming pool games as well as social gatherings These hardly constitute t "stationary human presence' as the applicant s consultant puts it The same consultant reports, CAI Cooper s hawks nesting in the ESHA within 50 feet of the nearby condominium complex Of all the raptors,Cooper s hawks are the most tolerant of humans Thwcamm be-said of the other raptors that use the ESHA In addition the condomimtun complex that faces the ESHA consists of the backside of the building with small balconies and a parking Tot not-sources of active recreational activities We thus recommend the city require the-applicant to clarify the questions related to dealing with urban runoff and most importantly alter their plan to conform to the 100 meter ESHA buffer Sincerely J nnifer Robins President David Carlberg Immediate Past President ATTA-HU1 T NO 1 -477- Item 9 - Page 267 March 31 2010 City of Huntington Beach Attn Jennifer Villasenor Planning 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE Recirculated Environmental Assessment No 2008 016 The Ridge Ms Villasenor The Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration(RMND)remains a flawed assessment of environmental impacts of this project On behalf of myself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust I would like to point out the following issues 1)OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The RMND as did the original MND simply states none to this question After cloJa of comments on the original MND I discovered that the adjacent Sandover project ha direct connection to the Ridge project and reported this finding to City staff The parkland dedication requirement will be satisfied by dedicating a 30 foot wide easement along the north property line of the open III space lot located east of the project site The easement will provide pedestrian and vehicular maintenance access to the proposed public park located approximately 400 feet east of the project site This easement dedication was recommended by staff and ' supported by the applicant (Sandover staff report) The Ridge MND/RMND makes repeated reference to this 30 foot parcel Although the `l parcel itself is not mentioned in the Sandover MND(it only mentions generally that land } dedication or pavment of fees will be required) the city-owned parcel would not exit were it not for the Sandover project You could not have any discussion of the parcel in the second document had it not been created by the actions and requirements in the first document—it s a direct link Por complete disclosure the Sandover MND should be mentioned as a previous related environmental document since without the prior project the Ridge MND/RMND loses one of its key components 2)RECREATION IMPACTS The RMND adds this sentence on page 46 ALTIIOUGII THIS PARCEL 1S CURRENTLY USED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA THE IMPROVEMENTS WIL PROVIDE FOR ATTA-'HMENT NO 17 Item 9 - Page 268 -478- NOTICEABLE ACCESS FROM BOLSA CHICA STREET AND WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES" The point of this sentence is unclear Finally yes a reluctant admission that the city owned parcel is already publically accessible and already used by the public But what does noticeable access mean? Does it mean signs(notice)will be put up indicating Bolsa Chica access this way as Brightwater signs do? If so what is the point of directing people east towards an uneven unofficial trail rather than south towards a graded official pathway? If someone decides to follow the signs east then has an accident on the uneven section of the trail would they sue the city for negligence? Would the city need to put up a notice(noticeable)sign at the city parcel/Shea border to warn people that they continue at their own risk? And if noticeable access does not refer to signs then what does it mean? Regarding the enhance public access opportunities —rather than repeat the improve public access opportunities claim found elsewhere in the RMND a new tactic is tried with the word enhance A rose by any other name The enhancement or 1 improvement is a 6-foot wide path and a Iandscape buffer (pg 42) C The Aesthetics section states the impact correctly These distances combined with landscaping proposed for the 30foot wide area would function to buffer aesthetic impacts to existing residential units from development on the project site (pg 42) i The problem is reaching beyond the facts of aesthetic improvement into the realm of marketing embellishment by making a public benefit claim of enhanced or improved coastal access and opportunities Nowhere is it explained how landscaping improves coastal access or improves opportunities for coastal access—it s an unsubstantiated claim When I think of landscaping I think of beautification not recreation It would be helpful if the staff report gave examples of how other projects improved coastal access/opportunity with landscaping i 3)BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Another perplexing addition to the RMND is on page 33 FURTHERMORE THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT STATES THAT RAPTORS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HABITUATE TO STATIONARY HUMAN PRESENCE ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENCES THAN THEY ARF TO HIKERS DOG WALKERS AND BIRD WATCHERS THAT CURRENTLY FRFQUFNT THE AREA Stationary human presence associated with residences ? What does that mean that mannequins will be living in these houses? No one living at the Ridge will have a loud bright lights late night party or go biking or jogging with their dogs? In fact this new Biological statement directly contradicts other sections of the RMND that talk about 1 improvements to coastal access Improtied access implies that moie people will hike and i ATTL NO -479- item 9 - Page 269 walk their dogs and watch the birds in question thanks to the improvements Isn t that the point of improved opportunities for access increased usage9 1 So what is going on here9 1)The Biology section claims no impact to raptors from the project particularly since residences have less impact upon raptors than pedestrians 2)The Noise section states that more people may use the(improved)path thereby potentially increasing pedestrian disturbance to the raptors 3)The Recreation section claims the project would further recreational opportunities to the coast from the improved pathway thereby potentially increasingS�IX pedestrian disturbance to the raptors ` 4)The Biological section says that ambulatory pedestrians are more disturbing to raptors than stationary residences Not only is the RMND now at odds with itself(no impact from project vs potential impact from project) but the R 4ND contains no mitigation for the potentially increased disturbance to raptors from increased use of the improved 30 foot path(Noise& Recreation sections)' i How sad that this MND/RMND ignores documented history leans on marketing hype and writes off increased human disturbance to make its case Fair argument exists that these increased disturbances could have significant negative impacts upon the adjacent ESHA and therefore an EIR is required under CEQA Julie E Bixb} A, ,-,CHMENT No Item 9 - Page 270 -480- April 1 2010 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ATTN Jennifer Villasenor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re RECIRCULATED Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016( The Ridge ) Dear Ms Villasenor I am wntmg on behalf of myself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to express the following concerns with The Ridge RECIRCULATED Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08- 016 My previous comment letter dated October 7 2009 for the original MND circulation is still relevant and should be considered part of the public record for this RMND Vegetation Page 9 of the LSA Biological Resources Assessment dated March 2010 states The 4 72 ac study area is currently within undeveloped land that has been subject to various disturbances over many decades including agriculture previous grading and equipment and materials storage Existing vegetation communities are classified here as Disturbed or Barren(i e gravel staging area)and Other Disturbed Areas(i e fallow agriculture) Vegetation communities are'Aell defined since the property has been fenced for many years and the property has _ had relativel) few unauthorized human disturbances(e g off road vehicle or pedestrian use) This neglects to mention that although agricultural use ceased once the parcel became a staging area for Brightwater construction residents in the properties to the north report that the entire Ridge parcel is regularly sprayed with herbicide to kill all vegetation This continued regular use of herbicide precludes drawing any meaningful conclusions from the vegetation survey data presented in the assessment This photo shows such spraying in progress on August 9 2009 r%k �4 f � -481- Item 9 - Page 271 Southern Tarplant I have been mapping southern tarplant on the adjacent Shea and Goodell properties on an annual basis for the past few years The southern tarplant nearest to the Ridge has been found on the Goodell property approximately 215ft south of the southern Ridge boundary The extent of southern tarplant on both the Shea and Goodell properties has been slowly ��� increasing the past few years It would be interesting to see whether southern tarplant would be able to colonize the Ridge parcel if the regular herbicide use was suspended Indirect Impacts from Pet Access to ESHA The LSA biological assessment states on p 13 under Indirect Impacts Fencing the development with a masonry wall and a wrought iron fence will provide privacy and limit disturbance to the areas surrounding the development An approximately 4 ft 6 ft and 7 ft high masonry wall will be constructed around the northern western and southern project boundaries respectively An 8 ft high wrought-iron fence(as measured from the outer slope)will be constructed along the eastern boundary which separates the development from the preserved habitat to the east The fencing will function to deter human and pet access directly from �� the residences to the adjacent preserve area The masonry wall heights are too low to deter cats and if the 8ft high wrought iron fence will be of similar vertical bar style to the existing Cabo del Mar fence to preserve the views from the eastern Ridge homes cats will be able to easily pass through Construction of The Ridge will worsen the problem of cat access to Bolsa Chica i Cats from the existing residences north of the Ridge site already access the Shea eucalyptus t north grove raptor ESHA On April 23 2005 I photographed this cat prowling around in the north grove ESHA s ATT/,r'H%ANT NO Item 9 - Page 272 -482- Raptor Flushing and ESHA Suffers The LSA biological assessment presents raptor flushing data on p 13 and notes that raptors are much more likely to habituate to the relatively stationary human presence associated with residences then they are to hikers dog walkers and bird watchers/photographers that now regularly frequent the areas within or immediately adjacent to the eucalyptus grove but ignores the fact that these residential impacts will be cumulative on top of the pre existing transient impacts It goes on to conclude that the current Ridge setback of 150ft from the ESHA is sufficient to avoid significant impact to the adjacent raptor ESHA In the attached Exhibit LLL memo from Coastal Commission staff ecologist John Dixon Ph D regarding raptor ESHA at Shea Parkside similar LSA raptor flushing data is examined and then dismissed in favor of more conservative buffers to best protect the ESHA Please read pages 12 15 of this attachment for a detailed discussion of raptor flushing and buffers that provides the rationale for the CCC s adopted Shea Parkside LCPA setting a minimum buffer distance of 297ft from the eucalyptus grove raptor ESHA �t�( Even though A total of 23 ac of habitat is proposed for restoration and preservation to the east 1� of the study area as part of the Parkside Estates Project as noted in the LSA biological assessment the CCC found that the Parkside residential development had to be set back a minimum of 297ft from the northern eucalyptus grove ESHA If new development to the east of the grove(Parkside)should not occur closer than 297ft away to avoid disturbing the raptors then new development to the west of the grove(The Ridge)should also not occur closer than 297ft away or else significant negative impacts will harm the viability of the ESHA EIR Required Fair argument exists that development of The Ridge will cause significant negative impacts to the ESHA of the adjacent Shea property therefore an E1R is required under CEQA to properly analyze these impacts and to provide for their mitigation to a less than significant level t SmcereIy 7&174 b, Mark D Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 4707 714 625 0876 mark@bixby org Attachments CCC Exhibit 1 LL from Parkside LCPA agenda packet W 16a I] 2007 A,T- p —HYENT IN (� -483- Item 9 - Page 273 AVVA(� �AE�JT -o STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (( �� jj 45 FREMONT SUITE 2000 �6 �� CSAN VOICEE AND TD 41 94105 200 ,t 'l VOICE AND TDD(415)904 5200 l./ FAX (415)904 5400 MEMORANDUM FROM John Dixon Ph D Ecologist TO Meg Vaughn SUBJECT Natural Resources at the Parkside Property DATE July 2 2007 Documents reviewed Bilhorn T W (Earth Science Consultant) September 1986 Seasonal variations in the extent of ponded surface water in the Bolsa Chica lowland Orange County California A report to Signal Bolsa Corporation Bilhorn T W June 1987 Agricultural area delineation Bolsa Chica Orange County California A report to Signal Bolsa Corporation Bilhorn T W June 28 2007 Memorandum to J Dixon (CCC) regarding Bolsa Chica Agricultural Area Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation Bixby M D June 27 2007 Letter to M Vaughn (CCC) and California Coastal Commissioners regarding raptor foraging and raptor maps Bloom P H (Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group) April 15 1982 Raptor inventory and habitat assessment for the Bolsa Chica area Orange County California A report to the U S Fish and Wildlife Service Laguna Niguel California Bloom P H (Raptor Biologist) June 5 2002 Letter to J Dixon (CCC) regarding white- tailed kites and golf courses Boule M M Dybdahl and K Austrian (Shapiro and Associates) April 27 1981 Final Bolsa Chica Vegetation Study A report prepared for the U S Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District CDFG 1981 Determination of the status of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands A report submitted to the California Coastal Commission on December 11 1981 Dillingham Corporation 1971 An environmental evaluation of the Bolsa Chica Area Volume 1 Exhibit LLL HNB-MAJ 1 06 _ ATTACHMENT NO .� Page 1 of 34 Item 9 - Page 274 -484- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 2 of 17 Dixon J (CCC) 2006a Memorandum to M Vaughn (CCC) regarding Wetlands at Shea Homes Parkside dated July 27 2006 Dixon J (CCC) 2006b Memorandum to M Vaughn (CCC) regarding Raptor Habitat at Parkside"dated July 28 2006 EPA Region IX February 1989 A determination of the geographical extent of waters of the United States at Balsa Chica Orange County California Findlay C S and J Houlahan 1997 Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands Conservation Biology 11 1000-1009 Frank Havore&Associates December 10 1997 Biological resources assessment Shea Homes property project#6N153 01 Huntington Beach California Froke J B October 10 2002 Conservation of white-tailed kites at Dos Pueblos golf links in Santa Barbara County California A report submitted to Culbertson Adams&Associates Gill J (ACOE) May 20 1992 Letter to Beveridge & Diamond P C. declaring the MWD property to be prior converted cropland and not jurisdicational under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Holmes T 1993 Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance M S thesis Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado Cited in G R Craig (Colorado Division of Wildlife) October 20 1998 Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors Obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife Research Center Library Holmgren M A (UCSB) June 7 2002 Memorandum to J Dixon (CCC) regarding sensitivity of white-tailed kites to disturbance Homrighausen A and R Erickson (LSA) November 23 1999 Letter report to S Rynas (CCC) re Buffer design for Bolsa Chica Eucalyptus ESHA n Homnghausen A (LSA) T Bomkamp (Glenn Lukos Associates) and M Josselyn (WRA) June 12 2007 Memorandum to S Sarb (CCC) regarding Historic EPA area on Parkside Estates Huntington Beach Huntington Beach LCPA 1- 06 Homrighausen A (LSA) T Bomkamp (Glenn Lukos Associates) and M Josselyn (WRA) June 22 2007 Memorandum to S Sarb and M Vaughn (CCC) regarding Off site drainage into Parkside Estates EPA area Huffman R T 1987 A report on the presence of wetland and other aquatic habitats within the Bolsa Chica lowlands A report to the USEPA Region IX San Francisco California Exhibit LLL a, HNB-MAJ 1-06 ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 34 -485- item 9 - Page 275 Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 3 of 17 Jurek R M (CDFG) October 16 2000 Letter to S Hansch (CCC) regarding the probable effects of development on raptors at Bolsa Chica Mesa Kegance L M (Tom Dodson &Associates) December 17 1997 Letter report to J Morgan (EDAW Inc) regarding "Verification/update of wetland determinations for TT#15377" LSA Associates c January 14 2000 An examination of raptor flushing distances at the Bolsa Chica Eucalyptus Grove ESHA in early January 2000 A report to Hearthside Homes Metzler R (Shea Homes) June 20 2007 Letter to Chairman Kruer(CCC)and Executive Director Douglas (CCC) concerning allegations made by members of the public during the May 10 2007 CCC Hearing concerning the Huntington Beach LCPA (1-06) Mulroy T 1973 Flora and Fauna Pages 22—34 in Environmental Impact Reports Inc Draft Environmental Impact Report Tentative tract 7495 Hunting Beach California Rempel R D (CDFG) 1998a Letter to J R Barnes (City of Huntington Beach) concurring with the Tom Dodson report(Kegance 1997)that found no wetlands on the Shea site dated March 16 1998 Rempel R D (CDFG) 1998b Letter to J R Barnes (City of Huntington Beach) regarding Parkside Estates Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH #97091051 Orange County dated June 15 1998 Richardson C T and C K Miller 1997 Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance A review Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3) 634-638 Sanders D R June 24 1987 Determination of waters of the United States including wetlands at Bolsa Chica California A report to Beveridge & Diamond P C Sanders D R October 10 1991 Letter to R Sater(Beveridge & Diamond P C) regarding Investigation of MWD portion of Bolsa Chica with respect to prior- converted cropland versus farmed wetland status Tippets W E (CDFG) June 19 2000 Letter to D Barlett regarding Comments on the Hellman Ranch biological assessment(116/00) burrowing owl survey (2/23100) and subsequent confirmation of the biological assessment (5131100) U S Army Corps of Engineers September 26 1990 Regulatory Guidance Letter 90- 07 Subject Clarification of the phrase normal circumstances as it pertains to cropped welands Exhibit LLL HNB MAJ 1-06 ATTACHMENT NOS Page 3 of 34 Item 9 - Page 276 -486- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 4 of 17 U S Fish and Wildlife Service May 1979 U S Fish and Wildlife Service special report Bolsa Chica Area Prepared by Ecological Services Laguna Niguel California Van Coops J (CCC) July 2 2007 Memorandum to J Dixon and M Johnsson(CCC) - regarding Aerial Photo Interpretation for Shea Property (Orange Co APNs 110- 016-19 110-016-20 and 110-016-23) Walton B (U C Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group) October 23 2000 Letter to S Hansch (CCC) concerning probable effects of development on raptors at Bolsa Chica Mesa White C M and T L Thurow 1985 Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance Condor 87 14-22 Young S and T Bomkamp January 6 2004 Letter report to R Metzler(Shea Homes) regarding Wetland determination for the Parkside Estates site in the City of Huntington Beach Orange County California" At the May 10 2007 Coastal Commission Hearing concerning a project-specific(Shea Homes) LCP Amendment by the City of Huntington Beach several issues were raised by Commissioners or members of the public that staff had either not addressed or had dealt with in insufficient detail Although many photographs of standing water were presented at the hearing there was no new evidence of inundation that I had not previously considered (Dixon 2006) The principal unresolved issue concerns the possible loss of wetlands as a result of significant landform alterations including direct fill of wetlands The Commission s mapping supervisor Jon Van Coops (2007) has documented in a separate memorandum the actual landform changes that have taken place since the implementation of the Coastal Act using aerial imagery and topographic surveys I will relate those changes to the existence and distribution of wetlands on the property i will also address the recent assertions by wetland consultants for Shea Homes that the area delineated as a wetland by consultants for the Signal Bolsa Corporation and by the U S Environmental Protection Agency was not actually a wetland when delineated but rather was an artifact of technical errors In addition I will address two issues relating to raptors 1 The value of the agricultural field as foraging habitat and 2 The basis for recommending a particular width for a protective buffer around perching roosting and nesting habitat itVetlands, Landform Alterations, and 1998 Farming Operations EPA Wetland During the 1980s the Signal Bolsa Corporation commissioned a great deal of field work to delineate wetlands within the undeveloped portions of the Bolsa Chica lowlands that historically had been tidal marsh Much of that effort was devoted to hydrological studies which included the analysis of aerial imagery both vertical aerial photographs and nearly monthly oblique aerial photographs that documented surface saturation or Exhibit LLL HNB MAJ 1 06 ATTACHMENT NO Page 4 of 34 -487- item 9 - Page 277 Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 5 of 17 surface ponding of water The study area included the property that was owned by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (now Shea Homes Parks►de) although the MWD property received less intense scientific scrutiny than the Signal properties Then as now most of the Parkslde property was under agriculture precluding the presence of wetland vegetation Dr Dana Sanders was the wetland scientist responsible for the wetland delineation However for the Parks►de property his recommendations followed closely the recommendations of Thomas Bilhorn a hydrologist and earth scientist who conducted the actual field work and analysis Bilhorn based his wetland identification on (1) a field examination (including test pits and borings) on April 15 1987 (2) nearby rainfall records (3) a 1980 topographic map (4) approximately monthly low altitude oblique aerial photographs covering the period 1981 - 1987 (5) historical aerial photos dating to 1927 and (6)the documented history of land alterations affecting the area After Dr Sanders concluded that a portion of the site met federal wetland criteria' Mr Bilhorn estimated the location size and shape of the wetland based on the presence of a topographic depression and on the location of a wetted area on vertical aerial photographs from 1982 in 1980 the U S Environmental Protection Agency designated the Bolsa Chica area as a Special Case"which under a Memorandum of Understanding with the U S Army Corps of Engineers transferred the responsibility for wetlands identification and delineation from the Corps to EPA Although considerable field work had been done by Signal the EPA independently identified and delineated the wetlands in the agricultural area based on their own analysis of aerial photographs and topography (T Yocom2 in personal telephone and electronic mail communications to J Dixon on June 19 2007) Mr Yocom pointed out that In addition under 40 CFR 230 3(s)(1) farmed areas which were historically subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and which remain below the plane of MHW are waters of the United States (see EPA JD page 6) The Metropolitan property according to EPA JD is underlain with Bolsa Silty Clay Loam and is described as a soil on alluvial fans that are somewhat poorly drained and with mottles (redox concentrations ) They are listed as having good potential for supporting wetland vegetation (1978 Soil Survey for Orange County) In a recent submission (Homrighausen Bomkamp and Josselyn 2007) Shea Homes wetland consultants refer to the wetland area mapped in the late 1980s by Signal Bolsa Corporation and by the EPA as the so-called EPA Wetland and put forth various arguments that purport to show that a wetland did not exist at that location at that time They make the following claims 1 Field studies conducted both before and after the EPA wetland delineation found that no wetlands were present 2 The Signal Balsa consultant Thomas Bilhorn based his 1987 wetland determination only on 1980 topography and 1982 vertical aerial photographs and that dark soils in such a photograph are not evidence of wetness 3 EPA picked up Bilhorn s errors and by implication did not do independent research 4 Bilhorn and EPA did not account for losses of hydrology that resulted from the construction of the Cabo del Mar 1 Sanders made all the final delineation decisions following the standards developed by the Armv Corps of Engineers(Bilhorn personal communication to l Dixon on June 29 2007) 2 Tom Yocom was a National Wetlands Expert for the USEPA at the time of his retnement In 2005 In the late 1980s Mr Yocom was responsible for the EPA wetland delineation of the Bolsa Chic-)lowlands Jurisdictional Determination Exhibit LLL HNB MAJ 1 06 ATTACHMENT N0 2 (cA / Page 5 of 34 [item 9 - Page 278 -488- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 6 of 17 condominium complex around 1983-1984 several years before their delineations 5 No direct evidence of surface hydrology was ever reported and 6 Signal Bolsa Corporation s primary wetland consultant Dana Sanders determined in 1991 that Bilhorn is flawed i will address these claims in order 1 Homnghausen et al (2007) assert that Four mappings or wetland determinations made before the Bilhorn/EPA delineation and six made subsequent to it all found no wetland in the EPA wetland area " This might be taken to mean that each of these reports determined that there were no wetlands in the area mapped by EPA That is not the case The four early studies (Dillingham 1971 Mulroy 1973 Boule et al 1981 and CDFG 1981)were not technical wetland delineations Dillingham(1971)and Boule et al (1981)were vegetation studies that described the Parkside property as plowed field and U/A (Urban/Agricultural) respectively Mulroy characterized the area as a - ploughed field or wheat field containing trees and weeds In 1981 the California Department of Fish and Game designated the whole Parkside property as severely degraded wetlands (restorable—below +5 MSL) " These reports simply acknowledge the fact that this historical salt marsh was an agricultural field at the time of observations Of the six studies that took place after the EPA determination three (Sanders 1991 Gill 1992 and Rempel 1992)were not in fact studies at all Sanders (1991)was a determination based on inaccurate reporting of the record (see Dixon 2006) that the EPA wetland was prior converted cropland 4 and Gill (1992)was a concurrence letter from the Army Corps of Engineers Apparently no field work was conducted for this concurrence and had the record been accurately reported the area might not have met the definition of prior converted cropland (Dixon 2006) Rempel (1992)was a concurrence by CDFG with the report by Kegarice (1997) The flawed nature of that study and my technical assessment of the other two studies (Frank Havore and Associates 1997 Young and Bomkamp 2004) are detailed in my earlier memo (Dixon 2006) In addition it should be noted that these wetland studies did not attempt to assess conditions as they existed in 1987 but rather dealt with current conditions which included markedly changed topography 2 Homrighausen et al (2007)confound issues associated with wetland identification with separate issues regarding wetland boundary determination Bilhorn relied on a variety of evidence for his wetland determination (see above) His boundary determination on the other hand was based on the wetted area shown on two 1982 aerial photographs5 and on the location of a topographical depression documented by 1980 elevations Although the data were not shown s Bilhorn (1987) stated that seasonal patterns of damp and flooded soils were determined from the monthly 1981 - 4 In the 1988 National Food Security Act Manual the Soil Conservation Service defined prior converted croplands as wetlands that prior to December 23 1985 were both cropped and manipulated to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values Specifically such areas are inundated for less than 15 consecutive days during the growing season during most vears The Corp and EPA do not exert jurisdiction over prior converted cropland 5 This was actually a good time to analyze patterns of wetness and inundation In the week prior to the March 18 1982 photograph there were about 2 2 inches of ram with 1 8 inches falling on March 17 18 In the intervening days before the March 31 1982 photograph an additional 8 inches of rain fell 6In his report on the Bolsa Chica lowland owned by Signal Bolsa Corporation Bilhorn(1986)mapped the ponded areas shown in the low level oblique aerial photographs Unfortunately the study area for the 1986 report did not include the agricultural field so no data were shown for the latter Although the photographs included the agricultural field and Bilhorn(1987)used them for his wetland identification he did not present the data Exhdbl>t LLL H N B MAJ-1 06 ATTA ENT NO Page 6 of 34 -489- Item 9 - Page 279 Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 7 of 17 1987 low altitude photographs as opposed to the two 1982 vertical aerial photographs that he used to estimate the wetland boundary Homnghausen et al (2007) also assert that Bilhorn made a flawed determination of`wetted soils n and presumed that dark sods were equivalent to wet sods n In a recent memorandum(Bilhorn 2007) Mr Bilhorn states his educational credentials and extensive experience in the interpretation of aerial photographs emphasizes that in all his work (including that at Bolsa Chica) he combines photo-interpretation with ground-truthing addresses the dark soils vs wet soils issue?and stands by his 1987 delineation A March 19 1982 oblique aerial photograph shows the EPA wetland completely covered by standing water from the horse arena in the south to the northern property line (Figure 1) This confirms the accuracy of Mr Bilhom s determination of wetted soils from his analysis of the March 18 1982 vertical aerial photograph Finally Hornnhausen et al (2007) claim that I found that ponding occurred for less than 7 days during March 1982 implying that this in some way relates to the EPA wetland In my report(Dixon 2006) 1 used rainfall to estimate the likelihood of areas AP and WP ponding for at least 7 days given current topography and soil conditions This obviously says nothing about the actual conditions in 1982 when the topography was very different At that time neither AP nor WP was present whereas the EPA wetland included the lowest point in the agricultural field 3 Homrighausen et al (2007) assert that the EPA study was really just a restatement of the Bilhorn study 8 According to Mr Yocom this is not true EPA took into account data that had been collected by Signal Bolsa Corporation s consultants but also conducted an independent analysis based on their own interpretation of aerial photographs and site topography 4 Prior to the 1980s some portion of the runoff from the mesa and mesa slope where the Cabo del Mar condominiums are now located drained onto the Parkside property To my knowledge there has never been a topographic analysis to determine where the runoff was directed or how much drained onto Parkside as opposed to other parts of the mesa or to the residential areas north of Parkside that are at a lower elevation However this land historically contributed some amount of water to the agricultural area of Parkside At least by 19869 all the runoff from the Cabo del Mar Condominium complex and some adjacent neighborhoods was directed to a 5 foot storm drain that was constructed on the Parkside property along its northern boundary Also for an interim period of unknown duration between about 1978 and the completion of the condominium complex runoff from an undetermined area was directed to drain pipes that terminated in an open bubble up structure 10 just north of the Parkside property line at the base of the slope near the northern Eucalyptus grove Homrighausen et al (2007) claim that the delineation of the EPA wetland was flawed because neither Bilhorn nor the EPA took into account these changes in hydrology and seem to suggest Mr Bilhorn commented that I have a great deal of experience in using aerial photos and at Bolsa visited and mapped that site almost monthly over something like eight years I am comfortable in standing by my description of saturated ground as distinguished from dark mineral colored soil as that was a necessary distinction 1 had to make each month throughout the Bolsa area 8 Similarly Metzler(2007)states that EPA perpetuated an error by Bilhorn 9 The construction drawings submitted to the City were signed off as built in 1986 but the date of sign off does not necessary correspond to the date of completion '0 Essentially a short length of vertical culvert that terminated above the ground surface and had a protective grated cover Exhibit LLL i HNB-MAJ-106 _ ATTACHMENT NO Page 7 of 34 Item 9 - Page 280 -490- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 8 of 17 that if there was a wetland it was critically dependent on whatever water was diverted by the new storm drain The tatter is an ad hoc hypothesis for which there is little evidence one way or the other One can only say that some amount of water was added or perhaps only directed to a point location (the bubble up structure)for a few years around the early 1980s and that sometime between about 1984 and 1986 water from north of the site was diverted to a storm dram Both Bilhorn (1987) and EPA (1989) are silent regarding the Cabo del Mar development However the grading and construction of the condominiums and the excavation and installation of the storm drain across the agricultural field were not subtle or hidden activities and Bilhorn (1987) stated that he considered jvlanous records and reports providing dates of construction and land alteration which affect the hydrology of the area of study" Although Mr Bilhorn does not recall the detail of the construction activities that were taking place when he did his assessment he stated that he would routinely have taken into account obvious changes that affected hydrology and that took place prior to his 1987 report (personal communication to J Dixon June 28 2007) 5 Homrighausen et al (2007) assert that no direct evidence of surface hydrology was ever reported " Bilhorn (1987)stated that the delineated area was indicated by aerial photographs to receive surface water repeatedly from adjacent areas during the winter rainy season That is direct evidence (also see Figure 1 below) Unfortunately the photographs are not readily available for verification because Mr Bilhorn turned over all the photographs to the State Lands Commission when they took possession of the Bolsa Chica lowlands (Bilhorn 2007 and personal communication to J Dixon on June 28 2007) 6 Homrighausen et a[ (2007) assert that Sanders originally concluded that none of the area in the agricultural field was wetland Nevertheless in 1987 Sanders deferred to Bilhorn s hydrology analysis even though in retrospect it appears flawed In 1987 Sanders concluded that Based on the application of the multiparameter approach the entire subunit(43 8 acres) is presently uplands This is due to the absence of wetlands hydrology in most of the subunit and hydrophytic vegetation throughout However it was determined that a portion of the subunit would probably be sufficiently wet to support hydrophytic vegetation if the farming activities ceased In his 1991 letter Sanders backpedaled and claimed that he preliminarily concluded that none of the area qualified as wetlands but changed his mind because Bilhorn (1987) showed that during periods of normal rainfall the shallow soil was saturated by a high water table This characterization of Bilhorn s results is demonstrably false(Dixon 2006) The salient result of B►lhom s studies was that the water table in the agricultural field was too deep to contribute to wetland hydrology and that the wetland was dependent on rainfall and localized runoff(Bilhorn 1987 and personal communication to J Dixon on June 28 2007) Homrighausen et a1 continue Sanders makes it clear in his 1991 letter that Bilhorn is flawed noting the altered hydrology After rereading Sanders (1991) several times 1 remain baffled by this statement No where does Sanders question Bilhorn s results he merely misrepresents them I have previously (Dixon 2006) discussed the grossly Exhibit LLL C' �3�� HNB MAJ 1-06 ATTA HMENT NO --- Page 8 of 34 -491- Item 9 - Page 281 Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 9 of 17 inaccurate representations made by Sanders(1991)" I am attaching copies of Sanders(1987 and 1991) and Bilhorn (1987)so those who are interested can make their own assessment of the reliability and verisimilitude of Sanders(1991) Landform Alterations In his memorandum Jon Van Coops (2007)carefully documents both the fill that has been added to the southwestern portion of the Parks►de site (probably originating offsite) and the leveling of the agricultural field by removing sod from some areas and adding it to others In 1980 the area where a wetland was later mapped by EPA was a depression that included the lowest point in the agricultural field In general the ground sloped from the south and east to the north and west The bottom of the depression was one to one and half feet lower than the surrounding ground and probably corresponded to a low feature in the historical salt marsh Essentially all the runoff from rainfall that fell onto the agricultural field and the adjacent hillside would have been directed to that depression Today there is no Indication of a depression in that area 12 It has been completely filled On the other hand the base of the hillside to the west has been cut and that is now the lowest place in the agricultural field and the location of the AP wetland Until 2005 there was a second shallower depression next to the flood control channel that was designated WP The delineated boundary was at an elevation of about 1 2 feet and the lowest point was about 0 7 feet This area was effectiveli leveled by moving dirt from the hill to the west into the depression with a box plow' in December 2005 Therefore regardless of means or intent the EPA wetland was filled and the AP and WP wetlands were created between 1977 and 2005 In December 2005 WP was also filled In addition to the land leveling that has taken place fill has been imported and placed in the southwestern portion of the site The fill upon which the extension of Stater Avenue was constructed was in place prior to the local implementation of the Coastal Act The fill upon which a stable and associated infrastructure was built was added after 1977 In addition a ditch was dug around the northern and eastern edges of this raised area apparently to convey runoff to a pond from which it was pumped probably into the flood control channel This unpermitted ditch periodically held water and may have developed wetland characteristics Using a bulldozer Shea Homes filled the ditch in 1998 in preparation for farming The earlier fill south of Slater Avenue associated with the stable development covered an area that supported pickleweed a wetland indicator 11 Sanders(1991)manages to make the following contradictory statements on the same page the water table does not rise to the soil surface during years of normal rainfall and the area would not have been considered as wetlands except for the high water table expected during years of normal rainfall 12 Homrighausen et al (2007) however assert that Changes in topography have been minimal -a matter of itches less than the depth of a furrow 13 Shea Homes(Metzler 2007)equates a box plow with a wide blade plow The use of the latter is considered plowing and a normal farming activity by the Corps of Engineers However a wide blade plow is a different implement According to free tractor manuals com a wide blade plow is synonymous with sweep plow Noble blade plow blade plow and V blade plow"and refers to a wide flat blade tractor implement that kills weeds without disturbing surface residue A similar definition is provided by the Savannah Company which manufactures blade plows(www say annahglobal com) In any event redistribution of surface materials br bladmg i idmg or other means to fill in wetland areas is not plowing by federal standards(33CFR320 331) Exhibet LLL HNB MAJ-1 06 ATTLCHWARENT NO � S� Page 9 of 34 Steam 9 - Page 282 -492- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 10 of 17 plant in 1971 The area no doubt was still a wetland when it was filled The fill north and west of the horse arena occurred in areas that were periodically inundated judging from aerial photographs However there are insufficient data upon which to determine whether most of those areas would have met the definition of wetlands under the Coastal Act and the Commission s Regulations at the time they were filled