The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMitigated Negative Declaration No. 12-008/General Plan Amend I city of Huntington Beach 2000 MAAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division NOTICE OF ACTION Building Division 714.536.5271 714 536.5241 July 21, 2015 Huntington Beach City School District ATTN Jon Archibald, Assistant Superintendent 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-0081 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-0021 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001 (LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) APPLICANT: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach City School District City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 REQUEST: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. GPA: To amend the existing land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3.2 acres and Open Space — Park (OS-P) on 6 5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed. ZMA: To amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3 2 acres and Open Space— Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6.5 acres. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2015, to consider the above request in conjunction with associated tentative tract map, conditional use permit and variance entitlements and recommended approval of the above request to the City Council LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (LeBard Park and LeBard closed school) DATE OF ACTION: July 20, 2015 Notice of Action GPA 05-001 R/ZMA 05-001 R July 21,2015 Page 2 On Monday, July 20, 2015, the Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application and approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 with findings, approved General Plan Amendment No 12-002 by adopting Resolution No 2015-30, and approved Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 with findings for approval by adopting Ordinance No 4065 Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, the project planner, at JVillasenor@surfcity-hb org or(714) 374-1661 or the Planning and Building Department Zoning Counter at(714) 536-5271 Since , Sc He , AICP Director of Planning and Building SH JV kdc Attachments 1 Findings for Approval and Mitigation Measures - MND No 12-008, ZMA No 12-001 2 City Council Resolution No 2015-30 3 Ordinance No 4065 c Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Joan Flynn, City Clerk Jennifer Villasenor, Acting Planning Manager Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 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 30 days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the project 2 Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to air quality, aesthetics, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance Air quality mitigation measures would ensure that established emissions thresholds are not exceeded through sequencing of construction phases The proposed aesthetics mitigation measures ensure that the proposed homes would be designed in accordance with the City's adopted urban design guidelines and that exterior lighting proposed in association with the homes would not impact adjacent properties In addition, the aesthetics mitigation measures require existing healthy, mature trees to be replaced at a 2 1 ratio The proposed biological resources mitigation measures would ensure that existing trees to remain in place and nesting birds in the project area are protected during site development and result in a less than significant impact The mitigation measures also specify procedures for the protection of cultural, archeological and paleontological resources during the development of the project The mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event these resources are discovered during grading and construction activities Geology/soils mitigation measures would incorporate measures with site preparation and fill placement and compaction requirements in order to mitigate impacts to liquefaction and unstable sods at the project site. The mitigation measures also require compliance with NPDES through preparation of a SWPPP to minimize soil erosion during construction The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures require that a sods survey be prepared for the project site to ensure that any potential hazardous materials do not remain on site and require testing and remediation, if necessary, for asbestos and lead prior to demolition of the existing budding Hydrology/water quality and utilities mitigation measures ensure that vegetated swales and a bioretention basin are utilized to ensure water quality is in compliance with all applicable permits, plans and ordinances 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 Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design, standard code requirements, conditions of approval and the recommended mitigation measures SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001: 1 Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 to rezone the approximately 10-acre closed LeBard school site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space— G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 1 Park and Recreation (OS-PR) is Consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies of the General Plan as identified below The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No 12-002, 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 uses to the north, south, and west and park uses to the east (LeBard Park) As discussed in the environmental assessment for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development A Land Use Element Goal LU 2 Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services Pohcv LU 4 2.5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act Obiective LU 9 1 Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 2 1 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i e , infill) be Compatible with existing structures Policy LU 13.16 Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development Policy LU 131 7 The type, intensity and density for reuse and/or development of surplus school sites shall be determined by the following a compatibility with the type and character of adjacent uses, c the land use designations and policies for surrounding properties as defined by this plan, e working with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formulation of a reuse plan, Goal LU 14 Preserve the City's open spaces. Obiective LU 14 1 Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development B Housincr Element Policy H 2 4 Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan. C Recreation and Community Services Element Obiective 41 Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 2 The project will result in redevelopment of closed school site with a single-family residential PUD, which contributes new product to the City's housing stock, while preserving existing recreational sports fields The 6 5-acre area is developed with six sports fields, which would be acquired by the City and added to the City's overall parkland inventory The project would provide new and upgraded amenities within the existing LeBard park and sports fields area consisting of a new restroom and concession budding, ADA-compliant walkways, and drainage features The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals Proposed improvements in conjunction with the residential subdivision include a new public street designed to the City's street standards and associated infrastructure The proposed change of General Plan land use and zoning designations for a portion of the site to RL is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for the sports fields area to OS-P and OS-PR, respectively, is the appropriate designation for newly acquired parkland Design of the residential units would be subject to the City's design guidelines and residential infill ordinance requirements to ensure that the design of the proposed homes is compatible with the surrounding residences and sensitive to the privacy of adjacent homes The project will be conditioned to have increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) to minimize potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences 2 Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 would only change the land use designation rather than a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the proposed zoning district 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The changes would expand the opportunities for housing and preserve existing sports fields to address the existing and future community's needs 4 Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible residential land uses and 6.5 acres of City parkland The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and represents an appropriate transition of a closed school site MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The future residential developer shall comply with the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines and building code requirements to ensure that the 15 single-family residential units are architecturally consistent with the surrounding residential land uses (MM Aes-1) 2 The Applicant shall obtain a permit associated with the City's Tree Ordinance from the Public Works Department for any proposed activity that may disturb existing trees on the project site A landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a minimum of 2 1 ratio with 36-inch box, shade tree or other equivalent species as required by the Parks, Tree and Landscape Division shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a permit to remove and/or plant trees (MM Aes-2) G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 3 3 All lighting associated with the single-family residential development, including any proposed street lighting, shall comply with all applicable City lighting standards to minimize light spill caused by these new light sources For example, all exterior lighting shall be directed onto walkways and/or driveways within the development and away from adjacent properties (MM Aes-3) 4 Construction phases shall occur sequentially to ensure that construction emissions are not compounded to exceed the maximum daily emission thresholds due to overlapping construction phases (MM Air-1) 5 Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 feet for birds of prey) of the active nest Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor (MM Bio-1) 6 If the conservation of the existing trees in place is determined to be the preferable option to importing nursery trees for transplantation, then the following measures shall be undertaken to ensure the protection of the tree's roots systems and foliage canopies. ■ Tree protection zones shall extend to the trees drip lines or a minimum of 6 feet out from the trunks whichever is greatest ■ Tree protection zones shall be fenced with durable chain link fencing during the construction operations period to prevent encroachments The fence(s) shall be held in place with galvanized fence posts that are set into the soil without footings The fenced tree protection zones shall prohibit access from the construction side of the trees ■ Maintained free of sod importation or exportation, storage of materials, trenching, and vehicular or construction traffic during the operations penod ■ Top-dressed with 2 inches of coarse organic mulch during the construction period The area within 2 feet of the trunks shall remain free of the accumulation of mulch ■ The trees shall be maintained using current practices including irrigation, fertilization, and pruning throughout the construction period ■ The protection zones shall be maintained free of encroachment Encroachment shall only be undertaken after consultation with the project arborist in advance to consider the use of alternate or specialized construction methodologies intended to limit potential impact to any affected trees Shall only be encroached within the root zones beneath the canopy dnp lines using pneumatic excavation equipment (Air-spade) or hand tools All woody roots that are encountered in such excavation operations within the drip lines should be cut using sharp pruning tools and shall not be ripped, torn, or otherwisd frayed or damaged, using sharp pruning implements or saws. (MM Bio-2) G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 4 7 The following mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented to address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources within the proposed project area This program shall include, but not be limited to, the following actions ■ Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the future developer shall provide written verification to the City that a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior Standards as an archaeologist and is a Registered Professional Archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program The retained archaeologist shall have experience identifying artifacts, features, and shell madden sites in Orange County This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency The City, pnor to any pre-construction meeting, shall approve all persons involved in the monitoring program ■ The qualified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program ■ The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Protocol document, which shall outline all procedures and authorities for the monitoring project, protocols for a Worker Education Training seminar designed to educate construction workers on archaeological field methods and protocols, and trainings on the penalties for collecting archaeological items ■ In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources The qualified archaeologist shall assess, record and either collect or protect the find until such a time that the find can be subjected to Phase II test excavations, if necessary ■ The results of the cultural resources monitoring program shall be summarized in a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Report. The report shall document the field and analysis results and interpret the artifact and research data within the research context and shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the issuance of any budding permits The report would include California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary and Archaeological Site forms (MM Cul-1) 8 The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontological monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates Monitors must be empowered to temporanly halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossdiferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossdiferous units This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontological monitor If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to MM Cul-3 through MM Cul-5 (MM Cul-2) 9. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources (MM Cul-3) 10. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retnevable paleontological storage These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontological mitigation and CEQA compliance The paleontologist must G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001 CUP 12-039 TTM 17801 MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 5 have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented (MM Cul-4) 11 Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources (MM Cul-5) 12. If human remains are encountered during construction, the find would be handled in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5, which states that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California 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 will 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 within 24 hours of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (MM Cul-6) 13 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all recommendations contained in the NMG Geotechnical, Inc Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Design Parameters Report (2014) are incorporated into the proposed project during construction The following recommendations shall be documented on the project grading plans ■ The estimated remedial removals for the site shall be on the order of 5 feet deep to fully remove the soft and loose artificial fill and weathered alluvium in order to reduce future settlement potential ■ The removal bottoms shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement ■ Upon completion of the remedial removals, the approved removal bottoms shall be scanfied a minimum of 6 inches, except when soft, wet soils are encountered The removal bottoms and fill materials shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 ■ Fill materials shall be placed in loose lifts no thicker than 6 inches and shall be relatively free of deleterious material ■ The moisture content of new compacted fill soils shall be placed at above the optimum moisture content within the compactable moisture range Appropriate equipment support or other measures (e g , mixing, stockpiling, drying) may be needed to achieve the uniform and correct moisture content for placement of the fill (MM Geo-1) 14 In accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a project-specific SWPPP to minimize sod erosion, which would implement best management practices (BMPs), such as but not limited td the following ■ Minimizing Disturbed Areas Clearing of lands is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001 CUP 12-039 TTM 17801 MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 6 ■ Stabilizing Disturbed Areas Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the project site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping ■ Protecting Slopes and Channels Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and increases in runoff velocity caused by the project are managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels ■ Controlling the Site Perimeter Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project site and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents ■ Controlling Internal Erosion Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the project site are detained. (MM Geo-2) 15 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall have a sods survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the sods report (MM Haz-1) 16 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor, as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Section 35005, assess onsite buildings for the presence of lead-based paint The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment (MM Haz-2) 17 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a California Certified Asbestos Consultant assess on-site buildings for the presence of asbestos-containing materials. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment (MM Haz-3) 18 In compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Elementary School site, a detention basin and a flow-based vegetated swale shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the detention basin and flow-based vegetated swale All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities, established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed project (MM Hydro-1/Utilities) 19 In compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Park site, a flow-based vegetated swale and a volume-based bioretention basin shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the flow-based vegetated swale and volume-based bioretention basin. All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities, established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed project (MM Hydro-2/1.1tilities) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001 CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12-008 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 7 Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof r G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12408 VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 8 Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (o%,�,, ,gesrn.,�z►, &,, > REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 7/6/2015 DATE: SUBMITTED Honorable Mayor and City Council Members TO: SUBMITTED Fred A Wilson, City Manager BY: PREPARED Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building BY: SUBJECT: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, Resolution No 2015- 30 approving General Plan Amendment No 12-002, and Ordinance No 4065 approving Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 (LeBard Park and School Site Land Use Change to Residential — 20451 Craimer Lane) Statement of Issue Transmitted for Council consideration is Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001, and a request by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) to amend the General Plan land use and Zoning designations on the closed LeBard School site from Public (P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space — Park (OS-P)/ Open Space — Park and Recreation (OS-PR) The requested amendments would allow the HBCSD to re-purpose the approximately 10-acre surplus LeBard School site for public recreation and residential uses The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval Financial Impact Not Applicable Recommended Action PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to: A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 with findings for approval, and, B) Approve General Plan Amendment No 12-002 by adopting City Council Resolution No 2015-30, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No 12-002," and, C) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 with findings for approval and approve for introduction Ordinance No 4065, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Item 14. - 1 xB -494- Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 2 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 Amending District Map 8 (Sectional Map 8-6-10) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Rezone the Real Property At LeBard School Located at 20451 Craimer Lane from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space - Park and Recreation (OS-PR) (Zoning Map Amendment No 2012-001) " Alternative Action(s) The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s) 1 Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001, with findings for denial 2 Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, General Plan Amendment No 12- 002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 and direct staff accordingly Analysis A PROJECT PROPOSAL Applicant/ Property Owner LeBard School site Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646, LeBard Park site City of Huntington Beach Location 20451 and 20461 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (closed LeBard School site and LeBard Park) Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project pursuant to Chapter 240 — Environmental Review of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) General Plan Amendment No 12-002 represents a request to amend the existing General Plan land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (underlying Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Park (OS-P) on 6 5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public- Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6 5 acres to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation pursuant to Chapter 247 —Amendments of the HBZSO The proposed MND, GPA, and ZMA are requested to allow the HBCSD to re-purpose the approximately 10-acre surplus LeBard School site for public recreation and residential uses It should be noted that the proposed project also included Tentative Tract Map No 17801, Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 to permit construction xB -495- Item 14. - 2 Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 3 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 of a single-family residential development on the approximately 3 2 acres to be designated RL as well as Improvements within LeBard Park The Planning Commission approved the development entitlements at their meeting on June 9, 2015 No appeals of the Planning Commission's action on the development entitlements were filed within the 10 day appeal period that ended on June 19, 2015 These entitlements were conditioned so they do not become effective until the GPA and ZMA have been approved and in effect Project Description The City would acquire 6 5 acres of the LeBard Elementary School site that are currently developed with sports fields as an addition to the adjoining approximately three-acre developed portion of LeBard Park Improvements within the sports fields and existing park area would include a new concession/restroom/storage building, relocation of bleachers and bullpens, and accessibility upgrades The HBCSD had proposed an expansion of the existing parking lot at LeBard Park, but the Planning Commission eliminated this aspect of the project in its approval of the associated development entitlements Other improvements include grading and drainage within the park and sports fields area and a new passive recreational area The existing amenities in LeBard Park would remain The HBCSD also proposes a 15-lot, low-density single-family residential subdivision in the 3 2-acre area where the original school building and pavement/parking area are currently developed Residential lot sizes would average approximately 7,216 square feet in total area Associated infrastructure would also be constructed, to include a public street with access from Craimer Lane The residential lots would be sold to a private home builder for construction of the homes in the future Because approximately half of the proposed residential lots would not meet the minimum 60-foot lot width required in the RL zoning district, the HBCSD is proposing a PUD subdivision, which requires provision of a public benefit The HBCSD proposes to provide a new restroom/co n cess io n/sto rage building for the expanded park as well as upgraded passive park amenities B BACKGROUND The LeBard Elementary School and LeBard Park were developed with the original residential subdivision of this area of Huntington Beach in the 1960's In 1981, the elementary school was closed for educational purposes However, upon its closure, the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) elected to retain the school in reserve, utilizing the building as a temporary administration office This use continued until the HBCSD moved out of the building and to a temporary location earlier this year In 2008, after a comprehensive review of its holdings and finances, the Huntington Beach City School District Board concluded that LeBard Elementary School was no longer needed as a school site and that the deteriorating school building had exceeded its useful life On March 11, 2008, the City of Huntington Beach received formal notification from the HBCSD of their intent to sell the approximately 10-acre closed LeBard school site The City Council subsequently approved Resolution 2008-22, which, in part, authorized the City Manager to begin negotiations with the District for purchase of the site pursuant to the Naylor Act The City and the HBCSD met several times during the next several years although no agreement was reached In 2013, the City Council formed a subcommittee related to the re-use and acquisition of the closed LeBard school site On May 5, 2014, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the HBCSD outlining the Item 14. - 3 HB -496- Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 4 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 terms for a project that Includes the development of 15 single-family homes and an option for the City to purchase approximately 6 5 acres (area of existing sports fields) pursuant to the Naylor Act C PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION On June 9, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft MND, the two land use amendments, and the associated development entitlements for the LeBard Park and Residential Project Staff gave a presentation and overview of the proposed project and answered questions from the Planning Commission Greg Haulk, Superintendent of the HBCSD, and the district's project consultant provided additional history and information on the project In total, there were 25 speakers that spoke at the public hearing Most of the speakers were residents of the two existing neighborhoods north and south of the school site (Meredith Gardens and Suburbia) Most of the speakers were generally in support of the project conceptually, but voiced concerns related to traffic, speeding, parking, and safety impacts in the Meredith Gardens neighborhood A couple of Suburbia residents also voiced concerns regarding existing drainage issues in the neighborhood and the project's potential drainage impacts Many speakers spoke in support of eliminating the proposed parking lot expansion in favor of keeping the existing space for use as a passive park area Those residents that supported removing the parking lot expansion from the project expressed varying viewpoints as to how parking could be alternatively addressed Several residents expressed that parking could be addressed during the peak Little League season on the existing adjacent Southern California Edison right-of-way (SCE ROW) Several other residents believe that the neighborhood streets could absorb the Little League parking demand, while another group of residents submitted a conceptual plan for providing additional parking in the southwest portion of the sports field area with access from Cynthia Street The president of the Sea View Little League, the Little League organization that primarily uses the existing sports fields, also spoke in support of the project The Planning Commission approved several straw vote motions to eliminate the parking lot expansion (17 parking spaces) from the project, require replacement trees to be shade trees rather than palm trees, and require the final design of the 15 homes to be reviewed by the Design Review Board The Planning Commission also approved, by minute action, a recommendation to the City Council to investigate the use of the SCE ROW for overflow parking during the peak Little League season and the provision of traffic calming measures in the surrounding neighborhoods A more detailed description and analysis of the project is provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated June 9, 2015, (ATTACHMENT NO 6) Planning Commission Action on June 9, 2015 THE MOTION MADE BY CROWE, SECONDED BY BRENDEN, TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 12-008 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES, HB -497- Item 14. - 4 Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 5 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 THE MOTION MADE BY KALMICK, SECONDED BY SEMETA, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-002 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MOTION MADE BY KALMICK, SECONDED BY BRENDEN, TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-001 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE MOTION MADE BY SEMETA, SECONDED BY BRENDEN, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17801 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE MOTION MADE BY KALMICK, SECONDED BY SEMETA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-039 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND THE MOTION MADE BY KALMICK, SECONDED BY BRENDEN, TO APPROVE VARIANCE NO 15-001 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ALL MOTIONS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES BRENDEN, CROWE, HOSKINSON, KALMICK, MANDIC, PINCHIFF, SEMETA NOES NONE ABSTAIN NONE ABSENT NONE ALL MOTIONS PASSED THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED FORWARDING THE FOLLOWING REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL VIA MINUTE ACTION REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT STAFF TO INVESTIGATE USING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TEMPORARY OVERFLOW PARKING AND TO INVESTIGATE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING LEBARD PARK D ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Low Density (RL-7) for the residential subdivision, which allows for single-family residential developments at a maximum density of seven dwelling units per acre The amendment to the land use designation is consistent with the existing density and uses in the vicinity of the project site In addition, the existing underlying designation on the closed school site is Residential Low Density (RL) indicating that this is an appropriate designation should the school site permanently transition to another use, such as this request The subject site is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods (maximum seven dwelling units per acre) The amendment to change the land use designation on the existing sports fields from Public to Open Space — Park (OS-P) is an appropriate designation for the existing use and would be consistent with the land use designation of the current LeBard Park area, and the City's parks designation in general The proposed land use designation will continue an existing designation presently located within the surrounding area The proposed land use designation and project will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Land Use, Housing, and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan by contributing to the City's housing stock and parkland Item 14. - 5 HB -498- Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 6 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 Inventory by preserving existing sports fields/recreation area through acquisition of a closed school site The proposed RL-7 designation is sensitive to the existing character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods by providing a land use that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding development The proposed project will not conflict with the Identified goals, policies, and objectives contained in the General Plan and with Implementation of Identified mitigation measures will not have significant Impacts on the environment Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Land Use designation amendment request to Residential Low Density for the residential subdivision portion and Open Space — Park for the existing sports fields Zoning Map Amendment The proposed zoning designation for the subject site is Residential Low Density (RL) This designation permits single-family residential land use in neighborhoods Development standards require a minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet and minimum lot width of 60 feet Properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site vary from 5,500 square feet to over 8,000 square feet with most in the 6,000 — 7,000 square foot range The proposed single family residential lots range from 6,000 square feet to over 9,000 square feet with the an average of approximately 7,000 square feet Although not all of the lots meet the minimum 60-foot frontage width requirement, all lots have a width dimension of at least 60 feet Additionally, deviations from the minimum lot size and width requirements are permitted when a project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), as is the case with the proposed residential subdivision Properties to the north, south, and west are zoned and developed with single-family residential uses The proposed zoning map amendment to RL would be compatible with existing zoning designations surrounding the project site as well as the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation The amendment of the zoning designation for the subject site from Public-Semipublic to Residential Low Density implements the proposed General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density The residential zoning designation is the appropriate zoning for the site because it provides a continuation of a compatible zoning designation that allows for a traditional detached single-family residential development consistent with the single-family residential character of the surrounding area The proposed zoning permits development to be compatible in density, design, layout, and character to the adjacent single-family residential uses Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the zoning map amendment to Residential Low Density The amendment to change the zoning designation on the existing sports fields from Public to Open Space — Park and Recreation (OS-PR) is an appropriate designation for the existing use and would be consistent with the land use designation of the current LeBard Park area and the City's parks designation in general The proposed zoning designation will continue an existing designation presently located within the surrounding area Environmental Status Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No 12-008 (ATTACHMENT NO 7) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240 04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The draft MND concludes that the project would result in environmental impacts that are less than significant or less HB -499- Item 14. - 6 Dept ID PL 15-013 Page 7 of 7 Meeting Date 7/6/2015 than significant with mitigation incorporated Draft MND No 12-008 was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 16, 2015 through May 15, 2015 29 comment letters were received on the MND and responses to comments and errata are provided as Attachment No 8 to this report On June 9, 2015 the Planning Commission approved MND No 12-008 and recommended adoption to the City Council Prior to any action on the project, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 Staff in its initial study of the project is recommending that the MND be approved with findings and mitigation measures It should be noted that the project modifications made by the Planning Commission, specifically elimination of the parking lot expansion, would not change the conclusions of the draft MND The impact to traffic/transportation (i e — project's potential to result in inadequate parking) was determined to be less than significant Currently, the Little League utilizes existing parking at LeBard Park, the LeBard school site and the surrounding neighborhood streets to accommodate the parking demand generated during the peak season The elimination of the parking lot expansion, which provides approximately 17 additional parking spaces, from the project would potentially increase the number of vehicles utilizing available on-street parking spaces during the peak little league season However, this potential increase would not change the level of significance of the impact Thus, the modification would not result in new impacts or require additional mitigation measures not identified in the MND Strategic Plan Goal Improve quality of life Attachment(s) 1 Findings for Approval — Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 2 City Council Resolution No 2015-30 for General Plan Amendment No 12-002 3 City Council Ordinance No 4065 for Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Maps 5 Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 2015 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 — Not Attached refer to website http //www huntingtonbeachca gov/files/users/planning/LeBardPark DISMND 2015- 04-16 web pdf 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 — Response to Comments and Errata 9 Tentative Tract Map No 17801 and Site Plan dated January 21, 2015 — FOR REFERENCE ONLY 10 Planning Commission Late Communications 11 Communications received since June 9, 2015 12 Planning Commission Notice of Action dated June 10, 2015 13 PowerPoint Presentation Item 14. - 7 HB -500- � A TA Cn' M 1 � ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.12-008 : 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 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 30 days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the project 2 Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to air quality, aesthetics, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Air quality mitigation measures would ensure that established emissions thresholds are not exceeded through sequencing of construction phases. The proposed aesthetics mitigation measures ensure that the proposed homes would be designed in accordance with the City's adopted urban design guidelines and that exterior lighting proposed in association with the homes would not impact adjacent properties In addition, the aesthetics mitigation measures require existing healthy, mature trees to be replaced at a 2.1 ratio The proposed biological resources mitigation measures would ensure that existing trees to remain in place and nesting birds in the project area are protected during site development and result in a less than significant impact. The mitigation measures also specify procedures for the protection of cultural, archeological and paleontological resources during the development of the project. The mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event these' resources are discovered during grading and construction activities Geology/soils mitigation measures would incorporate measures with site preparation and fill placement and compaction requirements in order to mitigate impacts to liquefaction and unstable soils at the project site. The mitigation measures also require compliance with NPDES through preparation of a SWPPP to minimize soil erosion during construction. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures require that a soils survey be prepared for the project site to ensure that any potential hazardous materials do not remain on site and require testing and remediation, if necessary, for asbestos and lead prior to demolition of the existing building. Hydrology/water quality and utilities mitigation measures ensure that vegetated swales and a bioretention basin are utilized to ensure water quality is in compliance with all applicable permits,plans and ordinances. HB -501- Item 14. - 8 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. Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design, standard code requirements, conditions of approval and the recommended mitigation measures SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12- 001: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 12-001 to rezone the approximately 10-acre closed LeBard school site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space— Park and Recreation(OS-PR) is consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies of the General Plan as identified below The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No 12-002, wluch 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 uses to the north, south, and west and park uses to the east (LeBard Park) As discussed in the environmental assessment for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development. A.Land Use Element Goal LU2- Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Policy LU 4 2 5: Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Objective LU 91 Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 21 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i e , mfill) be compatible with existing structures Policy LU 13 16 Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development Policy LU 13 1 7 The type, intensity and density for reuse and/or development of surplus school sites shall be determined by the following: a compatibility with the type and character of adjacent uses; c. the land use designations and policies for surrounding properties as defined by this plan; e working with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formulation of a reuse plan; Item 14. - 9 HB -502- Goal LU 14• Preserve the City's open spaces. Objective LU 141: Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development B Housing Element Policy H2 4 Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan C Recreation and Community Services Element Objective 4 1 Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions The project will result in redevelopment of closed school site with a single-family residential PUD, which contributes new product to the City's housing stock, while preserving existing recreational sports fields The 6 5-acre area is developed with six sports fields, which would be acquired by the City and added to the City's overall parkland inventory. The project would provide new and upgraded amenities within the existing LeBard park and sports fields area consisting of a new restroom and concession building, ADA-compliant walkways, and drainage features. The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Proposed improvements in conjunction with the residential subdivision include a new public street designed to the City's street standards and associated infrastructure. The proposed change of General Plan land use and zoning designations for a portion of the site to RL is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for the sports fields area to OS-P and OS-PR, respectively, is the appropriate designation for newly acquired parkland Design of the residential units would be subject to the City's design guidelines and residential mfill ordinance requirements to ensure that the design of the proposed homes is compatible with the surrounding residences and sensitive to the privacy of adjacent homes The project will be conditioned to have increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) to minimize potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences 2. Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 would only change the land use designation rather than a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the proposed zoning district 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The changes would expand the opportunities for housing and preserve existing sports fields to address the existing and future community's needs xB -503- Item 14. - 10 4 Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible residential land uses and 6 5 acres of City parkland The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and represents an appropriate transition of a closed school site MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1 The future residential developer shall comply with the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines and building code requirements to ensure that the 15 single-family residential units are architecturally consistent with the surrounding residential land uses (MM Aes-1) 2 The Applicant shall obtain a permit associated with the City's Tree Ordinance from the Public Works Department for any proposed activity that may disturb existing trees on the project site A landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a minimum of 2.1 ratio with 36-inch box, shade tree or other equivalent species as required by the Parks, Tree and Landscape Division shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a permit to remove and/or plant trees. (MM Aes-2) 3 All lighting associated with the single-family residential development, including any proposed street lighting, shall comply with all applicable City lighting standards to minimize light spill caused by these new light sources. For example, all exterior lighting shall be directed onto walkways and/or driveways within the development and away from adjacent properties (MM Aes-3) 4. Construction phases shall occur sequentially to ensure that construction emissions are not compounded to exceed the maximum daily emission thresholds due to overlapping construction phases. (MM Air-1) 5 Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 feet for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (MM Bio-1) Item 14. - 11 HB -504- 6 If the conservation of the existing trees in place is determined to be the preferable option to importing nursery trees for transplantation, then the following measures shall be undertaken to ensure the protection of the tree's roots systems and foliage canopies: ■ Tree protection zones shall extend to the trees drip lines or a minimum of 6 feet out from the trunks whichever is greatest ■ Tree protection zones shall be fenced with durable chain link fencing during the construction operations period to prevent encroachments. The fence(s) shall be held in place with galvanized fence posts that are set into the soil without footings. The fenced tree protection zones shall prohibit access from the construction side of the trees ■ Maintained free of soil importation or exportation, storage of materials, trenching, and vehicular or construction traffic during the operations period. ■ Top-dressed with 2 inches of coarse organic mulch during the construction period The area within 2 feet of the trunks shall remain free of the accumulation of mulch ■ The trees shall be maintained using current practices including irrigation, fertilization, and pruning throughout the construction period ■ The protection zones shall be maintained free of encroachment. Encroachment shall only be undertaken after consultation with the project arborist in advance to consider the use of alternate or specialized construction methodologies intended to limit potential impact to any affected trees • Shall only be encroached within the root zones beneath the canopy drip lines using pneumatic excavation equipment (Air-spade) or hand tools. All woody roots that are encountered in such excavation operations within the drip lines should be cut using sharp pruning tools and shall not be ripped, torn, or otherwise frayed or damaged, using sharp pruning implements or saws. (MM Bio-2) 7. The following mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented to address potential impacts to undiscovered buned archaeological resources within the proposed project area This program shall include, but not be limited to,the following actions: ■ Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the future developer shall provide written verification to the City that a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior Standards as an archaeologist and is a Registered Professional Archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program The retained archaeologist shall have experience identifying artifacts, features, and shell madden sites in Orange County This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency The City, prior to any pre-construction meeting, shall approve all persons involved in the monitoring program ■ The qualified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. ■ The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Protocol document, which shall outline all procedures and authorities for the monitoring project, protocols for a Worker Education Training seminar designed to educate construction workers on archaeological field methods and protocols; and trainings on the penalties for collecting archaeological items xB -505- Item 14. - 12 ■ In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The qualified archaeologist shall assess, record and either collect or protect the find until such a time that the find can be subjected to Phase II test excavations, if necessary. ■ The results of the cultural resources monitoring program shall be summarized in a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Report The report shall document the field and analysis results and interpret the artifact and research data within the research context and shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report would include California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary and Archaeological Site forms (MM Cul-1) 8 The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontological monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossihferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontological monitor If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to MM Cul-3 through MM Cul-5 (MM Cul-2) 9 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. (MM Cul-3) 10. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontological mitigation and CEQA compliance The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. (MM Cul-4) 11. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. (MM Cul-5) 12 If human remains are encountered during construction, the find would be handled in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5, which states that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin Item 14. - 13 HB -506- and disposition pursuant to California 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 will 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 within 24 hours of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. (MM Cul-6) 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all recommendations contained in the NMG Geotechnical, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Design Parameters Report (2014) are incorporated into the proposed project during construction. The following recommendations shall be documented on the project grading plans ■ The estimated remedial removals for the site shall be on the order of 5 feet deep to fully remove the soft and loose artificial fill and weathered alluvium in order to reduce future settlement potential ■ The removal bottoms shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. ■ Upon completion of the remedial removals, the approved removal bottoms shall be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, except when soft, wet soils are encountered The removal bottoms and fill materials shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. ■ Fill materials shall be placed in loose lifts no thicker than 6 inches and shall be relatively free of deleterious material ■ The moisture content of new compacted fill soils shall be placed at above the optimum moisture content within the compactable moisture range. Appropriate equipment support or other measures (e g., mixing, stockpiling, drying) may be needed to achieve the uniform and correct moisture content for placement of the fill (MM Geo-1) 14. In accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a project-specific SWPPP to minimize soil erosion, which would implement best management practices (BMPs), such as but not limited to the following ■ Minimizing Disturbed Areas Clearing of lands is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized ■ Stabilizing Disturbed Areas Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the project site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping ■ Protecting Slopes and Channels Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and increases in runoff velocity caused by the project are managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels ■ Controlling the Site Perimeter Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project site and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents HB -507- Item 14. - 14 ■ Controlling Internal Erosion Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the project site are detained. (MM Geo-2) 15. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals(herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. (MM Haz-1) 16 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor, as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Section 35005, assess onsite buildings for the presence of lead-based paint The applicant ' shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment (MM Haz-2) 17 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a California Certified Asbestos Consultant assess on-site buildings for the presence of asbestos-containing materials The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment. (MM Haz-3) 18 In compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Elementary School site, a detention basin and a flow-based vegetated swale shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the detention basin and flow-based vegetated swale All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities, established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed project (MM Hydro-mtilities) 19 In compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Park site, a flow-based vegetated swale and a volume-based bioretention basin shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the flow-based vegetated swale and volume-based bioretention basin All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities, established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed project. (MM Hydro-2/Utilities) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Item 14. - 15 HB -508- FATTACHMENT #2 RESOLUTION NO 2 015-3 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-002 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No 12-002 proposes to amend Figure LU-5 of the Land use Element of the Cites General Plan to redesignate the land use designation of the real property consisting of the approximately 10-acre LeBard school site located at 20451 Craimer Lane, as more particulaily described as Exhibits"A'and`B'attached hereto, from Public (underlying Residential Low Density) (P(RL) to Residential Low Density-7 dwelling units per acre (RL-7) and Open Space-Park (OS-P), and Puisuant to the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and recommended approval of said amendment to the City Council, and Pursuant to the California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No 12-002; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 12-002 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 the LeBard School site, 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 12-002, which amends the General Plan Land Use designation from Public (underlying Residential Low Density) (P(RL) to Residential Low Density-7 dwelling units per acre (RL-7) and Open Space-Park (OS-P) for the subject site, is hereby approved The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map A copy of said snap, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning and Building Department 15-4772/122395 doc 1 Resolution No . 