A small portion of that fill appears to have been placed on the EPA wetland (Van Coops 2007 Exhibit 26) 1998 Farming Operations Metzler(2007) characterizes an April 22 1998 photograph of a bulldozer grading and moving earth within the agricultural field as being a weed abatement operation»and implies that it was a necessary response to a weed abatement order from the City of Huntington Beach On April 20 1998 apparently in response to concerns from citizens and the Department of Fish and Game 14 the City of Huntington Beach acted as follows The motion made by Green second Sullivan to authorize the Street Superintendent to proceed with abatement of said nuisance except Shea Company property located at southerly terminus of Graham Street north of Orange County Flood Control channel(except for 100 foot buffer zone by residences for fire protection purposes)and report this matter at the Council meeting of May 4 1998 The motion earned by unanimous vote with Councilmember Julien recorded absent Apparently weed abatement was only required in a 100 foot strip long the northern boundary of the property that is adjacent to existing residences 15 Generally weed abatement is accomplished by mowing to a height of no more that 6 inches or by disking and does not require the movement of earth from one place to another The bulldozer operation that took place in April 1998 did accomplish the abatement of weeds but it also resulted in significant landform alteration as is suggested by the piles of earth that were documented in a video taken by a local resident (Figure 2) Raptor Habitat and Its Protection Foraginq Habitat At the May 10 2007 Hearing members of the public pointed out that the agricultural fields on the Shea Homes Parkside property offer foraging opportunities to raptors that would be lost as a result of the planned development In a comment letter on the draft Environmental Impact Report for Parkside Estates the California Department of Fish " Scott Harris biologist California Department of Fnh and Game stated that new information has been given to the state Department of Fish and Game He presented reasons why he would urge that weed abatement be postponed foi at least one grove ing season to give any wetlands vegetation a chance to come back so that a more complete wetland evaluation can be on that property Mr Harris responded to Mayor Pro Tem Green regarding the possibility of reversing the letter of the California Department of Fish and Game From the Minutes City Council/Redevelopment Agencv City of Huntington Beach April 20 1998 "However it was also made clear at the meeting that there was no reason not to disk the field for farming Exhibit LLL HNB-MAJ 1-06 ATTACHMENT NO I� J� Page 10 of 34 -493- Item 9 - Page 283 Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 11 of 17 and Game (Rempel 1998b)found that "Agricultural areas grasslands and wetlands are of seasonal importance to several species of raptors in Orange County by providing Important if not vital staging and wintering habitat These habitats also provide forging areas for resident breeding raptors " Although the potential impact to raptor foraging habitat was noted Rempel (1998b) did not recommend any specific mitigation In recent years the California Department of Fish and Game has recommended that losses of documented raptor foraging habitat would be adequately offset by the dedication of 0 5 acres of foraging habitat for every 1 0 acre that is lost(e g Tippets 2000 and W Tippets (CDFG) personal communication to T Henry(CCC) in 2004) in past actions t6 the Commission has followed this recommendation Since raptor foraging habitat is typically comprised of annual grassland and ruderal areas I queried a number of raptor experts regarding the significance of agricultural areas that are frequently planted in row crops Although plowed fields tend to have lower foraging value than undisturbed areas they are still important if the agricultural land is allowed to go fallow for part of the year and if it is periodically flooded it will also bring in more raptor prey species (Scott Harris CDFG email to J Dixon on May 25 2007) At an agricultural site in the Halfmoon Bay area there is significant raptor foraging in disked areas (G Deghi email communication to J Dixon on June 8 2007) Peter Bloom observed that gophers are often abundant in agricultural fields and that even repeated plowing does not exclude all rodent species (email communication to J Dixon on June 4 2007) Gary George the Executive Director of the Los Angeles Audubon Society noted that agricultural fields are used for foraging by white-tailed kites northern harriers ferruginous hawks and Swainson s hawks (email communication to J Dixon on May 27 2007) Although there has been no attempt to quantify the raptor use of the agricultural field at the Shea Homes Parkside property Mark Bixby (2007) a local resident who regularly visits the site semi regularly observes foraging by white-tailed kites northern harriers kestrels and Cooper s hawks especially in the western portion of the agricultural field nearest the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the stands of Eucalyptus trees Therefore it appears that the agricultural field at the Shea Homes Parkside property is a significant foraging resource for several raptor species including the white-tailed kite which is a California fully protected species Bloom (2000) estimated the average distance from their hunting perch that raptors take prey red-tailed hawk (100 300 yd/ 91 274m) red-shouldered hawk (100ft/30m) merlin (75-400yd/69-366m) peregrine falcon (150yd/ 137m) Cooper s hawk (50-250yd/46-229m) sharp shinned hawk (50- 150yd/46-137m) great horned owl (100-300yd/91-274m) barn owls (25-100yd/23- 91 m) This also suggests that the portion of the field that is closest to the western hillside and the Eucalyptus groves is of greatest significance to raptors 16 For example Revised Findings for 5 97 367 A l (Hellman Properties LLC)adopted June 14 2000 and Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Signal Landmark)adopted October 13 2005(origmal CCC action was on April14 2005) Exhibit LLL HNB-MAJ 1 06 ATTACHMENT NO � Page 11 of 34 Item 9 - Page 284 -494- Dixon memorandum to M Vaughn dated 07/02/07 re natural resources at Parkside Page 12 of 17 Eucalyptus Tree ESHA and Protective Buffers Most of the area supporting the trees that line the edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa has been recognized as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) by the Coastal Commission in past actions because of the important ecosystem function of providing nesting perching and roosting habitat for many species of birds of prey I have recommended that the northern grove of trees on the Parkside property also be designated as an ESHA because it has been documented to provide the same ecosystem functions as the rest of the trees and recommended a 100-meter protective buffer (Dixon 2006b) The following discussion presents the rationale for recommending a 100-meter development setback The protective function of development setbacks or buffers increases in some non- linear fashion with an increase in the width of the buffer The amount of protection provided by the buffer can probably be described by an S-shaped curve increasing slowly for ten or twenty meters then rapidly for some unknown distance that varies by species (but probably from several tens of meters to a few hundred meters) and finally = slowing and approaching an asymptote at greater distances Therefore within that middle range of distances whether or not a buffer is protective is not a yes or no" question but is instead a matter of degree The shape of the curve and the feasible level of protection also varies with the landscape setting In an urban setting feasible development setbacks are probably always too small to prevent impacts to all w►ldlife species For example Findlay and Houlahan (1997) found a negative correlation between species richness in wetlands and the density of roads on land up to 2000 meters from the wetland and concluded that narrow buffer zones were unlikely to protect biodiversity it is very unlikely that such relationships would be evident in urban areas because the potential buffer zone is already developed and the most sensitive species are already lost The scale of disturbance and its ecological effects is irreversibly altered by urbanization Whereas in a natural setting a 2-kilometer buffer might be measurably more protective than a buffer of a few hundred meters in an urban setting the maximum possible buffer is generally no more than one to several hundred meters and often less Another complication in an urban setting is that many birds that are present are either genetically predisposed to tolerate disturbance or have become habituated to human activities These are the birds that will be most apparent to human observers In the context of the nearby Hearthside Homes Brightwater development LSA(2000) conducted a flushing study They found that when their perches were approached by a pedestrian raptors flushed at distances that varied among species individuals and height of the perch The lower the perch the sooner the birds flushed Kestrels were most tolerant of human presence often not flushing at all (flushing range 0— 13 m) At the other extreme the single turkey vulture approached flushed at a distance of 70 m White-tailed kites which are sensitive to human intrusion in natural settings generally flushed when approached to 30 m Given the relatively high level of disturbance within the habitat where the study was done it is reasonable to assume that most of the birds Exhibit LLL # t� HNB-MAJ-106 tFrENT NC �(� t� 3 t, Page 12 of 34 -495- Item 9 - Page 285 Go ST,xTt"OF OURCES h--1 D_ GEDH � EUKMEJIAN, ►rrnor STA KCAL R v N 'I.Er-pp PARKS AND eECREAMOrri �_s t sir VDXA LIFO (916)4 StE CALIFORNIA 95811 i916)4454;00b _ MINUTES OF THE RICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION �cil Chambers Strand Way do, Califor113a x - esy^ November 4, 1983 �ossS' e� r � C¢MDN MEMBERS PRESENT Mr B— Judd, Chair Dr ftiale- 1r-_CCbLhzll, Vice-Cha-ir Ms Julia 0 Cbstello Dr Ernestine S Elster �< Dr Nadine I Hats 'a Dr Ted C Hinckley j COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT Is Sally Woodbridge STAFF PRESENT Dr Knox Mellon, Executive Secretary Mrs Sandra J Elder, -Assistant Executive Secretary Mr Aaron A Gallus, Staff Architectural Historian Ms Joan M Cunningham, (recording Secretary , ALSO PRESENT See Attachment "Ass Notice having been duly given, the,regular meeting of the CALL TO ORDER State Historical Resources Commission way caljed to order in the City Council Cbamber:sN 1825 Strand Way, Coronado,, California at 9 05 a m z Chair Judd introduced the Commission members and staff to the audience Dr Hata moved to approve the minutes of the special meeting MINUTES of August 4 and the regular meeting of August 5, 1983, 8/4/83 and of the State Historical Resources Commission Ms Costello 8/5/83 seconded the motion Notion carried unanimously 1 item 9 - Page 286 -496- 1 9 { fti N A T I O N A L R E G I S T E R O F H I S T O R I C P L A C E S The Commission considered the resubmission of the National Register APPLICATIONS application for Rancho de Santa Teresa, Santa Clara County RESUBMITTED After some discussion Ms Costello moved to recommend Rancho de Santa Rancho de Santa Teresa to the State Historic Preservation Teresa Officer for placement on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance Dr Elster seconded and the motion was carried unanimously The Commission considered the application of CA-ORA-83, APPLICATIONS Cogstone Site, Orange County There were people in PENDING attendance to speak both for and against the application CA-ORA-83 The first speakers were Pat Hammon, Jane Gothold and Laura Lee Mitchell of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society speaking in favor of the application Speaking in opu2t ication was Glen Smith of the Metropolitan Water District Also speaking in oppositio was Robert Thornton and Dr NauggD sa+ p s, together with �^ Ray Belandos representing the Juanero Band of M-ission Indians ' After considerable diussz-on his Costello moved to recommend the CA-ORA-83, Cogstoae, Site, to the State Historic Preservation r�0� Officer for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places eg at the state level of significance Dr Elster seconded and G OS the motion carried with 5 ayes and 1 n "_o �y6 i -497- Item 9 - Page 287 9 S N A T I O N A L R E G I S T E R O F H I S T O R I C P L A C E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - The Commission considered the resubmission of the National Register APPLICATIONS application for Rancho de Santa Teresa, Santa Clara County RESUBMITTED After some discussion Ms Costello moved to recommend. Rancho de Santa Rancho de Santa Teresa to the State Historic Preservation Teresa Officer for placement on the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance Dr Elster seconded and the motion was carried unanimously The Commission considered the application of CA-ORA-83, APPLICATIONS Cogstone Site, Orange County There were people in PENDING attendance to speak both for and against the application CA-ORA-83 The first speakers were Pat Hammon, Jane Gothold and Laura Lee Mitchell of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society speaking in favor of the application Speaking in oypQA tinn to the application was Glen Smith of the Metropolitan Water District Also speaking in oppositio _ was Robert Thornton and Dr Na_ , together with Ray Belandos representing the Juanero Band of Mission Indians �( After considerable divussion Ms Costello moved to recommend �9S the CA-ORA-83, Cogsto�se Site, to the State Historic Preservation Officer for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places peg at the state level of significance Dr Elster seconded and the motion carried with S ayes and 1 n �l tbti i TT.tCH ENT NO � �L�'`/ Item 9 - Page 288 -498- gT i ' P "o\I—, 'HOMAS P APLIN STEVEN A� ROBERT E CACIAHAN ATHIEEN CARD A�AA,Ocv t, 1 I.I. 1 K_1\ IM CHIBOUCAS V1W PAIONE e SUSAN K HORI R IE l#M( Hol—m RAfMOND KING IE= JOHN LEHR EN BWATT�.q11 _LS0 ADUMED"MStAir AVVYERS DauMBIA M ADM riFD*J NEW ^K r L:: 199:::[ �s Ms Cindi M Alvitre 10 Gabnelino Tribal Council -4 2462 Avocado ' Riverside, California 92507 I� Re Bolsa Chica Archaeology t F� Dear Cinch -- Following up on our recent telephone conversations I have compiled some information fo ` you regarding the Bolsa Chica archaeological sites Fiat,I am enclosing a copy of the mos recent draft of the Reburial Agreement for your review I hope that some of the changes k, which have been made address your concerns The revised agreement provides for rebunaP on the Huntington Mesa on the Bolsa Chica property it also clarifies the 4old�hartnle provision As we discussed we wish to avoid the situation where we have arranged,to rebury the artifacts and human bone fragments in accordance with your wishes,but then are faced kvith other Native Amencans claiming to be the most likely descendants and who hold up resolution of these issues In the event that occurs the agreement asks that You tnd David Belardes resolve the issue of most likely descendants and appropriate representation among the tnbal members and that the landowner not get involved in having to choose r-,k between one representative or another Second I have enclosed maps of the site showing the location of the various archaeological sites The site that is currently being excavated is ORA 83 As you know, other sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have already been fully excavated and nuts d(ORA-289 ORA-78 and ORA 85). Raymond Bear es served as the Native American monitor on all of those / excavations No human remains were found durirsgAhe ctnus of anv of th Px �v1uons All of the material which was recovered i e shells, beads etc are in the possession of the landowner or the archaeological consultant L072 92 t 5(K)6 1 e Ir0 " 1 KARMAN 'nth FL )OR Ir F _ IF09N1A -j2715 11 955""r'l - 355 5009 POST OI -C'E AC 3 4 INE LIFOPNIA o � 31> ATTACHNIENT -499- Mein 9 - Page 289 a �., Ms Cindi Alvitre ; July 27 1992 't Page 3 " David Belardes or Phil Ibanez «e would like to meet with you and Mr Belardes to finalize-, { the agreement and discuss any other issues that you or he may have with respect to the excavations r Very truly yours, r L Susan l- Hon t _ Enclosures cc David Belardes (w/enclosures) Nancy A. Whitney Desautels Ph D (w/reburial agreement) t Lucy Dunn (w/rebunal agreement) Darlene A. Shelley (w/reburial agreement) r v 41 Y b s ;ti Y S i ATTACHMENT NO qj�, (tern 9 - Page 290 -500- E r Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Bnghtwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark ,ice Page 97 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 30244 of the Coastal Act protects cultural resources in the coastal zone and states Mere development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer reasonable mitigation measures shall be required Coastal-Act Section 30244 states that reasonable mitigation measures shall be required where development would adversely impact Ientrfied archaeological resources Tht- applicant contends that the Brightwater development project will not adversely impact either of the two on-site identified archaeological sites due to the fact that a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of future development have been implemented completely in the case of ORA-85 and at the time of the October 2004 hearing 97% complete in the case of ORA-83'ias approved by the County of Orange and the Coastal ommission The coastal development permits and other actions that have been taken by the Coastal Commission for ORA-83 and ORA-85 are reviewed below Despite the fact that approvals were obtained from the County and the Commission for complete recovery of cultural resources as proposed by the applicant and archaeological testing and recovery work has been on-going since the mid-1980 s under these permits there stilt remains considerable opposition to removal of the cultural resources of ORA-83 During the preparation of the staff report for the October 2004 hearing Commission staff received several letters from archaeologists including university professors and several letters from environmental groups Native Americans and individuals calling for the preservation of ORA-83 even though they are aware that a full recovery program for the site has long since been approved Staff received a copy of a 1999 letter from the head of the archaeology division of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History supporting the preservation of what remains at ORA-83 and a 2001 letter from Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez supporting the listing of ORA-83 in the Federal Register as a National Historic Site Some request that the site be capped and left as open space after the data has been recovered instead of allowing residential development at the site of an identified prehistoric and historic cultural resource While others suggest that further destruction of ORA-83 be avoided relocation of proposed development away from ORA- 83 Yet others assert that recent mechanical excavations at ORA-83 have revealed the presence of numerous semi-subterranean house pit features at the base of the site beneath the madden deposit and contend that this feature represents a new significant area of needed research Although the Commission approved the full recovery of ORA-83 as proposed by the applicant in the previous permits listed below the Commission finds no evidence in the record of those permits at the bme of their approvals that the semi- subterranean house pits„were known or expected to exist beneath the shell madden T2 Archaeological Site CA ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological invesbgations Nancy Anastasia Desautels PhD Sgentific Resources Surveys Inc Project No 926 Apni 28 2003 Archaeological Site CA ORA 85 The Eberhart Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological Wyestgations Nancy Anastasia Desautels PhD Scientific Resources Surveys inc Project No 926 September 2003 ATTACMENT NO 1 -501- Item 9 - Page 291 Revised Findings for 6-0"20(Bnghtwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page101 elevations and no benches or public trails within the observation area Exhibit 32 includes a map of additional area to be considered The Native American Heritage Commission sent a letter to the Commission during its October 2004 deliberations requesting that that the Bnghtwater project includes interpretive signage along the Mesa detailing the area s prehistoric and historic history Finally the above letters also request signage concerning the Native American past of the site as well as dissemination of the wealth of knowledge that has been gained over the two decades of study at the site andcuration of the appropriate portions of the artifacts recovered from the site Only as conditioned to place appropriate interpretive signage along the public trail informing the public of the cultural resources of the area to disseminate the series of required final reports to institutions and interested groups to curate the artifacts recovered from the site in a facility in Orange County meeting established standards and to have an archaeologist and Native American monitor present when grading operations commence to ensure that if any additional cultural resources are found there are procedures n place to go about determining the significance of the resources and to ensure that work-carr procedure without adversely impacting, archaeological or paleontological res Description and Sta s of ORA-83 ORA-83 is 118 acres in size and is located at the southeastern bluff edge of the Bnghtwater ORA-83 is commonly known as the Cogged Stone Site and consists of a shell madden Cogged Stones are unusual artifacts that are manufactured and used in ceremonial practices More Cogged Stones over 400 or roughly half of the total found have been found on ORA-83 than any other site and are thought to have been distributed throughout coastal and near-coastal California Similar stones have also been found on the coast of northern Chile it is also believed that the Cogged Stone site served as a ceremonial center and a center for the manufacture of the Cogged Stones ORA-83 has been twice found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places However the listing has been declined by the property owner According to the applicant's archaeological consultant the site was 97% recovered at the time of the application submittal.for the O__b reaoQ4 heanno Based on staff observations in November 2004 the site appears to be virtually 100%recovered Description and Statu $ ORA-85 the EberhartaSite is described by Dr Desautels of Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) as a shell madden located on the western edge of the Balsa Chica Mesa Knowledge of the Eberhart site has existed since the 1920 s Based on the numerous investigations of the site carried out by other researchers beginning in the mid-1960 s and by SRS beginning in the 1980's the Eberhart site was determined to be a residential base or village and was not a limited special-purpose shellfish gather and processing station No evidence of ceremonial or other structures were found Other than four quartz crystals which may be evidence of ceremonial utensil manufacture,no obvious objects associated w1th religious ceremonies were recovered Finally no evidence of human remains in the ;'�- ATTA',.'HMENT NO Item 9 - Page 292 -502- Revised Findings for 5 05-020(Brightwater) / Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark coo Page 98 The July 10 2003 brief update statement by the applicants archaeological consultant signed by the three current peer reviewers stated that,"The Peer Review Committee members over the last several years have overseen the nature of the ongoing phases of the Ora-83 site investigation and had made recommendations on strategies appropriate to address the unusual breadth of the emergent field discoveries' The update further states that the special new topics'evolving at Ora-83 include describing and evaluating the patterns of the multitude of semi-subterranean house pit features revealed' Professor Pat Martz a past member of the California State Historical Resources Commission states I in revisions to her 2001 nomination of ORA 83 for listing on the National Register of Historic Places to the State Historic Preservation Officer that house pit structural features i are rarely found in Southern California and are extremely rare since the site was occupied during the Early Holocene/M►llingstone Horizon of California prehistory Semi- subterranean house pits are large circular depressions that were excavated below the surface a few feet and framed with poles and then thatched Under normal climatic conditions(not consistently dry or consistently wet)organic materials would not preserve It is likely that the house pit structures would have a hard packed floor post-holes and a hearth Professor Martz contends that these house pit features are probably still present at the base of the site and that these semi-subterranean house pits have the potential to address important questions regarding village structure social organization settlement patterns gender activities and demographics as well as relationship of the structures to astronomical features In November 2004 Commission staff accompanied the applicant and their consulting team on the project site to revisit a number of issues that had been raised at the October 2004 Commission meeting At that time staff verified that the house pits had all been excavated and backfilled Archaeologists have recognized the astronomical significance of numerous archaeological sites in Southern California for more than 25 years and celestial observations have been conducted at several archaeological sites Recently among both scientists and Native Americans there has been a growing interest in studying ORA-83 to determine if the site was a key location in the complex spintual/philosophicai system of knowledge regarding the Cosmos held by prehistoric Native Americans Beginning in 1994 a Cogged Stone Site study team made up of scientists and Native Americans has tested its astronomical research design for ORA-83 several times The According to Dr Martz the team proposed that the view from the elevated mesa encompasses geographic features that ethnographic data suggest may have functioned as cyclical astronomical alignments such as Catalina island to the southwest and Point Fermin Heights to the west The team discovered that the sun sets over West Vnd Point of Santa Catalina Island for three days in late December signaling the winter solstice and that it uses directly over the Point Fermin Heights to indicate the spring and fall equinoxes The Commission has found no evidence in the record of the previous permits that the approved mitigation measures were for impacts to archaeoastronomical resources A Native American from the Band of Luiseno Mission Indians representing the Maritime Shoshone Inc a not-for-profit Native corporation has sought to preserve a 7 4 acre portion of ORA-83 for its archaoeastronomical value in Ms Jeffredo-Warden s May 2004 ATTACHMENT NO L� ` � - -503- Itertr>t 9 - Page 293 1 MOa7 November 5e Memo To £d Mountford Heartfiside Homes David Belardes,Juaneno Band Anthony Morales Gabnefirto Band Prof Paul Langenvaalter CC Jeff Couch Tracy Stropes This memo is to inform you that Ed Mountford has requested that only himself and the two most likely deseandants attend the meeting on Tuesday the 6th. I will,therefore not be attending In accordance with a"ad from a*three of you I am submitting a tentative listing of concerns that should be resolved at this meeting 1 Status of SRS Archaeological Worts. a D i2lg am 87 ht►Mm& a g2aeettttalr2nsr that rxtcf to Arebunecf -83 are completely removed Prom stretcher pedestals and pod -4 remain to be removed from pods-completion expected rind-December -Prof Langenwalter cannot complete his studies until the last 4 are done -Prof Langenwafter will need 4-6 weeks to complete his work when the fast four are done-completion expected mid-February - -Coroner must see all 87 burials lest 4 must ba completed for Coroner and exarrsn®d by Langenwalter prior to Coronets visit -Ail137 will be laid out at,once for Coroner in all three bone trailers b ire era 83 gMhMt&&AMU tlW►M upcoWted anth tt�e bum All 83 features have not been prowssad yet-- some have artifacts some do not. --These include 4 cogged stones features c. Them ant 421 �I-arkfacts that were thund daldm the arec9m monttarma en gatU -Only the artifacts directly associated with the burials are in the processing of being processed and prepared for rebunal -The-si3 mcludd clogged stones drscoidab ctarmstones end bands d Thetds ate 9622}A adboft Plat Were ifobund dunraa UM Aradtrxf rrrareP�rrnQ an OM45 --Only The artifacts directly associated with the have been processed and reburied -Artifacts to be processed include discoidals charmstones and beads e LkM AM Vgffl fmisrtehiv 2.+QQQ Wx Rt mdonais[including sods samples rock features shop features shell samples and animal bone) from all 30 years of excavations on Botsa Chica Mesa in a trader on-site -''hose have not been culled for distribution to the County of Orange or for rebunal since there has not been any olectfkity rn this trailer f Thgra aM gvwt 10f1.000 aet'ifarrts(Including debitage and other srrmaeiler itemsl that have been collected for the last 30 years on Solsa Chico Mesa -These have not been fully catalogued or fully analyzed -Some were collected before computers were in common use and the information is not in the site database -Some still have field numbers from surface collections eta -Includes cogged stones discoidals charmstones and beads ATTACHMENTNOf /66 Item 9 - Page 294 i 30 3 to wn o scr B�t _ I GENERAL COMMENTS a NOTES SHERIFF-CORO)JER DEPA TTINEMr OUT oottFmr or O/;ANOE cALiORNIA �J I INVESTIGATORS CASE NOTES r Nty or Pe v41 S.On.eO.`..._. B/ sry 'C�/T.Gy I D 0!R . Loc.*, T ,Al __.� 81 ub P'/vd tvwce Uxa,t Of 7- ,C,7�� MleaeC 8/ kE Coto two-cs OW.45,Y, — _ ! CLASSIFICATION e.rrd a T 4 T%An O"A" A O Yb AVa O A064.n1 O OSW b"O"d r�� r san gum to p S:oc. t7 sm 0 h*A" n,-Yot B/ O""It-Ord O W-6 d U,Earnrea O AeW io PA f C/C�YCi/ �f�C G✓/G[ C oK/r1�! 4c O ca*A oaor 0AAlcQdd Bowie$ Ofaraa OOew re.a NEXT OF KIN n.L,-,rq �rJaT CrCs o 6 d j-o $lT�r r`/� o.caa.,r.N . 1dvN�S� !/drys.v AGS'W ��C/C 16 Ae4w Plo cy taw P. -�+9 I TsrW4 Ape DOB t Hsu &._.,._As —ne It—VA—"Af—ErOs— tJt Pr" i AM 7'i U e / 1'L11�l/ ; o w..a 00 ." o cm&- N true er ota Tom• } t t'� �D/GJN/flf S(� !, �.eaa aorrq_ _ oorq Psy — l/A/pU 07//�F?�( Oau�ve•v� Sa s APiYese /�' WITNESSANFORMANTS o� a6 Tao t v 05,t>615. P-11 819' 2 k 77 A4 e G �X'/�6,e (i�l'a(�wk� Px.a a a " 1va,H�urvrlF, R�s�tlncr sacverr it{4. 5r,41 c5eeillee. /W4 4V5 ipprt O p O E1tOP O OOA yamll Ada ua er t T Caf F ,er �'^/�/7�'f4:P0^CG Tw PROPERTY OYES QSNO { �jQ,t QVq (J� I- 2- G' r Z7 vac.r.o.aaSSG O�.csati []IYX O tbu7 O i36 Ea 1 t rsc ar.�ay Pea,..ae er t+r�w+►a9 T,.n Card PA G�'d4�w5 •S LA��p't�! A~OW OCays, OWnw (]Tc. OGAon 050D Le Ca ro of oa.h o.. Pp "a',o'r or.d PA;V- _�_ t Q" G Aa�..K 14`1J PA O»ncy Of R.pe'y n Ya LT w Pw w coot JJ rr REPORTS I(!G til a d vu�KYa�S Lac ra D�q Sy.d .T f0(40011(W4" FvnY.cCr e v i N W f �� � 1 •��� •� a t ) ''-ram/� . A � 1 f lop • �' , • � , • / /ems i R 1 CASZ NOTES DATE PAGE $ CASE $ f� t 31Nt Q1 U �B t1G ' pwt Wf ,,u 07 &n iAs�g r�ec-i &Ael,.- A e -- C'aM Andriltt . �AJtl ktc� — r cry i rco✓ 1 _ a t f 1 (_jam f t t ATTACHMENT NO I -507- stem 9 - Page 297 ` Judy Mfers Suchefs Ph 0 FORENSIC ANDIROP01.06M lQ.d�� COk51gIAh79PTfE16E6KIttYAllAafA/CCRGMEA // f pA 9N6 GfflatTlF#Of LOS RNrN+titl DR4f.Ga:�nSOF1t�rDSIUO#-AItAAOPIO October 9, 1993 ea�Ess� t"Ma seult uifr Examination of teeth and maxillary fragn*nt frm tpEEE8t6�tkS7t13 ill AC-t, Unit - 103 "oat it SH M 4EEPEa ri w M®Sfi On October 8, 199% 1 went to rile office of the Chambers Gyoup, Inc , having been called by Phillip de Barros on 10-4-93 regarding additional bone evidence at AC-1. Qn 10-4.93 additional adult human bond and dental evidence was found several cros lower that} the tooth discussed in ow import dated October 3, 1993 Six nva fragmentary teeth and a waxillary fragment (weighing 9 3 9fa) were found These remains are human and appear to consist of a single individual tthe previously discovered Tooth Included in this salre individual). The teeth appear to be a elaxiliary canine and three Incisors, identification is difficult dice to the extreme attirition The other two teeth appear to be tx6 fra"ntary premolars All are heavily wow and the maxilla is highly eltneralized, the material appears to be ancient Native jWrfran The ttati" hrerican Heritage Comadssion needs to be notified regarding this additional nterial Slides were taken to doclient these retrains 3 A sl4 lit t.i 3--q'BL FAY C�-t- �l90 IAL;HMtN I NO Item 9 - Page 298 -508- CA - Ora - 83 e� m 73S s�' i r. 7 E X X) ZX M2 E Jt W /dam C?S %4 3t8noc sasam�C�+.s+s TFt i%iX C¢Z e x x £ m rD X f _ rr x iusa ,cs os oof �t a s� is ct JGt fi0d (it 6X _n xX AAA Fly r x_-I ft K _+ /t m tes tes vs1 a �s t3 Y YId f,.Vill Y c Sy /"1 t _ fT ss uX u xx u — fi u o s ocz r M �xyxx0 xx Iks �SA t `` sti X s vx � to n x x� ti'S j MA 31 wl _ �.d ACd'ddda 4 � / ,.1 r JJU Itj x / f seS s s ` ss� X )GwAn Done c4mefo-t,Y vxi SO {' s (BvAhRaVo ssiwvariesfaw) s a a r s -s { � llMsoorr��!s3 ` ® fiockFeahXes cri 1 n e ® CharmSsorsE3 cs K e.�, � Tree{r�rks to �, � ► '�� Trash detra 14-ush J Tree the x Isolaedboreflag-efts She➢Fea.Xes f / f Ma -d S93 ATTAR NT 0 -509- Item 9 - Page 299 Judy Myers Stichey, PhD ��f rORERMANTr1ROPOLOGIS; COWAUM-T To no"foscot f0ATHEC9tAMSOJLOSAW,9US,O W0E*Y"$"ANDSMKRKAROMO October 9, 1993 ra�ffsf�l tAtff tA9ttU 6 W 8191TEY MUM L4�)s)f xamtnation of teeth and �raxildary fragment f A 1, Unit - 103 Mat ityy itfPlft6t EAA lfit Sf59 OEEfEII)It tf'I 9S4f On October 8, 1993, 1 went to t! office of the ChwUrs roue. Inc having been called by Phillip arros on 16-4-43 reg Ing additional bone evidence at AC-1 On 10-4�9 dditional adult an bone and dental evidence was found several cros love than the too discussed in qr report dated October 3, 1993 Six ne.-�r fra9ee tary teeth Ad a wAllary fragment (weighing 9 3 9m) were found These ins ar human and appear to consist of a single individual (the previously dt ov ed tooth included in this same individual) The teeth appear to be a xillary canine and three Incisors, identification is difficult due a extreme attrition The other two teeth appear to be two fragrAntary p la All are heavily worn and the maxilla is highly mineralized, the rate al appea to be ancient native American The dative l4rerican Herita cormtstion eds to be notified regarding this additional material Slides were taken to docvrent the remains �p'►be 0krilAit 9)t tf 3_40St ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 300 -510- THE JUANENO BAND OF FISSION INDIANS AWACHEMEN NATION Chairperson David Selardes vice-Chairperson Jean prietze Member at Large Alfonso 011ivares Treasurer Adol2no Williams February 25, 1994 Judy Myers Suchey, Ph D Professor, Dept of Anthropolgy California state University Fullerton, Ca 92634 RE OUR ANCESTORS RZXMxHS FROM CA-ORA 83 and 423 Dear Judy, Because of the recent press coverage and the lack of sensitivity surrounding our ancestors remains found at Bolsa Chiea and Aliso Creek, I request that no further comments, maps or locations be revealed to the media, government officials and or any other persons other than what the law requires I request that no photographs be taken of our ancestors and that any photographs previously taken be returned to the tribe Also, it would only be appropriate that any reports written regarding our ancestors remains be submitted to the tribe first I have been in contact with Mr Bisner, Mr Lyles, and Ms Gayle McNully regarding the possibility of having a workshop so that all parties wall be clear of the policies and laws surrounding Native American remains In closing I %ould hope you would consider using compassion when dealing with the remains" of our great grandparents, .others, fathers sisters and brothers Their spitzts touch us deeply` Sincerely, DAvid Be ardes, Chairperson Enclosure cc Tien Bisner Bruce Lyles Gayle NCNutIy .tna-ono ails Of XIA foe TvU&" Aoxcim..2 Ratloa 13142 via £el teas Sas ItA3 CaF16txa * G 9,21175 A46ArNT K10 Item 9 - Page 301 e W NO �� RECEIPT COUNTY OF ORANGE t,}rj csie.F $HER CORONER DEPARTMENT G � s t�fe. L���J � �� �V� �� • Y CA A4 7 � e FtKerved of l_ �$�El� �l.c v�r (date to a�Sdr ess .� L 6 N 6 � '" �..1/ ��C.��(. & Y(. p _s y c Alt Pao 8y t-eck P40 i �� By - � F�..3? 8939 0 337140 NO COUNTY ORANGE f.Y3 _-1101-1 Cite" S , S14E IFF CORONER DEPARTMENT CA _��'° < Ak , �� P <c a��� r-- VlEr#f date po"Irved of - t3 ®Address 2 4,5- L q*6 —13 gA c{u � ��`^�3��. oty ILI tD r e r W � rt' f PACkI n06f 'F-CALT;A q STEYEN 0.MO OM ` �'19Lk.AL.t�lit#.i1' AEY,aF>{A01i,SLF TmGfAOti♦EStSrl�OhE qI 91�JI4 r-O fY f��r' tfl9CtXtY likYJ kESSft & wl\T®.N, r svTd+a eA nrrEas ALSOA�YlFf�N OS!uCi Ci fhUSCS1 "ALSO ADWYM N NOV WFA rebruary 9 1994 HAND DELIVERED Barnes Omner P,1 r g 7 L�- Chief Donty Orange County Sheriff Coroner Department 1071 W Santa Ana Bh d Santa Ana CA 92703 Re Case no 93 5869 LL, Bo)sa Chica Dear h1r Beisner During my meeting with Bruce Lyle of your office on Monday he revievred with we Judy Suchey s report on her site visit to Bolsa Chiea Noted as an altachment to her report was a map of the ORA 83 site The map appeared to be quite detailed showing the general location of the excavation area with detailed annotations as to the nature of material found at the site such as cogstones and charmstones I believe that the map was prepared by the archaeologist and leas provided to Dr Suchey by either the archaeologist Dr Desautels,or a member of her staff ho%e-ter f do not think they anticipated that it would be attached to Dr Suchey s report or included in the public file on this case It is my understanding that)ou har;e authorized the release of this map to Pat Ware tits Ware has previously released Dr Suehey s report to the newspapers and I do not doubt that she may also release copies of this map to members of the press archaeological organizations and homeoii ner groups with w hom she is working h1s 'Ware and members of her organization alfo announced at a televised public hearing in Huntington Beach that other members of the public could go to the coroner s office to obtain copies of Dr Suchey s report{arid map) 'While there is no way to retne%c this reap from Pat Ware after it has been distributed to her I w ould like to request on behalf of my client,The Koll Company- the archeological consultant and the Natne American representatnes kith who i am working with on this-natter that rn ft eicat any other requests for copies of the material are made that copies of the map not be provided We understand that Dr Sucbey s report is a matter of public record but ue beheie that in order to protect the site from archaeological tandah-m and sightseers maps showing the OYlf,,4 r ISO;111 19100 VON KARVAN•M FLOOR•MVi tE: CAUFOii : 92115 7110552964 FAX.714-955-9M POST OFFICE BOX 195IS IRV►iE CAL1FMM 92713 S613 IteM 9 - Page 304 -514- t V OZN:F ;ts s cAtuswv stea�ra twx i Gdf.LA If AX POWA a f r; cxao»�rs raon� 5Ftsaa K. vAP"A SMLr _ AM4 J)TSM & ��rI�'1'O1 0W#tEM tA/WEA5 v-50AWMED nt5Vn OF .awaA »Aa.^Mo n WN vo x February 14, 1994 VI_ A E&X Ludy UMS Suchey,Ph D Department of Anthropology Califomra State University Fulle1101, Cry 92634 Re BoM Chica Dear Dr Suchey Thank you for sending me your response to my letter I appreciate you takang the time to review the articles and questions that I raised During the last several days,one other item of infounatnon was presented tome regarding the release oT,our report to the newspapers I know that you have stated that you did not send it to the press, and I believe you I hare spent the last several days in discussions with the Coroner's office,however,regarding the release of the reap that was attached to your report I was particularly disturbed by the release of the map because, as you know,the location of archaeological saes is normally kept confidential to discourage site vandalism and destruction The last thing I want to we is a map to and of URA 83 published in the newspapers or shown on Huntington Beach public television As a professional in your field,I am sure that yo3 understand and share with me the sensitivity of this information I ha%e been unformed that the reap was released barause you requested the Coroner's office to Wei=)vjr report to Pat Ware Absent your request, the map uould Pot have been released so easily I would like to know why you requested this information be disclosed to Rix %Pare Did she make any representations to you regardiag Pier need for this information? Gis en the fact that you spoke to her and discussed with her the existence of this report,uhy did you choose to gnse Nis Wlare the information, and were yo*3 made aware of her intentions to ®go pubhop u-)th)our report? Guest the sensitivity of archaeological sites, did it not occur to you to ask Nis Ware%%hat she intended to do with)our report and more importantly -%hat she}ntennded to do with the map9 While I respect your request to be Ieft out of any future discussions on this issue, you must understand that pour decision to request the Coroner's office to release the report to Ms Ware GiVi VO FARVAN•8th FLOOR tRVIhE Cn_FV;&A-2715 lid 11WZP00 6 FAX 7I»S55-M POST OFFICE SOX 19o13 = u E C>LIFORMA 92723-96t3 AT C �hENT N �0/� T� -515- Item 9 - Page 305 ggpg a1 autnoav U OvwluC U nvlvavtUC I - - - -- > COUNTY OF ORANGE,CALIFORNIA >Work I D Cae ACCIDENT ' INVESTIGATORS CASE NOTES T im O TRAFFIC Q INDUSTRIAL O OTHER CIOL-Q rj 1'l Mtn, mbar t P I Id()SUbmlttrW By Type Case No 14" O Wow y I I Evidence Place Inveougator �lG—ACD1=Q R lawad By GSR Kit# BIUI g OYES JINO ® spositionfrakenby zip Code I CLASSIFICATION wd a T T k 1J o Diap ill D! —,nmo i O Natural A O Honucids OAooldent O OfNoer Involved N ( R Natural NA O Sulfide O SIDS O In Custody g rpri Is T ken By Weapon O Natural Dual ❑Traffic O Undetermined O Refar to FA sntill dBy �I. +�Ll.�.l i_ �Iy1('y,},�s po�.erl C - $or N Diep ONo Wants 0Consult Donor OApproachod 0Declined 07 ❑Other -T-� Registe ed Owner I DecedenYeN m +n NEXT OF KIN MINOR CHILD O Suicfd Nis OY a ONO DI po ( OAKA ,m R I Von hip TYp of V hicl I.ke s O Temsil to d ee Reg Ow or Address Zip Code T w C mp ny Phone City Zip Code Ph Bu Ph - Decedent Ddv Pao —Pedestrian— Telephone Ago DOE I m __ Relationship Restraints O Y ONO O Unk H Imet(s) O Yee ONO O Unk Sea_._,—Race HI WI Heir Eyes d oo*yed Air Bag ❑Yas ❑No El led O Year ❑No O Marled O Divorced O Nov r Married O Widowed O Children Zip Cod Tra at DI etlon o Occupation(Before Retirement] e Phone B Ph Poiilloo In Vehicle I -- 58* Un d By Tim I m Oth r V hkl U-no oat of Death l e� q4--- /05 L Time,I I-"It Day 3 t ft 31111 g P dy Tro at Dlreetion Place of Death rww e.M C4�Remo'►-S t}f JIy il�li 11Yr7�14'lY dr Number 1 Psrsone 1 D edam V hIG bVlef V hide Hospital ❑EWOP ❑IP CODA O Convalesoerd H sp 17719 WITNESS/INFORMANTS REPORT DATE r !'S.4 uyga-uW/4 Phone ,. I Pronounced ry - p'-, me � L Pollc Agency Tfine PD Called I Aeponing Pat),Q+o{�-'T} f sa ilf p n!!��S �r s!ra Otlkar w Fit No L-eOab� _i0-8 t0�g7 ""�"'� logo m _ Phone In eeligat Charges OYas ONO placed Roca ived Efc Mortuary Ph no m Ph a NOTIFICATIONS Requested by Relationship I ess O CAR Record O Yea O No Transport EY Tim Called PROPERTY OYES ONO OCDC ODA []Bids ❑OSHA ❑Slalo Uc ONTSB Name Autopsy ENO OCoroner OPdvate OTOX 0cultures OSO-10 �p03 Vo O NOK O Mortuary O FSC Safe O OCSD Prop dy Name Dept Date Time _ MD Cause of De 1h R I i onehlp > PA Per MO _ Lb No, +^. d�R p dad PA Inv stigalot Invit"Gator Oats 0 o F qp-` i 1/ CASE NOTES DATE } PAGE 0 CASE 4 r 6 r TINE r r- i S — Cm 1lQc� LIC V-�NQ��4z, ZZRA A-Z) `fie e,�- �\c� yv-a— r r t1t w z o umd.),-f c, ifie.. `Mv�v-ems.. \� cam., +C) r at, tc Y-\ Mn cs� Ck OCI -2CtvG g.�ku_ w,L� r ITM- 3 9'q CALL r2UM St}E - o73Y Eft ATTCCET NO a -517- Item 9 - Page 307 CASE NOTES } PAGE # �E # {-C)S DATE , d E TIME t t E 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1Kocl 1 t 1 1 1 f�t3 L' e A C 1 t t i n[� � COY1_5.�.�1-�-�� ot- ��.�-� i � S0.>l�t� 5.1.E �:�►-�-�Jl t t 5 D Yb'I" t. -Nrn Q x- c n-VN c ,;ri E 1 u�t..r e rr ^t ,►r,�r�� w��-1-- .�,L... C �rrr`�i-��S ; D A c m l 1 fin- st- rA ►n2g NA C) E 0anc .erh S, t 1 i t i 1 a- tc)1 low triv t i E 1 1 1 1 I t 1 I E 1 1 1 1 I r 1 T E T t i T i t t 1 1 ATT 14d 9 G f T N O Item 9 - Page 308 -518- glm Judy Myers Suchey, Ph ® �-t7�C FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST CONSULTANTTOTHE MEDICAL EXAMINMOORONER FOR THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES,ORANGE,RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO August 5, 1999 PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OFANTNRDPOLOGY CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY In situ examination of skeletal remains at FULL RRTONNCA929344M construction site ( Orange County Coroner Case 99-05178ME) PHONES 714-524.1263 7%77""B FAX 714-SM150 BEEPER 714-M-0541 On August 4, I went to the construction site at the intersection of Bolsa Chica and Los Patos in Huntington Beach At this location skeletal fragments were found underneath a Native American artifact in bulldozed area where the construction of condominiums is planned The archaeological company involved in the mitigation is SRS (Scientific Resource Surveys) This location is near the former archaeological site CA-Ora-83 where I did an in situ examination of remains on October 12, 1993 I do not have a Coroner's case number in my file for that visitation but I have a one page report with attachments At the site on August 4 I talked with Lisa Woodward (of SRS) 909-323-9340 who explained to me the situation surrounding the skeletal fragments I identified them as human (based on the left orbit--largely zygomatic and incisor tooth), prehistoric (based on severe dental attrition on the tooth, coloration and mineralization of bone) The remains are extremely fragmentary--consisting of only one tooth and multiple small fragments of cranium The remains are consistent with being from a single individual Woodward told me that Robert Beer (Presgdent of the company 909-767-2555) had already phoned the Native American Heritage Commission with a tentative diagnosis I indicated that the Orange County Coroner would be making official notification David Belardes (Native American) was at the site at the time of my visit I instructed Lisa Woodward to call the Orange County Coroner again if additional human remains are found in the area The construction is over so it is not likely that there will be additional finds The plan was to remove the area surrounding the remains and keep them in the lab of SRS The remains would be held until the construction had been totally finalized and then the remains could be reburied If the Coroner has further instructions, Lisa Woodward can be notified If new calls come in regarding remains I suggest that the investigator (Meader) speak with me on the phone and we can make suggestions as to the best manner to handle the situation The nearby site Ora-83 was a highly controversial site where multiple burials of great antiquity became the subject of a dramatic controversy between environmentalists and developers To avoid a re-play of this drama the Coroner needs to keep track of the number of burials being found at this location Hopefully, the one observed on August 4 will be the only one Photographs were taken to document the evidence FURTHER ACTION NEEDED- Native American Heritage Commission should be notified by Inv Meader or other Coroner personnel #106 ATIACHM NT NO -519- Item 9 - Page 309 400, ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONERie ij jqq — JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY REPORT a NAME OF DECEASED(LAST FIRST MIDDLE) AKA CASE NUMBER ti BONES,Human Ancient 99-07108-LL INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTNG AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Bruce E Lyle Nancy Desautels Scientific Resources Surveys None _ CALL DATEAND TBAE DISPATCH DATE AND TIME ARRIVAL DATE AND TIME RETURN DATE AND TIME 17 20 11/05/1999 12 DO 11/05/1999 1231 11/05/1999 DATE AND TIME Or,DEATH DATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 11/03/1999 10 30 Bound I Not Applicable Not Applicable RESIDENCE(STREET CITY STATE,ZIP) UNNCOPORATED AREA L COUNTY TELEPHONE NO e M4RITAL STATUS T SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER I DRIVER'S LICENSE NO AND STATE OCCUPATION EMPLOYER LOCATION OF DEATH AT RESIDENCE ET ORA 83/Huntmgton Beach ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE.ZIP) UNNCOPORATED AREA Lj COUNTY 17201 Bolsa Cluca Road,HimtIngton Beach,CA 92647 Orange bd FOUND BY Lj PRONOUNCED BY AGENCY DATE AND TIME Scientific Resources Surveys Archeologist LOCATION OF INCIDENT AT WORK ORA 83/Huntmgton Beach ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE,ZIP) UNNCOPORATED AREA U COUNTY 17201 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Orange NVESTIGATINGAGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICERS Orange County Coroner's Office 99-07108 Coroner Investigator D Ralsten CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH Probable Native American remains found at development site MAN*OF PERSON NOTIFIED RELATIONSHIP Native American Henta a Com State Agency ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) TELEPHONE NO (916)653-4082 NOTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Invests ator Ralsten Phone 11/05/1999 1649 LEGAL NEXT OF KIN RELATIONSHIP ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) TELEPHONE NO VENnFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Judy Suchey PhD Anthropology_ 11/05/1999 AT T r �" 0 c, Item 9 - Page 310 -520- r CASE NOTES Case Number 99 07108 DECEDENT NAME BONES Human DATE OF DEATH 11/03/1999 Ddte rF'iis ttiltlal9 $ ilxafit r l 115/99 0940 LY Spoke to Nancy Desautels at the site and she will not be there the remainder of the day She also stated no one will be at the site until Mon 1119 d/t they work M F 10 hours shifts I left another message on Judy Suchey s answering machine to this fact. LY 11/5/99 1100 LY BE informed me that Judy Suchey would be responding to the FSC and accompanying RA to the site of the dig RA&Judy left for AB at approx 1145 hrs LY *A 115 99 1633 Ra At the direction of CDC Berndt,I and Dr J Suchey went out to 17201 Bolsa Chica Ave leaving at 1200 hours and arriving at 1231 hours We spoke to Robert Beer Scientific Resource Surveys Inc 909)767 2555 He showed us the bone specimens and directed us out to site where an additional bone was in situ There were 3 bones along with a few fragment out and anoither one exposed in side wall of trench The bone in trench wall has about 2"exposed and is about 1 %: -2 down from surface Although surrounded by browner dirt it extends into redish dut which R Beer said is pre ice age Trench was about 50 yards long about 3 wide and about 5 deep Dr Suchey examined the bones and determined them to be ancient R Beer said he thought this find was not with in the boundies of ORA83 but was not sure of it Also there were no other artifacts or tools found with the bones or in the immediate area The normal process of digging is scoopmg aout 15 cm at a time The trench was dug as a geologic survey for soil conditions The bones were found on Wednesday(11 3 99)at unknown time The bones were first found by an archeologist and a native amencan monitor at the same time The loose bones were collected from the loose dirt next to the trench He was unaware of who the native amencan monitors were The nearest decendent for this si is David Belardes The area over the find has been used as agriculture land for some 75+/ years I spoke to Edward Mountford with Hearthside Homes Inc 949)250 7700 He said the area is planed to be single family homes eventualy He said that although he did not try to call the coroners office his staff member Lucy Dunn(spelling?)called the Sheriff's office yesterday AM (114 99)to report the find,A message was left for the Sheriff to call back After a couple hours a second call was put into the Sheriff re the bones R/P was unaware of what transpired from then I spoke to Nancy Whitney Desautels Scientific Resource Surveys(909)767 2555 she said the find was with in ORA83 The bones were found in the loose fill dirt about noon by native amencan monitor Matt Dome and SRS employee Bill Larson SRS will now perform an excavation of area for recovery of existing bone I instructed her that if there are any more bones found that they should call the Coroners office not the Sheriff She seemed to understand this The three loose bones and fragments were released to Robert Beer for transfere to the Native American Heritage i 11 5 99 1648 Ra I called the Native American Henatge and left a message on voice mail of Gloria (916)653 4082 informing her of the find and of our determination of ancient clav qj -z IAI ATTACHMENT 0 1 /G lI -521- Item 9 - Page 311 CASE NOES -� PAGE # CASE # � f f TIME ' f t f 1 �b Z2 9ct t �t4S arc (AU- FZO-A MMC,v4 0ESAQ;-ELS 9oq 7,5z�S hr ?Tip t f 1 j3OUSA LkAkCA StTF oQA 83 S n.\�LAO_ (J2GytDJ� f •a ti� Nej- ge M.0QCA 0 hF- TWe, t`IU C MA SOf f QaA11. kA'4U�kv✓AL-VkFS oy,w BE ONV_aJL i,�, h t f f f r' f tlp.ttS►- F ci J�a� Sic+ Ski I150 ' f --T f t f f f f3Zi7 ! Y-L� this C=Q�r�/� �2 f t ! St}�c Si��� �-��i t°RUt� t-�G€�wgt_i�,�'.'S cS Q•�A��F�i� � �`� 1 t F PRJt flt'J LOQIL A i 1 � Nt0JS � 1 J�� SJG��SY 14-,N► F�yt_ CAkt Eta? i 4LtV)i 2t�(-b2T of cA — FSc w VIA FLtJ0tofGS t (_Au_ Fw ✓t j��Ul LANCP,-,J`�L�K�25 w r1 c( ?tY1t v �S 1 1 c'-A iC )2,�i IA,L SFT){171 t-4-- cA-,i {D it UIE06ti2kC 1 t v\G At_J svA�YA ql-'i t t 1 t _ N� 1 i r1 rrr f u t.{1) i t t I ATTAG W____N0 OteM 9 - Page 312 -522- vnAIN"I!,k_VUty 1 S r�lirdtlrr-�iJnVIv�K CORONER DIVISION i �j INVESTIGATIVE WORKSIIEET Report Date 4/14/2009 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME MANNER CASE NUMBER BONES,Human-ancient tndtan BOOM 12 30 Jurisdictional Inq 00 OM77 RO CORONER INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Richard L.Rodriguez Dr Paul Langenwalter Archeologist for SRS Const LOCATION OF DEATH FND �/ ERIOP LJ IP ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) AT RESIDENCE ET PHONE Construction site gmt Bolsa Chtca Mesa,lrvtne,California DATE AND TIME OF DEATH TE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 03/30/2000 0 00 Found I I Unknown Not Applicable NAME"M RESIDENCE(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) -RESIDENCE PHONE MARITAL STATUS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OCCUPATION/EMPLOYER -/ FOUND BY Lj PRONOUNCED BY AGENCY/RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY COLLECTED?Lj PA CASE SRS IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME DL STATE/NUMBER Dr Suchey Anthropology 04/07/2000 15 15 LOCATION OF INCIDENT AT WORK ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) COUNTY Orange INJURY DESCRIPTION INJURY DATE/TIME INVESTIGATINGILAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICER MORTUARY CORONER AUTOPSY? BODY EXAMINATION DATETIME RELEASE DATE AND TIME No ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS ATTENDING PHYSICIAN PHONE PHOTOS TAKEN ADMITTED FROM ADMITTED FROM DATE/TIME No 'HEIGHT WEIGHT EYE COLOR GLASSES COMPLEXION TEETH HAIR COLOR HAIR TYPE HAIR LENGTH FACIAL HAIR E14VIRON TEMP CALOR LIVIDITY RIGOR SCARS MARKS TATTOOS CLOTHING SUMMARY The Coroners Office was notified of possible human remains discovered at a construction site Dr Suchey Forensic Anthropologist responded to the site with Deputy Coroner Rodriguez and determined the remains were of non forensic value and consistent with ancient human remains The bones were released to the Native American Heritage Commission_ -523- Item 9 - Page 313 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF FOLLOW-UP NOTES ti CORONER DIVISION r. Case Number 0002277 RO DECEDENT NAME BONES Human DATE OF DEATH 03/30/2000 _ Date Time And Initials On All Entnes respond any tune Thur%awlh a deputy coroner if necessary (MA) FOLLOW UP RE &ACTIONS TAKEN Contact Dr Langenwalter an dvise him to stop the dig and notify us if he recognizes the bones are human A deputy coroner and Dr Suchey will respond if human d handle per established policy 04/04/00 1730(MA) 4/7/00 @ 1000 I attempted to contact Paul Langen Iter per Assistant Chiefs directive I left a voice message requesting he contact this division with an update on the remains (TO /00 @ 1005) 417/00 @ 12196 I received a call back from Paul Langen her who said that he has determined that the remains discovered on 3/30100 were indeed human Wednesday 4/5100 crews excavate and exposed a skull limb bone a Jaw with teeth and a Ieft foot. There were prehistoric artifacts uncovered along with the remains ich included an abrading stone The wear on the teeth were consistent with prehistoric specimens It was determined that the remain were prehistoric Native American remains �taie>f Comrliissgpi waif ad-smd,and�Iias� $ f resentattites on sight the ast few days The remains were in the process of being further exposed There is no wilding construction ongoing The excavation at is point is purely of an archeological nature He anticipates that the excavation will conclude this afternoon along with the removal f the remains by the Native American Council members Dr Judy Suchey has been made aware of the situation (TO 4/7/00 @ 12 ) 4/7/00 @ 1300 1 spoke to Dr Judy Suchey via her cell phone and reques she respond with one of our Deputies to the excavation site She agreed but said that she would meet the responding Deputy at FS d proceed with them to the site (TO 4/7/00 2 1305) 4/13/00 @ About 0830 1 received a telephone call from Gayle of the Native American entage Commission inquiring into the status of site ORA##83 I told her that Dr Suchey and a Deputy from our division went out to a site last week and confirmed that the remains were of no Forensic Value She seemed upset and asked why she was not notified of findings I told her that Paul Langenwalter relayed to me during my conversation with him on 4/7/00 that Native American Commiss n representatives were at the site during the excavation and were aware of the findings (TO 4/13/00 @ 0950) 4/13100 @ 0955 Per MA s direction I called Paul Langenwalter to get the names of the in viduals he notified and were present from the Native American Commission Paul s daughter answered and said that Mr Langen alter was not available at the time and would not be in until sometime this afternoon I left a message for Mr Langenwalter to cont FSC and ask for the Watch Commander (TO 4/13/00 @ 0955) 4113100 @ 1055 lreceived a call back from Paul Langenwalter who said that he had contacted and w dealing with the following `tribal epresentatives Joyce Perry David Bollardy Nation Ponva representative Gabriel A ia,and the onsite representative was Robert orme 1 asked specifically if he had contacted the Native American Heritage Commiss n and he said he had spoken only to those dividuals listed above He knows nothing about the Native American Heritage Commiss n (TO 4/13/00 @ l 100) ''CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS On 04/07/00 Deputy Rodriguez responded to the scene with Dr Suchey Dr Suchey examine a remains and confirmed they were of no forensic value and consistent with ancient human (MA) 04107/00 @ 1355 I received instructions from Assistant Chief R MacAnally to assist and escort Dr Judy Suchey Forensic Anthropologist to a site know as Bolsa Chica Mesa where skeletal remains had been unearthed during construction Prior information had been received in the coroner s office on 03 30-00 of this fVd that the remains were of possible Native American Indian A case number was assigned however the�ase head not f e*p assigno an investigator pending the examination of Dr Suchey This area has been given a site area &TTACHM NT N ! C Item 9 - Page 314 -524- ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION ti Case Number 00 02277 RO /gyp/&V - 2 DECEDENT NAME BONES Human DATE OF DEATH 03/30/2000 Date Time And initials On All Entries respond any time Thursday with a deputy coroner if necessary (MA) FOLLOW UP REOUEST&ACTIONS TAKEN Contact Dr Langenwalter and advise hun to stop the dig and notify us if he recognizes the bones are human A deputy coroner and Dr Suchey will respond if human and handle per established policy 04/04/00 1730(MA) 4/7/00 @ 1000 I attempted to contact Paul Langenwalter per Assistant Chief s directive I left a voice message requesting he contact this division with an update on the remains (TO 417/00 @ 1005) 4/7/00 @ 12196 I received a call back from Paul Langenwalter who said that he has determined that the remains discovered on 3/30/00 were indeed human Wednesday 4/5/00 crews excavated and exposed a skull limb bone a Jaw with teeth and a left foot There were prehistoric artifacts uncovered along with the remains which included an abrading stone The wear on the teeth were consistent with prehistoric specimens It was determined that the remains were prehistoric Native American remains �6� isr i� �entnttves o stlteaSt fevw dad The remains were in the process of being further exposed. There is no m ing constuchon ongoing The excavanon at this point is purely of an archeological nature He anticipates that the excavation will conclude this afternoon along with the removal of the remains by the Native American Council members Dr Judy Suchey has been made aware of the situation (TO 4/7100 @ 1245) 4/7100 @ 1300 I spoke to Dr Judy Suchey via her cell phone and requested she respond with one of our Deputies to the excavation site She agreed but said that she would meet the responding Deputy at FSC and proceed with them to the site (TO 4/7/00 2 1305) 4/13/00 @ About 0830 1 received a telephone call from Gayle of the Native American Heritage Commission inquiring into the status of site ORA#83 1 told her that Dr Suchey and a Deputy from our division went out to the site last week and confirmed that the remains were of no Forensic Value She seemed upset and asked why she was not notified of the findings I told her that Paul Langenwalter relayed tome during my conversation with him on 4/7/00 that Native American Commission representatives were at the site during the excavation and were aware of the findings (TO 4/13100 @ 0950) 4113100 @ 0955 Per MA s direction I called Paul Langenwalter to get the names of the individuals he notified and were present from the Native American Commission Paul s daughter answered and said that Mr Langenwalter was not available at the time and would not be in until sometime this afternoon I left a message for Mr Langenwalter to contact FSC and ask for the Watch Commander (TO 4/13100 @ 0955) 4113100 @ 1055 received a call back from Paul Langenwalter who said that he had contacted and was dealing with the following `tribal" received Joyce Perry David Bollardy Nation Ponva representative Gabriel Alema,and the onsite representative was Robert orme I asked specifically if he had contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and he said he bad spoken only to those dividuals listed above He knows n6thing about the Native American Heritage Commission (TO 4/13100 @ 1 I00) CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS On 04/07/00 Deputy Rodriguez responded to the scene with Dr Suchey Dr Suchey examined the remains and confirmed they were of no forensic value and consistent with ancient human (MA) 04/07/00 @ 1355 1 received instructions from Assistant Chief R MacAnally to assist and escort Dr Judy Suchey Forensic Anthropologist to a site know as Bolsa Chica Mesa where skeletal remains had been unearthed during construction Prior information had been received in the coroner s office on 03 30 00 of this find that the remains were of possible Native American Indian A case number was assigned however the case had not been assigned an investigator pending the examination of Dr Suchey This area has been given a site area ire ATTA HMENT NO -525- Item 9 - Page 315 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER g1z,12 e - / CORONER DIVLSION INVESTIGATIVE WOt/RKSHEET Report Date 4/14/2008 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME MANNER CASE NUMBER BONES,Human ancient Indian ,935 Jurisdictional Inq 0"2791-LY CORONER tNVESFIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Joseph D Luckey LOCATION OF DEATH FND Lj ER/OP IP ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE,ZIP) AT RESIDENCE U PHONE ORA#83 Bolsa Chlca Ecological Reserve California DATE AND TIME OF DEATH DATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 04/27/2000 14 00 Found I I Unknown Not Applicable NAME AKA RESIDENCE(STREET CITY STATE,ZIP) RESIDENCE PHONE MARITAL STATUS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OCCUPATION J EMPLOYER FOUND BY U PRONOUNCED BY A(pENCYIRELATIONSHW PROPERTY COLLECTED?Lj PA CASE IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME DL STATE J NUMBER LOCATION OF INCIDENT ATwoRK LJ ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) COUNTY Orange INJURY DESCRIPTION INJURY DATE/TIME INVESTIGATWGRAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICER MORTUARY CORONER AUTOPSY? BODY EXAMINATION DATEn1ME RELEASE DATE AND TIME No ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS ATTENDING PHYSICIAN PHONE PHOTOS TAKEN? ADMITTED FROM ADMITTED FROM DATEITIME No HEIGHT WEIGHT EYE COLOR GLASSES COMPLEXION TEETH HAIR COLOR HAIR TYPE HAIR LENGTH FACIAL HAIR ENVIRON TEMP COLOR LIVIDITY RIGOR SCARS MARKS TATTOOS CLOTHING SUMMARY Received a ca)1 reporting the discovery of ancient human bones at the ORAtt83 site Case number Issued. � � o� nW Item 9 - Page 316 -526- ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT FAX COVER SHEET TO Flossie Horgan PHONE FAX 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Bolsa Chica Land Trust FROM Le'Lonnie PHONE (714)647-7400 JAX_(714)647-6122 DATE 02/21/08 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASE/NAME Several Indian or ancient bones yes CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH 0 )-/1 39i212-I 1 ITEM(S) FAXED TOX MICRO_ VOD NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES WARNING/CONFIIDENTIAL This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication intended only for the addressee indicated above Please notify us as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above of any error in otransmsssion Thank you for your cooperation � ATTACHMENT N `J -527- stem 9 - Page 317 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number 00 02791 -LY %-11271Vd/-Z, DECEDENT NAME Bone Bone DATE OF DEATH 04/27/2000 ( Date Time And Initials On All Entries 4/28/00 @ 1225 I attempted to contact Scientific Resource Surveys(SRS)at 909 767 2555 but only got an answering machine I left a voice message requesting a call back on accessibility to the remains (TO 4/28/00 @ 1230) 4/28/00 @ 1315 I received a telephone call from William Larson_(562 697 9976)who informed me that the remains were currently locked in an office onsite at ORA#83 The site had been closed down after the find last evening and would not be reopened until 511100 at 0700 hours I told him that we wanted to have our Forensic Anthropologist and a Deputy Coroner respond to the site on Monday 5/1/00 and exam the find He indicated that the find consisted of a femur/long bone The site where the remains were found appears to have more remains Just below the location where the long bone was found. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1315) Awaiting a call from Dr Judy Suchey concerning availability to view the site and the fend. Ask her if she would be available to go to the site on Monday 5/1100 morning (TO 4128/00 @ 1330) 4128100 @ 1550 I received a call back from Dr Suchey who indicated that she would be able to respond to the site S/1/00 @ 1100 hours She said that she would come to FSC and drive to the site with the assigned Deputy Coroner (TO 4/28100 rer 1555) 5 6t0 @ 1130 hrs—Dr Suchey and I drove to site ORA#83 and arrived at 1200 brs We spoke with Mathew Dorame and Joyce Perry and they told us the bones were uncovered on 4/27/00 at 1430 hrs by Chuck Burnette(field tech) Thv bonesr wem1bh5id near"'e site where previously other bones had been located Dr Suchey took several pictures and examined the bones and deemed them to be of no forensic value (5/6/00 @ 1055 hrs HO) 5/17/00 @1605 brs A call was received from Paul Langenwalter eporting a discovery at 14 30 at ORA#83 of A femur shaft and long bone fragments approa 5-7 meters from the discovery on 4/27/00 at this site. Information of this find was documented on the ancient discovery log in public records LY On 5/18/00 @ 0840 hours I spoke with Cathy at the Native American Heritage Commission and notified her of yesterday's find (TO 5/18/00 @ 0840) CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS Entry made on the DESIGNATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES log 5110100 I809 LY NOTIFICATIONS (wHoNoTuzD DATE&TIME) MA 4/27/00 2050 hrs 7/00 AT TA ,11 Item 9 - Page 318 -528- Y S ,� THE GABRIEL INO TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL �uI MATHEW DORA14E TRISAL SECRETA RY 54509.AUeoNAvExueSurts 13t CuLvm Crtt CAUFORNN90230 PHOW-71.s8794456 F"Z629209AA9 � d b + 3j' j''1d J SN � � r 1 oY i A{Ct tf rj✓ I a i�r,r3r It�k A �C -529- stem 9 - Page 319 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER �/P/o A MICHAEL S CARONA,SHERIFF-CORONER JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY REPORT Report Date 08/09/2002 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME TYPE CASE NUMBER Bones,Human Ancient AMONMW- 16 30 lurisdichonal lnq 02-03972-GA CORONER INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Alex C Gassler Paul Langenwalter Scientific Resource Surveyor LOCATION OF DEATH ADDRESS(STREET CRY STATE ZJP) AT RESIDENCE I COUNTY Dig site 1 17201 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Orange DATE AND TIME OF DEATH DATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 06/12/2002 1230 Found Unknown Not Applicable RESIDENCE(STREET CITY STATE ZIP) COUNTY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER N/A, CA Orange MARITAL STATUS LEGAL NEXT OF KIN TELEPHONE NO ADDRESS(STREET CITY STATE,ZIP) OCCUPATION NOTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Lj FOUND BY PRONOUNCED BY AGENCYIRELATIONSHIP PA CASE J IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME p Paul Langenwalter ,nthro l0 06/12/2002 1230 ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS/PHONE MORTUARY RELEASE DATE TIME CIRCUMSTANCES OF INQUIRY These are founds bones at a known OC archeological dig site found in close proximity to other previous finds ATTA AIIIACHMEfto Item 9 - Page 320 -530- �F ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF CASE NOTES CORONER DIVISION C e Number 02-03972-GA DECEDENT NAME Bones Human Ancient DATE OF DEATH 06/12/2002 Date,Time And Initials On All EYAnes STATENEENTS (NAMES DATES&TMIES) ( W_W2 @ 1625 his Per P LangenwaIter At est 1230 his toda/de 83 during grading,the crew came across some ancient human bone remains They consist 2 skull fragments anbone features(long bones)and 2 probable with bone features Today in the late morning and early afternoon 2 more ents were found as well This is a new area at an old excavation site that is currently being graded,no grid coordinatn assigned This new area is known to have human remains previous remains have been found m this area and are preservede manner as the previous remains have been found The bones found today and yesterday were found an est 10-30 meterold known dig site There is not a problem ifDep Burch wants to come out and evaluate the site Her contact person is K 6 13-02 @ 1700 hrs(GA) On,,0 444,(�2 at 0730 hours I contacted Paul Lange I /terohwas� cientific Research Surveys Per Langenwalter the human bones were found at ORA-83 m an area currently being gradedpoint seven different bone isolates have been identified One of the isolates includes a skull that had been sheared and exhe grading process The other isolates contam fragments of large and small human limb bones Each area has been flagged ll be excavated using conventional archaeological techniques Two of the isolates were discovered yesterday and Langen not yet had a chance to examine them. Per Langenwalter all the material is consistent with ancient human remama the monitors from the Most Likely Descendants have exammed the material in situ I arranged to meet Langenwalter at the site at Oproximately 0830 hours this morning (06/14/02 07 43 BU) PA STATEMENTS (NAMES DATES&MfES FOLLOW UP RE UEST&ACTION AKEN 0V6AVW`at 2320 hours I contacted a Native American Heritage Commission and left a message for Rob Wood on the answering machine I notified h i I had responded to the site and had not found anything of modern forensic significance (06/14/02 23/IED CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS .Q2 Case number was issBU will respond to dig site location 6 14-02 m am hrs (GA) 6 13 02 @ 2200 hrs Native itage Commission was contacted left voice mail with Gloria (GA) NOTIFICATIONS (WHOTE&TIME) � t Y Report Date 06/14/2002 2 LTT6.CHJ JE C 1 (/7 -531- item 9 - Page 321 Cl��z_ ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF CASE NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number 02-03972 GA DECEDENT NAME Bones Human Ancient DATE OF DEATH 06/12/2002 Date,Time And Initials On All Entries STATEMENTS (NAMES DATES&TIMES) 6@ 1625hrs Per P Langenwalter At est 1230 hrs today at dig site#ORA 83 during grading,the crew came across some ancient human bone remains They consist 2 skull fragments and 3 individual bone features(long bones)and 2 probable with bone features Today in the late morning and early afternoon 2 more bone fragments were found as well This is a new area at an old excavation site that is currently being graded no grid coordinates have been assigned.This new area is known to have human remains previous remains have been found in this area and are preserved in the same manner as the previous remains have been found The bones found today and yesterday were found an est 10 30 meters from the old known dig site There is not a problem if Dep Burch wants to come out and evaluate the site Her contact person is Kevin Hunt.6-13-02 @ 1700 hrs(GA) 0nA6AjdW at 0730 hours I contacted Paul Langenwalter of Scientific Research Surveys Per Langenwalter the human bones were found at ORA 83 in an area currently being graded At this point seven different bone isolates have been Identified One of the isolates includes a skull that had been sheared and exposed in the grading process The other isolates contain fragments of large and small human hmb bones Each area has been flagged off and will be excavated using conventional archaeological techniques Two of the isolates were discovered yesterday and Langenwalter has not yet had a chance to examine them Per Langenwalter all the material is consistent with ancient human remains and the monitors from the Most Likely Descendants have examined the material in situ I arranged to meet Langenwater at the site at approximately 0830 hours this morning (06/14/02 07 43 BU) PA STATEMENTS (NAMES DATES&TIMES) FOLLOW UP REQUEST&ACTIONS TAKEN Oii,X#i "at 2320 hours I contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and left a message for Rob Wood on the answering machine I notified him I had responded to the site and had not found anything of modern forensic significance (06/14/02 23 24 BU) CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS 64&14);Case number was issued and Dep BU will respond to dig site location 6-14-02 in am hrs (GA) 6 13 02 @ 2200 hrs Native American Heritage Commission was contacted left voice mail with Glona.(GA) NOTIFICATIONS (WHO NOTIFIED DATE&TIME) Report Date 06/I4/2002 2 ,&TTANMENT NO 117 Item 9 - Page 322 -532- STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY - ARNOLD SCHWARZ WGGER Govemcr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach CA W802-4302 (562)b90-5071 NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL December 15 2008 Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 Irvine California 92614 Violation File Number V 5-08 032 Property Location 17201 Bolsa Chica Road Huntington Beach Orange County APN 110-016-36 39 Unpermitted Development Failure to notify the Commission, cease construction, and carry out significance testing upon discovery of a cultural deposit during project grading in non compliance with Special Condition No 23 of CDP No 5-05 020 Dear Mr Mountfmd As you know the California Coastal Commission( Commission )is the state agency created by and charged with administering the Coastal Acti In making its permit and land use planning decisions the Commission carries out Coastal Act policies,which amongst other goals seek to protect archaeological and paleontological resources In order to provide for the protection of any significant cultural deposits discovered during project grading at the subject site and allow for a complete consideration of mitigation options by the Commission to protect those deposits in approving Coastal Development Permit 5-05 020 which authorized Hearthside Homes ( Hearthside ) to construct the "Bnghtwater" development, the Commission imposed Special Condition 23 Special Condition 23 requires that if cultural deposits are encountered during Bnghtwater grading that work stop to allow the Executive Director to determine if the discovery is significant,and thus warranting of a modification to the archaeological mitigation program In relevant part to this alleged violation Special Condition 23 states (bold italics added for emphasis] 23 PROTECTION OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DURING GRADING The Coastal Act is in the Public Resources Code beguming at section jD000 AITACHNIENTNO -533- Item 9 - Page 323 V-5 08 032(Hearthside Homes) Page 2 of 4 A PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director an archeological monitoring and mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that shall incorporate the following measures and procedures 1 2 3 If any cultural deposits are discovered during project construction, a including but not lunded to skeletal remains and grave related artifacts, tradownal cultural sites,religious or spiritual sites,or other artifacts,the permittee shall carry out significance testing ofsaul deposits and,if cultural deposits are found by the Executive Director to be significant pursuant to subsection C of this condition and any other relevant provisions additional investigation and mitigation in accordance with all subsections of this special condition 4 If any cultural deposits are discovered,including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave related arttfaets,traditional cultural sites, religious or spiritual sites, or other artifacts,all construction shall cease to accordance with subsection B of this special condition 5 In addition to recovery and reburial,in situ preservation and avoidance of cultural deposits shall be considered as mitigation options,to be determmed in accordance with the process outlined in this condition 6 If human remains are encountered the pemuttee shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws Procedures outlined in the monitoring and mitigation plan shall not prejudice the ability to comply with applicable State and Federal laws including but not hinted to negotiations between the Iandowner and the MLD regarding the manner of treatment ofhuman remains including but not limited to scientific or cultural study of the remains(preferably non-destructive) selection of in situ preservation of remains or recovery repatriation and reburial of remains the time frame within which rebunal or ceremonies must be conducted or selection of attendees to reburial events or ceremonies The range of investigation and mitigation measures considered shall not be constrained by the approved development plan Where appropriate and consistent with State and Federal laws the treatment of remains shall be decided as a component of the process outlined in the other subsections of this condition. 