2015-30 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 0 t hday of July , 2015. REVIE APPROVED APPROVED A ORM CiV�#qT ' y torney INIT ATE ND APPROVED Director f Planning and Building ATTACHMENTS Exhibit"9- Legal Description Exhibit`B'. General Plan Land Use Map (Extract of Figure LU-5) 15-4772/122395 doc 2 Resolution 2015-30 Resolution 2015-30 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Tentative Tract Map 17801 - Zone Change EXISTING LEGAL PARCELS. The land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described in Grant Deed recorded in Book 6953, Page 392- 396 and Final Order of Condemnation recorded in Book 6991, Pages 404-405 and as follows: EXISTING PARCEL 1 That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 6 South, Range 10 West in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California, described as follows. Beginning at a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8, distant thereon North 880 55' 30" East 351.95 feet from the southwest corner of said northwest quarter, thence North 10 15' 10" West 376 43 feet, thence North 880 44' 50" East 15 00 feet, thence South 10 15' 10" East 110 00 feet; thence North 880 48' 20" East 126 71 feet; thence North 820 12' 00" East 129.35 feet; thence North 770 34' 00" East 129 35 feet; thence North 720 56' 00" East 129 35 feet; thence North 690 34' 26" East 127 32 feet, thence North 760 13' 49" East 122 76 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 820 00 feet, a radial to said point bears North 760 06' 58" West, thence southerly along said curve 214.09 feet through a central angle of 140 57' 32", thence tangent to said curve South 10 04' 30" East 205 00 feet to the south line of the northwest quarter of said section 8, thence South 880 55' 30" West 734.52 feet to the point of beginning EXISTING PARCEL 2 That portion of the southwest quarter of Section 8, Township 6 South, Range 10 West in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California, described as follows- Beginning at a point on the north line of the southwest quarter of said Section 8, distant thereon North 880 55' 30" East 764 52 feet, thence South 10 15' 10" East 267 00 feet, thence South 880 55' 30" West 764 52 feet, thence North 10 15' 10" West 267 00 feet to the point of beginning ZONING DESCRIPTIONS RL ZONING (Exhibit 1): Being a portion of existing Parcels 1 and 2 described above and further described as follows Commencing at the most northeasterly corner of said Parcel 1, said point also being the southeasterly corner of Lot 50, Tract No 5128 lying on the westerly right of way for Craimer Lane, being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence along the common boundary with Tract No 5128 South 76013'49" West, 122.76 feet, thence South 69034'26" West, 127.32 feet, thence South 72056'00"West, 129.35 feet, thence South 77034'00" West, 61.04 feet, thence leaving said common boundary with Tract No. 5128 heading South 1020'51" East, 336.36 feet, thence South 88041'38" East, 100 67 feet, thence North 56022'16" East, 43 59 feet, thence North 88044'42" East, 44 02 feet, thence South 43056'28" East, 30.18 feet, thence North 88037'11" East, 80.96 feet, thence North 43008'17" East, 24.43 feet, thence North 1049'45" West, 102 43 feet, thence North 47038'02" East, 32 36 feet, thence North Resolution 2015-30 70014'24" East, 68 20 feet, thence North 88035'35" East, 7.17 feet to a point lying on the westerly boundary of Tract No. 5192, thence North 1004'30"West, 76.04 feet along said westerly boundary to a point on a tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 820 00 feet said point lying on the westerly right of way for Craimer Lane as shown on Tract No 5192, a radial to said point bears North 88055'30" East, thence northerly along said curve 214 00 feet through a central angle of 14057'32"to the POINT OF BEGINNING See Exhibit 1 for a plat depicting the above described land The RL zone contains approximately 3.21 acres All dimensions and areas are based on record Information and can vary from measurements on the ground. OS-PR ZONING (Exhibit 2): Being a portion of existing Parcels 1 and 2 described above and further described as follows- Commencing at the most northwesterly corner of said Existing Parcel 1 said point also being the northeasterly corner of Lot 62, Tract No 5128 lying on the southerly right of way for Crailet Drive being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence North 88044'50" East, 15 00 feet along said right of way, thence leaving said right of way South 1015'10" East, 110 00 feet along the westerly property line of Lot 61, Tract 5128, thence North 86048'20" East, 126 71 feet along the common boundary with Tract No 5128, thence North 82012,00" East, 129 35 feet, thence South 77034'00" East, 68 31 feet, thence leaving said common boundary South 1020'51" East, 336 36 feet, thence North 88044'43" East, 100.67 feet, thence North 56022'16" East, 43 59 feet, thence North 88044'42" East, 44.02 feet, thence South 43056'28" East, 30.18 feet, thence North 88037'11" East, 80.96 feet, thence North 43008'17" East, 24.43 feet, thence North 1049'45"West, 102 43 feet, thence North 47038'02" East, 32 36 feet, thence North 70014'24" East, 68.20 feet, thence North 88035'35" East, 7 17 feet to a point lying on the westerly boundary of Tract No 5192, thence South 1004'30" East, 128 88 feet along said boundary, thence North 88055'30" East, 32.00 feet along the southerly boundary of Tract No 5192, thence leaving said boundary South 1015'10" East, 267.00 feet along the common boundary with Lot 70, Tract No 6003 to a point on the centerline of Cynthia Drive, thence along the centerline of Cynthia Drive South 88055'30" W, 764.52 feet, thence North 1015'10" West, 267.00 feet leaving the centerline of Cynthia Drive along the rear property line of lots 11-13 of Tract No 6003 to a point on the North line of the SW 1/4 Section 8, T6S R10W, thence North 1015'10" West, 376 43 feet along the common boundary with Tract No 5128 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. See Exhibit 2 for a plat depicting the above described land. QROFEss� OS-PR zone contains approximately 6 94 acres9 02 All dimensions and areas are based on record information and c� can vary from measurements on the ground No C26821 z Shy CIVIL r oe- F of CPIO- Resolution 2015-30 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA C,41 SA 10 �o� �g��' POB j 1 P,ngie 1 54 732" j R 820 00' IL=�14 09' j RL 3 21 AC I N 88°55'30" E co —i o f I N 1°04301 W mi N8 co i �"1 ° 8�S MI i Ng r� CAD. 2g„ F NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 SEC 8,T 6S R 10W 4 Nr o „kv 6, N 88°41'38"E•100 67'fig o`L �w 2 �43.0 1� �� ti� crn�j F24 V _ rZ2 �� , P J=1 JF�� \4 �� 3 o G' I I CYNTHIA DRIVE `dY1 SCALE 1"=120' MSA Land Solutions,Inc 308-14Hamilton Trail,Trabuco Canyon,C49X79 EXHIBIT I Resolution 2015-30 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA POB N 88044'50" E 1-5_DD � 1°1510 EII 1�0 �.�A' �29 35 8 31`;' 6 i ( I S 1261 E 77°34p0,� N _. j g6 48 ! 3 \ r I I I cn I j 4 6 I 1 1 f -- — 1l j ,60 11S1 I I o j I cf) 10 j N m I j o 6,-, 66 cn 9) I . S 1°04'30" E 128.88 ��' ��g� 2 N 88°55'30"E 32.00' NORTH LINE OF THE SW 114 SEC.8,T.6S R.10W Iv / j v' 10 Z�- o `i ��Cp, �� I 1 1 �0 I� (�21 6° �6 I W 1 '1 °•J w, o m IC12 5�� OS-PR jj, j m rM 6.94 AC � I ro I� 0 o (S 89035'27"W PER TR. 6003) i- — 88°55'30'W 764.52— J - CYNTHIA DRIVE TA STJ jr I I i II, i SCALE 1"=120' MSA and Solutions,Inc. EXHIBIT 2 30854Hamilton Trail,Trabuoo Canyon,CA 92679 r Resolution 2015-30 EXHIBIT " " Resolution 2015-30 — ftAfLET i f 1 L__ —_.. � � � t�. i tl+, WARHfC.K l3RNE 1f: �s CYNTHlA DRIVE '�' .. PUBLIC—SEMIPUBLIC OPEN SPACE—PARKS&RECREATION SUBDISTRICT EXISTING ZONING PLAN —��-= !. 4 RLVIARWlCK DRIVE !f fi ,t,:�„„rr s�r- �'2"3�2" �.em..�'�.• a-.'zr I — ror a z .� �•�''�-ate ��• �`. % - �..�-.w.c•� '� � �, r.�a �. 'sue"=�s �.�., �,: c, r i �I � I` ram. .- ,��+,� ��. ,� �•°`-Icy �.��.��„-�. �' �' ��.�.,��+. �- u. t,..r� 1 will am 77777 01 --�... 4 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE—PARKS&RECREATION SUBDISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED ZONING PLAN TRG Land Le Bard School Site Resolution 2015-30 t 1 ` zAr�E=pRrVE-- �: r� J//t rF -y i c / 7=i L = r f � Y CYlJTH7A oRN£ _ PUBLIC-(RL)RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY «� OPEN SPACE-PARK EXISTING GENERAL PLAN �•LI k.=%s' �� I' � `�—_ .l I I Ili —`.' ' ` IG I 7Ii r r I�',• �I; 'jw _ ��` RL i,\�� WARWICK 0 V_ _ 7 _ ,•' ) �,-.. -. MAW of !' CYyTHIA oH1VE —t RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARK t PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TRG Land Le Bard School Site Res. No. 2015-30 r 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 20, 2015 by the following vote AYES: Posey, Katapodis, Hardy, Sullivan, Delgleize, Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: O'Connell ABSTAIN: None fu City rk and ex-officio Perk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California t ATTACHMENT #3 , ORDINANCE NO. 4065 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 8 (SECTIONAL MAP 8-6-10) OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY AT LEBARD SCHOOL LOCATED AT 20451 CRAIMER LANE FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) AND OPEN SPACE—PARK AND RECREATION (OS-PR) (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 2012-001) WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planing 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 2012-001, which rezones the real property generally known as LeBard School located at 20451 Craimer Lane to Residential Low Density(RL) and Open Space—Park and Recreation (OS-PR); 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 the LeBard School site located at 20451 Craimer Lane, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map collectively attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2 District Map 8 (Sectional Map 8-6-10) of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended pursuant to Zoning Map Amendment No 2012-001, which designates the zoning for the LeBard School property located at 20451 Crarnner Lane as Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space—Park and Recreation (OS-PR) as shown in the amended Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein SECTION 3 This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption 1 5-4 772/1 2 23 93 doe 1 Ordinance 4065 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a i regular meeting thereof held on the 3 r d day of August , 2015 A yo1 ATTEST APPROVED FO ViyCle—V 4rw City Attorney �� Sr REVIE D APPROVED TIAT AND APPROVED • y 1111agei Director o lannmg and Building ATTACHMENTS Exhibit"A' Legal Description Exhibit"B": Amended Zoning Map 15-4772/122393 doc 2 Ordinance 4065 LF- ]EXHIBBIT "A Ordinance 4065 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Tentative Tract Map 17801 - Zone Change EXISTING LEGAL PARCELS The land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described in Grant Deed recorded in Book 6953, Page 392- 396 and Final Order of Condemnation recorded in Book 6991, Pages 404-405 and as follows EXISTING PARCEL 1 That portion of the northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 6 South, Range 10 West in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California, described as follows. Beginning at a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of said Section 8, distant thereon North 880 55' 30" East 351 95 feet from the southwest corner of said northwest quarter; thence North 10 15' 10" West 376 43 feet, thence North 880 44' 50" East 15.00 feet; thence South 10 15' 10" East 110 00 feet, thence North 880 48' 20" East 126 71 feet; thence North 820 12' 00" East 129 35 feet; thence North 770 34' 00" East 129 35 feet, thence North 720 56' 00" East 129 35 feet; thence North 690 34' 26" East 127.32 feet, thence North 760 13' 49" East 122 76 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 820 00 feet, a radial to said point bears North 760 06' 58" West, thence southerly along said curve 214.09 feet through a central angle of 140 57' 32"; thence tangent to said curve South 10 04' 30" East 205 00 feet to the south line of the northwest quarter of said section 8, thence South 880 55' 30" West 734 52 feet to the point of beginning EXISTING PARCEL 2 That portion of the southwest quarter of Section 8, Township 6 South, Range 10 West in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 14 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California, described as follows Beginning at a point on the north line of the southwest quarter of said Section 8, distant thereon North 880 55' 30" East 764 52 feet; thence South 10 15' 10" East 267 00 feet, thence South 880 55' 30" West 764.52 feet, thence North 10 15' 10" West 267 00 feet to the point of beginning ZONING DESCRIPTIONS RL ZONING (Exhibit 1): Being a portion of existing Parcels 1 and 2 described above and further described as follows- Commencing at the most northeasterly corner of said Parcel 1, said point also being the southeasterly corner of Lot 50, Tract No. 5128 lying on the westerly right of way for Craimer Lane, being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence along the common boundary with Tract No. 5128 South 76013'49" West, 122.76 feet, thence South 69034'26" West, 127 32 feet, thence South 72056'00" West, 129 35 feet, thence South 77034'00" West, 61.04 feet, thence leaving said common boundary with Tract No 5128 heading South 1020'51" East, 336 36 feet, thence South 88041'38" East, 100.67 feet, thence North 56022'16" East, 43.59 feet, thence North 88044'42" East, 44.02 feet, thence South 43056'28" East, 30.18 feet, thence North 88037'11" East, 80.96 feet, thence North 43008'17" East, 24.43 feet, thence North 1049'45" West, 102 43 feet, thence North 47038'02" East, 32 36 feet, thence North Ordinance 4065 70014'24" East, 68 20 feet, thence North 88035'35" East, 7 17 feet to a point lying on the westerly boundary of Tract No 5192, thence North 1004'30"West, 76 04 feet along said westerly boundary to a point on a tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 820 00 feet said point lying on the westerly right of way for Craimer Lane as shown on Tract No 5192, a radial to said point bears North 88055'30" East, thence northerly along said curve 214 00 feet through a central angle of 14057'32"to the POINT OF BEGINNING See Exhibit 1 for a plat depicting the above described land The RL zone contains approximately 3.21 acres All dimensions and areas are based on record information and can vary from measurements on the ground OS-PR ZONING (Exhibit 2): Being a portion of existing Parcels 1 and 2 described above and further described as follows. Commencing at the most northwesterly corner of said Existing Parcel 1 said point also being the northeasterly corner of Lot 62, Tract No 5128 lying on the southerly right of way for Crailet Drive being the POINT OF BEGINNING, thence North 88044'50" East, 15 00 feet along said right of way, thence leaving said right of way South 1015'10" East, 110.00 feet along the westerly property line of Lot 61, Tract 5128, thence North 86048'20" East, 126 71 feet along the common boundary with Tract No 5128, thence North 82012'00" East, 129 35 feet, thence South 77034'00" East, 68.31 feet, thence leaving said common boundary South 1020'51" East, 336.36 feet, thence North 8804443" East, 100.67 feet, thence North 56022'16" East, 43.59 feet, thence North 8804442" East, 44.02 feet, thence South 43056'28" East, 30 18 feet, thence North 88037'11" East, 80.96 feet, thence North 43008'17" East, 24.43 feet, thence North 1049'45"West, 102.43 feet, thence North 47038'02" East, 32.36 feet, thence North 70014'24" East, 68.20 feet, thence North 88035'35" East, 7.17 feet to a point lying on the westerly boundary of Tract No 5192, thence South 1004'30" East, 128.88 feet along said boundary, thence North 88055'30" East, 32 00 feet along the southerly boundary of Tract No 5192, thence leaving said boundary South 1015'10" East, 267.00 feet along the common boundary with Lot 70, Tract No. 6003 to a point on the centerline of Cynthia Drive, thence along the centerline of Cynthia Drive South 88055'30" W, 764 52 feet, thence North 1015'10" West, 267 00 feet leaving the centerline of Cynthia Drive along the rear property line of lots 11-13 of Tract No 6003 to a point on the North line of the SW 1/4 Section 8, T6S R10W, thence North 1015'10"West, 376.43 feet along the common boundary with Tract No. 5128 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. See Exhibit 2 for a plat depicting the above described land PROFESS, OS-PR zone contains approximately 6 94 acres s ANOF y P� o� All dimensions and areas are based on record information and ti m can vary from measurements on the ground No C26821 Civil. 9TF OF CAOt Ordinance 4065 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA to Ise (0 IQ„� g`o N A60r5 o� C r POB I o _ An g�1e,_57'82' �I 1, j ,R=.'$20.00 j1 L 214.09' RL 3.21 AC j N 686,55'30" E U) o I I N 1904'30° -76.i i m I i�•� Ns co 8� Sr,� T�711 NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 SEC.8,T.6S R.10W N 70 3 �o 3 N 88041'38"E•100.67 P A A S'.5 L 2i� � �� CO 0--------------- I � CYNTHIA DRIVE - i i i 1"=12 SCALE 0' i MSA and Solutions`Inc. 30854 Hamilton Trail,Trab=Canyon,CA 9Z79 EXHIBIT 1 Ordinance 4065 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATECALIFORNIA OF C ALIF O i r 14AZ POB N 88044150" E 1 5 E� ;3 I i o 1 9, 3 2 5 1 1 `,; S j I S 1 I`1 °482p„E 126'$�°12p0 E N 77°3400 E 6 cf) j ,L �68 �° 1 G o j C Co '. 01 o Q��o ��'o:� sF� --- Tv j 1 � F \ o m --- w• I c,, CPO' CA) �•�'� j - 1 ,goo ��3� 1 S 1°04'30"E 128.88 D\Jrb�� 2 N 88°55'30"E 32.00 j NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 SEC.8,T.6S R.10W • j "o 1 a' 0 W ( o Z o <G o Q ( 0CIO j m r� � A fll,,�E L :2 OS-PR x, TO, j m m Iv 6.94AC �� j0) � o, l�° �)� Iorn o 0o Im - j o (S 89035'27"W PER TR. 6003) 88°55'30 764.52 ._. _. _._ � —CYNTHIA DRIVE L��1� IIII SCALE 1"=120' MSA and Solutions,Inc. E=BIT 2 30854 Hamilton Trail,Trabuoo Canyon,CA92679 Ordinance 4065 4 Y EXHIBIT "B" Ordinance 4065 a �c WARMCK DRIVE ant Mf i 'al _ . IN CYNTHIA DRIVE PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC OPEN SPACE-PARKS&RECREATION SUBDISTRICT EXISTING ZONING PLAN y�- RL WARWICK DRIVE ! I r � f- �l �1 CYNTHIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARKS&RECREATION SUBDISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED ZONING PLAN TRG Land Le Bard School Site Ordinance 4065 tLET DRi�€".-- jr WADMrK ORNE * _ u r 1 _ CYNTHtA DRIVE � PUBLIC-(RL)RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARK EXISTING GENERAL PLAN if '�W i 1 r\\ �Y{ \�'�.- RL i, WARtN1CX f3RIVE f i �I l RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARK PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TRG Land Le Bard School Site Ord. No. 4065 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 DULY 20,2015, and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on AUGUST 3,2015, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Posey, Katapodis, Hardy, Sullivan, Delgleize, Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: O'Connell 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 Wave on August 13,2015. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn.City Clerk JCi4lerk and ex-officio Jerk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTAC H M E N T #4 I N PUBLIC-(RL)RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARK EXISTING GENERAL PLAN r x rvara �xrv€ €tnA l� RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARK PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TRG Land Le Bard ` `- xB -529- Item 14. - 36 ATTACHMENT #5 wa DMM u+orry 01, PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC MOPEN SPACE-PARKS&RECREATION SUBDISTRICT EXISTING ZONING PLAN 0 $ x � � 11,�� RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARKS&RECREATION ti SUBDISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING PLAN EXISTING vs PROPOSED ZONING PLAN Ir"f. T __ Le Bard School Site Item 14. - 37` HB -530- ATTACHMENT #6 3 of Iiunt�n ton Beach P1annin + BuYld ng°.Department HUNTINGTON BFACH - .. '- •" ....'•'.a."