7 B If an area of cultural deposits,including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts,traditional cultural sites,religious or spiritual sites or other artifacts,is discovered during the course of the project,all construction activities to the area of the discovery that have any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options or the ability to implement the requirements of this condition shall cease and shall not recommence except as provided in subsection D and other subsections of this special condition In general the area where construction activities must cease shall be 1)no less than a 50-foot wide buffer around the cultural deposit and 2)no more than the residential enclave area within which the discovery is made 1ATTA (nlo 2/ ( Item 9 - Page 324 -534- t V-5 08 032(Hearthside Homes) Q Page 3 of 4 C An applicant seeking to recommence construction following discovdry of the cultural deposits vhall submit a Significance Tectrng Plan for the review card approval of the Executive Director The Significance Testing Plan shall identify the testing measures that will be undertaken to determine whether the cultural deposits are significant The Significance Testing PIan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist(s) in consultation with the Native American monitor(s),and the Most Likely Descendent(MLD)when State Law mandates identification of a MLD The Executive Director shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of the Significance Testing Plan within 10 working days of receipt If the Executive Director does not make such a determination within the prescribed time the plan shall be deemed approved and implementation may proceed Once aplan is deemed adequate,the Executive Director will make a determination regarding the significance of the cultural deposits discovered Hearthside s grading monitoring plan which was approved by staff on December 12 2005 incorporated the requirements of Special Condition 23 Moreover the grading monitoring plan as submitted to staff by Hearthside and approved by staff to satisfy the terms of Special Condition 23 instituted procedures to protect cultural deposits during archaeological grading That the terms of the grading monitoring plan regulated archaeological grading is reflected in a letter from your representative Susan Hon,dated September 5,2008 which states Because the Coastal Commission required Hearthside to prepare and implement an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Hearthside conducted an unprecedented level of archaeological mitigation additional artifacts and human bone concentrations were recovered and were treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Commission approved archaeological monitoring and mitigation plan One required procedure set forth in the grading monitoring plan is the preparation of a Significance Testing Plan upon discovery of new cultural deposits during grading page 5 of the grading monitoring plan states 'A Significance Testing Plan pursuant to Special Condition 23 will be prepared only upon discovery of cultural deposits or features that have not been previously discovered It has come to staffs attention that Hearthside Homes in non compliance with Special Condition 23 failed to 1)report discovery of cultural deposits in Ora 85 during archaeological andproject grading in 20062 2) cease construction in accordance with Special Condition 23 subsection B and 3)carry out significance testing as required by Special Condition 23 subsection C Please be advised that non compliance with the terms and conditions of an approved permit constitute a violation of the Coastal Act On page&of the document entitled History of Bolsa Chiea Archaeological Research and Salvage Work Conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) 1980 2008 which was provided to Commission staff on Septemoer 5 2008 by a Hearthside representative it is noted All bone concentrations from both sites were found in 2006 CA ORA 85 11 human bone concentrations and all animal bone concentrations found during Archaeological Grading I human bone concentrations found during Construction Grading JATTA(,1,JA1 40 CM -535- Item 9 - Page 325 V 5 08 032(Hearthside Homes) 2J 01 Page 4 of ` The discovery of human remains within Ora-85 is a new discovery warranting of a Significance Testing Plan as required by Special Condition 23 and the grading monitoring plan Pnor to approval and issuance of CDP 5 05 020 and approval of the grading monitoring plan,no human remains had been found at Ora 8�, a fact that the site description of Ora 85 in the grading monitoring plan attests to on page 2 no evidence of human remains in the form of burials or cremations was found The fact that no human remains had been found at Ora 85 dictated how the project archaeologists perceived the site the "lack of structural ceremonial and funeral items led archaeologists to believe that Ora-85 was a foragers short term village The possibility that this discovery of human remains at Ora 85 could change the perception of the site further emphasizes that this discovery was unprecedented - In order to resolve this matter of non-compliance with the terms and conditions of an approved coastal development permit and the terms of the grading monitoring plan submitted pursuant to the conditions of an approved coastal development permit we are requesting that you submit by February 4, 2009 a Significance Testing Plan for the review and approval of the Executive Director to determine the significance of human remains found at Ora 85 and, to the extent required by Special Condition No 23 subsection B, immediately cease construction Please contact me by no later than January 5,2009 regarding how you intend to resolve this violation Although we would still prefer to resolve this matter administratively, please be aware that Sections 30803 and 30805 of the Coastal Act authorize the Commission to imitate litigation to seek injunctive relief and an award of civil fines in response to any violation of the Coastal Act Section 30820(a)(1)of the Coastal Act provides that any person who violates any provision of the Coastal Act may be subject to a penalty amount that shall not exceed$30 000 and shall not be less than $500 Coastal Act section 30820(b) states that, in addition to any other penalties any person who `knowingly and intentionally' performs or undertakes any development in violation of the Coastal Act can be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1 000 nor more than$15 000 for each day in which the violation persists Finally the Executive Director is authorized after providing notice and the opportunity for a hearing as provided for in Section 30812 of the Coastal Act to record a Notice of Violation against the property Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and for your work and anticipated efforts in preparing a Significance Testing Plan If you have any questions regarding this letter or the pending enforcement case please feel free to contact me(552)590 5071 Sincerely Andrew Willis District Enforcement Analyst cc Teresa Henry South Coast District Manager CCC Lisa Haage,Chief of Enforcement CCC Pat Veesart Southern California Enforcement Supervisor CCC 1�lt I/ ATTACHMENT NO stern 9 - Page 326 -536- STATE OF CAUFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUth Coast Area Office 2000ceangate Stute1000 Long Beach CA 90602 4302 (562)5W-W71 September 17,2009 Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 ExecutiNe Circle Suite 250 Irvine California 92614 Violation File Number V 5 08 032 Property Location 17201 Bolsa Chica Road Huntington Beach Orange County APN 110 016-36 39 Unpermitted Development Failure to notify the Commission cease construction and cam+out significance testing upon discovery of a cultural deposit during project grading in non compliance with Special Condiition No 23 of CDP No 5-05 020 Dear Mr Mountford Thank you for submitting a revised Supplemental Archaeological Program dated September 1 2009 for archaeological disco-,eries at Ora 85 that as requested in our August 24 2009 letter and required by Special Condition 23(D) of Coastal Development Permit ( CDP ) 5-05 020 was revised to incorporate consultation with the Most Likely Descendent(s)( MLD ) and the Nati"e American Heritage Commission ( NAHC ) With the program revised to address the comments of the MLD and NAHC the Executi-.e Director finds the mitigation measures proposed in the September 1 2009 Supplemental Archaeological Program to be consistent with Special Condition 23 Section III C of the Supplemental Archaeological Program details a mitigation program designed for the location of burials and associated grave goods at CA-ORA 85 that includes mitigation measures that have been completed and others that remain to be completed Supplemental Archaeological Program p Il In order to resolve the issue detailed in the December 18 2008 Notice of Violation letter and described in the subject Iine above of non compliance with Special Condition 23 of your CDP in a timely manner please complete the mitigation measures proposed in Section III C of the Supplemental Archaeological Program that remain to be undertaken in accordance U ith the following timelme 1) Detailed documentation and special laboratory analyses of all non-sacred and non ceremonial items as further described ui Section IV by NoN ember 17,2009 2) Reburial of all materials recovered from this site in the off site designated reburial area with the pre,,iously interred human remains by December 1,2009 3) Incorporation of the data recovered from this process into a comprehenst"e report on all archaeological investigations at CA ORA 85 and CA ORA-83 as required by the County of Orange as part of the EIR process for this project b} February 1 2010 �T7/CHfE'b0N1 -537- Item 9 - Page 327 V 5 08 032(Hearthside Homes) Page 2 of 2 Please note that the Executive Director has determined that the changes to the project mitigation measures proposed by the Supplemental Archaeological Plan as revised after our request to do so are consistent in nature and scope of protection of cultural resources with the nungatmon measures contained in the Grading Monitoring flan approved pursuant to CDP 5-OS-020, and thus Hearthside Homes may commence with the proposed changes without an amendment to CDP 5 05 020 As explained to you in detail in the December 15 Notice of Violation letter Rearthside Homes in non-compliance with Special Condition 23 failed to 1)report discovery of cultural deposits in Ora 85 during archaeological and project grading in 2006 2) cease construction in accordance with Special Condition 23 subsection B and 3) carry out significance testing as required by Special Condition 23 subsection C Non-compliance with the terms and conditions of an approved permit constitute a violation of the Coastal Act Approval of the Supplemental Archaeological Program does not limit the Commission's right to seek relief including but not limited to monetary penalties under Chapter 9 for the Coastal Act -violation detailed in the December 15 Notice of Violation letter Also approval of the Supplemental Archaeological Program does not ]unit the Commission from taking enforcement action to address Coastak Act violations at the subject property other than those that are the subject of the December 15 Notice of Violation letter Thank you for your cooperation in preparing a Supplementary Archaeological Plan that meets the requirements of Special Condition 23 If you have any questions regarduig this letter or the pending enforcement case please feel free to contact me(562)590-5071 Sincerely Andrew Willis District Enforcement Analyst cc Susan Hon Nancy A Wiley,Ph.D SRS Larrt M-,ers,NAHC Sherilyn Sarb Deputy Director CCC Teresa Heurr South Coast District Manager CCC Lisa Haage Chief of Enforcement CCC ATTACHMEN r NO cfii b i Item 9 - Page 328 -538- 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 "The Ridge"22-unit Planned Residential Development Page 4 eucalyptus ESHA from impacts of the contemplated residential development when the ESHA habitat serves raptors which fly and for whom the topographic separation would not seem to be significant This too should be addressed in the Biological Assessment. The Assessment should be prepared prior to decisions on appropriate land use at the site In any case such a Biological Assessment will be required at the time an LCP amendment is submitted for a Commission review Cultural Resources The subject site is within an area of known archaeological significance The MND/EA states that an archaeological report was prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys(SRS),inc in May 2009 The May 2009 Archaeological Report includes,according to the MND/EA discussion of the previous investigations of the archeological site The May 2009 Archaeological Report prepared by SRS should be subject to peer review as well as review by appropriate Native American groups that are likely descendants of Native Americans that previously occupied this area The resulting comments should be considered in the entitlement process The land use designation zoning,and any future development of the site should take these comments under consideration and make modifications accordingly The MND/EA in the second mitigation measure of the MND(CR-2) states that if pre-h►stonc human remains are discovered the Most Likely Descendent shall inspect the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials" The option of preservation in place should be an option available to the Most Likely Descendent in the event prehistoric human remains are encountered Furthermore preservation in place should also be considered if any significant cultural resources are discovered at the site Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed pre-zoning and Mitigated Negative Declaration Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments Sincerely 1 1 ' - r a4tA--1 Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst = Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Ridge MND 10 14 09 my ATTACHMENT NO -539- Item 9 - Page 329 Page I of I Villasenor, Jennifer From bclandtrust@venzon net Sent Tuesday April 06 2010 1 27 PM To Viilasenor Jennifer - Subject changed sentence 4/6/2010 Jennifer Due to an oversight a sentence in my comments of March 31 2010 on page 4 regarding RMND for the Ridge should have read- Mitigation measures in prior permits from City Countv and Coastal Commission related to archaeological resources at Bolsa Chica have been ignored Please make note Thanks Flossie Horgan Executive Director Bolsa C.hica Land Trust 714 846-1001 www bolsachicalandtrust org ATTACH MFNT NO 4/19/2010 Item 9 - Page 330 -540- 4 L ru L 1`v`2 6 2010tenseaclNG DEPT BRIAN M FAGAN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission March 23 2010 Attn Jennifer Villasenor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Planning Commissioners As a professional archaeologist and author of a major synthesis of California archaeology I write to strongly oppose the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (No 08-016) for the Ridge Planned Unit Development The TAC E applicants claim that the project will have potentially significant impact on �� I cultural resources [within the project area] unless mitigation is incorporated I strongly disagree } Archaeological site CA-ORA-86 lies within the project boundary According to the applicant the site has been subjected to 33 different archaeological excavations that include everything from surveys to auguring and five excavation programs Their consultants report that the site"has been modified in shape and size through time and is often combined with CA-0RA-83 The Cogged Stone Site'and CA-OR-144 Except for an apparently undisturbed structure which was recorded and removed they conclude that it is unlikely that significant deposits would come to light during construction They propose as mitigation measures The attendance of a professional archaeological monitor and Native American monitor during ground disturbing activities If finds they are made they specify specific outcomes t 1 7 0 HOT SPRINGS ROAD S A N T BARBARA CALIFORNIA 93 1 08 ( 8 0 5 ) 9 6 9 7 3 3 9 ( & FAX ) P B R I A N@ B R I A N FAGAN COM ATTACHMENT N�,., j7 -541- item 9 - Page 331 In the event that human remains come to light they specify the actions to be taken It should also be noted human remains were found during building C �I construction grading monitoring for the Sandover development protect The Sandover project (1999) was built on portions of ORA 86 these discoveries are not mentioned in the peer review letter referred to below The applicants also state that archaeologists from the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee reviewed their May 2009 report This review consists of a single page letter dated December 10 2009 signed by three professional , archaeologists which states that they have reviewed the May 2009 report A ci They state that"data recovery has been completed in the only intact part of the site ' As far as I can determine the peer reviewers did not inspect the site in person The entire area covered by CA-ORA-86 and neighboring CA-ORA-83 represent virtually the last portions of an enormous series of archaeological sites which have been destroyed by intensive residential development They also represent some of the last surviving remnants of a chronicle of Native American culture which extends back at least 9 000 years something that the reviewers fail to mention in their letter which appears to represent little more than a cursory sign-off on a report where cultural resources will certainly be impacted even if the site is much disturbed One has serious concerns and questions about the peer-review r Did the committee members visit the site during the excavations? How many times and when> Did they inspect the trench layout the augur work and other aspects of the f ieldwork> Did they inspect the finds from the site in the laboratory? How many times and at what stage in the analysis) Were they consulted about the research design and strategies for survey and excavation? 4 Did they inspect the surviving intact deposits as they were I excavated as a basis for certifying along with the excavator that there are no undisturbed deposits left on the site> How many times and when Have they been consulted about the final report on the excavations and its potential conclusions j I 2 s ATTAC14MENT NO I Item 9 - Page 332 -542- On what basis were the peer reviewers appointed Were they appointed by the applicant or by independent outsider> Above all why are there no comments on the enormous significance �� ^� of this site to California history Cj I think it is imperative that these questions be answered before this peer review is taken as legitimately certifying that a Mitigated Negative beclaration is possible CA-ORA-86 was the center of human occupation in the area once neighboring CA-ORA-83 was used less intensively after 2 000 years ago As such it is an important and irreplaceable record of the closing stages of Native American occupation in this region The peer review letter assumes that there is no further undisturbed occupation deposit n the site So for all that there is to support this statement is an"Archaeological Abstract" There is no comprehensive final report on the investigations that allowsA� - dispassionate independent assessment of the claim that there are no surviving undisturbed deposits at the site In fact the assertion that there are none is so confident that the peer reviewers state that no further mitigation measures other than grading monitoring are required Certainly the rather cursory mitigation measures recommended will not reduce the impact of construction work to an insignificant level Whatever mitigation is undertaken there will be impact on unique irreplaceable archaeological resources The area of the site under reference is one of the last surviving remnants of this major archaeological complex If there is even a slight chance that there are human burials or undisturbed deposits still in place they should either be thoroughly investigated or left intact To offer a Negative Declaration for these archaeological deposits would be an inexcusable tragedy especially in the absence of any final report on the archaeological investigations If the site is to be destroyed through development the following minimal steps need to be taken in mitigation a The completion of a comprehensive final report on the present excavations and finds also all the investigations over the past three decades which is made available both to professional archaeologists and to the general public through the South Central Coast Information Center 3 ATTACHMENT H j - -543- Item 9 - Page 333 b COMPLETE meticulous excavation of the entire archaeological deposits to be affected to record any undisturbed deposits and the f►nds therein Testing should be done by remote sensing and core boring combined with hand excavation Auguring does not necessarily document undisturbed or disturbed deposit c Completion of a comprehensive final report on these excavations which record all details of the totally excavated and now destroyed ( ► site d All reports and excavations to be subject to review by a peer review committee appointed by an independent body not by the applicant or other interested parties perhaps the Society for Professional Archaeologists Sincerely *BRIAN FAGAN Emeritus Professor of Anthropology University of California Santa Barbara _ 4 ATTACH EN F NO o Item 9 - Page 334 -544- SANDRA GENIS,PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA CA_ 92626 PHONE/FAX(714)75"814 April 2010 Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject Recirculated MND for The Ridge(SCH#2009091043) Via e maiI Dear Ms Villasenor Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Ridge project(MND No 08-016 SCH#2009091043)located on approximately 5 acres of property in the City of Huntington Beach Orange County These comments are submitted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and myself I request that my comments dated October 9 2009,as well as all comments by any other party submitted on the previously circulated MND No 08 016 be included in the public record for the recirculated MND The applicant proposes to construct twenty—two dwelling units roadways drainage improvements private open space amenities and related infrastructure on the project site The project would be developed as a Planned Unit Development In order for development to - proceed the following discretionary approvals would be needed • General Plan Amendment changing the site s land use designation from Open Space Park(OS P)to Residential Low Density(RL) • Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment changing the site s LUP land use designation form Open Space-Park(OS P)to Residential Low Density(RL) • Zoning Amendment changing the site s zoning designation from Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay(RA CZ)to Residential Low Density-Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) • Amendment to Chapter 210 12 of the Zoning Code to allow greater flexibility in provision of required parking including provision for tandem parking • Tentative Tract Map • Coastal Development Permit • Conditional Use Permit The site is highly sensitive as part of the Bolsa Chica ecos)stem including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Resources in the immediate area include an environmentally sensitive habitat area to the east and important cultural resources Cultural resources include Ca Ora 83 which is listed by the Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites and 0, was recently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Page I of 13 "I Ii-ICHMEN -545- item 9 - Page 335 In addition grading was to be prohibited within 500 feet of any active nest (April 1 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 9 12 26 28 68 Agenda Item Th 7a April 14,2005) e, According to EA No 2008 016(p 33) the proposed project would extend to within 140 feet of the ESHA with the nearest residential lot 160 feet from the ESHA Construction in this area would involve heavy machinery for grading The proposed buffer under 50 meters from the ESHA less than half the 100 meters considered probably adequate but not overly conservative by Coastal Commission staff would fall far short of the buffer needed for adequate protection of the ESHA Thus it is likely that disturbance of raptors utilizing,or attempting to utilize the Eucalyptus ESHA would sustain adverse impacts Indeed as stated in the Recirculated MND Impacts on surrounding habitat areas could occur from intrusion of people and pets in the area as well as from noise light dispersal of nonnative plants and introduction of pests and feral species Exacerbating the situation fill on the site will result in a situation with the tops of the trees approximately at the proposed pad elevation As noted by Coastal Commission staff ecologist, John Dixon(April 1 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 8 12 Agenda Item Th 7a,April 14 2005 September 24 2004 Coastal Commission staff report pp 4155 Agenda Item W 12g October 13 2004 July 29 2004 Coastal Commission staff report pp 36 38 Agenda Item Th 23e August 12 2004)raptors nest in the tops of the trees Raptors tend to seek out high points hence the use of the trees for roosting and nesting in the first place Nearby activities at and possibly even above the level of potential nesting sites would be highly disturbing Thus construction on elevated pads will increase impacts on the resource EA No 2008 016 indicates that drainage will be directed to a pipe in Bolsa Chica Street and ultimately into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands after treatment(p 21) The EA does not provide information as to what the treatment will entail or its effectiveness m removing urban pollutants including such materials as petroleum residues tire residues landscape chemicals and heavy metals Unless treatment is one hundred percent effective in removing such materials which is not likely adverse impacts on the wetlands could occur In addition the proposal would redirect drainage currently flowing to the wetlands on the Parkside site potentially resulting in impacts on those wetlands Conditions were imposed on both the Parkside and Brightwater projects to reduce significant impacts due to predation by domestic pets including cats and dogs(November 1 2007 Coastal Commission staff report pp 11 4145 Agenda Item W 16a November 14 2007 September 22 2005 Coastal Commission staff report pp 20 27 28 29 34 Agenda Item Th I 1 a October 13 2005) In accordance with Zoning Code Section 221 10 a Domestic Animal Control Plan is required for development adjacent to ESHA However no detail as to the proposed plan is provided Would the proposed perimeter fence include a barrier(EA p 33)similar to the wall of death at the nearby Bnghtwater de,elopment resulting in additional significant adverse impacts to avifauna? Control of domestic cats is especiall) problematic Absent measures which would ensure that all domestic pets are fully controlled at all times including leashing of cats it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur In fact it is likely that impacts would occur Page 7 of 13 ATTA � m Diem 9 - Page 336 -546- Coyote predation may help to control midlevel predators including cats However,if current city controversy is any indication it is more likely that the proposed project will result additionalC �� calls for control of this important element in the food chain with the City responding L accordingly This potential impact on coyotes or other predators must be addressed -- Potential impacts would occur due to increased light glare and noise,with potential impacts on sensitive species Even if lighting were directed downward this could result in lighting directed down toward ESHA to the east It is disingenuous to imply(p 33)that sensitive species will somehow become inured to outdoor lighting backyard barbeques noise from stereos 1-- neighborhood pets and collisions with transparent or reflective surfaces All of these significant impacts on biological resources must be examined in an environmental impact report Air Quality EA No 2008 016 provides information regarding air pollutant emissions during construction and concludes that no impact will occur based on the project s contribution to regional emissions (EA p 24) Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model(version 9 2 4)(p 24) Wlule the previously circulated MND did not address localized significance thresholds(LSTs) the Recirculated MND includes new information as to localized effects and concludes that no localized effects would occur either although data in the previously circulated MND indicate otherwise As noted in the previously circulated EA No 2008 016(p 24) the proposed project was anticipated to generate 26 26 pounds per day of PM10 i e fine particulates less than 10 microns in diameter thus exceeding the localized significance threshold of 14 pounds per day established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)for source receptors within 1 twenty-five meters(approximately eighty-two feet)of the site boundary This would have �1 affected nearby residents natural habitat and the thirty-foot-wide pathway at the northerly site i Sv boundary which is utilized by large numbers of school children daily on their way to school However the previously circulated N1ND failed to address LSTs or acknowledge this impact Tlus was noted in comments submitted on the previously circulated MND Miraculously the recirculated MND provides new emissions estimates for particulates that are only a fraction of previous estimates falling well below LSTs Construction Emissions PM 2 5 PM 10 200_MND 6 37 lb/day 26 26-lb/day Recirculated MND 1 74 lb/day 4 06 Ib/day l LST 2lb/day 14lb/day E Page 8 of 13 ATTACHMENT NO -547- Item 9 - Page 337 This is highly suspect According to Recirculated EA No 2008-016 the emissions numbers were revised to include emissions reductions due to implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 and other mitigation measures including frequent watering of the site proper equipment maintenance and use of low VOC coatings(p 24) The SCAQMD web site includes the following note regarding URBEMIS 2007 model(version 9 2 4) NOTE An error has been identified associated with the fugitive dust construction mitigation measures for PM Therefore the only mitigation measures acceptable 4 for use are either watering OR chemical suppressants ,V As noted SCAQMD s documentation for Rule 403(Appendix F Emissions Reductions CCVY A Estimates,BCM 6) watering could result in a fifty percent reduction in fugitive dust emissions However the above table assumes reductions of 73 percent of PM 2 5 and 85 percent of PM 10 due to implementation of impacts This is contrary to the above directive and must be revised All assumptions regarding type of equipment to be used scheduling of equipment and other factors must be presented as part of this environmental review Absent such documentation,one cannot be confident that the emissions estimates included in the previously circulated MND were appropriately revised Based on the original emissions calculation construction emissions will result in a significant localized air quality impact which must be examined in an environmental impact report Noise Development of the site will result in increased noise during construction and upon occupation of the site Noise from concrete mixers(85 dBA at 50 feet) generators(81 dBA at 50 feet)and other construction equipment(74 to 98 dBA at 50 feet)would be well above ambient noise levels affecting nearby residents as well as wildlife Construction haul routes are not identified in the EA Noise would also be generated along those routes with fully loaded trucks typically generating noise levels of 88dBA at fifty feet At least a portion of any haul route would be along residential streets creating noise levels well in excess of ambient noise levels in residential areas EA No 2008 016 indicates that the the applicant is proposing to utilize noise mufflers on all heavy equipment (p 37) However EA No 2008 016 fails to reveal how much the proposed mufflers would reduce the clearly significant noise impact nor ensure that what the applicant is proposing would actually be implemented Construction noise is a significant impact which must be examined in an environmental impact report Aesthetics Views of the site will sustain significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the proposed project Open space would be replaced by housing and night time views would include Page 9 of 13 ,TTACHMENT W) Item 9 - Page 338 -548- additional outdoor lighting Views across the site from existing public streets and paths toward the Reserve and other open space would be lost Impacts would be greatest from the existing public pathway in the thirty-foot wide city parcel extending along the northerly boundary of the site Numerous people currently utilize the pathway for recreational purposes and as a pleasant transportation alternative to riding a bicycle �e 6`_�L on the street with vehicular traffic As shown in cross sections in Attachment 2 1 to the EA a l�,V solid wall up to eight feet in height will be constructed totally blocking any views from the ""v1 j public parcel and creating a tunnel effect similar to that created along Los Patos by the Brightwater development The public will lose all visual access to coastal resources in this area No meandering pathway or landscaped buffer (EA p 2)can compensate for this loss Aesthetic impacts particularly loss of views from public areas must be examined in an environmental impact report Hydrology and Water Quality EA No 2008 016 indicates that drainage will be directed to a pipe in Bolsa Chica Street and ultimately into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands after treatment(p 21) thereby altering existing drainage patterns Surface water currently flowing to the wetlands on the Parkside site would thus be reduced The EA indicates that Iow flows would be retained on-site(p 21) This would be consistent with California Water Resources Control Board Order No WQ 2000-11 and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No R8 2009 0030 ih NPDES No CAS618030 which require the retention or treatment of low flout s up to an 85 percentile storm event Low flows from the proposed project would percolate into the ground although no information is provided regarding subsurface conditions Future Iateral movement of what will become subsurface waters must be considered Will drainage ultimately travel to the bluffs resulting in increased bluff erosion? Bluff erosion is an ongoing process at Bolsa Chica Recently plans for a foot bridge along Warner west of the project site had to be revised to respond to the several feet of bluff erosion that had occurred in Just the few short years of the planning process for the foot bridge Any increase in drainage in bluff areas would thus be potentially significant Impacts on drainage must be examined in an environmental impact report Land Use The proposed project would result in the development of approximately five acres of open space land currently designated for open space under the general plan and local coastal program This is a significant impact made all the more significant when considered in conjunction with other proposed and recent development in the area including the Brightwater project Parkside development and the Goodell parcel Page 10 of 13 ATTAHME'J-'rf NO -549- stem 9 - Page 339 The project would eliminate five acres of potential future parks while creating a demand for an additional 0 29 acres(12 415 square feet)of park land based on a future population of 57 residents(EA p 15)and a general plan standard of five acres of park land for each one thousand residents(EA p 41) Wlule the applicant would be required to dedicate land or pay in-lieu park fees tlus would not necessarily eliminate potential impacts In lieu fees must be utilized to provide park facilities for the project from which they are generated(Government Code See 66477(a)(3)) The Huntington Beach Recreation and Community Service Element does notE ' identify any new locations in the nearby area for future local parks which would be available to serve future residents of the proposed project The project thus fails to meet general plan goats for park land These significant impacts on land use must be examined in an environmental impact report Transportation/Access EA No 2008-016 identifies potential impacts on parking circulation and pedestrians during construction particularly during earth hauling activities(p 28) The EA then notes that the project would not impact a large number of surrounding residential uses implying that some not Iarge number of residents would sustain an impact possibly a significant one The EA fails to define not large Would the dozens of dwelling umts taking access to Bolsa Chica Street at Dorado Drive be not a large number ? What about the seventy one unit apartment building on Bolsa Chica Street? In any case impacts would be significant even if only a couple of homes were affected The proposed project would provide a portion of the required parking as tandem spaces As noted in Recirculated EA No 2008 016(p 43) This may result in more on-street parking spaces being occupied more often This would then reduce available street parking for guests and other visitors such as repair people A dearth of available street parking would potentially spilt out onto nearby public streets resulting in reduced parking available for the general public seeking to access coastal resources This is a significant impact Impacts due to construction and proposed parking configurations must be examined in an environmental impact report Cultural resources The project site contains CA-ORA 86 a site which is often considered in conjunction with CA ORA.-144 and CA-ORA 83 As noted in EA No 2008 016 (p 40) the site has been subject to previous studies It is extremely disappointing that the EA belittles the significance of on site archaeological resources describing the site as disturbed and likely to yield little of value in language reminiscent of environmental documents for the Bnghtwater site which had also been subject to numerous previous studies As we now know CA ORA 83 at the Brightwater development site to the west has yielded numerous cog stones and human remains not acknowledged or anticipated in environmental documents for the project resulting in a tragic ! loss of cultural values and desecration of burial sites CA ORA 83 extends east of the Bnghtwater site across the Bolsa Chica Street alignment _—J Page 11 of 13 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 340 -550- In any case the loss of any additional cultural resources in tlus area would constitute a significant adverse effect even if resources are documented and recovered As stated by Susan Stratton,supervising archeologist at the California Office of Historic Preservation commenting on CA-ORA 83 1 don t see how you can mitigate for this Let s say you completely destroy a building How are you going to compensate for the destruction Maybe you build a replica But in this case you have an archeological site and it s a non-renewable r — resource so whatever remains of this particular site it s forever It will never be duplicated You can t build a replica of this �1 Archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable Archaeological recovery is a destructive process It is essential that on-site cultural resources be preserved at their existing location for future generations with advanced archaeological techniques that can provide answers to the questions we cannot answer with today's technology and that is non destructive Impacts on cultural resources must be examined in an environmental impact report in light of what has occurred on the Bnghtwater site to the west J Cumulative Impacts In addition to the many significant environmental impacts to be created by the proposed project when considered on its own the project NAill contribute to cumulative impacts generated by other related development in the area including projects at Bnghtwater Parkside and the Goodell site which is also currently in process This will result in significant cumulative t impacts on air quality noise traffic loss of habitat and loss of open space to name a few It is 1 v` particularly puzzling that separate MNDs would be processed for the adjacent Ridge and Goodell sites at the same time rather than examining the impacts of development of the area in one environmental document Conclusion Based on the above it cannot be assured that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project On the contrary it is likel) that impacts can and will occur Thus the proposed MND should not be adopted l� lhank you for the opportunity to comment Please keep us informed as this project proceeds Yours truly Sandra L Gems Attachment Sources cited Page 12 of 13 ATI�C 11 ENT .� � do( -551- Item 9 - Page 341 Sources Arviv Enterprises Inc v South Valley Area Planning Com (2002)l01 Cal App 4th 1347 Citizens for Responsible& Open Government v City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal App 4th 1323 California Coastal Commission July 29 2004 staff report Agenda Item Th 23e August 12 2004 Cahfomia Coastal Commission September 24,2004 staff report,Agenda Item W 12g October 13 2004 California Coastal Commission April 1,2005 staff report, Agenda Item Th 7a,April 14,2005 California Coastal Commission staff report,Agenda Item Th 11a,October 13 2005 California Coastal Commission July 26 2006 staff report Agenda Item Tu 8c August 6 2006 California Coastal Commission November 1 2007 staff report Agenda Item W 16a November 14 2007 Huntington Beach General Plan Coastal Element Mejia v City of Los Angeles(2005) 130 Cal App 4th 322) Larry Myers Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Commission letter to the California Coastal Commission April 8 2008 Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn Inc v Montecito Water Dist (2004) 116 Cal App 4th 402 Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento(2004) 124 Cal App 4th 903 South Coast Air Quality Management District web site note regarding URBEMIS 2007 model (version 9 2 4)http//www agmd og v/cega/models htmi South Coast Air Quality Management District Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 403 and Proposed Rule 1186 Appendix F Emissions Reductions Estimates February 14 1997 Page 1)of 13 ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 342 -552- -553- Item 9 - Page 343 x �f gag$ } t £s t € _a m aararmm f m am t s 1 °�I s 1 it 1 1 4 y j : — t�t jlr�tit�rtlll}j�itRtfll�llc}li�Et € s � E a a dp 7a [ 1p,Yp ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 344 -554- tl yfy ; E g 4 if t 7 y 61 Eo g do a Its t p o �`I a� tltl z g i � R E U � � t 3E § ! (W( N �-® Z> � E ` E t L _ , ,fir*,' 17, ATTACHMENT No _ -555- item 9 - Page 345 e IL S � k TW 4 8 � T�jxy ➢ �y� ' aA g � � ! 1 tq F 8 13 z__ 107 m a.lifJ VJ IAf -- ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 346 -556- `>ysf(M+ y M Tdt1,�J1T lT@ 4 � I E le Bol CNoa/ Lo P o Go e La do pa 6 Wide Moe dariny T II d Land cap.Buffer Com-t Lam- to T II on 9Fwa Property 6 -Ho Cho -�1' I �1� 'FLOT LOT LOT 18 Land cap Lot LOT IS WOA M int I-ol - E g B cW \r'I 7--� j � Veh I c�.t P m1 6 ss p d M d 1 J I k-. (Rsrsr o SI-t$of 6) vp L d 0 $dew Ik ` S� \\ ` — _.__ - Turf P k InGudaa c ropy LOT T— nd Band. 17—� LOT 1 nd cap Lot f40A M Intel d ki (Re o$he Vt 1 o t 6) 18� On St eat 1. 73 Av liable c6 LOT 10 Porno ble Pa 1 9$u fe a con t P err Fi Fluch nd Nu nc. LOT � - — Pped . 1,.P rk1�IVtIon6)tam Ul I I I J j (I..err o 6act on $neat 3 0 9 �IpI LOT I LOT 9 _.I p (-^LOT 9 PlghtI%,rAln—,t, LOT LOT !''1 J ( 22 — --^— caed 42 I hal9ht l llY�I LOT JI Ea t Fa I g Slope III I I d uqK 8 Ml tU or D o Toler t a d Low Ulatar u.ETrul� d II Ullll t D Ip t ig to n t nd 6co troltor 8y I,- LOT HOA M 1 l road L 1 I lOT LOT I(+� f OT LOT 3 LOT 6 �--I¢ollagd curb O. g ?> LO 1 I n [Gil Bta da d) E I t g Veget Llo W th Goodall Property 00 PROM E tt�g Ac G a o G od 11 P p ty ® —E re 6 do E t y s THE RIDGE Landscape Concept Plan Aummsirsuomis am Janaery Iaa9 f'wtlae O L J PIP e V r- 1 1) ® EASTERN PERIMETER PALETTE ®SOLSA CHICA STREETSCAPE AND NORTHERN PERIMETER PALETTE Wry i1 Twn e� Gannon me 8 lu Common me S- Nan Cammo Age ra nub C ury P4M S Idi W-W na nd Coib enJeawlderda W mdke M Aga w na OGop� SnW.Int p� pnh� da Cab- CN�wM umpha C—phw n W loe od P1oa Ykama 9 un w Nosma GI k9 oba Malde alr Bx ha W P.k.a7 Dw d ob Bush ucw pe M;ce P u Nara Mende I kl Bx a p 14 M d by I1CC8 wn pp uxa u pM S w pin omen,w ord aome T maw w a n B Cann m nearyf n Carp VaW Plum Oro d NY Gaaro u absu Po Reyes R Y Gaw da k S tuW G w hw g 1 us mun Lo Edds L Ed. d Curoht Arena M Common Teme Brink N mg Common N nw G ro ua grlwu anon» b ma Gaspe C..w Atom sb uU kA ra bn Adwmbb Abe grn(I— Gi.YAWL, nMe rbau aJwrry nk GaMTu API em Nor th Red ApM S owbsrry Aryepyn hung I BUWd mu C n w mega ceryus Bg Pod �ntivu C npu nma Clow w W.. Cobh W C ro -Im SR C.P.CeandMw Caen aePDs Claw a ,Oj Radnor YCdwante C n ro u G m 8 C ro. Cava Im h b Ats N aGo C Phe by oplblb as Heaba C ro W S m Csagpm c ew bdcd Fmban E i OW F cu C reaumbmmbw 11 CkWO....M. 61u000. C wddeMdb W I R n f C ew m9an w mo n H ewmulb hybdd DMW 1- rysa em uca enn Oey D y 0 peperm rib W rd gM W Mbcen Ives tranmor awrul Sdvar(wow W hY da Whha R.ow Dmw DNI1a ow k P N D rot Db aia vq DrpearRwmum ha Idu m wwn pebapmm—W.I n PA pawn Ykanq w Corsku w ma Oroaad— own ay.11owe R phw PI hake C r Hew Sap a Rockmq F M Hbe WI 6trawb n"m rawb N' Rmmedry ft b ro b"jr Daad Rmmury ChW purpaeu O d odvn aim hyb d N AnbnO y 6 pab W.I.'PwY TdI oaken u Or— Cm ui M mhg Gory G w ign 9 G xenla xy.— g. %ban w came wearvn Copwm Had m n En9 nh W Amu Gb ra peml mars DaProxrn a npery Epin9 a,1AA C he u-P nn GI b e wy t ti C rRasla M N Lanprelhin cup u lu ba m an G mo Noma CawW RMwmG web Jed lami✓nawf Ike epe pabmoc w bhwpbe lvY Downes wooed wh• Leman Ma tlabi w M bdyso w91-0 G Con Esc Na pxa EwW. V rwba afbn aaMw Dwa Gdd'Mb Fri) se Nwbn PM pp OpavN LuWhu —t— D.M L. evda occ M mMa LW nu badnn Mae l M e Hadenb W wen W d. Lac VM Llpl u kda Sky LW n V e Yp.