� , ', ., •'. :• >"',. •.6. e.: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AlCP, Director of Planning and Building BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Acting Planning Manager DATE: June 9, 2015 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ VARIANCE NO. 2015-001 (LeBard Park and Residential Project) APPLICANT: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 PROPERTY OWNER: LeBard School: Huntington Beach City School District LeBard Park: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (LeBard closed school/ LeBard Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 12-008 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. ♦ General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-002 represents a request to amend the existing General Plan land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (underlying Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density—7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3.2 acres and Open Space—Park(OS-P) on 6.5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed. ♦ Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 12-001 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3.2 acres and Open Space — Park and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6.5 acres. ♦ Tentative Tract Map No. 17801 represents a request to subdivide the existing LeBard school site for the following: - 6.5-acres: create one parcel presently developed with six sports fields to be acquired by the City and incorporated into LeBard Park - 3.2 acres: subdivide into 15 single-family residential lots and three lettered lots and associated infrastructure HB -531- Item 14. - 38 B e go ter i wA� rAuocr '� ♦ ggg 1 ra®croxn • MMda Y� UCIARAPOW r il BAD�SW1 ' sA�s r r r n ■ r � r ps a VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801/ VARIANCE NO. 15-001/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008 (LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) Item 14. - 39 ort—6/9/15 HB -532- 15sr18(LeBard) • Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 is a request to construct the residential subdivision on a lot with a three-foot grade differential and construct the improvements within LeBard Park • Variance No 15-001 is a request to permit a four-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet Staffs Recommendation Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 based upon the following - The analysis accurately describes all aspects of the proposed project and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project, - The MND concludes that the project will not result in significant adverse impacts on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures for Air Quality, Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Hazards, and Utilities • Approve General Plan Amendment No 12-002, Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001, Tentative Tract Map No 17801, Conditional Use Permit No 12-039, and Variance No. 15-001 based upon the following - Consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations, - Results in the preservation and acquisition of approximately 6 5 acres of parkland; - Provides for the creation of new housing units in the City, including affordable housing, - Provides compatible zoning and General Plan land use designations, - Proposed lots are compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site, - Meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance; - Consistent with City Council direction and the approved MOU between the City and the HBCSD, and - Developed as a PUD and provides mutual public benefits, including a new restroom, storage and concession building, parking lot improvements, upgraded ADA-compliant access paths, and increased passive park area RECOMMENDATION: Motion to A "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption," B "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 12-002 by approving draft City Council Resolution No. (Attachment No 2) and forward to the City Council for adoption," C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by approving draft City Council Ordinance No (Attachment No 3) and forward to the City Council for adoption;" D "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17801 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1)," PC Staff Report—6/9/15 HB -533- 15E Item 14. - 40 E "Approve Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1)," F. "Approve Variance No 15-001 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1) " ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as A "Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, General Plan Amendment No 12-002, Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001, Tentative Tract Map No 17801, Conditional Use Permit No. 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 with findings for denial " B. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, General Plan Amendment No 12-002, Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001, Tentative Tract Map No 17801, Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 and direct staff accordingly" PROJECT PROPOSAL: Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project pursuant to Chapter 240 — Environmental Review of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) General Plan Amendment No 12-002 represents a request to amend the existing General Plan land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (underlying Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density— 7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3 2 acres and Open Space—Park(OS-P) on 6 5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed. Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6 5 acres to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation pursuant to Chapter 247 —Amendments of the HBZSO Tentative Tract Map No 17801 represents requests to subdivide the closed LeBard school site into an approximately 6 5-acre parcel, which would be acquired by the City, and the remaining 3 2 acres would be subdivided for development of a 15-unit single-family planned unit development (PUD) pursuant to Section 250 14 of the HBZSO Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 is a request to permit the development of a 15-unit single family PUD subdivision on a site with a grade differential of three feet pursuant to Section 230 70 of the HBZSO, and to permit expansion of the surface parking lot at LeBard Park and to provide water quality and accessibility upgrades within the expanded park area pursuant to Section 213 06 of the HBZSO. Item 14. - 41 ort—6/9/15 HB -534- 15sr18(LeBard) Variance No 15-001, pursuant to Chapter 240 of the ZSO, is a request to permit a four-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet pursuant to Section 232 08 of the HBZSO The HBCSD proposes to re-purpose the approximately 10-acre surplus LeBard school site for public recreation and residential uses The City would acquire 6 5 acres of the LeBard Elementary School site that are currently developed with sports fields as an addition to the adjoining approximately 3-acre developed portion of LeBard Park Improvements within the sports fields and existing park area would include a new concession/restroom/storage building, relocation of bleachers and bullpens, accessibility upgrades and an expanded parking lot Other improvements include grading and drainage within the park and sports fields area and a new passive recreational area The existing amenities in LeBard Park would remain The HBCSD also proposes to gain approval for a 15-lot, low-density single-family residential subdivision in the 3 2-acre area where the original school building and pavement/parking area are currently developed Residential lot sizes would average approximately 7,216 sf in total area Associated infrastructure would also be constructed, to include a public street with access from Crazmer Lane The residential lots would be sold to a private home builder for construction of the homes in the future Because approximately half of the proposed residential lots would not meet the minimum 60-foot lot width required in the RL zoning district, the applicant is proposing a PUD subdivision, which requires provision of a public benefit The applicant proposes to provide a new restroom/concession/storage building for the expanded park as well as upgraded passive park amenities A minimum of 10% of all new residential construction shall be affordable housing units pursuant to HBZSO Section 230 26 The applicant would be required to comply with the City's affordable housing requirements and is proposing to provide payment of in-lieu fees for the required 1.5 affordable units Background: The LeBard Elementary School and LeBard Park were developed with the original residential subdivision of this area of Huntington Beach in the 1960s In 1981, the elementary school was closed for educational purposes. However, upon its closure, the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD) elected to retain the school in reserve, utilizing the building as a temporary administration office This use continues to the present day although the HBCSD intends to vacate the building and move to another location in the near future In 2008, after a comprehensive review of its holdings and finances, the Huntington Beach City School District Board concluded that LeBard Elementary School was no longer needed as a school site and that the deteriorating school building had exceeded its useful life On March 11, 2008, the City of Huntington Beach received formal notification from the HBCSD of their intent to sell the approximately 10-acre closed LeBard school site The City Council subsequently approved Resolution 2008-22, which, in part, authorized the City Manager to begin negotiations with the District for purchase of the site pursuant to the Naylor Act The City and the HBCSD met several times during the next several years although no agreement was reached In 2013, the City Council formed a subcommittee related to the re-use and acquisition of the closed LeBard school site On May 5, 2014, the City Council approved a Memorandum PC Staff Report—6/9/15 FIB -53 5- 15E Item 14. - 42 of Understanding between the City and the HBCSD outlining the terms for a project that includes the development of 15 single-family homes and an option for the City to purchase approximately 6 5 acres where the existing sports fields are developed under the Naylor act. Study Session The project was introduced to the Planning Commission on May 26, 2015, at a study session. The Planning Commission asked many questions related to the project regarding traffic, parking, proposed drainage and water quality, noise, grading, affordable housing requirements, the City's acquisition of the sports fields, compliance with existing parkland standards, HOA requirements for the proposed new homes, protection of the new homes from potential fly/errant baseballs, and the recommended mitigation measures identified in Draft MND No 12-008 Staff from Planning, Public Works, Community Services and the City Attorney's office was available to address the Planning Commissioners' questions Commissioner Mandic requested a copy of the minutes of the November 19, 2014 Community Services Commission meeting for which the LeBard Park component of the project was approved The minutes are provided as Attachment No 14 to this report Eight members of the public spoke on the project during the meeting Six speakers identified themselves as residents of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and expressed concerns related to drainage, parking, traffic, construction noise, and HOA requirements for the proposed new subdivision Members of the public provided suggestions for conditions of approval or project modifications that would move the proposed new parking spaces to the southwest portion of the site, ensure construction would not occur during Little League season through fines imposed on the developer, require a lockable barrier to ensure that the parking lot could be locked at night, integrate the new subdivision into the existing Meredith Gardens HOA, remove the parking lot expansion from the project, implement traffic calming measures (e g — speed bumps) on the streets surrounding the park, and set aside money from fees paid by the HBCSD for improvements to the existing LeBard Park. In addition to the resident speakers, Greg Haulk, Superintendent of the HBCSD, and Mark Rogers, consultant to the HBCSD, spoke regarding the project to provide history and context for the project and address some of the Planning Commissioners' and public's questions related to the project ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENIERALPLAN ZQ G LAND Subject Property P-RL (Public with an PS (Public-Semipublic) Former LeBard Elementary underlying designation of school Residential Low Density) North, South and RL-7 (Residential Low RL (Residential Low Single-family residential West of Subject Density—7 du/ac) Density) Property East of Subject Open Space - Park (OS- Open Space - Park and LeBard Park, SCE right-of- Property. P), P Recreation OS-PR; RL way Item 14. - 43 art—6/9/15 HB -536- 15sr18(LeBard) The project site is generally composed of two properties the LeBard Elementary School and the developed portion of LeBard Park. The LeBard Elementary School portion is developed with a school building used for non-traditional educational activities and administrative/staff purposes, six non-lighted sports fields primarily used by the Sea View Little League Baseball organization, and associated surface parking The LeBard Park site is developed with two lighted tennis courts, a tot lot, passive recreational open space, a storage/meeting building, and a surface parking lot. General Plan Conformance: The HBCSD is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation of P (RL) to RL-7 and the zoning land use designation from PS to RL The proposed project is consistent with these designations and the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan as amended pursuant to General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 12-001 as follows A. Land Use Element Goal LU 2 Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services Policy L U 4 2 S Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act Objective L U 91 Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy L U 9 21 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i e , infill) be compatible with existing structures Policy LU 131 6. Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development Policy LU 131 7• The type, intensity and density for reuse and/or development of surplus school sites shall be determined by the following: a. compatibility with the type and character of adjacent uses, c the land use designations and policies for surrounding properties as defined by this plan, e. working with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formulation of a reuse plan, Goal L U 14. Preserve the City's open spaces Objective LU 141 Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development. PC Staff Report—6/9/15 HB -53 7- 15�Item 14. - 44 B Housing Element Policy H2 4 Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan. C. Recreation and Community Services Element ObLective 41 Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions The project will result in redevelopment of a closed school site with a single-family residential PUD, which contributes new product to the City's housing stock, while preserving existing recreational sports fields The 6 5-acre area is developed with six sports fields, which would be acquired by the City and added to the City's overall parkland inventory The project would provide new and upgraded amenities within the existing LeBard park and sports fields area consisting of a new restroom and concession building, ADA-compliant walkways, and drainage features The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals Proposed improvements in conjunction with the residential subdivision include a new public street designed to the City's street standards and associated infrastructure The proposed change of General Plan land use and zoning designations for a portion of the site to RL is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for the sports fields area to OS-P and OS-PR, respectively, is the appropriate designation for newly acquired parkland. Design of the residential units would be subject to the City's design guidelines and residential mfill ordinance requirements to ensure that the design of the proposed homes is compatible with the surrounding residences and sensitive to the privacy of adjacent homes The project will be conditioned to have increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet(twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) to minimize potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences Zoning 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 minimum lot width requirements and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the HBZSO The proposed residential units are expected to comply with all applicable provisions of the HBZSO Additionally, a condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the project provides for minimum rear yard setbacks of 20 feet, rather than the minimum required 10 feet for the proposed residences that abut existing single-family homes along Crailet Drive Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines contains guidelines specific to single-family residential development The design of the residential units would be required to comply with the objectives and Item 14. - 45 ort—6/9/15 HB -5318- 15sr18(LeBard) standards contained in the Guidelines pursuant to the recommended mitigation measures listed in Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 Environmental Status: On April 9, 2015 the Environmental Assessment Committee approved the processing of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the project. Draft MND No 12-008 (Attachment No 10) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240 04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The draft MND concludes that the project would result in environmental impacts that are less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated Draft MND No 12-008 was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period from April 16, 2015 through May 15, 2015 (available at http //www.surfcit<,- hb org/Government/Departments/Planning/Environmentalrepoits cfni) 29 comment letters were received on the MND and responses to comments and errata are provided as Attachment No 11 to this report Environmental Board Comments The Environmental Board submitted a comment letter (included in Attachment No 11) during the initial comment period for the environmental assessment While the Environmental Board's letter did not raise any major environmental issues with respect to the draft mitigated negative declaration, the letter stated that the Board has a concern related to addressing school impacts based on declining enrollment numbers The Board acknowledged that this is a valid analysis but expressed a general concern with this approach The Board also commented that the proposed parking lot expansion may not be necessary and noted that, "It seems that the parking lot only fills during the limited Little League season. Therefore, it may be sufficient to let the residential street parking absorb that occasional extra demand to allow for more green space Further, leaving this space open, would reduce impact on one of the directly abutting residences, at 20462 Ravenwood" The draft MND does not conclude that the project would result in significant parking impacts due to the fact that the parking issues are an existing condition and, as the Board stated in their comment letter, are temporary during the peak Little League season. The Board's comment letter is addressed in more detail in Attachment No 11 Prior to any action on the project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 Staff in its initial study of the project is recommending that the MND be approved with findings and mitigation measures Coastal Status Not applicable Desizn Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: The proposed tentative tract map was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 19, 2015. Staff presented the proposed subdivision and the applicant provided additional information to the Committee. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the draft conditions of approval for the tentative map and suggested additional conditions which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). The Subdivision Committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed tentative tract map to the Planning Commission PC Staff Report—6/9/15 HB -539- 154tem 14. - 46 Other Departments Concerns and Requirements.- The Departments of Public Works, Police, Fire, Office of Business Development, Community Services and Planning and Building have reviewed the project and identified a list of recommended conditions that are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval as well as code requirements (Attachment No 9) applicable to the project Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Orange County Register on May 28, 2015, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1000 ft radius of the subject property and individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning and Building Department's Notification Matrix) Written communications received prior to the June 9, 2015 Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration Written communications received as of June 2, 2015 (not including comments received on the draft MND) are included as attachments to this report (Attachment No 12) Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S) February 23, 2015 MND August 22, 2015 (within 180-days) TTM Within 50 days of adoption of MND— October 11, 2015 CUPNAR Within 60 days of adoption of MND— October 21, 2015 GPA/ZMA. Not applicable ANALYSIS: The primary issues identified below are the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Map; the land use compatibility of the proposed 15-unit single-family subdivision development with the surrounding properties, and the proposed improvements within LeBard Park General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is Residential Low Density (RL-7) for the residential subdivision, which allows for single-family residential developments at a maximum density of seven dwelling units per acre The amendment to the land use designation is consistent with the existing density and uses in the vicinity of the project site In addition, the underlying designation on the closed school site is Residential Low Density (RL) indicating that this is an appropriate designation should the school site permanently transition to another use The subject site is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods (maximum seven dwelling units per acre) The amendment to change the land use designation on the existing sports fields from Public to Open Space — Park (OS-P) is an appropriate designation for the existing use and would be consistent with the land use designation of the current LeBard Park area and the City's parks designation in general. The Item 14. - 47 ort—6/9/15 HB -540- 15sr18(LeBard) proposed land use designation will continue an existing designation presently located within, the surrounding area Staff believes the proposed land use designation and project will be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Land Use, Housing, and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan by contributing to the City's housing stock and parkland inventory by preserving existing sports fields/recreation area through acquisition of a closed school site The proposed RL-7 designation is sensitive to the existing character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods by providing a land use that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding development The proposed project will not conflict with the identified goals, policies, and objectives contained in the General Plan and with implementation of identified mitigation measures will not have significant impacts on the environment Staff recommends approval of the General Plan Land Use designation amendment request to Residential Low Density for the residential subdivision portion and Open Space—Park for the existing sports fields Zoning Map Amendment The proposed zoning designation for the subject site is Residential Low Density (RL). This designation permits single-family residential land use in neighborhoods Development standards require a mimmum parcel size of 6,000 square feet and mimmum lot width of 60 feet. Properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site vary from 5,500 square feet to over 8,000 square feet with most in the 6,000— 7,000 square foot range The proposed single family residential lots range from 6,000 square feet to over 9,000 square feet with the an average of approximately 7,000 square feet Although not all of the lots meet the minimum 60- foot frontage width requirement, all lots have a width dimension of at least 60 feet Additionally, deviations from the mimmum lot size and width requirements are permitted when a project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD) as is the case with the proposed residential subdivision Properties to the north, south and west are zoned and developed with single-family residential uses. The proposed zoning map amendment to RL would be compatible with existing zoning designations surrounding the project site as well as the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation The amendment of the zoning designation for the subject site from Public-Semipublic to Residential Low Density implements the proposed General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density. Staff believes the residential zoning designation is the appropriate zoning for the site because it provides a continuation of a compatible zoning designation that allows for single-family neighborhoods with detached single-family residences consistent with the single-family residential character of the surrounding area The proposed zoning permits development to be compatible in density, design, layout, and character to the adjacent single-family residential uses Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment to Residential Low Density The amendment to change the zoning designation on the existing sports fields from Public to Open Space —Park and Recreation (OS-PR) is an appropriate designation for the existing use and would be consistent with the land use designation of the current LeBard Park area and the City's parks designation in general The proposed zoning designation will continue an existing designation presently located within the surrounding area PC Staff Report—6/9/15 HB -541- 15s Item 14. - 48 Tentative Tract Map/Site Layout/Compatibility Staff believes the proposed detached single family residential subdivision will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses in terms of density and layout. The proposed density for,the project is five units per acre, which is compatible with the maximum permitted density of seven units per acre for the RL zone and with the surrounding single-family area that is developed at a similar density to the proposed project. The layout of the residential subdivision is compatible with the neighborhood because it is designed as detached single-family residential neighborhood The project proposes a public street designed to City public street standards and includes a 40 feet wide street (curb to curb) with four-foot wide sidewalks and six-foot wide landscaped parkways on each side of the street throughout the development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood On-street parking will be provided on both sides of the street and a condition of approval is recommended to ensure there is at least one on-street parking space for each residential lot Additionally, the conditions require that the HOA for the subdivision maintain the on- street parking for public use Planned Unit Development/Public Benefit A Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows 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 development standards of the base zoning district such as minimum lot size and lot width Because a PUD affords more flexibility in site design, a mutual public benefit is required by code. The proposed project only deviates from the minimum 60-foot width requirement of the RL zone The project proposes residential lot sizes that meet the minimum RL lot size of 6,000 square feet with an average lot size over 7,000 square feet While each lot would have a width dimension of at least 60 feet, several of the lots are less than 60 feet wide along the front property line This deviation would not preclude the project from meeting all minimum requirements of the RL zoning district including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, landscaping and parking The project is proposing improvements to LeBard Park and the existing sports fields area that would be acquired by the City as the public benefit for approval of the proposed PUD. The improvements include construction of a new concession/restroom/storage building, ADA-compliant walkways, improvements to the parking lot and increased park areas designed for passive use and functioning as a water quality/detention basin Under a standard subdivision, removal of the facility would not necessarily mandate many of these improvements as they are proposed Staff believes the proposed public benefits listed above and proposed by the applicant provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public. These benefits provide solid reasoning for the proposed reduction in lot width, but more importantly provide improvements that would not necessarily be resolved with a standard subdivision as it is not required to provide any mutual public benefits for the community Item 14. - 49 ort—6/9/15 HB -542- 15sr18(LeBard) Residential Design The existing homes in the vicinity are predominantly two-story homes north, south and west of the project site The proposed project would likely consist of entirely two-story homes and be subject to the base height allowable in the RL zoning district. Furthermore, the homes would be designed in accordance with the City's adopted Urban Design Guidelines, which include provisions to minimize overall building mass and scale by incorporating facade breaks, upper floor setbacks, and roof variations into the design to enable the new homes to blend with the surrounding existing neighborhood to the extent possible The 15 single-family homes would be required to comply with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) and all applicable codes to ensure that the design of the homes is compatible with the surrounding residences In addition, proposed homes abutting existing single-family residences on Crailet Drive will be required to maintain 20-foot rear yard setbacks, which would double the 10-foot setback requirement of the base RL zoning district The extended setbacks provide an adequate buffer for existing residences by providing additional protection from any associated light, noise, or privacy impacts Grade Differential Although the project site currently has a grade differential greater than three feet across the site, the project's residential building pad elevations would be compatible with the neighborhood as the differential only ranges from 12 to 20 inches above the abutting residences north of the project site. This condition is not uncommon within existing and new developments and potential concerns related to the grade differential would be minimized by increased minimum rear yard setbacks for proposed lots,that abut existing homes on Crailet Drive Building heights would be in conformance with the RL zoning district In addition, it should be noted that the project site is currently developed with a former school building/HBCSD administrative headquarters and does not represent an undeveloped condition LeBard Park/Sports Fields Improvements The project is proposing improvements to LeBard Park and the existing sports fields area that would be acquired by the City The improvements include construction of a new concession/restroom/storage building, ADA-compliant walkways, improvements to the parking lot and increased park areas designed for passive use and functioning as a water quality/detention basin Parking Lot ImprovementsNariance The project is proposing to reconfigure and expand the existing LeBard Park parking lot to provide additional spaces for the Park These spaces would generally only be needed during the peak use of the park, which would occur during the regular little league season from March to May. While little league activities occur during other times of the year, the peak season is generally recognized to occur during those months with peak times occurring on the weekend afternoons and weekday late afternoons/early evenings The proposed spaces are not required by the HBZSO, but would provide additional spaces for vehicles that would otherwise park in the surrounding neighborhoods Other options for parking within the park have been considered by the HBCSD but were not ultimately included in the proposed project as there was not a desire to add parking in other areas of the park that could impact the sports fields or passive recreational areas The City could also consider seeking approval from Southern California Edison for use of the adjacent 2-acre nght-of-way for overflow parking on an as-needed basis However, this area cannot be considered as a permanent or long-term parking alternative. PC Staff Report-6/9/15 HB -543- 15EItem, 14. - 50 The proposed parking lot improvements would provide a perimeter parking lot landscape planter along Warwick Drive The landscape planter varies in width from the required 10 feet to four feet As such, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a four-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet The current parking lot at LeBard Park does not have perimeter landscaping and the existing sidewalk along the street is not separated by a landscaped parkway. The proposed project would incorporate both of these features and bring the park into greater compliance with existing codes. Similar to many of the City's existing parks that were built with the original surrounding subdivision, the park is surrounded by single-family residential uses with limited parking designed to code requirements that are no longer in effect Due to existing improvements within LeBard Park, the area for improvements to the parking lot and public right-of-way, which would provide landscaped parkways, new sidewalks and ADA-compliant walkways is limited The site is constrained by the location of existing amenities within the park (tennis courts and passive recreation area) that are not proposed to be relocated or reconfigured within the park The variance is necessary to achieve upgrades within the park such as ADA-compliant walkways and improvements such as new sidewalks and street adjacent landscaped parkways that are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood The reduction in the perimeter parking lot landscaping would allow for a landscaped parkway adjacent to the street to buffer the sidewalk where none currently exists, thereby improving pedestrian safety In addition, strict compliance with the 10-foot perimeter landscaping requirement could result in impacts on the existing park amenities and disruption of those amenities to the public. Based on this analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed variance Water Quality/Detention Basin Improvements The project will have one storm water detention basin for flood control purposes located south of Lots 10 and 11 of the new subdivision and identified as Lot A on the tentative tract map The entire new subdivision will drain to this basin This basin is also designed with low impact design (LID) parameters to provide water quality treatment as a Best Management Practice (BMP) for the site This area is the only water quality treatment included for the proposed subdivision as the project site's poor soil quality would not allow for infiltration into the existing ground Due to the lack of existing underground storm drain facilities, filtration treatment facilities are not feasible and the site must surface drain to the surrounding streets Although this area serves to accommodate the proposed subdivision's water quality and drainage requirements, it will be designed to function as a new passive park area with amenities such as shade trees, picnic tables and benches. This area would also provide a buffer for the residential,lots (Lots 10 and 11)that abut the sports fields The incorporation of bioretention basins, detention basins, and vegetated swales (referred to as Best Management Practices [BMPs]) is a common engineering practice for managing and mitigating storm runoff in a safe, effective manner There are examples within the City where parks or areas within parks have been used for similar dual purposes, notably Wardlow Park and Bauer Park. The BMPs are designed to attenuate storm runoff flows and discharge the runoff over a longer period of time in order to reduce peak water flows draining off site. In addition, the BMPs are designed to serve as water quality measures by filtering out pollutants from the runoff. These pollutants are removed from the site through routine maintenance procedures and do not create a risk to persons or biological resources as they are contained within the BMP In addition, the project's WQMP requires maintenance of this area to ensure its useful Item 14. - 51 ort-6/9/15 HB -544- 15sr 18(LeBard) function It should be noted that ownership and maintenance of this area of the park would be the responsibility of the new subdivision HOA Sports Fields Improvements The project results in minor improvements within the area of the six sports fields that would be acquired by the City These improvements include relocation of bleachers and a bullpen to accommodate the project's proposed drainage features and ADA-compliant walkways The conditions of approval also recommend a netting/fencing plan, which could result in potential backstop modifications and new protective netting The HBCSD has intentionally proposed minimal changes to the sports fields to avoid disruption of activities and use of the fields This is also consistent with the previous City Council's discussions and the approved MOU that all six fields would remain and be acquired by the City SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the project for the following reasons - Consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations, - Results in the preservation and acquisition of approximately 6 5 acres of parkland, - Provides for the creation of new housing units in the City, including affordable housing, - Provides compatible zoning and General Plan land use designations; - Proposed lots are compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site; - Meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance, - Consistent with City Council direction and the approved MOU between the City and the HBCSD, and - Developed as a PUD and provide mutual public benefits, including a new restroom, storage'and concession building, parking lot improvements, upgraded ADA-compliant access paths, and increased passive park area. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Suggested Findings and Conditions of Appr-eval &r-Negative Peelar-ation No 12 009, Zoning Map Var-ianee N 15 001 not attached -refer to RCA Attachment No 1 2. Draft City reuneil ResaltAiefi'�ar-Geneful Plan Ameadmeft N '� 2 0 not attached -refer to RCA Attachment No 2 3. Draft City etincf Or- ee NO f Amendmei#No 'ter not attached -refer to RCA Attachment No 3 4 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Pesignation Map not attached-refer to RCA Attachment No 4 5. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map not attached -refer to RCA Attachment No 5 not attached -refer to RCA Attachment No 9 7 Park improvement plans,November 19, 2014 8 Revised Narrative dated January 23, 2015 9. Project Code Requirements (for informational purposes only) not attached-refer to RCA Attachment No 7 PC Staff Report—6/9/15 HB -545- 15s Item 14. - 52 not attached—refer to RCA Attachment No 8 12 Public comments (excluding comment letters on the draft MND) received as of June 2, 2015 13. City Council approved MOU, May 5, 2014 14 Minutes of the Community Services Commission,November 19, 2014 SH JJjv Item 14. - 53 ort—6/9/15 HB -546- 15sr18(LeBard) i, x } y I Proposed n s *'r 4 �.. y-,. • xs a , ._- >w aks!"e,.w r t -r.;� LEGENt. :x e PARKINOt tSPACES MExsnxrs 72IVAt+kaa ��y, E%I n"PARRACREaGE C99 kC ' �+.,h�F° _ � �.'y d�:.i}b s�' .rr �' .st"„�C�r - ;�4' .n�':� '� x �_� obi � :� � �p�•°��.��zz yr [ f eh tfn r"i ry r }�13 i }s L.-. _�.r � +nt .•. £.�� {lrPeliFUlr?G s[E UCENFE AMEp� txrArrsrcw asap TOTAlvAxx IIADAC 'S.V '. '.x ��-"T '11 �L ' ,+� Y `'' ti•.. lA ;�k n;. Y�'� y'Lya �W�, o � ��44 � � . i+ 5 `� � �� y� YI � � -. �ti¢ �� { � '� A .G.�t ��..Ft�• � �Tlr'1 } 1 ��} -y, [^F,-,� x .J '�jf. Mr, .:r=�� i f � D✓�9.; 14�r �: CaC G€•r � W">+ ,, a�. ;:� t, t Ix la � +,:r°ry� x�.`c,, ��.. ; ;s �' •}' [,a� 3� l S W4 s , _ "... �S-.>•. � H3 - -t +=v} rope't ! 1 a ,fir N 's :: .. .. 77 ...` rr r 3' ,,aMe.`:, a' a•.Ctl�� $&�' ��1� ,�4{'ya: +�^r� ;7 r s � ,p;`"� -�r�;t" ZESIDE TIAL + r � � C k � � ®LEACffEfR3 � r,� �: � R r✓�Kd 3 C �LbyY`PLO W T lEx� t i�Yrhrr Fxr r c f sw F r "�Ak1N as �: � �+Ld4S r�� r l r' ' s>'., f > >N•$ r s. y, ..z:, z�.:, - �"u �{•a. �, i,s.p�� a*."� ..��r: r� �?:---zi st,'=u -_:�� '�s a=_ �h.'.. �. � _ �'y.[l �;. 33 '. d �a�is ..w.......,r�4u3 1�. �.. ,_sE.....yi,,;r�.. S...,,,�,� �;?. �� ,�:.= c ..F•,� _z�- ,.y� �'i:':o- � _� �;,y ��.. q-'r""y° I. `�_'tyj' .'^'3 ";'1� ,.�u3 r,t��r...-,..-nc� r _ �K� aF .-r,•....... �..a..- m'..r,,� � � 1 �_{,r, I �. ., � r k x ,y. r; ?r ':3Q 6 fiREEY PAH'�[iN�F •'S. - -:--` ? +a y:' 'iY' Y[yF "`I' �• � j�P,d •� k11qq Y"�.: ,,� � r' .;�•, ,.,'�,y.. tt i a e'+ },. f?'�'"s x .Y�' sad .� g�. rr,-Yr• :'+ -- s .:-' _.. _. 'F�'.•.; ,: .., �. w�.s,y; _:..; j ..S:;R "�� x A"yy�... IA.3 /.. ,t r �C°;`�'� � "Lt- i' �,rr �Ca�' SSP '•K�- .. ..: " .��.�"' -w.-cam' t ,...:, na s.=.a im�'P�;iP x.}�., ,.:g rYr� ed .:�} '�`x �4 �x'Sy ni .r t.,/1 sue.e y ,,. � � �..