—.Yd m eon Bwnl W ua an:A— melyame red An Wp9mV Gl _ non Naa ea a aka oo wpo9on l.romau woo m �w demo F.. Le rE P ap pe blem WO nWn V D L ospe m 'V 9 A. Ib T T lw w Y frNeu aaa Rnga Via e LqIYumiap ® rive 13—cd N C—Nan $ W4 or W Sw Lev nG 8.ry— pp Bouga-m sulae Ln I po la H bn H h pans Hon 0-I'b Mad dy. a^e I- C C •� Lw "p cols Wad w YWaMe wwgda xmpbra G d Vln Po'� tw ap ae Anwdenm' G b rip 0.9.0 pe Pw ya dW r nFI— Mahanb evw Nwb 4 =; MYepom bI Nm YapaN fo MyoPoru cdk m common nanw f •-Y Mwa N H 0 m e or N Ina bn GPM aa ti7 meGu km Gprnatrea ( 6 Yja mb. rxy 0 once ae cna {j t 0'.ta,m a"`-11.ma � aaji phd m N PN cam Gard Ch a nl ii d n yw m NL a^Y i Piu Gury' } P .9 nalum P .a g—t iji LOg71Q �.., 0 uu E CW w 08 Be« h 39 ®G1wm Wvwa rY p rt pa Dek hIa Rhapn kW x � aMhm eveNac Yi ®Bd psu R uov 4' S N a�� �uw i•y 6vaewu M R— aA 1 at 4 PPY• a ) E No1"W mny coon W to w Wh Ma I Rmme a .1 em Y m pe99 A't °B aewarwm SN I cl ANT Pd K T ttAP NT.09 D wyI w THE RIDGE Plant Palette a IlMrHSICE HOMES J u,ay Y099 '`.Y dwet3 er e I � L r � a YF tid .@8q}q.} a$gg$yEEg � � 3 $a2E�3 3i F7LL�'banummow.��3�-n w o a�z6 � �um £wm r�*'d�� a t �S 3 sag. g rss xgig czu ao u u u o o ow w zsM o Sad fren 41 _�� 12 B s_ aa � _a aBa� u 3luag?8u"33 $€ ��z 2 - s ATTACHMENT NO -559- !teen 9 - Page 349 Efli., ------a„wa 3 i i ii� flit 1 b�blidllibb a1 Y i fib{ S �bfis3 miss R A � y E } E o o03 w 0 , iNow +�' o Boa 000 ~ i i f y 91 0000 a ATTAGHMENT NO �b � Item 9 - Page 350 -560- r A DRIP VALVEASSEMBL FLOWS LESS INN 20O M ^DRPV E SSE BL LOWS EXC E01 020GPM /`'"J�TEC U E rm GS p DRiPLNE MANUALF USM pLVE E LAN0.9CAPEDRIPLI E SNRUB REAS �DRPZ NELAYOUf CE ER EEDNELAYOVf CE ER EED @D PTONE IAVOUT MULTIPLE BEDS H SUBSURFACETURR M11GATI N ALTERN THE gVo�Y NI y°� 1 ,F ® Z ME RIDGE Irrigation Design - Drip System (� � �4i�,HF�TRlH9CEI{Ov1ES a.Nvyam� &nn B r B ® � J qp L_ 5 fO11Cf m B p, Baal a�Bibb YV Haun Wa Ral and Gx Ba rJ�u y C LWcap g AWL ELEVATION 5 I Nis ro o-�^aro r-io�,� wa ao ed cw oo cn By ,�� c y roar ad upMg .ray -.Ywq "➢. PLAN VIE 6c 1 NT5 THE RIDGE Project Entry Concept A&EARMS) llow-S ,'wry toes rw�twe L r Mhd Porau P °rNr t.�u S 4 6 PKaeabl Cone to w aaa Po w Mphsl ae a��c.� Rrop. y Po aw P m Guru « cR'ae d� eap «w.y Pa+w Ca�tl $ d M 'Choker Coun y� A }}} a � AASW O 97 Y St— TFV^ rWiR' Egwl) w«ca.rya. ad wkaar �.. = a 7 M Rn ary o— a.a AASWrO 9 1 A 7 Stop Q�a« J+ iMa X 110 'W"S h P^rG r•eg Gar«N W NO NrW1g �a• buu 9 a Arac — p� — � •WUT tad Subdr au Pvc Sch 40 M4�lOt!_ Non Uhl—C- Ia Equal tkcoap tad Na Bo I I I ko+aa rVIeaUS a4wu.6�LL CQlC+1p1 M CA♦aaN HX p6815N X ca+asre e�w. cwava+ro w+ra>ea sPeo, .er+vious �uoE Rnnrae oar tau eb wau ea au.�. MaNPdC1YfRRM Arn 8W ric0 OMi 0 aNAI D6ORPG M aICBY!T2 d t1! /qq�� �'O�6M CIOr• tlY POROUS PAVr EN N iit .a Mu � '9 w wattg,�aM�.t U4w 6`raba anal I mw— a dARL O Er rr6 aO tAcnnW ov ero �I aY At6 �N6 YIW W M841D LM[W Atl.kJNW Pnpo¢RfY RE rl Oa atrlY4aD FfIDFlTRI.W ��caam7:umn XR M Ae! � .L 1 � �C�X6WMd81`POLB � u THE RIDGE Project Sections and Notes 0 AlFAMISIDEITOMM, � .lawery 3009 sleae s r e T �L J v � I �a r fD � APARTMENT SITE BI ck Wall M ' I zat I I E l I g 5 ruc w f LOT J 13 II N L I 15 .Y S I L T II LOT P Fnakar Tuba 9tael Z 12 Vlew Fens o Rat i tng Co;-ty Ptl t \ I Block Wall Prop-y Llna 7ty,it V 1-1 17 LO I Per Block 1 Q Q 1 1 Well(0 1M — 9 LB OT a — 10 tS7y1 N ENH ced LOT -- C— OT I I 8 LOT I > Legend .ri• LO Pr J t E y 9 F7onmant!R fer F,� � I Petlntetar Block Well to She 2 of BJ 1 1 — 1 I Parts tx Tube Steal Fence I LO i Goaimwty P71 tej a"7 f�c"hty I I "/ten 5T T III uuLL N0T66 e ,t / Enhe d Co -1 y '+�' 2 I 6 I II �I awATL uow ov iamwa w �T` P I er uw1WGm urt wmmK M I n icc awartAose eoal.t .�.5 GOODELL ftOPER7V Block Wall ® THE RIDGE _ Wall and Fence Conc®ct .dEA7'"FIP.W tYiSll�HOMFS .rawry ws 1� Mast 1 d 0 L J 5\Ha AV-Y0 754\0754002\0-P;—Iq dvoW ft J10g4\w04k OYM 00Wd9 N n o yPu'�A x l J C 40•T ti QQ H ® ( ) III 11 K�! SCY p� n BATH 'F-93'��bon uvnw iN naY O AL1 HALL 1 LAU 1� LOFT j�j>EN k \T �C BEDROOM 7 _ ORCH i x HALL K]� �. COURTYARD / B ? a bA I ccLT/ A O1 ? BEDROOM 3 Nm9 4 ARA4E 1 ]0' _ c r ' I TI HOu9e 6E � 1 4 1 PLAN IA ® 2 730 SQ FT p o THE RID OE � ep C� O k HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HEARTHSIDE HOMES W ' �9 f I 0 �o r � xvw J ixa�rawoia.mu�em oau aI Lt �5 w � a = U z z o ® e t '-I i w lB 5 -- — r� o ex� 0 x i x s Exhibit 4-2 Plan lA THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach WS HsiEE Hones ATT � ACHMEi NO_-�2009 03 44 Item 9 - Page 356 -566- SV-Vr d ]S W TO a ^9 d9e wodtl q ra d9 LrtAq�cN n �e 0 x � e ba• _� oa h�i o M BATH 01Ep O �. ��� DOM LINNG P MILY HALL 2 LAU I A LOFT � BEDROOM Z R ORCH HALL 3 COURTYARD 1 BA 2 ccL1 _ A BEDROOM 3 M ARAGE 7 f e 19 10" y I f T BALCONY f I tGOA�lt1A�yE I I HH �4�9E1 I C? PLAN 1B ® 2 724 SQ FT �� o THE RIDGE � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HEARTHSIDE HOMES W R11 � I {i kvN i� F I H A U x - - M U . 0 Q d zWF o x iF 3 a # w two ®m O s 5 Exhibit 4-4 Plan 1B THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach JJ ff HEARsirm Homes ATTACHME i NO �� aao,0 I�-H 46 Item 9 - Page 358 -568- �u I 1 J - � b W I u 3 \ II CL I I f it § g 1 1�s� o H HL rc U � r+ M zW ® ® w N � �'•r x M � H i - z � ® n o m a x W � m a At m = _ o m F p Exhibit 4-5 Plan 2 f H E RIDGE Floor Plans { aty of Huntington Beach 07 JOHFARmsiDE Hows AT TACAMENT N NTS �C?~- �Z 9 0;47 -569- Item 9 - Page 359 K S t ri .o- xwv _ ixormi owmuie aaweaoaL LH ~` F u V) r µ NAwx GQ oEll ® ra x s w Ksi § { ► a fiTM O *� _T S 5 F Exhibit 4-6 Plan 2A T H E RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach 111111111 I I ''' 0 h[ x �s1 Home �1s TACHiVI T 0- 76 /7 4-8 Otero 9 - Page 360 -570- SW 0—1,10 SO 54mm-0.Mg fw VM ldw% W g rtla gnw.. O p.0° x gg77ggR� O EDROOM M BAT PAMILY H�,j OLA I / y LJ "• N N O � I O HALL I 1 COURTYARD 1 I I BEDROOM] I MAL o A 1 g Q { =1 G M 10Ir DORM 3 k 1 � R COURTYARD I BA 3 GARAGE 'ryti„ v 20'-0' A _ BEDROOM 1 TH HHOA�Rt�CGB S iF z F M j h 0 PLAN 2D • 3,153 SQ FT o THE RUDGE y, O `�j k HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1 �I / HEARMSIDE HOMES zt 6a .oz N xvL 3smc o� s " 5� � ~n o � W a � U BMW A � wo - N t-t M x z z A o a oN a �t IN !P o F � a s TP � i rYn s g a y Exhibit 4-8 Plan 2D THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach NTT LACC" 2009 3 7 HFARmsir)E Howl ATTACHMENTNO75 /-17 4 10 Item 9 - Page 362 -572- summ nn.� waa .wneaalw y�roq oeu+oe�wvwo waEmywae�snu no a t9 G � pp gg77@@RR �_ 8@GROOM PA ILY O 7 4 0 y�O NOOK VJ g�N 9 pp ry/ IT OPTUBXT O80NU8 20 JPATIOy M BAT 01-4 / \ w LAU s PINING BA �/ 0 r BA 1 GARAC. BEDROOM S A >24 > — I�`-BEDROOM 3 �T BED4 j C LT PORCH t � PLAN 3A ® 3,309 SQ FT r � o THE RIDGE � c� O HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA �+ S HEARTHSIDE HOMES cs e w4�1 w rn rva Y� J.110auf oravnn ®swaOd .p .PPG6�� d -; U o d � w0 M pq x ® - ZMM o x 2 e � F 2 Y z ► F¢y c � a z Exhzbzt 4-10 Plan 3A THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach INS I � ® zoa HEARTHsiDE Horns ATTACHMENT' NO— P( 412 Item 9 - Page 364 -574- ' yy SUk Nx Wd 5 W5400207Jd ng 4MOMuMd1 Idi;1w01k1 0V a kjn11 lu 17 vim+ � pp��JJ 0 I 400 t n yTT � BORM O RA ICY o � W O NOOK PF OI°TU@XT 090NI19 �'� I i PATIOT i SAT O � I © AU BA \ �! BA 4 � � GARAGE BEDROOM 2 X �1 N A 2 o Y xKxY R -0 ALCONY 'T DO}1ROdr b OPT 8004 m Z� PORCH —4 t z - 0 PLAN 3D @ 3,294 SQ FT ID o ffi THE RIDGE � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HEARTHSIDE HOMES T b cra w , t ' o ,m, o » u�xaz INC W r �f tr Z v N 0 0 4 r t F-a {Lt & n n O 2 ofl o x w � s 3 6 F g ► a 4 � O m s — a (yy7 b RG Exhibit 4-12 Plan 3D THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach 1111111 I I I 1 a'�'^" - -- zoo9 v HEARTHSIDF-HOMES AI Autilviti u _� 414 Item 9 - Page 366 -576- sV wta. a 754101S aOn-0 my ada vh ay kw.W qVM Mgnw t7 K � 1 O 40.0 h � ryg k T EN O Em DADR pq E 7� O AMILY nM BATH A w O 1 t T O OVERED DECK i 1 RT D � I BEDROOM, I DININ4 1 ALL 10 L A, U M : o LI NG ) ce N� R BEDROOM 3 BRSOM9 PORCH Y GARAGE 1A-0 ALL DECK, BEDROOM 4 $ Nr I 4 ® PLAN 4AX • 3,474 SQ FT THE RIDGE O k HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA ! HEARTHSIDE HOMES W v i w� .0 w vxaaan ®s � ✓ G4 U t � � U FB I wo o zorL rr (\0 x � x ® ME, t s 'GY�LC 0 1 [ 1 — 0 M L� s it 8 T a .�yy a � W 5 Exhihit 4-14 Plan 4AX THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach �_ ��sv•e1 NTS2009 03 07 H z�-�s1 xo s ATTACHMENT" NO 416 Item 9 - lugs 368 -578- m N Da ylam q �q OdK h JdgeNw qVM gn�ad� n -V �� 7 y � t O M BATH O J OVERED DECK k x I UR D BEDROOM 1 DININ4 t ALL --oA 9 � +F�,IF F9 Cts § � u ING b pH R BEDROOM 3 ROOnB I PORCH Y GARAGE i I -V z---- t l l BEDROOM 4 ry y OPTRDEN J 1 1 BALCOtiY PATIO PLAN 4D ® 3,474 SQ FT o 9 T14E RIDGE x HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA HEARTHSIDE HOMES W I III ' �s a U ® _ x p - UEEEO � _ AAA - i ^ w Y 5 Y O — O a � � a — — — — \ O 4 Exhibit 4-16 Plan 4D T II E RIDGE Elevations of Huntington Beach I �p�qp �NfS ( ' ticc" —VA 4-18 Item 9 - Page 370 -580- n 11 -WF �\.JJ m r A E7CPA r HALL — — — — O PDR d d A d f NOOK F BEDROOM 3rT Y't MILT tAv BEDRoon a � W 0 t+l z A Ux zLOFT a g OPT t BEDROOM 4 $ nEDA ROOM gF 4 a HALL 3 x J 8 Exhibit 4-17 Plan 5'^' THE RIDGE Floor Plans City of Huntington Beach -mo HEARTHsim HOMES ATTACHMENT NO 1� 419 -58$1- Item 9 - Page 371 IM ax x.L 4� 4� -DTI w a U � x U 0 w 0 ® z 0 w x _ t s - s $ O 8 A _ iG i Exhibit 4-18 Plan 5C THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach Elevations JO /� 3009 03 07 HEAR sir)E Hows ATUC1u M O,� 4 20 Item 9 - Page 372 -582- GARAGE 2 § nOTORCOURT GARAGE 1 q s 1 i p T � COURTYARD P-PCH ITYU _ Ll ENTRY 3It w L 10TC11EN 0o J v W ,� X moo /` >,/ X _ s°eoRoo°nT6 tyj W O ® oA n TB2 a p f p c BA. BATH i O BEDROOM 3 R J DEMA LAU — F BEDROOH 4 TEEN ROOM/ OPT B i Semoon 2 s � 1 0 Y Exhibit 4-19 Plan 6 THE RIDGE Plans City of Huntington Beach Floor ■ ���rq µ``aa`_ �q*I [ rxsi s tx� z 09030 Homes ATTACHMENT NO 421 -583- Steep 9 - Page 373 n vi o-.bz F a U 0 ®® r) W 0 o � � x ®t® MM® a �a w i i o o _ a � O 9 0 $ , 1 TZ 5 Exhzbzt 4-20 t Plan 6A �� � RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach H AR-msIDE Hows II I I I I I INIS i t mw a 20U'9 034 7 ATTACHMENT NO3 (y S 422 Item 9 - Page 374 -584- ,01-V GARAGE 2 nOTORCOURT GARAGE 1 s PORTf COCFtERE I t 1 ,.. O COURTYARDPORCH �Y q zi Y tQ _ ENTRY U Uw i-, k >c KITCHEN �✓ �..�—..J'' \ pp 0 NOOK !� X C M ./r✓. DEEDR/OOPT, I M I� x• O Q P4O � In Tat 44 o f o BA BATH BEDROOn 3 O DEdCi LAUL _ a Q , a a a. t BEDROOM IF 9 i TEEN ROOj(, � OPT BED l BEDROOM 2 s � 3 t fl Exhibit 4-21 Plan 6.,-' _ THE RIDGE Floor Plans City of Huntington Beach ttp�� I I I' I 1 I 80.45t?CnN fOR � NTS LAC,CN ti -^ — 2 o a 07 HFwTHsiDF- HomB ATTACHMENT No 423 -585- Item 9 - Page 375 11111 a � F w W a U 0 a � w � W0 733 Q � x H a � w s ' 1 a o a. w 0 g 1 ► a Exhibit 4-22 Plan 6AX THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach FF WS Hzrfisl xoMts ATTACHMENT N0 424 Item 9 - Page 376 -586- kl m�hx S�D Sa00P0 yl nMng aapalucul M kp woAl WM g en K n O 7 DECKPFT1C^ yq r ®EDROOtl ig1 ee�a on RAMIL I�Ii It i Q 11%ATH ON 0 + BEDROOM 1 uu DR IPT ET e O I r i DINM�Gy � L UTY/ may.,, P C � (�' i COUVR�YARD TgLfN 12p0 U N tQj m� N BEDROOM a GA A e 2 i +- GARAGE +-� ,BEDROOM 4 i ��y PORCH d �1 DECK 7 Vey- 4 � >� mj - ® PLAN 7AX ® 3,984 SQ FT THE RIDGE � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I p. IMARTHSIDE HOMES Ln r w 0 0 H T1 d LI_ - w ®REM Uin o W xooa � 9 z0A � W x Orm ®Im x a MA O � � a 5 f Exhibit 4-24 Plan 7AX THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach �NIS I Vcc" 200 H ARTHsiDE. Hows ATTACHMENT NO (v 2� 4-26 Item 9 - Page 378 -588- \Nn yye Sl OOTO? 7 uAp etlu[ EpMWO W k M 30-0 tz o DECK 1 O LOGGIA O E t::� P MIIY p PATH A 1 BEDROOM 4 HALL Y BEDROOM 1 F OPT DI Y HALL 3 KITCHBX 3 COURTYARD �1q W u A.1 -77 GARAGE Y R A.E ao-0 Y A } G may, i — i 6EDROOM A BEDROOM b i m d 4 z F O PLAN 8A ® 4,097 SQ FT s THE RID GE � g i k HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA ! Q. HEARTHSME HOMES cCIO W V W O .u�o��owa-unn aasaaaoa H a ?51 0 O I I F a _ led Q U 0 0 a � C�7 a » w z � � a s g ► C�7 5 v O (� � O i 7 Exhibit 4-26 Plan 8A THE RIDGE Elevations City of Huntington Beach ff gva��pr �S I 1 tK.Cn1 ��s aooy ;ox �sr Homes ATTACHMENT NO /0 428 Item 9 - Page 380 -590- Sid W a We 07MV75 WM7_yb g I ft M. n Jldge well IWd M u rnua C� �G 0 S a DECK I 7��1� �l n 0 E LOGGIA i o r nar t .-a CD w BAEOREOOn p�( 0 1 E 0 0 BEDROOM 1 HALL I � BEDROOM 1 ti HALL 1 KrTTCS r 3 COURTYARD 1 Iq� A 3 W 1 GARAGE Y A m A B 20-0 OPTS EDRO�M L m i oywc. &MONO= RV BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM C r i TORCHFi , 1U1._ �S[L i M z� PLAN 8AX ® 4,094 SQ FT 0 ol� THE RIDGE � c� gll� O HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1 Q HBARTHSME HOMES o s c y v W CD a 0 Md.Nm 4d Isom s, M yWWnq c+d%p od Aft dp\wWgV tleNp WNI 14 rm � x � W G ptl � 4 / f4 .� W S O qo O ®LEI C� vo od o FRONT wD7 i ROOF PLAN MIA 8��e RIGHT REAR LEFT PLAN 8AX THE RIDGE � G i'F co k HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I HEARTHSIDE HOMES ° � A o ° 00 S\Aen.lBiew YCt NW S40M pl N 9-C*APWd V JM9\w tln9 M 9 b W Pi M C C OECK 1 LOGGIA 7 w I� BATH '/ R MILY j f v BEDROOM / A ffit t 1 BEDROOM 1 HALL t t BEDROOM 1 ti HALL 1 IOOTCHEN Y $ COURTYARD y 9W GARAGE 7 ggqqNN A 6 w a I OpT EORO� 6 � R �'l r � I Lrvlt{G t 9EDROOM 3 \ 0 BEDROOM i nK Z - ® PLAN 8D ® 4,076 SQ FT THE RIDGE � 3 C�� I O HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I Q HEARTHSIDE HOMES tD s co� b W W M m VU d )d-W A%WjAy W adW od M dp v.W d W-h e� ' n y K �p� C CD z l J W F O tz� _ w 7 Vj 5 il 71 1 7 HI H N _ nau tuns FRONT e ROOF PLAN mmffmmmi RIGHT REAR LEFT 0 PLAN 8D ` E THE EDGE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA o\! d HEARTHSME HOMES I l O M � i� -595- Item 9 - Page 385 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 City Council Interoffice Communication TO Joan Flynn City Clerk FROM Jill Hardy Mayor Pro Tern DATE May 4 2010 SUBJECT APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-016, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 09-022 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 (THE "RIDGE" 22-UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—BOLSA CHICA STREET/LOS PATOS AVENUE) I hereby appeal the Planning Commissions approval of Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for The Ridge project a 22-unit planned unit development (PUD) southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue The primary reason for my appeal is to enable the Council to review the recirculated mitigated negative declaration and the land use and development permit entitlements concurrently On April 27 2010 the Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No 08- 011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 along with the recirculated mitigated negative declaration tentative tract map coastal development permit and conditional use permit at a noticed public hearing The Planning Commissions action recommends that the City Council approve the proposed general plan land use and zoning designations on the site to RL (Residential Low Density) and amend Chapter 210 of the City s zoning ordinance to allow alternative parking configurations in conjunction with PUD projects Pursuant to Section 248 18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission SH MBB Iv cc Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission N3 11 i4o 11, 111,4nd Fred A Wilson City Administrator I a Bob Hall Deputy City Administrator Scoff Hess Director of Planning and Budding j � 9— ON 0(�� Herb Fauland Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Robin Lugar Deputy City Clerk 1J,; r% -- Jennifer Villasenor Acbng Senior Planner Linda Wine Administrative Assistant Items 9 - Page 386 -596- ATTACHMENT # 10 1 >R nuxrwcrou senor xr �aa ' �� „�w3- Kia 4M r per} F TO Planning Commission FROM Scott Hess AICP,Director of Planning and Building BY Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner w DATE April27 2010 SUBJECT DRAFT RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08- 016, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 08-011, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007,LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09-002, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 (THE RIDGE 22-UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine,CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER Signal Landmark 6 Executive Circle, Suite 250 Irvine CA 92614 LOCATION 17202 Bolsa Chica Street 92649(5-acre site southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE The applicant Hearthside Homes is requesting to amend the land use and zoning designations on an existing approximately 5 acre parcel for the subdivision and development of a 22 unit single family planned unit development (PUD) with a 5 776 square foot common open space area in the coastal zone Specifically the project includes the following requests Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments o General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space—Park (OS-P)to Residential Low Density(RL—7 Units/Acre), Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space—Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and to reflect the Zoning Map and Text Amendments described below, o Zonmiz Map Amendment to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay(RA CZ)to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone Overlay(RL CZ) o Zoning Text Amendment to amend Chapter 210 12—PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development and clarify the requirement for the provision of a public benefit o Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the approximately 5 acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots #D-1 Item 9 - Page 388 -598- o Coastal Development Permit to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single-family residences,common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone,and ® Conditional Use Permit to permit construction on a site with greater than a three-foot grade differential - ® Staft's Recommendation Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 016 based upon the following —The project, with the incorporation of mitigation measures will not have significant adverse impacts on the environment Approve General Plan Amendment No 08-011, Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007, Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Pernut No 08-046 based upon the following —The proposed land use amendments to amend the land use designation from Open Space—Park to Residential Low Density and the zoning designation from Residential Agricultural—Coastal Zone to Residential Low Density—Coastal Zone will be consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations not result in the loss of an existing or planned recreational resource provide for the creation of new housing units in the City provide compatible zoning and General Plan land use designations afford the property owner allowances to develop the property The proposed project will comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)with respect to the Residential Low Density zoning standards as well as the standards of the Coastal Zone Overlay The proposed homes will be compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to architecture,density building height and lot size The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance The project will provide the City's first `Green residential project The project will provide enhanced coastal access through the improvement of an existing City- owned parcel The project as designed and as conditioned will be sensitive to surrounding preserved environmentally sensitive habitat areas — The project will contribute to the City s housing stock,including affordable housing as required by existing City requirements,thereby assisting to achieve the City s overall housing goals — The project will contribute to existing recreational opportunities through the provision of a 0 13- acre passive open space area — The proposed zoning text amendment will allow alternative configurations for parking including tandem enclosed spaces and flexibility in open parking spaces while still providing for adequate parking, to achieve better site design and architectural quality in the proposed project as well as future Planned Unit Development(PUD)project proposals — The proposed zoning text amendment will clarify the requirement for PUD projects to provide a public benefit PC Staff Report—4/27/010 2 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing -599- item 9 - Page 389 RECOMMENDATION Motion to A "Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 with findings (Attachment No I)," B "Approve General Plan Amendment No 08-011 by approving the draft City Council Resolution No (Attachment No 2)and forward to the City Council for adoption" C `Approve Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving the draft City Council Ordinance No (Attachment No 3) and forward to the City Council for adoption" D "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving the draft City Council Ordinance No (Attachment No 4) and forward to the City Council for adoption E `Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 with findings for approval (Attachment No 1) by approving the draft City Council Resolution No (Attachment No 5) and forward to the City Council for adoption, F Approve Tentative Tract Map No 17294 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) G Approve Coastal Development Permit No 08 022 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) H `Approve Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S) The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as A "Deny Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 / General Plan Amendment No 08- 011 / Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 / Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 / Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09 002/ Tentative Tract Map No 17294/Conditional Use Permit No 08- 046/Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 with findings for denial B `Continue Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 / General Plan Amendment No 08-011 /Zoning Map Amendment No 08 007/Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 /Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 / Tentative Tract Map No 17294/Conditional Use Permit No 08- 046/Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and direct staff accordingly ' PC Staff Report—4/27/010 3 I Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 390 -600- e ' e , r WIN ADAM HOMTON i BANMc t t r i i VICINITY MAP RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-016/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 08 011 /ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 08-007/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO 09-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 09-008/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 08-022/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 (THE"RIDGE"-22-UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) PC Staff Report—4/27/010 4 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing -601- item 9 - Page 391 PROJECT PROPOSAL Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments General Plan Amendment No 08-011 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on the project site from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL -- 7 Units/Acre)(Attachment No 2) Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 represents a request to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space—Park(OS-P)to Residential Low Density(RL) and to reflect the Zoning Map and Text Amendments described below(Attachment No 5) Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 a request to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL- CZ)(Attachment No 3) Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 a request to amend Chapter 210 12—PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development and clarify the requirement for provision of a public benefit(Attachment No 4) Tentative Tract Map No 17294 a request to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots Coastal Development Permit No 08 022 a request to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single family residences common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone Conditional Use Permit No 08 046 a request to permit construction on a site with greater than a three foot grade differential The size of the 22 residential lots ranges from 5 114 square feet to 12,250 square feet The proposed 4 5 and 6 bedroom dwellings range in size from approximately 2 700—4 200 square feet and are two-stones with a two- or three-car garage The site is proposed to take access from a single point of ingress/egress along Bolsa Chica Street The project is proposing constriction of infrastructure improvements including street,curbs,sidewalks and storm drain facilities Planned Unit Development The project is being proposed and designed as a planned unit development (PUD), which allows flexibility in lot standards while providing a common unifying public benefit The project is proposing 22 single-family parcels that do not meet all the minimum standards for lot width and size in the RL (Residential — Low Density) zoning district Six of the proposed lots are less than 6,000 square feet in size,the smallest parcel being 5 114 square feet In addition 14 lots do not meet the minimum lot width of 60 feet (45 feet for cul de sac) instead ranging in size from 17 feet for a proposed flag lot to 55 feet in width PC Staff Report—4/27/010 5 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 392 -602- Public Benefit The applicant is proposing to provide two primary public benefits for the proposed PUD project The first public benefit is the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel iminediately north of the project site The parcel is currently undeveloped and would be improved with a 6-foot wide meandering trail and landscaping buffer that would connect to an existing informal unimproved path on the adjacent Shea property east of the project site to provide noticeable access to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands from Bolsa Cluca Street thereby enhancing coastal access opportunities in the Bolsa Chica area The project is also proposing to be constructed as the City's first `green residential project "Green' features proposed to be incorporated in-the project include integration of solar panels into the roofing of the homes utilization of permeable pavers for the street and driveways Energy Star-rated homes,drought- tolerant landscaping and a storm dram system designed to capture low-volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground functioning as a water treatment and groundwater recharge system Background The approximately 5 acre site is generally located at the southeast comer of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Historically the site has been used periodically over the years for agricultural purposes, but has not been used for agriculture in over 5 years The site is currently undeveloped except for an area in the southwest portion of the property that was previously utilized as temporary construction headquarters for the adjacent Brightwater Development Currently, the project site is approximately one-third gravel while the remaining site is fallow agricultural land An exhibit of the project site and surrounding resources and developments (with common names) is provided in Attachment No 6 Study Session The Planning Commission held a study session for the project on April 13 2010 The Planning Commission had questions related to the biological resources assessment, the applicability of the zoning text amendment to other potential developments in the City and archeological resources The Planning Commission also asked if previous project approvals in the vicinity of the project site (Sbea/Parkside project and Bnghtwater development) were based on the existing land use designation of the subject site as this was identified in one of the comments on Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 Staff indicated that prior project approvals were not based on the existing land use designation of the proposed project site The Planning Commission requested a copy of the biological resources assessment which was provided to all of the Planning Commissioners on April 15 2010 and is available for review in the project file at the Planning and Building Department The Planning Commission also requested information on the requirements of Chapter 221 — Coastal Zone Overlay of the HBZSO related to development adjacent to an ESHA The requirements are provided in Attachment No 7 It should also be noted that the requirements are recommended to be included as conditions of approval for the proposed coastal development permit PC Staff Report—4/27/010 6 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing -603- Item 9 - Page 393 ISSUES Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use,Zoning and General Plan Desuanatlons LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property OS P(Open Space— RA-CZ(Residential Undeveloped, Park) Agricultural-Coastal construction staging Zone) area(portion) North of Subject RMH-25 (Residential RMH(Residential Multi family Property Medium High Density— Medium High Density) Residential 25 du/ac East of Subject OS-C(Open Space— RA-CZ* Undeveloped(Shea Property Conservation) property—approved for single-family and open s ace uses) South of Subject Suburban Residential— PC (Planned Undeveloped(Goodell Property 0 5—18 0 du/ac—County Community—County of property) of Orange) Orange)" West of Subject RL-7(Residential Low RL-CZ(Residential Single-family Property(across Density—7 du/ac) Low Density—Coastal Residential Bolsa Chica Street) Undesignated— Zone), (Brightwater and (Brightwater Specific SP 15-CZ—(Brightwater Sandover Plan) Specific Plan—Coastal developments) Zone) * The City approved a zoning map amendment to change the current zoning designations to CC — Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as LCPA No l 09 **The City recently approved the pre zoning and annexation of the Goodell property south of the subject property Pre zoning designations include low density residential and open space recreation and conservation areas General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments must be approved by the City and certified by the Coastal Commission to establish land use designations in order for the zoning designations to become effective General Plan Conformance In addition to the request to subdivide and construct 22 single-family homes on the project site the project applicant is proposing to amend the existing zoning to Residential Low Density— Coastal Zone (RL-CZ) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density—7 units/acre (RL-7) The project also consists of a zoning text amendment that would amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) supplemental standards and provisions of Chapter 21012 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO)to allow greater flexibility in the provision of parking spaces for a PUD development The changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project, but would allow the parking to be provided in an alternative configuration as long as the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site The project also requires an PC Staff Report—4/27/010 7 I Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing It@0'e'1 9 - Page 394 -604- amendment to the City's certified Local Coastal Program to change the Land Use Plan from OS-P to RL-7 and reflect changes proposed to the HBZSO and zoning map The proposed project and legislative amendments are consistent with the following applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan Land Use, Coastal,Urban Design,Recreation and Community Services and Environmental Resources/Conservation Elements A Land Use Element Goal LU 5 Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained Objective LU 5 1 Provide for the protection and maintenance of environmental resources as new development and redevelopment projects occur during the planning, project review and permitting process Policy LU 5 1 1 Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal(NEPA)and State(CEQA)regulations During the development review process a Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area Huntington Beach Wetlands and throughout the City to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally and state delineated wetlands,and b Review any development proposed for non-wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality The project has been reviewed for environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA The project s potential impacts are analyzed in Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 which concludes that the project with mitigation would result in less than significant impacts The project site is adjacent to an existing grove of eucalyptus trees that has been designated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) As such, the project is required to be designed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO which includes performance standards for development adjacent to an ESHA Compliance with these provisions would ensure that impacts from the proposed project on the ESHA would be minimized The project site does not contain any wetland areas and is located outside of the required buffer area for delineated wetlands on the adjacent (Shea) property to the east The drainage concept for the proposed project and compliance with applicable requirements related to water quality and water discharge would ensure that impacts to downstream waters, including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands would be less than significant Finally the project complies with the minimum buffer requirements for development adjacent to an ESHA pursuant to the HBZSO and the City s certified Local Coastal Program Notwithstanding compliance with the minimum buffer requirements, the project's proposed distance to the ESHA east of the project site has been analyzed by a qualified biologist and determined to be adequate in terms of minimizing impacts to the ESHA PC Staff Report—4/27/010 8 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing _ -605- item 9 - Page 395 Goal LU 9 Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic physical and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach Objective LU 9 1 Provide for the development of single and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 12 Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines a Modulate and articulate building elevation facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated `box like"structures) b Avoid building materials,colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of their neighborhood c Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access d Encourage innovative and creative design concepts e Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage The project is proposing to provide 22 single family residential units in an area with existing single- and multi-family residential uses The design of the units is proposed to be similar to the Brightwater development and incorporates varying elevations and architectural features The front yard setbacks will be varied throughout the development to add visual interest from the street The project is proposing to design and construct the homes using green building concepts including the integration of solar roof panels utilizing the most up to-date technology and pervious surfaces in the streets and driveways The proposed project design and zoning text amendment request would allow required 3-car garages to be constructed to appear as two car garages with a tandem configuration inside This would minimize the width of driveway paving and garage access that would otherwise dominate the front yard In addition some of the dwellings would include porte cochere features with access to a two-car garage toward the rear of the property with the garage door for the third car garages facing into the property In these plans no garage would dominate the street frontage The proposed zoning text amendment would be beneficial for future PUD developments in that a project s site layout and design could achieve a more diverse development configuration provide more open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility that the proposed amendment would provide The proposed amendment would also reduce a project's potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis on architectural quality by incorporating more landscaping porch elements and other architectural features B Coastal Element Goal C 1 Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources promotes public access and balances development with facility needs Objective C 1 1 Ensure that adverse impacts associated with coastal zone development are mitigated or minimized to the greatest extent feasible Policy C 1 1 1 With the exception of hazardous industrial development new development shall be encouraged to be located within contiguous or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to PC Staff Report—4/27/010 9 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 396 -606- accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively,on coastal resources Policy C I 1 3a The provision of public access and recreation benefits associated with private development(such as but not Iimited to public access ways public bike paths,habitat restoration and enhancement, etc) shall be phased such that the public benefit(s) are in place prior to or concurrent with the private development but not later than occupation of any private development Policy C l 15 New residential development should be sited and designed in such a manner that it maintains and enhances public access to the coast b provide non-automobile circulation such as bike trails and pedestrian walkways within the development d provide for the recreational needs of new residents through local park acquisition or on site recreational facilities to assure that recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas Policy C 2 4 7 The streets of new residential subdivisions between the sea and the first public road shall be constructed and maintained as open to the general public for vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian access General public parking shall be provided on all streets throughout the entire subdivision Private entrance gates and private streets shall be prohibited All public entry controls (e g gates gate/guard houses, guards, signage etc) and restrictions on use by the general public (e g preferential parking districts resident-only parking penods/permits, etc) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited The project as part of the proposed public benefit is proposing to improve an existing undeveloped 30 foot wide parcel north of the project site with an access trail that would connect to an existing unimproved informal path on the adjacent Shea property that would ultimately provide noticeable access to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, via an existing path along the Orange County Flood Control District channel, from Bolsa Chica Street In addition to the enhanced coastal access the project would provide a 5,776 square foot passive open space area is proposed within the development to provide a recreational area for new residents to ensure that the new residents would not overload existing coastal recreation areas The project does not propose entry gates or other entry or parking restrictions Access to the street and on-street parking would be available to the general public The project is in close proximity to similar developments is consistent with the existing land use pattern in the area and can be accommodated by existing infrastructure Although the proposed project would result in development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the existing slope adjacent to the project site would be preserved in that no construction would occur other than minimal grading and landscaping In addition the proposed drainage system would further protect the slope from potential impacts from runoff and erosion Environmental impacts from the proposed project were analyzed in Recirculated Draft MND No 08 016 Potential impacts have either been minimized through the project s design or can be mitigated so that all impacts would be less than significant PC Staff Report—4/27/0I0 10 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing _ -607- Item 9 - Page 397 C Urban Design Element Goal UD 2 Protect and enhance the City s public coastal views and Oceanside character and screen any uses that detract from the City's character Objective UD 2 1 Minimize visual impacts of new development on pubhc views to the coastal corridor including views of the sea and wetlands Policy UD 2 11 Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height and site orientation The proposed design of the residential project would be consistent with existing residential uses in terms of density and scale In addition the project is proposed to incorporate a coastal architectural design theme which would be consistent with the City s Surf City character The proposed project would retain existing public coastal views from the City-owned parcel north of the project site at the eastern edge of the proposed 30-foot wide access trail The project would also preserve the existing slope along the eastern perimeter of the project site as a scenic resource D Recreation and Community Services Element Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence Policy 2 1 5 Provide for the inclusion of recreational trails in new developments which link with the existing or planned trails Although the project is proposing to amend the existing land use designation from Open Space—Parks to Residential Low Density the project would be providing for additional recreational opportunities The project is proposing an approximately 5 776 square foot (0 13 acre) common open space area to provide a recreational amenity for the residents of the project as well as the general public The project is also required to pay park in Iieu fees as required by the HBZSO to contribute to future recreational opportunities The project is proposing as part of the public benefit for the PUD request to improve an existing City-owned parcel north of the project site with a landscaped trail to provide for improved access to an existing informal path on the adjacent Shea property The improvements would provide enhanced access to the coast by linking Bolsa Chica Street to the informal path on the Shea site to the existing Orange County Flood Control District channel and ultimately to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands E Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Goal ERC 2 Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species including wetlands for their intrinsic values Objective ERC 2 1 Evaluate enhance and preserve the City s important habitat areas PC Staff Report—4/27/010 11 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 398 -608- Policy ERC 2 1 1 Acquire and maintain the most current information available regarding the status and location of sensitive biological elements(species and natural communities)throughout the City A biological resources assessment was prepared by a qualified biologist for the project The biological resources assessment presents the most current information on potential resources on the project site and also identifies existing resources within the vicinity of the project site The project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and surrounding resources include a grove of primarily eucalyptus trees that have been designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(ESHA) on the Shea property east of the project site There is also a designated wetland area on the Shea property in the vicinity of the project site at the toe of the slope The project's design in addition to applicable HBZSO requirements for development adjacent to an ESHA will ensure that impacts to surrounding resources would be minimized from development of the project While the project site does not contain any sensitive resources, there is potential for two special status species, burrowing owls and southern Tarplant, to occur on the site Mitigation measures recommended for Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 require pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of these species on the project site The mitigation measures also require additional provisions in accordance with established protocols, to protect the special status species if they are determined to be present on the project site Goal ERC 6 Protect and enhance the beneficial uses of our receiving waters Objective ERC 6 1 Minimize impacts from urban runoff into receiving waters Policy ERC 6 1 1 Create and implement means to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of runoff and discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable by integrating surface runoff controls and Best Management Practices into new development and redevelopment land use decisions Policy ERC 6 1 6 Ensure that post development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat The project's proposed storm drain system would limit the amount of post-construction runoff to ensure that impacts due to runoff would be less than significant The proposed storm drain system would function to recharge groundwater thereby limiting the amount of low volume storm flows and dry weather flows that enter the storm drain system In addition, runoff water from larger volume storm flows would be pre-treated prior to entering the storm drain system which would limit the amount of polluted runoff that is ultimately discharged during larger storm events The project, as designed and with implementation of a WQMP which incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs), would not result in substantial increases in the rate and volume of post construction runoff that would adversely impact the beneficial use of downstream waters Finally the proposed storm drain system and use of pervious surfaces in the streets and driveways would serve to protect the adjacent slope from runoff that could cause environmental harm to the slope and sensitive resources below the slope Zonmp Compliance The proposed project will comply with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the PUD design for the project These exceptions include deviations to mimmum tot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the HBZSO The proposed PC Staff Report—4/27/010 12 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing _609- Item 9 - Page 399 project is also required to comply with other requirements of the HBZSO including regulations pertaining to subdivisions and the Coastal Zone overlay The following zoning conformance matrix compares the proposed project with the development standards of the RL(Low Density Residential)zoning and other applicable code requirements TABLE 1—ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX SECTION ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROPOSED 21006 Lot Area Min 6 000 sq ft Ranges from 5 114 sq ft to 12 250 sq ft (6 lots are proposed to be less than 6,000 sq ft Lot Width Min 60 ft Ranges from 17 39 ft to 65 ft (14 lots are Cul-de-sac width Min 45 ft proposed to have less than 60 ft of lot width Density i unit/lot I unit/lot 210 06 Building Height Max 30 ft from top of Complies(Tallest height proposed at 29 ft subfloor to roof peak 35 ft 6 in) - w/CUP 210 06 Lot Coverage Max 50% TProposed omplies(Maximum proposed lot coverage at 48%) 210 06 Setbacks Front Min 15 ft Complies Side Min 5 ft Complies Street Side Min 10 ft Complies Rear Min 10 ft Complies Garage Front entry Min 20 ft Complies Side entry Min I0 ft Not proposed 230 70 C Grading Max 3 feet between high and 15 feet between high and low points of low points of existing grade existing grade(CUP request) 23104 B Off Street Parking 2 enclosed+2 open/up to 4 Complies(ZTA request to allow alternative Number of spaces BR unit parking configurations which would be 3 enclosed+3 open/5+BR applicable to proposed project) unit 210 06 Landscaping 40%front yard setback Landscape plan to require 40%landscaping 232 08 B 1 24 box tree per lot<45 ft within front yard setback and comply with in width tree requirements 1 36 box tree per lot>45 in width 230 88 Fences&Walls Max 8 ft high along Perimeter—8 ft high max from exterior perimeter of side and rear elevation 6 ft high from interior elevation yards abutting arterial Max 6ft high max along interior property lines 8 ft high along perimeter abutting open space Max 6 ft high interior fencing separating ro erties PC Staff Report—4/27/010 13 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 400 -610- Urban Design Guidelines Conformance The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines contains guidelines specific to single-family residential development The project generally conforms to the objectives and standards contained in the Guidelines The project would comply with general design objectives providing high quality architectural and landscape design in scale with existing residential development surrounding the project site and preserving natural amenities such as the existing slope along the eastern perimeter of the site The project proposes to incorporate several guidelines for building siting/lot design including vaned front setbacks, vaned building design and consideration of garage location The project proposes to vary front setbacks within each Iot so that the project does not appear to be a straight line of houses from the street view The project is also proposing tandem parking configurations for required three-car garages to minimize the dominance of garage doors facing the street One of the plans includes a porte-cochere feature with a two-car garage located toward the rear of the property and a separate third car garage with the door facing the inside of the property rather than the street In terns of building design the project is proposing to provide eight different floorplans and six architectural styles with a unifying coastal theme including Light Craftsman,Light Victonan American Traditional,The Hamptons,Laguna Beach cottage and Florida Seaside The project complies with open space guidelines providing for a centrally located passive common open space area In addition the topography of the existing slope on the eastern perimeter of the project site is proposed to remain The project is proposing high-quality architecture as encouraged by the design guidelines Articulation and architectural details are proposed on all four sides of each home In addition the project is proposing to incorporate front porches second story balconies, a mix of hip and gable roofs and vertical and horizontal roof articulation Environmental Status On September 2, 2009 the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) approved the processing of a mitigated negative declaration for the project The draft MND concluded that the project would not have significant environmental impacts with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures that were identified for potential impacts to cultural resources The EAC determination was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission On November 10 2009 the Planning Commission upheld the EAC determination and voted to continue processing a mitigated negative declaration for the project Concurrent with the processing of the appeal a 30-day public comment period on draft MND No 08-016 commenced on September 10 2009 and concluded on October 9 2009 The Planning Department received 19 comment letters during the comment period The most common comments were in the areas of land use cultural resources and biological resources Subsequent to the comment period and in light of the discussion that occurred during the Planning Commission appeal hearing,a biological resources assessment was prepared for the project Based on the information contained in the biological resources assessment revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of new mitigation measures in the biological resources impact area These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 was made available for a 30 day public review period from March 4 2010 to April 2, 2010 The City received 12 comment letters on Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 PC Staff Report—4/27/010 14 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing - -611- Item 9 - Page 401 All comments as well as staffs responses to comments are included in Attachment No 9 Comments from the Environmental Board are discussed below Environmental Board Comments The Environmental Board submitted a comment letter (included in Attachment No 9) during the initial comment period for the environmental assessment While the Environmental Board's letter did not raise any environmental issues with respect to the draft mitigated negative declaration,the letter stated that the Board would not generally support the project s request to amend the General Plan land use designation However since the project is proposed to incorporate green building practices as a public benefit of the project the Board would recognize these features of the project as an adequate exchange for the project's requests In addition the Board recommended that the project meet specified criteria under LEED Gold or PIatinum and be 5% greater than the State Energy Requirements required by Title 24 The Board also presented concerns that sufficient space be provided in the kitchens to store recyclables and to assure space is provided for trash, recycle, and green waste carts on each property The Board believes that tandem parking would make this problematic The Board also stated that the proposed project should be used as an example for future project proposals that seek variances, zoning changes and/or code text amendments Prior to any action on the project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08 016 Staff in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the proposed recirculated mitigated negative declaration be approved with findings Coastal Status The project is located in the appealable area of the coastal zone As such the proposed coastal development permit is appealable to the Coastal Commission A ten working day Coastal Commission appeal period will begin upon the conclusion of the 10 day appeal period following Planning Commission action Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 is subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission Consequently the legislative amendments for the proposed project would not become effective until the Local Coastal Program amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission Both the coastal development permit and Local Coastal Program amendment are analyzed in this report Redevelopment Status Not applicable Deswn Review Board The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project on January 14 2010 Although residential projects such as the proposed project do not typically require review by the Design Review Board(DRB) the project was referred to the DRB primarily to review the sustainable/ green aspects of the project The DRB generally supported the project design as well as the sustainable aspects and provided recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider A copy of the DRB's recommendations has previously been provided to the Planning Commission and is available for review at the Planning and Building Department PC Staff Report—4/27/010 15 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 402 -612- Subdivision Committee The Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on January 28, 2010 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the request to the Planning Commission with suggested conditions of approval The Subdivision Committee reviewed the tentative tract map for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and applicable provisions of the HBZSO A copy of the minutes of the meeting has previously been provided to the Planning Commission and is available for review at the Planning and Building Department Other Departments Concerns and Requirements Comments from other City Departments have been transmitted to the applicant separately and have been compiled into a code requirements letter transmitted to the applicant In addition the evaluation of environmental factors included in Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 reflect and is based in part on consultation with the Departments of Community Services Fire,Police and Public Works - Public Notification Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on April 15 2010 and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1 000 ft radius of the subject property individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning and Building Departments Notification Matrix) applicant, and interested parties As of April 20 2010 no written communication in response to the notice has been received Application Processing Dates DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES) • Draft MND General Plan Amendment Local Draft MND Within 180 days of complete Coastal Program Amendment Tentative Tract application—August 29,2010 Map, Coastal Development Permit Conditional Use Permit,Zoning Text Amendment March All others Within 60 days of adoption of MND— 2 2010 October 28,2010 The project application was submitted on November 3 2008 and deemed complete on June 3 2009 Subsequent to the determination of a complete application, new information pertaining to the application was submitted to the Planning and Building Department and accepted as complete on March 2,2010 ANALYSIS The primary issues for the Planning Commission to consider are the amendments to General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density the proposed zone change from Residential Agricultural—Coastal Zone Overlay to Residential Low Density— Coastal Zone Overlay, the proposed zoning text amendment to amend Chapter 210 12 of the HBZSO pertaining to planned unit developments, the land use compatibility of the proposed 22-unit single-family subdivision development with the surrounding properties the project's potential environmental impacts PC Staff Report—4/27/010 16 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing _ -613- Item 9 - Page 403 the proposed public benefits associated with the request to construct the project as a planned unit development,and construction of the site with an existing grade differential exceeding three feet Land Use Amendments Backp-round The approximately 5-acre project site was incorporated into the City in 1970 At the tune it was incorporated, both the General Plan land use and Zoning Map designations were for low density residential uses After the Coastal Act was enacted in 1976 the City submitted a proposed Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission for certification At the time large scale development that included approximately 3,000 residential units,was being considered by the County for the Bolsa Chica including the mesa and lowland areas In anticipation of the development the City re-designated an area that included the project site to Open Space—Recreation(subsequently changed to Open Space—Park)on the City s Land Use Plan, which was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982 Then, in 1984, the City re-zoned the same area to Residential Agricultural The Residential Agricultural zoning designation was reflective of the existing agricultural use of the site and was determined at the time,to be consistent with the Open Space — Recreation land use designation Today the amount of development that was once contemplated for the Bolsa Cluca area has been considerably scaled back in what ultimately resulted in the 349-unit Brightwater development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa with no development occurring in the lowlands General Plan Amendment The project proposes to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Open Space—Park to Residential Low Density Existing General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site include Residential Low Density to the west Residential Medium High Density to the north Suburban Residential (County of Orange)to the south and Open Space—Conservation and Residential Low Density to the east The Brightwater development west of the project site does not have a General Plan land use designation,but is developed with single family residential and open space/conservation uses In terms of compatibility with surrounding land use designations the proposed change from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density would be consistent with surrounding designations Although the project site is designated Open Space—Park the site is not currently used for a public park or public open space area In addition, the property is not included on the City s inventory of parks and the City s Community Services Department does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use AIso since the project site has been privately owned since it was incorporated into the City, passive use of the property by the public has never existed Therefore the proposed general plan amendment would not result in the loss of existing park space passive public open space or planned future park and recreational opportunities Currently, under the Open Space — Park land use designation the project site would be permitted to develop as a public park or public recreational facility No other uses would be permitted and the property owner would not be able to develop any of the uses allowed under its current Residential Agricultural zoning designation Given that the City does not intend to acquire the site for development of a public park the property owner is not afforded the opportunity to develop the property with any development in the interest of the property owner The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the property PC Staff Report—4/27/010 17 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hewing Item 9 - Page 404 -614- owner to develop the property and would eliminate a current inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning land use designations Zoning Map Amendment The project site is currently zoned Residential Agricultural (RA)with a Coastal Zone overlay and allows agricultural uses, single-family dwellings,nurseries and temporary uses such as storage yards Based on the lot size, the existing zoning designation would allow up to five single-family dwellings on the property However, as previously mentioned, none of these uses would be consistent with the current Open Space—Parks land use designation According to the HBZSO the intent of the RA zoning district is to provide a 'transition or holding zone' for properties with 'current" agricultural uses Since the property has not been used for agricultural uses in over five years,the RA zoning designation is no longer the appropriate zoning designation Properties to the north northwest and west are zoned and developed with single- and multi-family residential uses The Shea property to the east has zoning designations for single-family residential uses as well as open space/conservation areas The Bnghtwater development southwest of the project site has a Specific Plan zoning designation, but is developed with single-family residential uses and open space/conservation areas Property to the south known as the Goodell property is located in the County of Orange and has a zoning designation of Planned Community (PC), which is a designation that allows single-family residential uses at a density of 6— 12 units per acre In addition,the City has approved pre-zoning designations for the Goodell property that include single-family and open space uses The proposed zoning map amendment to RL(Residential—Low Density)with a Coastal Zone overlay would be compatible with existing zoning designations surrounding the project site as well as the proposed General Plan land use designation Coastal Issues The project is requesting to amend the City's certified Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park to Residential Low Density similar to the General Plan amendment request According to the Coastal Act the Open Space — Park designation is considered a higher priority land use designation than a residential land use designation because the Coastal Act places higher priority on coastal recreational resources than private residential uses to ensure that coastal recreational opportunities are provided to all people However as discussed under the General Plan Amendment analysis, the site is not currently developed with a park or recreational resource In addition there is no plan for the property to be used for recreational opportunities in the future Therefore the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan will not result in the loss of a higher priority coastal recreational resource Existing recreational and open space opportunities are available in the vicinity that would serve the approximately 57 potential new residents from the project In addition a 5 776 square foot(0 13 acre)common open space area would be provided by the project thus, providing a recreational resource in the Coastal Zone that does not currently exist Finally as part of the proposed public benefit,a 30-foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site is proposed to be improved to provide enhanced coastal access to existing coastal recreational and open space areas Although the parcel is currently owned by the City it is an unimproved vacant lot and does not provide signage a pathway or any other noticeable demarcation of coastal access Only people that are already familiar with the area would know that coastal access exists from this parcel Thus amending the Land Use Plan would not be inconsistent with the Coastal Act in that recreational opportunities would continue to be provided for all people and the project would be contributing to the enhancement of coastal recreational resources in the area PC Staff Report—4/27/010 18 l0sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing -615- Item 9 - Page 405 Land Use ComnabB>lity The project proposes 22 single-family residential units on an approximately five acre parcel The project is consistent with other single- and multi family residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to density,height, lot size and architecture The proposed architecture is similar to the architecture of the existing Brightwater development west of the project site across Bolsa Chica Street. Proposed lot sizes are within the range of lot sizes in the single family developments of Sandover and Brightwater west of the project site in addition to existing single family lots along Los Patos Avenue The two-story homes propose heights up to 29 feet 6 inches and are compatible with the existing heights of the two-and three- story developments north,northwest and west of the project site The project s density of 6 4 units per net acre (4 4 units/gross acre)is consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designations which permit a maximum of seven dwelling units per acre as well as compatible with the existing densities of the adjacent Brightwater and Sandover single family developments Although properties north of the project site are designated and developed with greater densities single-family and multi-family residential are generally compatible uses In addition, the proposed project is more appropriately proposed as a low density single-family residential development since single family residential uses would be more compatible with the preserved open space/conservation areas within the vicinity of the project site Zoning Text Amendment The proposed zoning text amendment would change the planned unit development (PUD) supplemental standards and provisions of Chapter 210 12 of the HBZSO to allow greater flexibility in the provision of parking spaces for a PUD development The proposed changes would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required for a project but would allow required parking spaces to be provided in an alternative configuration as long as the total number of parking spaces required is provided within the development site Specifically, the zoning text amendment would allow a PUD to satisfy required enclosed parking spaces in a tandem configuration Currently Chapter 231 of the HBZSO requires all parking spaces to be in a side by side configuration In addition required open parking spaces could be satisfied through the availability of on street parking The new standards would only be applicable to PUD projects and would be evaluated on a project-specific basis to ensure that projects designed to incorporate the new standards would not be detrimental to the overall design or surrounding properties The proposal to allow tandem parking configurations in enclosed parking space areas is consistent with previous decisions of the City In 2008 the City approved a high density residential development allowing a portion of the required parking spaces to be in a tandem configuration More recently, an update to the Downtown Specific Plan was approved wherein all single- and multi-family residential uses would be allowed to provide required parking spaces in a tandem configuration In terms of applicability for future PUD developments the proposed zoning text amendment would allow for more diversity in a project s site layout and design PUD projects could achieve a more diverse development configuration provide more open space and propose more distinct features with the flexibility the proposed amendment would provide The proposed amendment would also reduce a project s potential for garages to dominate the street frontage which then could allow for front yards to have more of an emphasis as an activity area with landscaping and porch elements The allowance to satisfy open parking space requirements through the availability of on-street parking would be consistent with the nature of PUD projects PUD projects can include a mix of multi-family and single family developments as well as commercial components While the City does not process many requests for PUD projects they are generally residential in nature and consist of either multi-family or single family developments Requests to allow a proposal to satisfy PC Staff Report—4/27/010 19 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 406 -616- required open parking spaces through on-street parking should only be approved if the request contributed to the overall quality of the project design and would not result in inadequate parking for the development In terms of the proposed project, the tandem garage design would allow for a more aesthetic design in which garages do not dominate the street scene The proposed tandem garage design is consistent with the overall project site layout with narrow Iot widths and vaned setbacks that are configured around an open space area Since 10 units are proposing tandem garage configurations only two of the three open parking spaces required for the unit can be satisfied in the driveway area Therefore, 10 required parking spaces are proposed to be satisfied through the availability of on street parking The allowance for open parking spaces to be satisfied through on street parking in this instance is sirmlar to existing HBZSO allowances for single-family dwellings Currently an existing single-family dwelling (1994 or earlier)that proposes to increase the number of bedrooms to five or more would be required to provide a two car garage and three open parking spaces One of the required open parking spaces can be met through the available on- street parking adjacent to the dwelling The proposed project is consistent with this existing allowance and in addition to the required open parking spaces, would be providing 13 additional on-street parking spaces that would be available to the general public The proposed zoning text amendment is appropriate for inclusion in the PUD supplemental standards since PUDs by nature allow for flexibility in land use regulations so that a more distinct development can be provided with a greater emphasis on public benefits The standards, as applied to the proposed project, would result in a better architectural design and project site layout and would still provide adequate parking for the residential units in addition to 13 public parking spaces that do not currently exist If the zoning text amendment is not approved the applicant would have to eliminate one to two bedrooms from each of the 10 units in order for the project s proposed site plan to comply with the City s existing parking requirements As another option the applicant could choose to re design the project s overall site plan to gain more garage and driveway space for the 10 applicable lots The proposed zoning text amendment also includes language recommended by staff to clarify the requirement for PUD projects to provide a public benefit The HBZSO does not currently state the requirement explicitly although the definition of a PUD suggests the provision of a public benefit by stating that PUD projects are large scale developments having a predominant development feature which serves to unify or organize development Recognizing that PUD projects to the general planning sense provide public benefits, the City has interpreted the existing PUD definition as a requirement for PUD projects to provide a public benefit The proposed zoning text amendment includes language that clarifies this requirement and would make the provision of a public benefit a standard for all PUD projects Environmental Impacts Recirculated draft MND No 08 016 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project site The analysis concludes that,with mitigation the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts The analysis in the environmental assessment relies on a geotechnical feasibility study a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the project plans as well as other technical information compiled for the project Because the project is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and adjacent to preserved open space areas archeological and biological resources studies were also prepared for the project PC Staff Report—4/27/010 20 IOsr33—The Ridge Public Hearing — -617- item 9 - Page 40 Cultural Resources Impacts to cultural resources were analyzed based on an Archeological Resources Report that was prepared for the project in May 2009 The report was peer reviewed by members of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee in December 2009 The members of the peer review committee are archeologists that are selected from a list compiled by the California Coastal Commission The peer review corroborated the conclusions of the archeological report The project site contains portions of the archeological site CA-ORA-86 The archeological report for the project provides a description of prior investigations of the archeological site dating back to the 1920s In 2001 a research design program to investigate the presence of CA-ORA-86 on the entire project site was conducted The 2001 investigation consisted of a multi-phased program, which included subsurface excavation Resources from the investigation were hand excavated and documented Today study of the recovered materials is still ongoing as they are being analyzed in the context of the overall archeological sites on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Nevertheless, the research design program that was conducted on the entire project site in 2001 resulted in the recovery of any remaining intact resources It is unlikely that any significant deposits remain on the project site As such impacts from development of the project site on cultural resources would be less than significant As added precaution, mitigation measures are recommended to require archeological and Native American monitoring during site grading and construction to ensure the proper treatment including the option of preservation in place of any resources or human remains discovered on the project site Biological Resources The potential for impacts from the proposed project on biological resources within and surrounding the project site was analyzed in Recirculated Draft MND No 08-016 The analysis in the environmental assessment is based on a biological resources assessment that was prepared by a qualified biologist The City retained a separate biological firm to review the biological resources assessment which agreed with the analysis and conclusions of the report The biological resources assessment determined that the project site would result in potential impacts to two special status species burrowing owls and southern Tarplant Although these two species do not currently exist on the project site they have the potential to occur on the site and mitigation is required to ensure that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed development The mitigation measures require surveys to determine presence of the species on the project site prior to construction- related ground disturbance If presence of either species is determined to be on the site further mitigation is required in accordance with established protocols for the respective species The biological resources assessment also analyzed the projects potential impacts to surrounding resources, specifically the ESHA east of the project site The biological resources assessment concluded that due to several factors including the project s design the requirements of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO for development adjacent to an ESHA the adaptability of raptors that use the ESHA and the project s distance from the ESHA, impacts to the ESHA would be less than significant In addition, the project s drainage concept as analyzed in the Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the environmental assessment conclude that runoff from the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the existing slope the designated wetland on the eastern Shea property and the beneficial use of downstream waters PC Staff Report—4/27/010 21 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 408 -618- Planned Unit Development(PUD) PUD projects in general allow flexibility in land use controls and site design in order to produce a project that would not otherwise be achievable under the strict application of the zoning standards that would apply to a project The HBZSO allows PUD projects to deviate from the requirements of muumum lot size and lot width Because a PUD is afforded more flexibility in land use and site design,a public benefit is generally provided The HBZSO allows PUD projects to deviate from the requirements of minimum lot size and lot width The proposed project would be deviating from the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size for six of the 22 lots The project is also proposing to deviate from the minimum 60-foot lot width in 14 of the proposed lots The project is proposing two public benefits the improvement of an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel for the enhancement of public coastal access and the incorporation of green building standards to become the City's first green'residential project An existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel immediately north of the project site is currently undeveloped and would be improved with a 6-foot wide meandering trail and landscaping buffer that would connect to an existing informal unimproved path on the adjacent Shea property east of the project site to provide enhanced coastal access The path on the Shea site connects to an existing paved path along the Orange County Flood Control Channel which ultimately accesses the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Members of the public can currently use this access but since the site is unimproved and provides no signage,only people that are familiar with the area take advantage of this access point The project is conditioned to provide this improvement prior to occupancy of the first residence and the Homeowners Association would be required to maintain the trail The project is also proposing to be constructed as the City s first green residential project Green features proposed to be incorporated in the project include integration of solar panels into the roofing of the homes utilization of permeable pavers in the streets and driveways Energy Star-rated homes drought- tolerant landscaping and a storm drain system designed to capture low-volume flows and allow them to percolate into the ground functioning as a water treatment and groundwater recharge system A condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the project is constructed to achieve a minimum rating of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver and exceed the State s Title 24—Energy Efficiency Standards by 15 percent The proposed public benefits would adequately provide benefits commensurate with the project s PUD proposal Tentative Tract Mat The proposed tentative tract map consists of 22 single-family lots and nine lettered lots Access to the tract will be taken from Bolsa Chica Street The internal streets are proposed to be designed at a standard width of 36 feet from curb to curb except where the street narrows around the common open space area In this area no on-street parking is provided Four-foot wide sidewalks will be located on both sides of the street with a rolled curb layout The design of the internal streets provides adequate access for fire engines and turnaround areas A homeowners association will maintain the streets landscaping and common area improvements including the proposed 30 foot wide landscaped access trail on the City-owned parcel A 13-foot wide landscaped parkway will be provided along Bolsa Chica Street designed to match the existing 13 foot wide landscaped parkway on the west side of Bolsa Chica Street The proposed tentative tract map has been reviewed by the Fire and Public Works Departments for compliance with applicable PC Staff Report—4/27/010 22 1 Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing - -619- Item 9 - Page 409 codes and regulations In addition the proposed subdivision can be adequately served by existing infrastructure As mentioned previously the Subdivision Committee reviewed and approved the proposed tentative tract map subject to conditions of approval which are incorporated in Attachment No I It should be noted that several of the conditions of approval recommended by the Subdivision Committee have been more appropriately incorporated as conditions of approval for the coastal development permit/conditional use permit for the project However, none of the conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee have been deleted Staff supports the overall access and design of the proposed tentative tract map layout because it meets the City s standards and assists in achieving the overall design concept for the project. Grade Differential The approximately 5-acre project site is located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa The project site is generally flat however, portions of the site (from the midpoint of the site to the eastern boundary) slope gradually from west to east at elevations ranging from approximately 49 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 35 feet msl The existing elevation of the area of the project site proposed to be developed with homes ranges from approximately 50 feet msl to approximately 40 feet msl Finished pads on the west side of the project site adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street, are proposed to remain relatively the same as the existing elevation and would not be elevated higher than the existing elevation of Bolsa Chica Street The project would be two to three feet higher than the undeveloped property south of the project site and four feet lugher than the 30 foot wide City-owned parcel proposed to be improved with a landscaped public access trail The eastern portion of the site (not including the slope) adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations Although the site includes a grade differential greater than three feet the project is designed such that the existing eastern slope would be preserved which is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element In addition the project s drainage concept is designed such that the slope and existing resources below the slope on the Shea property to the east would not be negatively impacted from development of the project site including the project s grading design SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to the zoning and General Plan land use designations for the subdivision and development of 22 single-family dwellings and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone The proposed project will be compatible with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site In addition, the proposed project would not result in the loss of an existing or planned park or recreational facility, despite its existing Open Space — Parks designation The projects design will be compatible with surrounding residential uses with respect to density building height, lot size and architectural design The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment The project will comply with the provisions of the HBZSO and the Subdivision Map Act and be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Coastal Act The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with recent City decisions with respect to tandem parking and will result in PUD projects with higher quality site design while providing for adequate parking The project will provide enhanced coastal access through improvement of an existing vacant City owned parcel Finally the project will result in the development of the City s first"green residential project PC Staff Report—4/27/010 23 1Osr33—The Ridge Public Hearing Item 9 - Page 410 -620- ATTACHMENTS Zeaffig- 1 Map �t-lie--AB- , enVrogram Atlt l�to 06-002 > > 2 _ Iffl 3 4 5 6 Map of surrounding developments and resources 7 Excerpt of Chapter 221 10 — Requirements for New Development Adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area 8 9 Response to Comments and Errata to Reetrettlaftd draft NWD No 08-0 16 10 , SH MBB JV lw PC Staff Report—4/27/010 24 10sr33—The Ridge Public Hearing -621- Item 9 - Page 411 Map of Surrounding Resources and Developments t IMP WIN lb �e Subjept`c PP a ® x y � "°the Ridge'°¢BUD — _9 _ e� 1H Jig Shy I'D e. _ y MM aft _ IN tQ1 R- J 3 `pAt d ATTACHMENT NO Item 9 - Page 412 -622- 22107 Impermissible Alteration Any area that constitutes wetlands or ESHA that has n removed altered,filled or degraded as a result of activities carried out wi compliance with the California Coastal Act requirements shall be protected as requ y the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (3834-7/09) 22108 Land Use rols The land use co s for the CZ Overlay District shall be those of the base district with which the verlay District is combined Where conflicts anse the provisions of this chapter I govem 22110 Requirements for New Development Adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (3834-7/09) As a condition of new development adjacent to a resource protection area which includes any wetland,Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(ESHA) associated buffers land zoned Coastal Conservation,as the same are defined in the City s Local Coastal Program an applicant shall comply with the requirements listed below (3834-7/09) These requirements shall be applicable to lots within new subdivisions as well as development proposed on existing lots adjacent to an ESHA wetlands associated buffers, resource protection areas or land zoned Coastal Conservation unless otherwise indicated (3834-7/09) A Landscape Plan shall be prepared that prohibits the planting,naturalization or persistence of invasive plants and encourages low water plants and plants primarily native to coastal Orange County (3834 7/09) B Domestic Animal Control Plan shall be prepared that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering any resource protection areas including but not limited to appropriate fencing and barrier plantings (3834 7/09) C Pest Management Plan shall be prepared that at a minimum prohibits the use of rodenticides and retricts the use of pesticides and herbicides in outdoor areas except necessary Vector Control conducted by the City or County (3834-7/o9) D All street lighting exterior residential lighting and recreational lighting adjacent to resource protection areas shall minimize impacts to wildlife within the resource protection areas (3834-7/09) E Covenants Conditions and Restriction(CC&Rs)in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney shall be recorded specifying that landscaping for individual housing lots and recreation areas that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area shall not include any exotic invasive plant species The CC&Rs shall be binding on each of the lots shall run with the land affected by the subdivision and shall be included or incorporated by reference in every deed transferring one or more of the lots in the subdivision (3834-7/09) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 221 Page 2 of 16 ATTACHMENT NO - -623- Item 9 - Page 413 F The project applicant shall provide any buyer of a housing unit within the CZ Overlay District an information packet that explains the sensitivity of the natural habitats within or adjacent to the project site and the need to minimize impacts on the designated resource protection area(s) and the prohibition on landscaping that includes exotic invasive plant species on lots that are directly adjacent to a resource protection area The information packet shall include a copy of the Domestic Animal Control Plan and Pest Management Plan and be required for all sales of housing units pursuant to the CC&Rs (3834-7/o9) G Protective fencing or barriers shall be installed and maintained between the resource protection areas and areas developed for homes or recreational use for the purpose of minimizing human and domestic animal presence in resource protection areas including restored and preserved wetland and ESHA buffer areas,however public access to designated passive recreational use areas shall be provided Visual impacts created from any walls or barriers adjacent to open space conservation and passive recreational use areas shall be minimized through measures such as open fencing/wall design landscape screening,use of undulating or off-set wall features etc (3834 7109) H Uses allowed adjacent to designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of preserved and restored wetlands and ESHA (3834-7i09) 22112 Coastal Access and Public Use Areas,Signs Requ d As a condition of new development on lots on or adjacent to r eation areas public accessways public use areas trails bikeways or the shorel or in conjunction with dedications of lateral or vertical access the applicant sha rovide signs identifying the public access and public use areas 22114 Preservation of Visual Resource A An applicant proposing new elopment shall provide the Director with an evaluation of the proJect's v al impact and incorporate in its design to the satisfaction of the Direct e following elements I Preservation o blic views to and from the bluffs to the shoreline and ocean and a wetlands 2 Presery n of existing mature trees to the maximum extent feasible B Any alte on of the natural landform of the bluffs seaward of Pacific Coast Highw including grading and the development of parking lots shall be pro ted erations necessary for development of public trails and stabilization of bluffs may be permitted subject to approval of a coastal development permit (3334-6197) Hunbngton Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 221 Page 3 of 16 ATTACHMENT NO - Item 9 - Page 414 -624- p T 4 t G jilt TAM& r i — , X NN u H r Qr Q, (DI j9 (D t Igo, raga m+ W+'� :2i'AY� „ +F—•t"•e A'z�"""u' t��P� ��n �q } � ��������'4)VlAEP^� yr f rt 1 ` ai�Ye� �r +� � �" ✓.�"" era "� �a�•31_� �� � ^q` �� pCpee..Dyy o- 4N�# �,�� r t � Ct7€�1j�pp�t�i i ��z B11� y 4 � m tr f' a � q� ( lxtr xt" xsx� l s� R Vu ATTACHMENT # 11 April27 2010 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ATTN Jennifer Villasenor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re additional Ridge concerns Dear Ms Villasenor I am writing on behalf of myself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to express the following additional concerns with The Ridge RECIRCULATED Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 I apologize for the lateness of this communication—I have been seriously ill with the flu for the past 11 days and only yesterday was I healthy enough to give the staff report a detailed reading Unfortunately I am still very ill and will not be able to attend tonight s Planning Commission public hearing in person Ridge Project Violates LCP Bluff Protections The city s Coastal Element(certified LCP) identifies the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs as visual - resources that warrant protection of their natural landforms The portion of the bluffs on which the Ridge is proposed is described beginning on Coastal Element page IV C 65 The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an upland area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the County's Jurisdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies to the City)but are within the City s Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a significant scenic resource within the City s Coastal Zone Coastal Element Policy C 4 4 2 expressly forbids private development of these Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs C 4 4 2 Prohibit private development along the bluffs rising up to the Bolsa Chica mesa (the bluff face that rises above the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica low land) within the City's jurisdiction that would alter the natural landform or threaten the stability of the bluffs Drainage systems and other such facilities necessary to ensure public health or safety may be allowed provided that bluff alteration is restricted to the minimum necessary and is done in the least environmentally damaging feasible manner (I C I I C 2 I C 4 I-C 8) The topology of the Ridge parcel includes the upper portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluff and therefore development of The Ridge would be in violation of the LCP Attachment 10 2 in the staff report includes a Tentative Tract Map but there are no visible topo lines on that version of the map See my first attachment below for a copy of the TTM that I -627- Item 9 - Page 417 obtained from Ms Villasenor last year and which clearly shows how the topo lines of the mesa bluff extend into the Ridge parcel My second attachment shows the broader topological context of this portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa This map was produced by importing the TTM into Google Earth and then overlaying city GIS topo data Note that as the GIS data is only for city Jurisdiction some of the topo lines are incomplete in the vicinity of the city/county border This map also shows clearly that The Ridge includes the top portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluff Loss of Views from City Parcel not Acknowledged The RDMND repeatedly claims that views from the eastern end of the 30ft-wide city parcel will be preserved but fails to note that different unique views from the rest of the city parcel will be lost When walking the entire city parcel the current view range spans from approximately the eastern bluffs at Ellis south to the federal restoration inlet Admittedly these view corridors are narrow due to topography and the northern eucalyptus grove ESHA but so is the southward view corridor from the very eastern edge of the city parcel (but while standing at the very eastern edge you cannot see the same views as from the rest of the city parcel) The RDMND needs to acknowledge the existence of these other unique views and either provide for their preservation or mitigation The following series of photos shows the changing view at various points along the city parcel (for each point there is a wide-angle photo and a zoom photo)while walking from the western portion to the eastern portion Item 9 - Page 418 -628- r } 4, ell Wall amy Ypaxom. Is coo 0 on" dot town.. , no-OEM, AV MIR xv too I tA 3_ S wpm ON WOO NMI a x 7 _ vim'- n a •S .� G 1 A 04 WWW '�,� '�" �.� •.� T W-0 Zest go aa� _ +w d _ 4 � -ANNQi— k mv Now A C 1' a + a i` ; 'e F ¢ Ur o zee Vitt . s y r i t 7 s r t 5 2 J Yam• z I`- - - �. - 4� t LAW Z AM r _ S Of: L Axy F} _ F ra .t £ s: 4` N. sxv 4 a MP MA. r — h Aco A As h 7 _ ;r r., i Y v . n t a1 t s't 9RR its t �i u HAT 3` 1 t 1 i 3901 sit � 1 aA x 9 S m ..y cgs, 1 t 3 { .. j` t 3 p p 9 v Amy.} ;f t S won so 0 vy" Lr q Y Y` Prior Public Use of the Ridge Site During the discussion of the GPA to replace OS-P with RL p 17 of the staff report asserts that Although the project site is designated Open Space Park the site is not currently used for a public park or public open space area In addition the property is not included on the City s inventory of parks and the City s Community Services Department does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use Also since the project site has been privately owned since it was incorporated into the City passive use of the property by the public has never existed Therefore the proposed general plan amendment would not result in the loss of existing park space passive public open space or planned future park and recreational opportunities It is incorrect to say that no prior public use of the property has occurred The Bolsa Chica Land Trust s extensive aerial photography archive shows strong evidence of informal public use of the site throughout the years The following photo shot on 05/23/90 shows numerous vehicle/bike/foot trails on the Ridge property and the adjacent MWD property(now owned by Shea Homes) 1 Item 9 - Page 422 -632- Furthermore the Ridge property has also served as the public access point for the Hole In The Wall stables as shown on this photo shot on 12/21/99 (note the white vehicle travelling up the road towards the Ridge property and Bolsa Chica St) I do not know if the stables operators had permission from Hearthside or its predecessors to allow public access over the Ridge property There is much that happened during the Bolsa Chica stables era that was done without permission or permits If this public access occurred without landowner permission there may be a potential public access prescriptive rights issue here - The aerial photography record is clear that passive public use has occurred on the site in the past Thus keeping some amount of OS P would be consistent with the historical use of this property Sincerely Mark D Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby org Attachments Ridge TTM Google Earth/TTM/topo overlay -633- item 9 - Page 423 0 PmP ,Y T TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294 I 5 LEGEND LOTSUMMARY _ 6 VICINITY MAP E g � e �c M �e0. sFCi ON DEAKTONS quo ��n wra AN ER DR ' RM o I` m,mox-cT ~ J' �1 BEG9IV OYM91 AAD 9197NIOER .40 ENCIIEfA OF�WOA( I �w -_ SF iION A A SECtION 0 8 �fC�ION S:� ww F� yA r'1 I��. III — "' ilk- �c EC 0 0 0 eECT5A0N E THE RDGE �i//l� awmw�a ID�b®GO �PP✓lIr'. mn r via M� an a Ru nRc a aE+a HEAXMSlc HQW4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP .- 1N' `edAMiir'+Yf is S 1�5+�•��4r �kz��y�s� r � ws � ■x.. �f11 ��/ �i' F '. d# 1 t'^ a fxT ° .. 3 1 ._. �-{,ti.,,,,,,x yi •:1`5 , 'C n. r s Gti ... �4 S a. � y. •,y kIa ,, � t �' iY :� T5• ,p',,,•`'Ndt� � A .' •f4M�u r,�. 1N ! � �-# .. c � rt },, yf!.>� ♦ 64 a -::i# h 'Nxw: t s r: 'R� <7" ' .:.y r ,-n -�! .F /% r k 3 w ✓.. ., o- ! r sp t Zr 2" y.. .+ ti • tr;' ;y r.,r "; fs # g i - now: 'z: - r * a, S 1 tl',�ii'i T' r r 1 ' r' ce 1 is rY`I• R -: '>rxTx,k r{ `s _ ,x.n .�Lr.ntb >+' ° ,•:' 1 �.. r^rFr '< - 1 �^: ^Vx '•i t #ryrr1' �. - ka�•i., ter;', 1 k "`. ..a..re..�Tnffi`. r r� z�fa sTN�'', ssw+ 3'. xW rs1�S � S y�• tp ta�T b`" . .j �a `� yx r a rpe s r.'<i �;.. F:� , �• f/• �tliy � h y"z�h�,. ¢Y x `r i r- 4 > . t b,. + ;. MonM ,s,`" ems« '.+:,,y,,,,y;, "Fri ,,.µ, .az cg.}t ,� i� 5�`'! y�<.'�r'� i. ,5..s ➢ R^ `� PiT" � +Y,'�y.ytp`�. ,F�"f ,It4:,' " � �,� i,� •`.y .1�'kjts 4, rr.v ( ':; g h' T F #t /. (1�, Vy'�"L�t iT,J xY� J - Z ` t , 4 ,1� ¢ i �t `z 1 a.• u � '�'�a2"y.. �., r, ! .+,2'c 7 t" 1 ;,• ;;�.�x "`a`` � �r��x rx a i ,a +`r�t r '"'rz�'"y;.1h 1 ;s x = � .T ti f g r .�ftit � ��s*� °x�, �,�� r �u �,' r '�� � �' i � T `�r � �a �•i 4�` -,� �'.:, ,,r�r d ' ;,. sPr r.i t r � � '�vt*ST+^" 1 6• 2409���� ��r"li t r� ; 1, s5 a`. �a �. a fi> T:" y ..e y�'T r �r�"• " , ` ''� + + w�Y x ak•-a R i aw` . �.-� � ��, � ,� 4 '1M' `E � t 1 � r 1'� "Y' 4�� 37zk"t rt L;� a ?:<•" Sr m.53-„ � � � t�,�ry,�'cfSk'k.C4s � ,y�. rSi , 7 7r, f • Ima�ny•ate J 131,.��� ,f xr Mks.a,.�,3+. >. � ;'rJ '' lah.�33:d1�237 Im..+' - ...,: .,s„ c.,,, :.:, r,:,�:7 _ ,.,n:, ..,�__ ...�11i.13S�31g+,:ele....�It �.••;:. :.` ,r �>✓., .._.-:: .,....- �w p �~ EVe alt,..'.1lii tt, 04/27/2010 10 29 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC 0 001 SrA7E OF CALMfORNI.. Arnold Schwartxnwnnaw.Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE C0 *N— 916 CAPITOL MALL ROOM 364 10 SACRAiMENTO CA 96914 (916)eT Fax(916)W7 5390 Woe$Ito kAny apb+Ad,R m e-mail da_n9hc*pect;a11 net Apn127 2010 Ms Jennifer V►llasenor Planner CITY OF KUKT1114GTON SEACK 2000 Main Street 3'd Floor Huntington Beach CA M48 Sent by FAX to 714-374-1540 No of Rages- & Re SCH##2009091043 CEQA draft Mitivated-Negahve Declaration for The Ridge—22 Unit Planned Und Development,located in the Bolsa Chica Mesa Area,City of Vunbngton_Bea! .Ovine County, California Dear Ms V►itasgfior The California Native American Ventage Commission(NAHC}wishes.to comment on the Draft. Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)of the above referenced project Our comments are pursuant to Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code which states-that A responsible oroMerpubhc agency shall only make substantive-comments regarding"a activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency The Native American Hentage Commission(NAHCl is the state trustee agency pursuant to Public Resources Code§21070 for the protection and preservation of California s Native American Cultural Resources (Also see€avrronmental Fh techom Information Center v Johnson(1985) 170 Cal App a 604)The California Environmental Quality Art(CEQA CA Public Resources Code§21000 21177 amended in 20M requires that any project that causes a.substantial adverse change in the, significance of an historical resource that includes archaeological resources is a significant effect' regwnng the preparation of art Environmental impact Report(EIR)Per the-California Code-of Regulations. §15064 5(b)(c)(f)CEQA guidelines) Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as a substentuA or poteMiatty substantial,adverse Change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project including objects of historic or aesthetic significance A sacred site In the opinion of the NAHC the proposed project,The Ridge—22 Unit Planned Unit Development Project-(and its defined area of potential effect or APE}threatens a sacred site one-of svgndfeer►f effect as defined by the CEQA Guidelines§15064 5(b)(c)(f) This site has an archaeological recorded site CA ORA e6 and has had five-other major archaeologrcal sites adjacent to it(e-g CA-ORA-83 CA-ORA 85 CA ORA 84 CA ORA 144 and CA-ORA 288) In reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration the proposed project does not adequately mitigate-the-effects of the-project to a-less-thaw significant level to the satisfaction of the NAHC Therefore the likelilivod of additional discoveries of Native American human remainsar►d archaeological items associated-wtWbunals►tes is high, Also the adjoining Brightwater site is listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the-CalifiOrnie Register of Htstoncal-Resources(Public Resources, Code§5024 1 True 14 CCR §4850 et seq) Therefore the NAHC recommends avail nea_as defined tXthe CEQA Gtnde)inea§4S3M to-impacting tfxs site- Califima-Public Resources-Code in§60241 established the California Register of Historical Resources stating in Section(a) The Califoma Register Item 9 - Page 426 -636- wee c c.viv iv .v nn aiu uv v.iav nn�, WJ UUL is an authontatrve guide in California to be used by state and local agencies private groups and citizens to►dentify the state s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to he protected to the-extent prudent and feasible from substantial adverse change Therefore we urge a review of the mitigation measures-in the Wt►gated Negative Dectaratwn propos4 d by the applicant Hearthsi de tones Inc to determine if the site can be mitigated based on the high tential of additional burial and archaeological discoveries- If that is not possible,the NAHC urges the disapproval of the proposed project Native American Consukat►on Consultation with tribes and interested Native erican tribes and individuals as consulting parties on the NAHC list is recommended in good faith in compliance with the requests of local Native Americans Given the fact that the proposed project site is a cult irally sensitive area attention must be given by the lead agency City of Huntington Beach to the issibft of inadvertent discovery,of Native- American human remains and associated grave goo Js items of patrimony and other Native American artifacts CEQA Guidelines provide for entswith Native-American identified by the NAHC to assure the appropnate and dignified trestr ient of Native American human remains and any associated grave bens Catdwnia Health and Safe Code§7050.5.Pubhe Resources Code §5097 98 and Sec §15064 5(d)of the California Cc de of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines)mandate procedures to be followed including that construcbo i or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a locz lion other than a dedicated cemetery The NAHC recommends that the required protocols of th afore mentioned requirements be included as part of the proposed mitigation measures if the prof ct proceeds Cumulatnre Effects of the Proposed Project The Native American Heritage Commission also in its review of the Draft MAKIated Negative Declaration of the Ridge Project is of the op►n n that the cumutatrve effects of the proposed project are not adequately addressed This-tg a very significant project adjacent to a development that destroyed one of the major archaeological sites in the State of California Given the proposed project site(e gr APE)it is reasonable_to ume that-this site that may have an adverse impact on Native American cultural resources A Cultural Landscape The NAHC is aware that Native Americans take a broad view of cultural resources of the areas they inhabit and recount stones and songs of the cultural aspects of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and visual effects of their environment The Native American cultural resources in this area not only include sites from Seal Beach to Newport Beach and th mouth of the Santa Ana River which created the Boisa Chica fie Furthermore thsRtAttC has records-ofover 500 Native American burial sites within fifteen mites of the proposed project si a another strong indication of how densely populated this area was to Native-American-people- These areas may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act let 42 U S C 1996)for any federaf jurisdiction that may exist the Boisa Chica Mesa and environs in issuing a decision on whether or not sites of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APE are threatened by proposed project active The Native American contacts in the area have ailed this issue of the adverse effect to the cultural landscape of the wider project area defined as a fifteen-mile radius of the APE The adverse effect on the cultural landscape of this area in the view of many local Native American residents is significant,according to local Gabneteno T gva end-Juanena tribalmembers Therefore the NAHC asks that the City of Huntington Beach also consider the effects of the project °n terms of the cultural landscape of the Bolsa£htea Finally the NAHC recommends 4 mitigation measu vis are not devised to address the above efferenced Native American cultural issues,then the G of Huntington Beach should consider not -637- item 9 - Page 427 U4/17/LU10 lU JU PAX 81b U57 5JHU NAHC igjUO3 approving this project and also consider avoidance as d efined in�15370 of the California Code of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines) because The Ridge Pri Vet and environs represent significant cultural resources Please feel free to contact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions Sincerely Dave Singleton Program Analyst Cc State Clearinghouse 'i Item 9 - Page 428 -638- ln'%Iana Susan K Hon �` Manatt Phelps i£Phillips LLP manatt I phelps I phdhps Direct Dial (714)371 2528 E mad shon@manattcom April 27 2010 Client Matter 24970-031 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,3rd floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re The Ridge, Comments from the Native American Heritage Commission Dear Ms Villasenor On behalf of Hearthside Homes,I would like to respond to the letter that you received today from the Native American Heritage Commission(`NAHC )regarding the mitigated negative declaration( MND )prepared for The Ridge planned unit development(`The Ridge ) The NAHC s letter sets forth its position that an Environmental Impact Report( EIR) should be prepared in place of the MND that the City has prepared and has submitted to the Planning Commission for approval,that the mitigation measures set out in the MND do not fully mitigate the potential impacts on cultural resources,and that avoidance of impacts specifically rejecting the project and not allowing development on the site should be considered We wish to address these issues and unfounded allegations 1 Environmental Impact Report versus MIND The NAHC suggests that an EIR should be prepared instead of a MND because any project that could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a significant effect requiring preparation of an EIR This is not a correct reading of the California Environmental Quality Act(`CEQA ) CEQA requires preparation of an EIR where among other things,certain mandatory findings of significance are made and the impact cannot be mitigated to less than significant This is not the case here While we acknowledge that the Ridge property is located in an area in which a number of archaeological sites have been identified and investigated the cultural sensitivity of the Ridge property has not been ignored In fact,because of the work that has been undertaken on the surrounding archaeological sites in connection with the development of the adjacent Sandover and Bnghtwater properties extensive studies archaeological investigations,and cultural resource mitigation measures have already been implemented to address the cultural resources that may be present on ORA-86 on the Ridge site As described in the City s Environmental Assessment ORA-86 has been the subject of 33 separate archaeological investigations As 695 Town Center Drive 14th Floor Costa Mesa California 92626-1924 Telephone 714 3712500 Fax 714 3712550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington D C -639- Item 9 - Page 429 ma aft manatt I phelps I phdlips Ms Jennifer Villasenor April 27,2010 Page 2 recently as 2001 the entire ORA 86 site was the subject of a multistage cultural resource mitigation program—conducted in concert with the cultural resource mitigation program on the adjacent Brightwater site—that included surface survey surface artifact collection,a systematic auger program,backhoe trenching and hand excavations Subsurface deposits were complete removed by hand excavation—no other intact resources were identified In short,as a result of the comprehensive cultural resource investigation and recovery program undertaken in 2001, the mitigation measures that would have normally been implemented after approval of a project and prior to construction have already been completed on ORA-86 Therefore,the potential for immitigable impacts to cultural resources has been avoided as a result of the fact that the same cultural resource mitigation program utilized for the Brightwater project was conducted on the Ridge property For these reasons the potentially significant impacts to cultural resources that the NAHC is concerned about have been mitigated in accordance with the same mitigation program that they have been consulted with and reviewed in connection with the Brightwater project 2 Potential for Discovery of Additional Artifacts The NAHC also expresses concern regarding the potential for discovery of additional archaeological resources during site construction As discussed above because the cultural resource investigation and mitigation program conducted on the Brightwater site was also implemented on the Ridge property we believe the potential for the discovery of additional artifacts is low However in order to ensure that impacts to yet-undiscovered artifacts are properly mitigated and reduced to less than significant,the City has identified CR-1 and CR-2 to address the very potential impact identified in the NAHC letter The type of mitigation that the NAHC encourages the City to address has already been either(1)implemented by the project applicant or(2)included by the City in the MND to reduce potential cultural resource impacts o less than significant 3 Consultation with Native Americans We agree that consultation with Native Americans is appropriate All work conducted on the Ridge property was monitored by Native Americans Site visits,which included Native American participation were also conducted on the site And in compliance with CR-1 a Native American monitor will be present during all ground disturbing activities We believe the recommendation that consultation be conducted has been implemented through the prior and future actions of the applicant In conclusion,in light of its work on the adjacent Brightwater and Sandover properties the applicant,Hearthside Homes is very aware of the potential for archaeological resources on this property Consequently,Hearthside has implemented one of the most comprehensive Item 9 - Page 430 -640- manaft manatt f pheips I phUiips Ms Jennifer Villasenor April 27,2010 Page 3 cultural resource investigation programs and data recovery programs ever conducted in the State of California Moreover,because it is aware of the number of archaeological sites that have been recorded on its properties Hearthside s cultural resource investigation program included the Ridge site so that the archaeological investigations would be conducted taking into consideration the overall regional context of these resources nothing was considered in isolation In light of the extensive work that has been conducted to date,which included the Ridge property Hearthside believes that the City has determined that potential cultural resource impacts can be reduced to less than significant,that the MND properly reflects this determination based upon the substantial evidence in the record in the form of the extensive history of studies,excavations and mitigation programs conducted on this property and that neither an EIR nor site avoidance is required under CEQA We appreciate your consideration of these comments Please do not hesitate to contact Mr Mountford or myself should you have any questions Very truly yours, --�� Susan K Hon Manatt,Phelps&Phillips LLP cc Ed Mountford 300091459 1 -641- stem 9 - Page 431 A- TVTE b AT R t e z�� rt CEIQ Inc To City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Wf'�1 u I COM �4-C m-1 From Patricia Martz PhD and Virginia Bickford MA Date April27 2010 RE "Fair Argument for an EIR on ORA-86 Law says In accordance with Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment an environmental impact report shall be prepared As stated in Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento(2004) 124 Cal App 4th 903 Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared neither the lead agency nor a court may"weigh"conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance Guidelines >section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides inpertinent part if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect >No 04, supra,1 13 Cal 3d 68) Thus as Claremont itself recognized "Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration '>City of Carmel-by-the Sea v Board of Supervisors 0986) 183 Cal App 3d 229, 244-245 1227 Cal R tr 8991 Fnends of B >Street v Clty of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal App 3d 988 [165 Cal Rptr 5141 >Claremont, supra, 37 Cal App 4th at L 1168) It is the function of an EIR not a negative declaration to resolve conflicting claims based on substantial evidence as to the environmental effects of a project (See >No Oil, supra, 13 Cal 3d at p 85) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate for ORA-86 inasmuch as the clear potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment exists Depending on who is speaking ORA-86 is contiguous to or the same as the northern portion of ORA-83 the Bolsa Chica Cogged Stone Site Prior to development ORA-86 along with ORA-83 84 85 and other sites formed the Bolsa Chita complex of sites occupied as long as 9 000 years ago and known internationally for cog stones astrological alignments ceremonial sites and ancient house floors As one of the last remaining parts of this complex ORA-86 is of great importance scientifically It is a significant part of the cultural heritage of the nation and most importantly it is a site that is sacred to the Native American community The destruction of this site would constitute a significant impact to the environment For the past 29 years there has been a pattern of testing small portions of the Bolsa Chica sites then writing them off after cursory testing as not significant because of plowing or other disturbance Then dozens of human remains and other significant Item 9 - Page 432 -642- cultural deposits are found during grating for construction More than eighty remains were reburied Just last month Total count may be well over 200 Einstein s definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results That is what acceptance of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for ORA-86 amounts to On one side of ORA-86 written off due to intensive agriculture a burial was found during the Sandover Project On the other side of the site near the bluff approximately one meter of m►dden and a house floor were excavated It can be inferred from these facts that there is a high probability that pockets of midden containing features and burials exist below the plowed zone in between The methods used to test the site auguring and digging one trench have proved over and over again to be inadequate for identifying burials and features cases in point are ORA-83 and the recent Heilman Ranch Heron Pointe Development The archaeological evidence and previous experience indicate that an EIR should be required for the remaining portions of ORA-86 instead of a mitigated negative declaration The site should be tested using remote sensing coring and shovel test pits to locate burials and cultural features For the sake of clarity and impartiality in dealing with sensitive issues testing should be done by a recognized company other than the current contractor to be selected by an entity other than the developer Results should be peer reviewed by similarly unprejudiced reviewers not selected and hired by the contractor or company being reviewed Decisions regarding preservation of witness areas or excavation should be made after reports of current and previous testing are completed and made public No more burials found by the bulldozer Patricia Martz PhD Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology California State University Los Angeles Appointed as Prehistoric Archaeologist for the State Historical Resources Commission by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson 1990-1997 Senior Archaeologist for the Los Angeles District Armor Corps of Engineers 1977-1989 (CV provided upon request) Virginia Bickford MA Archaeologist 20 years experience in California coastal and desert archaeology Lived in this area for 35 years and aware of Boisa China archaeological issues for the past 30 years (2001 —Present) Senior Staff Epsilon System Solutions Inc an environmental company serving China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station Appointed to City of Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee 2009 -643- Item 9 - Page 433 PAPERS OV SOU7111 RN CALttOR wA ARCHAEOLOGY 147 SAVED BY THE WELL THE KEYSTONE CACHE AT CA-ORA-83, THE COGGED STONE SITE JEFFREY S COUCH JOANNE S COUCH AND NANCYANASTASIA WILEY The largest cache of cogged stones ever discovered was unearthed in late 2006 while archaeological grading and monitoring operations were under way at CA ORA 83 the famed Cogged Stone Site in coastal Orange County California This cache along with other cogged stone caches and individual cogged stones uncovered at the site has allowed researchers to develop a new cogged stone typology A comparison of the cogged stone artifact to its nearest relative the discoidal as well as a cogged stone regional distribution study indicates possible clan or group identification Interestingly this particular cache which enabled this class fication and functional explanation of these enigmatic artefacts was actually preserved by an oil well and other historic period disturbances disturbance which wreaked havoc on the rest of the site While research is ongoing and cursory the authors thought it important to bring this information to light as soon as possible THE SITE recovered materials were then catalogued and subjected to a series of special studies Although analyses of the recovered Site CA ORA 83 (commonly known as the Cogged materials are still ongoing some preliminary conclusions Stone Site) consists of a shell midden located on are available for the site The periods of occupation have the southeastern tip of Bolsa Chica Mesa in Orange County California(Figure 1) Historically the site had been the subject of intensive archaeological investigations that included nine surveys seven surface collection events and five excavation programs The first investigations were conducted in the 1960s by amateur archaeologist Ahka Herring and the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society in conjunction with Professor Hal Eberhart of California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) In the 1970s cultural resource management firm Archaeological Research Inc conducted initial surveys and preliminary test programs Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) then carried out a multi staged data recovery program that spanned the next 30 years From the 1980s onward archival research and reviews of historical maps and aerial photograph were conducted (Desautels 1982 Desautels and Wiley 1981) in addition to the completion of three research designs(Mason 1987 Wiley 1983 2003) - Addrtional fieldwork included further site surveys three supplementary surface collections(Wiley and Mason 1986) and five subsurface excavation programs(Wiley and Mason , 1986 Wiley 1995) During this period 21 reports were written by SRS including 16 agency reports and five formal publications(see bibliography) A series of technical reports are anticipated within a year after completion of the final burial analyses and artifact cataloguing It is anticipated that these will include a full volume for publication on the cogged stones and cogged stone caches found at Bolsa Chica During the 1990 1994 and 1999 2002 investigations on Bolsa Chica Mesa Scientific Resource Surveys Inc hand excavated large volumes of earth that were subsequently Figure 1 Location of ORA 83 the Cogged Stone site Orange water screened through 1/8 and 1/16 inch mesh screens The County California J ff y S C h J S Cu h d N y A a trky Sc fi Res S,y 1 2334 N B S re S i 109 O g CA 92865 Pro d g f1h S- yf C If A hue 1 gy V t m 11 2009 pp 147 156 Item 9 - Page 434 -644- SdC J;q4 LJ 148 PROCELDIVGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIAARCHALOLOGY VOL 21 2009 been established initial information relative to subsistence lacking from ORA 83 and ORA 85 All dates are based on patterns has been formulated and preliminary artifact uncorrected radiocarbon dates and therefore represent periods inventories have been compiled which indicate the diversity of occupation that in all likelihood are chronologically older ofactivities that occurred at the site Radiocarbon dating has than the dates imply demonstrated that the Cogged Stone Site was occupied over a 7 700 year period encompassing the entire Millingstone Period I Horizon and Intermediate Horizon and with additional light occupation reaching into the Late Prehistoric period The earliest radiocarbon dates from ORA 83 extend back to approximately 9 000 years ago Initially Bolsa Chica The geographic position of ORA 83 was ideal for Mesa appears to have been recognized as a unique area based prehistoric habitation as the surrounding bays and ocean on the prominence of the cliff face on the horizon and the offered three distinct marine zones providing year round cropping out of geological veins of multi colored pigments marine animal and plant resources Bolsa Chica Mesa Within this time period (iA IB) the shoreline was several also lies within the Orange County Artesian Basin miles distant and sandy beaches prevailed around the base of -- an area of extensive groundwater resources containing the mesa Large colonies of thick walled clam were prevalent numerous springs and freshwater seeps The presence of at the waters edge including Tivela sp whose remains fresh water was essential for habitation and also attracted could be found in quantity on the mesa at this time and were terrestrial animals and supported land and marsh vegetation often used for the production of beads It was also at this time Preliminary geological studies have shown that the adjacent that a bivalve bead industry was established at the Cogged Palos Verdes peninsula to the north and the San Joaquin Stone Site At the present time nearly 2 000 beads including Hills to the south could have provided sufficient outcrops of 165 preforms and blanks and numerous micro lithic cores rocks and minerals for the manufacture of stone tools Lithic and drills have been recovered from the site deposits Several material in nodule form could also be found in the various portable hand held bead shaping tables or planes were also drainage branches of the Santa Ana River The physiographic identified within the same deposits establishing a bivalve setting of this site area clearly would have been attractive to clam bead production kit Evidence of a late Pleistocene the initial inhabitants of Orange County since it contained flightless auk Chendytes lawn: was also recovered from the all of the essential elements for subsistence deposits This evidence further suggests that the first period of use of the mesa was at a time transitional between the The site itself is situated on a mesa underlain by Pleistocene and Holocene in northern Orange County geologic formations containing pockets of black white and a variety of red pigments This formation crops out on the Period II mesa edge and appears to have provided ample pigments for paints required for ceremonial activities The presence At approximately 7500 B P an embayment formed of numerous circular features that appear to be remnants of around Bolsa Chica Mesa effectively changing the shoreline semi subterranean structures at the site special subsurface and ocean fauna This resulted in the development of an caches ofpossible ntual items exotic materials and distinct Olivella sp bead industry that replaced the earlier bivalve bunal and rebunal areas strengthens the interpretation of use clam bead industry In addition sea mammals at least as of this mesa for ceremonial purposes as well as day to day beached animals now became available Exploitation of subsistence activities the pigment veins may have been a normal practice since two deep areas of the site appear to have been formed by prehistoric excavations A cemetery area at the western BOLSA CHICA TIMELINE portion of the site consists of delayed and reburial interments represented by extremely fragmented human remains A cursory analysis of materials recovered from the These interments form a series of concentric circles or arcs Cogged Stone Site and the Eberhart Site (ORA 85 also open along the eastern perimeter of the circle enclosing a on Bolsa Chica Mesa) the Borchard Site (ORA 365) dolphin burial Two female burials contained evidence of the Edwards Hill Burial Site (ORA 82) and the Bolsa what may be a tattooing kit and a pigment preparation kit Processing Facility (ORA 88) on Huntington Beach Mesa The site at this time in all likelihood became a traditional has allowed for compilations and preparation of a timeline or source for pigment collection and preparation The spiritual cultural chronology for the Bolsa Chica Region Collectively significance of the site is exemplified by its use for interring the five sites provide an uninterrupted 8 000 year sequence human and other animal burials from approximately 9 000 years to about 1 000 years ago Seven penods of occupation can be reconstructed from the Manufacture of the famed cogged stone began in this data from this composite of sites six of which occur at Bolsa period Several caches and hundreds of single cogged Chica Mesa and are discussed here The seventh period stones were located below the surface of ORA 83 during the is the Protohistonc materials from which are essentially SRS final data recovery program from 1990 to 2007 It is -645- Item 9 - Page 435 P PLRSOV SOUTHERN CAuicRN1AARCHALOLOC'Y 149 postulated that cogged stones were ceremonial talismans and fragmented bowls and pestles on ORA 85 (broken by that the inhabitants cached them below ground presumably the plow) Shell whistles and rattles and crystals are also in order to control their power(a theory originally postulated prevalent at ORA 85 Occupation on the mesa essentially by Dr Keith Dixon Professor Emeritus California State shifted to that site and away from ORA 83 University Long Beach) A deconstruction of the scatter of single cogged stone finds may prove that all cogged stones Period VI at this site were originally cached since the scatters consists of several loose clusters During the last period occupation on Bolsa Chica Mesa again shifted this time from ORA 83 and ORA 85 Period III to site ORA 86 northeast of ORA 83 Subsurface remains - of a single large structure with an indoor lined hearth were During Penod III (approx 6000 5000 B P) the site identified here Associated with the structure at a minimum use changed again building on the previous notion of site was an asphaltum lined pipe plug and ear spool Steatite spirituality Several ceremonial areas have been identified beads were also manufactured here and at Huntington Beach such as an area with numerous talismans for healing Artifacts Mesa ORA 83 has produced only an occasional projectile recovered from this locale include various charmstones a point or bead dating to this penod The site received minimal possible rattlesnake talisman an incised tablet pendent a use and may have functioned as a retreat area Use of the donut stone lithic spheroids a painted rock a singing site seems to have come full circle and now apparently rock and several discoidals In addition human burials of was a location of personal or small group use perhaps as a extraordinary individuals are present including four women questing/power site who may have belonged to a society of undertakers based on their presumed body strength and unusual characteristic of filed teeth or patterned tooth wear unique to these HISTORIC DISTURBANCE HISTORIC SALVATION individuals Associated with these ceremonial items and special people are what appear to be shallow dance areas SRS Phase One work at ORA 83 included a full site one with a post hole in the approximate center and multiple survey and a comparison and mapping of historic period small structures that appear to be burial related perhaps for features indicated on a senes of 26 aerial photographs body preparation Contiguous with these structures are one ranging in time from 1927 to 1977 Field evidence for any or more human bunals Larger(and proportionately deeper) of the historic period features was recorded and an extensive structures are also present which may have been used for geophysical survey was conducted in order to locate storage of ceremonial regalia forhealing and burial activities subsurface anomalies related to the historic era disturbance Although dating squarely within the Millingstone Horizon An auger bonng program was then implemented to assess utilitarian objects are present only in small quantities most the subsurface character of the site and ground truth any functioned as tools for the production of talismans recorded anomalies Period IV The early senes of aenal photographs show that by 1934 prior to World War II a deep arroyo with check bridges Use of the Bolsa Chica region for human interments physically separated the Cogged Stone Site from land to continued in this period but several are cached under the west Other significant features at that time included a thousands of rocks as at ORA 365 a neighbonng site on large complex of histone era structures approximately 200 Huntington Beach Mesa New types of talismans appeared ft north of a concrete reservoir that was located on the bluff including phallic pestles or spikes a steatite pelican stone edge The northern portion of the archaeological site was notched projectile points versus spearheads and grooved all but destroyed by the construction of this complex The rectangular beads The structures on Bolsa Chica Mesa complex itself was then demolished between 1939 and 1947 increased in size and may have functioned as sweathouses as a result of construction of facilities related to the Bolsa since both hearths and whole structures from this period are Chica Military Reservation A 1947 aenal photograph shows lined with calcium carbonate the World War II bunker Battery 128 The bunker is located on the land west of the arroyo and separated by about 500 Period V ft from the center of the archaeological site as recorded by amateur Alika Hemng in 1963 Underground pipes cables By 4000 B P the western burial area at ORA 83 was and pull boxes associated with the bunker are numerous and abandoned and dense shell deposits suggest that intense cnsscross the entire archaeological site from east to west shellfish exploitation occurred on a limited portion of the site These utilities also heavily impacted ORA 83 An animal bone concentration included three articulated deer vertebrae Mortars and pestles were introduced appearing Extensive agricultural activities were conducted before as a ceremonial pestle a killed mortar (on ORA 83) and and after the war years as evinced by plowing patterns Item 9 - Page 436 -646- 150 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CAUFommARLHALOLOGY VOL 21 2009 apparent on the aerial photographs from the 1950s through and dragging could not be conducted at this spot due to the the 1970s and described in 1963 by Cogged Stone collector multitude of surface and subsurface historic period features Ahka Herring The concentration of cogged stones was then left nearly intact and not scattered and dispersed throughout the field Unfortunately no artifacts were found in situ all as had bee done so many tames in the past In that sense the having been brought to the surface as a result of the historical disturbance was its salvation agricultural operations These operations will be described as they have a direct bearing on the manner and location in which the artifacts were found The THE KEYSTONE CACHE first step in the process consisted of loosening the earth with a subsoiler which penetrated to depths Prehistoric Feature#84 later to be dubbed the Keystone of 18 to 24 inches This action dislodged the buried Cache was recovered during grading monitoring on artifacts from their original positions and once September 15 2006 in the east central portion of the site at a loosened the stones eventually worked their way to depth of approximately 30 cm below ground surface(Figure the surface during subsequent subsoi ling operations 2a b) It-consisted of 17 cogged stones and one handstone The large clumps of earth left by the subsoiler were and is thus the largest cogged stone cache yet discovered furtherreduced in size by adise cultivatorand finally The cache was organized in and around a small mound of dirt pulverized by towing a drag over the ground after that encapsulated and was topped by a specific set of cogged which the soil was then ready for the planter These stones that were rectangular in cross section and exhibited various operations were not only quite severe in strong margin grooves These cogged stones tended to their treatment of the artifacts many of which are be the smaller ones in the group This central mound was badly broken battered and scarred but it was also then surrounded with cogged stones that were trapezoidal possible for the dragging operation in particular to in cross section Only half of this group was grooved on displace them considerably in position from their the margins Many of these are so pronounced in their original points of emergence Based on the extensive site damage as shown by the Phase One studies a multi staged investigatory program was designed to thoroughly investigate the site and locate basal remnants of the midden deposit if such existed It was postulated that 1) if undisturbed remnants of basal strata were located and 2) if these remnants contained cultural materials and materials suitable for dating and 3) if the cultural materials included cogged stones then it would be possible to establish the nature of the relationship between the cogged stone artifacts and the site The basic concept underlying the SRS approach was to obtain the maximum amount of information on the cogged stones at this site by attempting to locate undisturbed remnants of the midden and then study these remnants in detail The bias was definitely in favor of disturbance location and thus avoidance Almost 15 years later the Keystone Cache was located during purposeful grading at the site in a setting that belied the previous assumptions Five major historic period features surrounded the cache encroaching up to 12 cm from the cogged stones and including an 8 in wide concrete irrigation line I in to the west and another 8 in line 2 5 m to the east both at the same depth as the cache a WWII electrical junction poll box(3 m south) and a metal spike tie down for a post in cement(12 cm west) An 8 in well(3 m southeast) with footings derrick etc existed at one time probably covering a footprint 6 m square) In reality WWII electrical lines pre and post War agricultural water lines and historic Figure 2 a(top) an overhead view of the Keystone Cache era oil operations all converged at the exact location of the after extensive excavation b(bottom) an oblique view of the Keystone Cache Evidently agricultural ripping disking Keystone Cache -647- Item 9 - Page 437 PAPERS ON SOUTHERN CAUFomm ARCHAEOLOGY 151 friable soil that excavated easily the top of the mudpack was more difficult to assess in that there were few other soil layers atop it which feathered to its edges A new excavation methodology which employed lightly tapping the mudpack layers with a geology hammer provided an acoustical variation of the normal underlying sod from the interred cogged stones and allowed prediction of the location of an additional cogged stone or other artifact Moreover this methodology facilitated the study of the mud packing behavior for the first time in the site s history To delicately remove the soils overlying the packed mud layer a biological dissecting needle metal awl and Figure 3 Another oblique view of the Keystone Cache Note various gages of bamboo knitting needles were utilized It the verticality and provenance of the trapezoidal cogged stone is important to note that no metal instruments were used to atop the center of the cache The white nick on the margin of remove the cogged stones from their cached position rather this cogged stone is the only damage caused by the grading the various bamboo knitting needles were used to gently equipment g g y pry the cogged stones from their encasement The mudpack layer withstood the tapping and as an added benefit the tapping trapezoidal crosssection that they resemble Jell O molds gently loosened the mottled overburden sort atop the dark Finally placed atop and in the center of the entire group was grey packed mud This was a tremendous aid in helping the one trapezoidal non grooved cogged stone(Figure 3) This mottled softer less consolidated soil break off the plane stone later cataloged as Item#10 was the only item struck by surface of the mudpack layer with slight assistance of the the road grader Furthermore though Item#10 was set on its biological dissection needle and metal awl side the large road grader did not topple the artifact from its original placement because approximately three quarters of the cogged stone was supported and encased on its southern r side by a hard dense dark grey mud layer This layer was pinched or lipped up to the tip of the cogged stone(Figure , 4)and provided evidence of how the prehistoric individuals who burred the cache deliberately pressed mud onto and around the cogged stones to hold them in place Further excavation of the 1 x 1 in unit revealed more of the dense soil variation which was fashioned into a 2 cm " thick layer of hardened dense grey mudpack (Figure 5) Although the edge of the mudpack was easily revealed in that the soil to the east was a softer aerated punky somewhat Figure 5 An oblique view of the mudpack layer during excavation demonstrating the encasement of cogged stones x While gingerly prying the mottled less consolidated soil atop the mudpack layer it was observed that the soil actually was lard in alternating layers of orange and brown soil The deepest area of this soil was recorded at 3 cm which happened to be in the approximate center of the mudpack layer(Figure 6) and the shallowest of this soil seemed to + feather out to the edges of the mudpack layer tapering in the i brown soil layer While studying the color variation of the ��T mottled soil enough of the dense grey mudpack layer was uncovered to unveil that it was not Just a mudpack layer but rather something more unique and telling of the purpose of Figure 4 The Keystone Cache during excavation to reveal the Keystone Cache the grey mudpack layer was actually the mudpack layer Note how the mud was pressed up to the a concave mud basin edges of the cogged stones Item 9 - Page 438 -648- 152 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FORCtLI/oRmAARCHAEOLOGY VOL 21 2009 Finally during SRS ethnographic studies for the Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project a Luiseno Elder had told SRS " xt staff that the Lmseno would come to the beaches of Bolsa Chica when the grunion would run and collect the small oil rich fish and use it to make ochre They would grind up pigment and then grind the fish whole with a handstone and utilize the oily residue as a binder for the pigment Protein 1 residue analysis is still to be conducted on these artifacts but underneath the mottled orange/brown soil slightly embedded atop the grey mud basin was a small fish otolith (approximately the size of a grunion) Most of the Keystone cogged stones exhibit residues of either orange ochre white calcium carbonate asphaltum and/or a combination thereof In addition to the 17 cogged stones one handstone Figure 6 Close up oblique view of the mudpack layer during was recovered from the cache Also one of the cogged excavation stones was bowl shaped and appears under low power Once the mottled sods were removed the full concavity binocular microscopic inspection to be coated in a substance of the mud basin was revealed and the nature of the basin resembling drted blood Interestingly in our previous was evident Measuring 2 cm at its eastern edge radiating collections from ORA 83 any antisera returned from cogged off of one of the cogged stones the mud became extremely stones or charms were human while the handstones have all dense and strong at its center point with a thickness of have had fish antisera 5 cm Additionally the deliberate interment of five other cogged stones was evident in that the prehistoric behavior still displayed the hard mud basin carefully lipping up to NOTES ON CA ORA 83 COGGED STONES these cogged stones edges Moreover in the case of another AND CACHE ANALYSIS cogged stone 7 cm of the hardened mud basin from the top to bottom encased it completely Extracting this cogged stone Although analysis on this cache as well as other cogged stone caches and Individual cogged stones recovered from was most difficult but perhaps this purposeful interment can be explained by the fact that this artifact which capped the site is still in progress there are some strong trends the southwestern end of the feature may have been broken emerging The quantity and in situ recovery of cogged stones prehistorically and then entombed in the dense mud basin found during recent research at ORA 83 have allowed for a This proposition is posited herein because of the fact that more robust analysis and interpretation of these enigmatic it was not the highest point of the feature and the fact that artifacts although it was securely entombed completely in the mud basin the piece was broken(Figure 7) In addition not all the �ology pieces of this artifact were recovered from the encapsulated soil or surrounding areas In the past cogged stone typologies revolved around these morphological aspects the presence of grooves whether the grooves could be seen from a plan view of the object,and whether the object was perforated(see Eberhart 1961) These aspects also separated cogged stones from their nearest cousins the discoidals However such typologies are extremely limited A simple scattergram(Figure 8) indicates that there is a correlation between the circumference of a cogged stone and the quantity of grooves Cogged stones tend to cluster in circumference between 220 and 350 mm which bind the number of grooves on the upper end if the grooves ground !� into the side are to have any appreciable depth on average between 11 and 17 grooves However of the 47 cogged stones studied thus far 34 percent(n=16)have no grooves on their margins at all Thus there seems to be a much more Figure 7 Broken cogged stone(right)encased in the mudpack powerful argument for the importance not of the number of layer grooves but of their presence/absence -649- Item! 9 - Page 439 PAPERS ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY 153 Ala g G oogc cou it by C urrmf el ca WA V n .� 6111,114, f�., '�,1A 3a 76 ,:"'- '7 +ew a I clrt mh �mml Figure 8 Scattergram of margin groove count by cogged stone circumference Cogged stones are defined as much by their material slightly convex margin while cogged stones have either a cross section and manufacture as they are by modifications to symmetrical slightly convex margin or a tapered to strongly their margins Cogged stones have long been known to have tapered margin often resulting in a cogged stone reminiscent been made of vesicular basalt tuff and andesite most likely of a Jell O mold from the El Modena Formation(Miocene volcamcs)which outcrops in various locations around the Orange County While both cogged stones and discoidals were pecked area However the cogged stones recently unearthed have and ground into shape only the cogged stones show a pattern also included tonolite rhyohte diorite talc schist sandstone of deliberate repair Many have asphaltum in the breaks and and most interestingly calcium carbonate concretions native a few actually have the patched rock still glued to place to the site These materials stand in contrast to the granites This contrasts strongly with the discoidals in which surface metavolcamcs and metasedementary rocks of the cogged polish continues onto the broken surfaces In other words no stones nearest cousins the discoidals (see collection from attempt was made to patch or mend the discoidals instead ORA 64 Macko et al 1998) the makers continued with the manufacturing process even polishing into the edges of the breaks(see collection from It is believed by the authors that the material from which ORA 64 Macko et al 1998) the cogged stones are made held as much significance to the prehistoric manufacturers of these artifacts as did the Based on these factors a unique and preliminary cogged shape Thus we posit that the stark differentiation between stone typology has been developed This typology separates cogged stone and discoidal matenals that can be seen in the cogged stones into five types(Figure 9a e) assemblages at ORA 83 and its sister site ORA 64 may be indicative of group/clan affiliation Occupants of both locales Trapezoidal—Trapezoidal cross section sometimes had ample access to the vanous material groups but choose grooved separate materials from which to fashion the artifacts that were to become the hallmarks of their sites during the same Jell O mold — Trapezoidal to cross section time period thicker than Trapezoidal sometimes grooved >>70 percent exhibit a pit pecked offset in the smaller Another typological factor is cross section While face while the other !!�30 percent have concave both cogged stones and discoidals are circular in plan faces view (with some notable exceptions) their cross sections differ Discoidals typically exhibit a very symmetrical Itea>r>, 9 - Page 440 -650- 154 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCILTY FOR CALL omm ARCHAEOLOGY VOL 21 2009 J a7 u R Bowl—Trapezoidal in cross section no grooves all have a pit pecked offset in the smaller face Top Knot/Spool — cross section is that of a top knot or thread spool no grooves never made of the more frequent vesicular basalt Rectangular — Rectangular in cross section almost always grooved sometimes with pits or perforations These five types can be grouped into two major f categories based on shared or similar attributes as well as implied meaning from their locations within caches The first is the Rectangular group and the second encompasses all other types Some interesting observations about these Figure 9 Examples of cogged stone types a trapezoidal b groups include the fact that the larger the cogged stone the Jell O mold c bowl d top knot/spool a rectangular more likely it will have a Jell O mold or trapezoidal cross section -651- Item 9 - Page 441 PAPERS ON SOUTHERN CAUFoRWA ARCHAEOLOGY 155 Caching Correlates A handstone in ime with Jell O mold and trapezoidal type cogged stones on the perimeter of the Keystone cache The typology offered here is supported by the grouping can arguably associate this ubiquitous artifact type with the pattern found within the Keystone Cache and four other non rectangular cross sectioned types of cogged stones caches from the site There is a distinct spatial separation between Rectangular cogged stones and the others There is clearly much more to do with this fascinating Rectangular group members are located in the center of the material We have but scratched the surface with this caches surrounded by members of the other types There is presentation but thought it important enough to get this always a trapezoidal and/or Jell O mold atop all the other information out to the community quickly rough spots and cogged stones in the features Approximately 50 percent all or more of all Jell O molds have white pigment residue on their larger faces This is the only consistent painting/paint residue pattern among the cogged stones One Jell O mold ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS is always upside down in each cache None of the three or more caches contain any odd shaped cogged stones(such as We are grateful to Hearthside Homes for their unfailing support of those that are star shaped) research on the Cogged Stone Site and in particular thank CEO Ray Pactni Senior rice President Ed Mountford and Project Manager While the significance and meaning of these caching Brian Bartlett for their overtaxed patience as we continued to characteristics can be debated what is evident is the find the most significant cogged stone caches literally on the last consistency of the patterns observed At a minimum these day of the planned project Encouragement to prepare a digital patterns can help us properly associate and type these objects poster for the 2007 Annual SCA Meetings was continually offered with greater fidelity than ever before by Asst Professor Paul Langenwalter II and much needed revisions to this draft were made by Tracy Stropes The keen eyes of Daniel Bonaventure spotted the small knick on the top cogged CONCLUSIONS stone within the cache when less than a centimeter square was exposed by Cheftan grading equipment And lastly several Native The Cogged Stone Site ORA 83 has undergone American tribal elders and scholars helped guide our efforts and extensive scientific investigation for several years Only we especially thank Vincent Ibanez [Lutseno] David Belardes recently and despite over a century of intensive disturbance and Joyce Perry[Juaneno] Robert Dorame[Gabrielino] To all was the single largest cache of cogged stones revealed In of these and numerous unnamed others without whom this project fact historic disturbances unlike the rest of the site may would have failed we are very appreciative have been the only reason that this particular cache was preserved REFERENCES CITED The Keystone Cache and her sister caches from ORA 83 have shed new light on a unique artifact type in southern Applegate R B California Anew cogged stone typology has been developed 1979 The Black,the Red and the White Duality and Unity based on the spatial arrangement and recurring patterning of in the Luiseno Cosmos Journal of California and cogged stones within caches Grooved or cogged margins Great Basin Anthropology 1 71 88 need not the cogged stone make—raw material cross section and salvage efforts also play an important role in typological assignment and separation from their nearest Desautels R J artifactual relative the discoidal 1982 ORA 83 AnArchaeologicalRe evaluationforNational Register Status Scientific Resource Surveys Orange Encapsulating objects and caches ofpotential ceremonial California or religious significance with mud slumes now seems to have been an established pattern during the occupation of the Desautels R J and N A [Whitney Desautels]Wiley site as witnessed by this cache as well as other caches of 1981 Ora 83 An Archaeological Evaluation for National ceremonial objects from the region dating to this time period Register Status Scientific Resource Surveys Orange (see Desautels et al 2005) California The consistent use of red/orange ochre white calcium carbonate pigments and black asphaltum interestingly Desautels Nancy A Henry C Koerper and Jeffrey S correlates with the use of these same colors by the Luiseno Couch and Juanefio to this day(see Applegate 1979) 2005 A Birdstone and Phallic Pestles Cache from ORA 365 Journal of Cal fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 25 109 118 Item 9 - Page 442 -652- 156 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCII TY FOR CALIPORNU ARCHAEOLOGY Vol.21 2009 Eberhart H 1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern Cali forma American Antiquity 26 361 370 Herring A K 1968 Surface Collections from Ora 83 a Cogged Stone Site at Bolsa Chica Orange County California Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3)3 38 Macko M E with Jeffrey S Couch Owen K Davis Henry C Koerper Paul E Langenwalter Il and Glenn S Russell 1998 Executive Summary of Mitigation Measures Implemented Pursuant to the Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North - Residential Development Macko Inc Submitted to Irvine Community Development Company Copies available from South Central Coastal Information Center Department of Anthropology California State University Fullerton Mason Roger D 1987 Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites in Northern Orange County California Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wiley Nancy Anastasia[Desautels] 2003 The Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Vol 1 Research Design and Implementation Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wiley N A [Whitney Desautels] 1983 Archaeological Research Design ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Final Research and Salvage Program Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California 1995 Site Boundaries ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wiley N A [Whitney Desautels] and Roger D Mason 1986 Archaeological Evaluation of ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site on Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County California Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California -653- Item 9 - Page 443 If you do want to speak out on this, you get 4 minutes Julie Bixby wrote > Parksiders, > The HB Planning Commission public hearing on Hearthside' s Ridge project, > at the southeast corner of Los Patos & Bolsa Chica Street, will be heard > April 27 at 7pm > There are several things wrong with this project, but most egregious to > me is the taking away of 5 acres of designated parkland to build still > yet more additional mansions This parkland has been on the books since > the 1980's Others are upset that this project is so close to the Shea > Parkside north grove that was declared raptor sensitive habitat ESHA by > the Coastal Commission And still others are concerned about the > potential for native artifacts, given what was eventually discovered at > Brightwater (despite repeated assurances that nothing would be found) PETITION We aaree with Julie Bixby, lease keep the 5 acres of designated parkland a parkland ��ti de S►c r�A-41� Name (printed / signature ) Address U email In- /rw-//®���� �AI koR i d(L4�Gl� ��ol,•.P��L S°I 3 t C,-.,/ie„�z D n `ry i CA y>�� � o T..�� 6 I'll 7l h0e t ( J $Cl/Ux Mt c o ,1ti, ,c.ram l �) ._ Cf y 3 (0'7 z CA1 TO .�t K A �✓l Item 9 - Page 444 -654- f you do want to speak out on this, you get 4gpnutes - - Julie Bixby wrote > Parksiders, y � The HB Planning Commission public hearing on Hearthside' s Ridge project, > at the southeast corner of Los Patos & Bolsa Mica Street, will be heard April 27 at 7pm > There are several things wrong with this project, but most egregious to me is the taking away of 5 acres of designated parkland to build still > yet more additional mansions This parkland has been on the books since > the 1980' s Others are upset that this project is so close to the Shea Parksxde north grove that was declared raptor sensitive habitat ESHA by > the Coastal Commission And still others are concerned about the > potential for native artifacts, given what was eventually discovered at > Brightwater (despite repeated assurances that nothing would be found) PETITION We agree with Julie Bixby, Please keep the 5 acres of designated parkland a parkland Name/(printed / signature ) Address email -011 )UA<�,,klS l _ �, ,�S- '� At l^-Y f t '4 Y�-`�'-' �-t r I C yu—�. 11 ati1 mot.V 11 v� te k-'i-�Px UIVIIIV- - Y5 L " 1 J -655- Item 9 - Page 445 If you do want to speak out on this, you get 4 minutes Julie Bixby wrote > Parksiders, > The HB Planning Commission public hearing on Hearthsade' s Ridge project, > at the southeast corner of Los Patos & Bolsa Chica Street, will be heard > April 27 at 7pm > There are several things wrong with this project, but most egregious to > me is the taking away of 5 acres of designated parkland to build still > yet more additional mansions This parkland has been on the books since > the 1980's Others are upset that this project is so close to the Shea > Parkside north grove that was declared raptor sensitive habitat ESHA by > the Coastal Commission And still others are concerned about the > potential for native artifacts, given what was eventually discovered at > Brxghtwater (despite repeated assurances that nothing would be found) PETITION We agree with Juhe Bixby, Please keep the 5 acres of designated parkland a parkland Name (printed / signature ) Address email S L -,w A)e ,A 41 r F.s �`C ot klk—r7.47t Item 9 - Page 446 -656- ATTACHMENT # 121 cs "The Ridge" 22-unit single-family CO Planned Unit Development : M N D 08-016, G PA 08-0111 ZMA 08-007, LC PA 09-002, ZTA 09-008, TTM 18294, CDP 08-022, CUP 08-046 a i Q x City Council Meeting July 6 , 2010 taroject Description : ® Recirculated Miti ated Negative Declaration analyzes the potential impacts associated with the project ® General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) ■ Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park (OS®P) to Residential Low Density ( L) and to reflect the Zoning Flap and Text Amendments described below ® Zoning MaI2 Amendment to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL®CZ) ® Zoning Text Amendment to amend Chapter 210 12 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development c� ® Hn"% lect DW&ftscriE ® Tentative Tract ap to subdivide the project site into 22 single-family lots and nine lettered lots ® coastal Development Permit to subdivide and construct 22 single-family PUD and associated open space and infrastructure improvements ® Conditional Use Permit to construct the project on a site with greater than a 3-foot grade differential • Appeal Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and development entitlements were appealed subsequent to the Planning commission's approval to enable the city council to review all project entitlement requests concurrently Site oca ion a 17Ell Cat r � cY r e � m N tD T 0 ca tD Analysis : General Plan Amendment ■ Proposed change from Open Space — Park to b Residential Low Density Ri, would be consistent with 'LoPatobAve surrounding designations it [ U SVb ct Site 'KN: aZ 7RL R O■ Proposed general plan . � amendment would not result in the loss of existing park space; passive public open space or planned Not Designated County of Orange (Brightwater Specific Plan), (Suburban Residential) future park and recreational opportunities r M I i . Analysis : Zoninz' Map AmeAdm' Ont- 141 ■ since the property has not been used for agricultural 41 t� uses on oveffive years; the Ilk RA zoning designation is Los PatosAve no longer the appro "' hate A > g w � zoning designation � � � Subectsite �� 41, RL:CZ n � C $R(_ CZ D s' % ■ RL zoning compatible with A w� existing zoning designations surrounding County of Orange RL,CZ the project site as well as SP 15 CZ (Planned Community) �� ° City of HB pre zoned the proposed General Plan RL CZ OS PR OS C -4Z 40 The City approved a zoning map amendment to Chang the current land use designation zoning designations to CC—Coastal Conservation to be consistent with the Land Use Plan The City s approval has been submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification 46 W D t� 1df A D Anal YZoning sis : Text Amendment J11 ■ New standards would only be applicable to PUD projects and would be evaluated on a project-specific basis ■ Allowances for tandem parking and on-street parking to count for required open parking spaces is consistent with recent city decisions, would reduce potential for garages to dominate street frontage, would allow for more diverse site layout and project design for PUD projects ® Applicability to proposed project would result in better project design while still providing for adequate parking on addition to on-street parking available to general public I e � � *41 � � � g T p DLET Im tr i 4 4 6 lots < 6® 0 0 0 $LOT t? LJO S ® f "Mm s , � .s3 l lots < 60 ` in UPT width LOWT 2 public benefits Lot LOT .0 LW ®Green building gra design ® LEE®® d , Solver certified T � aT � a Enhanced coastal access 1, q j4 N a � p � may" 1 f _J ypy�� �yy y a i 1 i Analysis .m Land Use Compatibility and Site Land Use Compatibility ® Consistent with other single- and multi-family residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to density, height, lot size and architecture ® Density of 6 4 units/net acre (4 4 units/gross acre) is consistent with the proposed land use and zoning designations, which allow 7 units/acre max ® Compatible with the existing densities of the adjacent Brightwater and Sandover single-family developments Site Plan ® 22 single-family lots, 9 lettered lots, central open space area, non-gated community ® 36' wide streets, 4' sidewalks, rolled curb -- consistent with requirements of Public Works & Fire Depts ® 23 on-street parking spaces provided, 13 of the spaces are in addition to required parking ® HOA will maintain the streets, landscaping and common area and the proposed 30- foot wide landscaped access trail on the City-owned parcel n Project's drainage concept is designed such that the slope and existing resources below the slope on the Shea property to the east would not be negatively impacted from development of the project site, including the project's grading design a AI-Otlalysis : Coastal Issues ® Site is not a park or recreational resource & not planned for future recreational use, proposed amendment to the LUP will not result in the loss of a coastal recreational resource ® Existing recreational and open space opportunities are available in the vicinity that would serve the project's residents ® Project would contribute to the enhancement of coastal recreational resources in the area through provision of 5,776 s f open space area and public benefit of improved coastal access Existing Condition Proposed Ual L'al S c( r cx a ing J, 1 —,d _iris R " t +t q � a �.�-- a, 1gn to Tra I r Ak- 0 CEQA Analysis ■ Recirculated IVIND No . 08-016 concludes less than significant impacts with , 4 mitigation measuresproposed for g Biological and cultural Resources ® c� � F K ■ Impacts to Biological and Cultural Resources analyzed based on -technical , studies prepared for the project® F fD O 2001 �D Archeo . Excavation 1 It -A O s � a v r pJ ® ® f �OX40W t 'A�) �W li aia tai , I � / ikesourc=j"% S Wok z rat ® Potential for 2 � � � y� f sensitive species � � �y � � r to occur on site — burrowing owls � 3 � ,� � southern arplant a� ;� � n ,Ix , r itigation � recommended for ` j� A Jr ss "y3T , surveys prior to I I2 construction �I{ j��` � �� ,,� del , ® Project design , code J g requirements, raptor _ y ; � � MN �� p , ada ta ility and . distance result on less than significant � impacts to s I,V4x :::Y , z f ( s z q z A Ile VI cs Su m a rL ff ® Proposed project will be compatible with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations surrounding the project site ® Proposed project would not result in the loss of an existing or planned park or recreational facility ® Project's design will be compatible with surrounding residential uses with respect to density, building height, lot size and architectural A design ® Zoning text amendment is consistent with recent City decisions with respect to tandem parking and will result in PUD projects with higher quality site design while providing for adequate parking Project will provide enhanced coastal access through improvement of an existing, vacant City-owned parcel Project will result in the development of the City's first "green" residential project Recommend that the City Council .- N Approve ecirclate o® 08-016 with findings ® Approve General Plan Amendment o® 11 Zoning Map Amendment o® -007 (with findings) and Zoning Text Amendment No. 09- 008 (with findings) ® Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment ® (with findings) and forward the CaliforniaCoastal Commission for certification ® Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17294, Coastal Development Permit No. 08-022 andConditional Use Permit No. 08-046 with fin in scan , conditions of approval