�- .��s _t�� -:... ,:. ,� 'jr z,. ,..t.v ..>-•t„-t 4 s"� - r — a t, ! � '_1i�p � ...a� v:. e �' 2� r ��*•'•'�""r"'-,»* rice a r ..t, r 34 • IZ� S�sg��.g,� •��J a ��.. w ' G r m p _ k Sl i J i s ¢E A: A i n r>}axtvYF s y 1;� - ,:•c`. (a`a. + FR* R,, .�. .1 ; "z".Sx e.:;s�i " '.F E v )^' r::y aka/i .•.f+fir a" .,t, - yz t,a .:e , il.. - .,:._•fi. ..,.a. s,. .,..- ,,r r. " ., 7•.' v 4m:�i, ..... .. -. {3 - �. ta=.,.. .7 n �... t fl Y..: -�., H ,.r., -fie. .{ »� .yrx �'V��• �':ct.*r s sc.• ...r f t..kYYe..,g s5r,�,� .;�.; .;wry,.. :ice-�-.,. .. ...4;i�><sp ,,. �qxe, ,Qi:. ,, It ..a-.,% xa- tTM"•„ e a..v J,F, A},e,.t.;. .v, e. ,,.. % ;.i.ar';n lei'"vc..�r .k Yt�..:-•^.. .;; I 3u.,;a' u a -�f.:!S•�+ :t.,�ix9 k s ,, ,_r?r,�.p3hF.:�e,.�e`;y Ei ,+e. - ne .� w A,, i a wow r::. �',ar-^ W r ITT, �1 7 •.g,m, � f ut':. '* Ca '.�'1?!' L +t' s .f.� �.• „3e {Y irYI.. sC��•$"� f.-n+ar�:� -d ;��,,. � p 'a-. � r�. `rtr �j>f"�ii+ � -�� t S�g' r t^k s `• nk'3,.E::. •� r1,dL s. n! r3 n"•sr� � ;rt"S �;� ""� i i A*•'•k ;i�° Qt.i�i �� r'. r�' �� "F sa., ,r _ I � 7y � 'r� ,,•y •� Syry � '`2' - � 7 1. t .1 II�i I�y r �p ,{ I? S ul'3 .:7J t uV:`-:..-«. !.i' v'• MQ1. ` �� 4� �:: r ..add ,,�� - � ,� ,+k �: pit ^:�5�� ';*F " � ," "•+ 1 .�r y rr •'°�r.',.a r .j; :E fin#'.: r ,J �y�1ry� -I ' r 1 R'k'r,r� tk F 15`J 4 +•.:fi 7k �Lf ";�.'f'lj • �'. '.y � 1r�' y �'+`4� �' L 7 YF�P•'�'Gf, $1 4.. �r;:n° r, o :::.: , �, ��Sr_. I -,,: 1 nl :s:_ r° ] :'fir 1•�ri Y,"F }F�[y,+q j ;' r y:!n �4i�e�+�'� W � t�.4�;lty� 'A ,•,�!° �1Y1'� ,r y3 ,j�,. . J 1 �; I J t r•td ��.. .ws I t1j, .� �. `,� � rrk f`y.C,V �.r n`w+ v�5 -+� .v+?+o+.-...r �`��e,:;a '- y1: E,'G' .�� '.'+!4 �J,. '-:.•»-_.-.. .._.. .,;. >, : y I I.•:... V.r�, T.,j, k I• I.� ,y,� :� r..,{. .�, .I ti•� .h+:. �. J ,...s �;�.f .t •;? s ..,`F,,sy. A j i -..,i `` ,. Zt� IN }tvg•�' � < r;;��t'e'.�:7, i'? ,wr}..•''xh •�`xrf�+, �y 't 1 f.. .,tt, y a�" r'Y3LaJ'h f s ; ., �'•. 7 ,.',YL .;§ £Y ` 1 4>^;,•l >.:.!C'•,s. r. ya�.�e$ <, t r pYJGpg,"' � i x Krl P3�•�! P�Im I�. I Via. }} r --.��^ 7 ^,Is i M-r F�.< A r.s�ay5�r •r.. p'�k`t� 1 �P,, s'�,jrtie n 1 +r �.. ,r.�r S d { I } .� � ,� j� � I �` � ._ xS .� } v�4r ',re ,�• zs+{,�.y�j}s�..i 'J� r .,. � I °Y,:#RV. °.c a•, `� •_:�r P f �.?A+ f L p:.r fA, I r ro•. 4 s ,:.1 �r•r"R, {�)k �^:kr f +C�' ,.:.'�"M"6T4r>pFN-. �* f, ,- �W.Y,i', u r5�, �,4 R �+rA" 1�rt� 7y Yi��;'` �c k�;• 1 + ::s't � t:�f k ;, y�J � •W� a `I t f a'�- a fig f •44� S � - � Y s5 y .'� • H�I.i;�� r'}ri4r; ', a�;�. -�;�.� iP �� s'r�� "iN.rir '� .. � _�, � I rt f :��.�k, rA�. +1 .I ryt s�'S�.r,k�+h� e :• °i'li ,,;L•lv's s ><..,.;,E. P,A EXISTING RELOCATED ::: •�� ::'.r r r••' r:.. :_.§ � r ,v,.r.>r� _ +.e r MnT�`§ ^1✓ P�{ �F r,. ,..��" � ��"-`�' wr,,,. c'¢, ��d3 ,I. wu 2'�3Y'`3e'rn' r'"`-' .-'�ri ,, 99L•!'X.: mR_r $P;sr+Q s"E � i 'v I _ k?rc rs LeBard - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Huntington Beach City School Distract The LeBard project is a cooperative effort between the Huntington Beach City School District("district") and the City of Huntington Beach ("city"), to re-purpose a 10-acre surplus school site for public recreation and residential uses The city proposes to acquire 6 5 acres of the school site as an addition to the adjoining approximately 3-acre LeBard City Park Improvements would include a concession/restroom/storage building and an expanded parking lot The facilities in the existing city park would remain The district proposes to gain approval for a 15-lot low density single family residential subdivision in the area where the original school now stands and sell the area to a private home builder The project is comprised of the following entitlement requests • CEQA analysis and review, • Grading plan and demolition permits for the district property and city property, • General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designation for the district property from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P/RL) to Residential Low Density (RL-7), and Open Space Park and Recreation (OS-P) for the park portion, • Tentative Tract Map to allow the development of a 15-unit single-family residential subdivision on 3 2 acres of the school district property with 60' x 100' lot sizes averaging approximately 7,216 square feet and associated infrastructure and site improvements, • Zone Change to amend the land use designation for the district property from Public-Semipublic (PS), to Residential Low Density (RL), the same zoning that applies to all the surrounding residential areas, for the residential portion and Open Space - Park and Recreation (OS-PR) for the park portion, • CUP for expanding the parking, providing water quality and other improvements to the expanded city park, • CUP for slope exceeding 3' in height along the Craimer Lane R O W at the entry to project along lots number 1 and 15 • Setback Variance to reduce the setback from 10' to 4' along the portion of Warwick Street of the expanded park parking lot Background The LeBard Elementary School and the LeBard City Park were part of the original residential subdivision of the area in the 1960's Due to the changing demographics of Huntington Beach, the school was closed in 1981 The school district elected to keep the school in reserve, utilizing the building as a temporary Item 14. - 57 HB -550- ATTACHMENT NO. 8 1 district office Later, the Seaview Little League was permitted to use part of the school grounds for baseball fields on a temporary year-by year basis In 2008, after a comprehensive review of its holdings and finances, the HBCSD Board concluded that LeBard was no longer needed as a school site and that the deteriorating school building had exceeded its useful life The Board voted to sell the LeBard school site and use the proceeds for much needed capital improvements, operations and maintenance throughout the district (including but not limited to a new location for the district headquarters) General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment • The change proposed is consistent with the objectives, policies and general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan, • In the case of the general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed, • A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed and, • Its adoption will be in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice Setback Variance • Variance is limited to the public park frontage along Warwick Street and will not affect any residential zone in the vicinity • The variance will allow Warwick Street and the existing onsite park parking lot to be reconfigured to provide additional onsite parking • The variance will allow for parking spaces that are needed for the enjoyment of the current park uses • The proposed parkway landscaping along Warwick will help to screen the parking lot at this location and the result will not be detrimental to the street scene • The variance applies to city park lands only and 1) does not affect any residential land in the vicinity, 2) is intended to enhance use of the public park in general, and 3) avoid disruption of only two existing tennis courts in the park Single-Family Residential Tentative Tract Map The proposed TTM would create 15 single-family residential lots on a 3 2-acre site, averaging 7,216 square feet, with a 6,000 square foot minimum The site would be served by a public street taking access from Craimer Lane A homeowner association will be established to maintain a 6' parkway along the street After the land purchase and prior to construction the home builder will be responsible, at its HB -551- ATTACHMENT NO Item 14. - 58 sole expense, to obtain all necessary city approvals for the construction of 15 single family homes, including architectural design review A landscaped planter outside the western edge of the residential community wall along the ball fields will be provided by the builder to soften that edge and provide shade for the park Park Master Plan The project would expand the existing parking area to ultimately provide 68 parking lot spaces, a concession/restroom/storage building will be constructed and water quality improvements will be made to the existing park area Thirty nine on-street parallel parking spaces will remain on Cynthia Drive, and 11 spaces along Craimer/Warwick Existing trees will be disturbed by the expansion of the existing city parking lot and those areas needed for water quality Approximately 26 trees will have to be either boxed and moved, or replaced at a 2 1 ratio after the grading is completed Pathways will link the parking areas to the main park uses Public Benefits of the Protect The project will provide several overall community benefits to the city that are significantly above those that would be provided by a standard subdivision • Park improvements including building a new restroom /concession stand • A net increase in open space • Other amenities such as park benches and picnic areas will be provided • ADA walkways will be built to connect the park uses • The parking lot will be expanded to provide additional off street parking spaces Grading Plan The proposed grading plan would allow grading of the project area with minimal import or export off-site Approximately 2,800 cubic yards will be graded with an approximate import of 1,500 to 2,000 cubic yards We have provided a 5' work zone beyond the daylight line Development Phasing The first phase would be the sale of the residential subdivision acreage to a private builder The second phase will include construction of Warwick Street and park parking lot improvements, and relocation of selected baseball facilities and landscaping Demolition and the mass grading of the residential project area and the construction of necessary underground infrastructure will likely occur in this phase The final phase is construction of new homes but only after all park and street improvements are completed Item 14. - 59 HB -552- ATTACHMENT NO 8 3 H ,NEW CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE- AUGUST 11, 2014 PROJECT NAME: LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO 12-229 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-0021 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-0011 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-0391 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 178011 DESIGN REVIEW NO 12-025/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 12-008 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 8, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 CRAIMER LANE (LEBARD CLOSED SCHOOL SITE/LEBARD PARK) PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, SENIOR PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: DAVID C DOMINGUEZ, MANAGER—Community Services TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-53091 ddominguez(ddsurfaty-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY — 7 UNITS/ACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE — PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPINGIWATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA Hs -553- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 60 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 The project will be subject to the appropriate parkland dedication fees per Zoning Code Chapter 254 08; Ordinance No. 3960, and by Resolution No. 2012-66. Item 14. - 61 xB -554- ATTACHMENT NO 9.2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON REACH DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2015 PROJECT NAME: LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO 12-229 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-002/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-039/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17801/ DESIGN REVIEW NO 12-025/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 12-008/ VARIANCE NO 2015- 001 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 23, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 CRAIMER LANE (LEBARD CLOSED SCHOOL SITE/LEBARD PARK) PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER PLAN REVIEWER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR TELEPHONE/E-MAIL- (714) 374-16611 ivdlasenor(a surfcity-hb om PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY — 7 UNITS/ACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE — PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING/WATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW_REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA UP0THE PISS=� E �D,,, tri lrN,. 1 C/?�E , �kAS Ej C �✓V{ ls, aA{� fi NQIE ,iHA N:£z-ADPP,, I�T�.r REQUEST A QRES,_!!PAR>h l pT LAN GA ENG. HB -555- ATTACHMENT NO Item 14. - 62 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 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801: 1 Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required b An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230 26 of the ZSO (HBZSO Section 230.26) c At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department and approved by the City Attorney The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway 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 map (HBZSO Section 253.12.1-11) d Final tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (Department of Planning and Building Fee Schedule) 2 The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit a The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange (HBZSO Section 253.22) 3 During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to a All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays (HBMC 8.40.090) 4 The Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition The Planning & Building Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to parcel/tract map are proposed during the plan check process Permits shall not be issued until the Planning & Building Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO (HBZSO Section 241.10) 5 Tentative Tract Map No 17801 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed from Planning Commission (HBZSO Section 251.12) 6 Tentative Tract Map No 17801 and General Plan Amendment No 12-002/ Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001/ MND No 12-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 / Variance No 15-001 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning & Building pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning & Budding Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date (HBZSO Section 251.14 and 251.16) Item 14. - 63 HB -556- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.4 7 The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Planning and Building Department, and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein (City Charter, Article V) 8 The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $2,210 00 for the posting of a Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office The check shall be made out to the Countyof Oran a and submitted to the Planning and Budding Department within two (2) days of the City Council's action (California Code Section 15094) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/VARIANCE NO. 15-001: 1 The project plans approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design a Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code (HBZSO Chapter 231) b Each single-family residential lot less than 45 feet in width shall have one 24-inch box tree planted within the front setback area Each single-family residential lot 45 feet or greater in width shall have one 36-inch box tree planted within the front setback area (HBZSO Section 232.08 B) c Accessory structures such as the fireplace shall be set back five feet from the rear property line (HBZSO 230.08) d The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults Backflow prevention devices shall be not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view (HBZSO Section 230.76) e All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the budding Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the budding in terms of materials and colors If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for budding permit(s) (HBZSO Section 230.76) f The site plan and elevations shall include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the budding, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks (HBZSO Section 230.76) 2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed a 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 Division b Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning & Building Department Double walls should be HB -557- ATTACHMENT NO Item 14. - 64 avoided to the greatest extent feasible Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct a six foot tall wall located entirely within the subject property and with a two inch maximum separation from the property line Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage c Prior to submittal of a landscape plan, the applicant shall provide a Consulting Arborist 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 No. 4646) d A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval (HBZSO Section 232.04) e 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) (CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 16304) f "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed (HBZSO Section 232.04.D) g Standard landscape code requirements apply (HBZSO Chapter 232) h All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications (HBZSO Section 232.04.B) i Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible (HBZSO Section 232.06.A) j A Consulting Arborist(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 Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arbonst's wet signature on the final plan (Resolution No. 4646) 3 Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed a Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Building, Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index The minimum font size for printed text shall be 11 point b A minimum of 14 days prior to submittal for building permits, an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department (City Specification No. 409) 4 During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to a Existing street tree(s) to be inspected by the City Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof Tree replacement or root/tree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system (Resolution No. 4646) Item 14. - 65 HB -558- ATTACHMENT NO 9 6 b All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance All activities including truck deliveries associated wttK construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays (HBMC 8.40.090) 5 The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed a All new residential development shall pay a park fee, pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 254 08 The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (HBZSO Section 254.08) b Any proposed signage for the residential subdivision shall be reviewed and approved under separate permits (HBZSO Chapter 233) c Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans (HBMC 17.05) d All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232 (HBZSO Chapter 232) e 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 (HBZSO Section 232.04 D) f The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented (HBMC 14.52) ' 6 The Development Services Departments (Planning and Budding, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval The Director of Planning 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 budding 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 Planning Commission's action If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241 18 (HBZSO Section 241.18) 7 CUP No 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 shall not become effective until Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001/General Plan Amendment No 12-002 has been approved by the City Council, and is in effect (HBZSO Section 247.16) 10 TTM No 178011 EA No 12-008/ CUP No 12-039/ VAR No 15-001 shall not become effective until the appeal period following the approval of the entitlement has elapsed ((HBZSO Section 241.14) 11 The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke CUP No 12-039/VAR No 15-001 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions of approval, Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs (HBZSO Section 241.16.13) 12 The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Planning and Budding Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein (City Charter, Article V) 13 Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays (HBMC 8.40.090) HB -559- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 66 14 All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Budding, and Public Works for Code requirements Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission (HBZSO Section 232.04) Item 14. - 67 xB -560- ATTACHMENT NO 9 8 e HUNTINGTON BEACH BUILDING DIVISION HUWINGTON MACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2015 PROJECT NAME: LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO 12-229 ENTITLEMENTS. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-039/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17801/ DESIGN REVIEW NO 12-025/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 12-008/ VARIANCE NO 20151 001 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 23, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 CRAIMER LANE (LEBARD CLOSED SCHOOL SITE/LEBARD PARK) PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, P E TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 872-6123/KHOA@CSGENGR COM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY - 7 UNITSIACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE - PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING/WATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAURELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA OR SHE DNS 1AVE EFEVISEp' A �?1:�,,Aff_E:-D=BUT;THEE HB -561- ATTACHMENT NO Item,14. - 68 39-01 wA k MPA,SHIM 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 No Comments from Building Department' Item 14. - 69 xB -562- ATTACHMENT NO 9 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2015 PROJECT NAME: LE BARD PARK RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS: GPA 12-02, ZMA 12-01, CUP 12-39,TTM 17801, DR 12-25& EA 12-01 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2012-0229 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 21, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION. 20451 AND 20461 CRAIMER LANE PROJECT PLANNER. JENNIFER VILLASENOR, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-0000/JVILLASENORa-SURFCITY-HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(cD.SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION' TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE' EXISTING APPROX. 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY- 7 UNITS/ACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE- PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY(RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPINGNVATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAL/RELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA 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 Arboncultural 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 or Project Planner HB -563- ATTACHMENT NO 9Item 14. - 70 Page 2 of 8 I THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL TRACT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED: 1 The Final 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 Tract Map. 2 The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map (ZSO 253 14) 3 The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Final Tract Map (ZSO,230 084A&253 1 OK) a An easement for street and public utility purposes over'A" Street b A 25-foot width right-of-way dedication for vehicular, pedestrian access, and public utilities along the Cynthia Drive frontage is required per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 104 and 207 (ZSO 254) c A 15-foot radius right-of-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities at the intersections of Craimer Lane and "A" Street per Public Works Standard Plan No 207. (ZSO 254) d The water system and appurtenances for the entire project shall be a public system 4 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 5 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 6 Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design critena 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 II. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits). i III 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. Assessor's 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) Item 14. - 71 HB -564- ATTACHMENT NO. 9 12 Page 3 of 8 • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4)drawing file _DWG • Drawing Interchange file DXF ii Shall be in compliance with the following media type • CD Recordable (CD-R)650 Megabytes THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1 The Final Tract Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to issuance of a precise grading permit 2 A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 05/ZSO 230 84) 3 The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan (ZSO 254) a A 25-foot width right-of-way dedication for vehicular, pedestrian access, and public utilities along the Cynthia Drive frontage is required per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 104 and 207 (ZSO 254) b "A" Street as depicted on plans dated January 21, 2015, 60 foot right-of-way, 40 foot pavement width along the street, and, 100 foot right-of-way, 40 foot radius in the cul-de-sac c A 15-foot radius right-of-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities at the intersections of Craimer Lane and "A" Street per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 254) 4 A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 05/ZSO 255 04) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan a Curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire, Craimer Lane and Warwick Drive frontages shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos, 202 and 207 (ZSO 255 04) b Driveway approaches shall be installed at all locations accessing onsite parking areas. The driveways shall be installed per Public Works Standard Plan No 211 (ZSO 255 04) c The existing driveway approach on Cynthia Drive shall be removed and replaced with a new ADA compliant driveway approach per Public Works Standard Plan No 209 (ZSO 255 04) d The existing AC pavement for half-width along the project's entire Craimer Lane and Warwick, Drive frontages shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 255 04) e The two existing damaged parkway culverts at the site's Cynthia Drive frontage shall be removed and reconstructed per Public Works Standard Plan No 312 (ZSO 255 04) f Curb return radius of 25 feet at the intersection of Craimer Lane and "A" Street per Public Works Standard Plan 207. (ZSO 255.04) g ADA compliant access ramps at the curb returns of Craimer Lane and "A" Street per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A ((ZSO 255 04), ADA) h Proposed parking stall markings on Cynthia Drive, Craimer Lane, and Warwick Drive shall be only at locations approved by Public Works and shall comply with Public Works standards HB -565- ATTACHMENT NO gltem 14. - 72 Page 4 of 8 1 Intersection sight distance shall be provided at the intersections of Craimer Lane and "A" Street, and at all project driveway locations This includes prohibiting parking near intersections/driveways that obstruct visibility to provide the required sight distance Sight distance criteria shall be based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400 (GP CE2 3 4) The sewer facilities shall be designed per the final approved sewer study and City Standards (ZSO 255 04) k. All drainage facilities shall be designed per the final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, and City Standards (ZSO 255 04A) I A public on-site water system with connection made to the City's public water system in Craimer Street shall be constructed per Water Standards within the public street for the residential subdivision The water main shall be a minimum of 8-inches in size (ZSO 230 84) m A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards for each residential lot, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UPC) (ZSO 230.84) (MC 14 08.020) n The irrigation water service may be combined with the domestic water service on each residential lot (ZSO 230,84) o Each separate landscaping area (i e., Homeowner's Association (HOA property, public common landscaping areas, proposed City Park, etc shall have a separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards (ZSO 232) p Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for irrigation water services and fire water services and shall be screened from view (Resolution 5921 and State of California Administrative Code, Title 17) q The existing domestic water and irrigation services and meters not used shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards (ZSO 230 84) r The existing fire service and backflow protection device currently serving the existing development (School Site) shall be abandoned per City Water Standards and Requirements and as required by the Public Works Inspector. (ZSO 230 84) 5 The existing domestic water service for existing Le Bard Park and School Site, currently serving the existing development, may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the City Water Inspector If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water seance for the existing and/or proposed development, any non-conforming water service, meter, and backflow protection device shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards Alternatively, a new and/or separate domestic water service, meter and backflow protection device may be installed, per City Water Division Standards, and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) (ZSO 230 84) 6 The existing irrigation water service for Le Bard Park currently serving the existing development (Park Site) may potentially be utilized if it is of adequate size, conforms to current standards, and is in working condition as determined by the City Utilities Division If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service for existing and/or proposed development, any non-conforming service, water meter and backflow protection device shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards Alternatively, a new and/or separate irrigation water service, meter and backflow protection device maybe installed per Water Division Standards (ZSO 232) Item 14. 73 HB -566- ATTACHMENT NO 9 14 Page 5 of 8 7 A Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Report (based on the approved Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Report) shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed) The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency The Hydrology and Hydraulic Report shall include, but not be limited to facilities sizing, limits of attenuation, downstream impacts and other related design features Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff,the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm water system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City Detention duration shall not exceed 24 hours The report shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements (ZSO 230 84) 8 A sewer study shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval A fourteen (14)-day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study The sanitary sewer system shall be designed and constructed to serve the development, including any offsite improvements necessary to accommodate any increased flow associated with the project. The location and number of monitoring test sites, not to exceed three, to be determined by the Public Works Department (ZSO 230 841MC 14 36 010) 9 Prior to the issuance of any grading or budding permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2009-0009-DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City (DAMP) 10 A Final Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste' Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No R8-2009-0030) [MS4 Permit] prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for, review and acceptance The WQMP shall be based on the approved PWQMP The WQMP shall address Section XII of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water quality issues 11 The project WQMP shall include the following a Low Impact Development b Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable) c 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 d Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) HB -567- ATTACHMENT NO. cItem 14. - 74 Page 6 of S e Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP f Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs g Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs i Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. t 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 returned 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) ii 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 k The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file 12 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 13 A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities i MC 17 05 150) ; 14 The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control (AQMD Rule 403) 15 The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No 403. 16 The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days pnor to such grading 17 Street fighting shall be adequately provided along the project street frontages A photometric study, with calculations showing the lighting levels for the roadway and pedestrian areas shall be provided If new street lights are required based on the photometric study, the street lighting plans shall be Item 14. - 75 HB -568- ATTACHMENT NO 9 16 Page 7of8 prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval Street lighting design shall comply with Public Works standards and guidelines (ZSO 255.04) 18 A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared for the proposed project and submitted for review and approval The traffic study shall include a comprehensive parking analysis which includes, but is not limited to, examination of existing parking conditions during peak use of the park fields Comments sent on December 2014 regarding the parking analysis shall be addressed (GP CE 2 3) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 19 An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way (MC 12.38 010/MC 14 36 030) 20 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) 21 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) 22 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) 23 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) 24 The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 25 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) 26 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) 27 Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas (AQMD Rule 403) 28 Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site (DAMP) 29 All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion (DAMP) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 30 A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued (MC 17 05) HB -569- ATTACHMENT NO (,Item 14. - 76 i Page 8 of 81 31 A drainage fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $13,880 per gross acre is subject to periodic, adjustments Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one time fee shall be paid for all, subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14 48) 32 The applicable Orange County Sanitation District Capital Facility Capacity Charge shall be paid to the City Department of Public Works. (Ordinance OCSD-40) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 33, Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan' Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: 34 Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and improvement plans (MC 17 05) 35 All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded (MC 17.64/ZSO 255.04) 36 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at http//www surfcity-hb org/files/users/public workstfee schedule pdf (ZSO 240 06/ZSO 250 16) 37 Traffic impact fees shall be paid based on the net new vehicle trip miles the project is expected to generate The fee shall be paid before final inspection at the rate in effect at that time The current fee rate is $2,226 16 per unit Vehicle trip mile credit is given for the e)osting/pnor use of the site (MC 17 65) 38 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. f d Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers Item 14. - 77 HB -570- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.18 Fe's CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2015 PROJECT NAME: LE BARD PARK RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS: GPA 12-02, ZMA 12-01, CUP 12-39, TTM 17801, DR 12-25 & EA 12-01 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2012-0229 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 21, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 AND 20461 CRAIMER LANE PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-0000/JVILLASENOR(a)-SURFCITY-HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER IAI;�— TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGARTCa)SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL))TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK(OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY-7 UNITS/ACRE(RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE - PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY(RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPINGNVATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAURELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1 The required Precise Grading Plan shall include the following a The proposed water quality/detention basin within Lot A of the subject TTM17801 shall be designed and constructed as useable parkland for public park use b All design parameters and dimensions for all proposed storm water quality and/or detention features (including any engineered and/or biofiltration media) shall be shown on the PGP xB -571- ATTACHMENT NO 9 Item 14. - 78 Page 2 of 2 2 The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report shall be prepared to accurately model the limits and function of the proposed water quality and/or detention banns with respect to all volume and capacity requirements for detention, infiltration, duration of detention and limits of useable parkland 3 The Final Water Quality Management Plan shall conform to the final designed and modeled stormwater system, including detention 2 Item 14. - 79 HB -572- ATTACHMENT NO 9 20 We Jj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTWGTON BEACH DATE: JANUARY 23, 2015 PROJECT NAME: LEBARD PARKAND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO 12-229 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-002/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-039/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17801/ DESIGN REVIEW NO 12-025/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 12-008/ VARIANCE NO 2015- 001 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 23, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 CRAIMER LANE (LEBARD CLOSED SCHOOL SITE/LEBARD PARK) PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE EROS, FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5531/ STEVE EROS(cDsurfcity-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY — 7 UNITS/ACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC(P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE — PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING/WATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAURELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA A'CE;" :PLANS A _Eflfi RE\7lSED, AI�1D gqga -'C IANGEDUPDATE = 'B,�lT HE= F?1OJEC;T 1-�?i- 5t, ES111 STA�iT1►L Y ,VAI2, C"E,,; HA E1 _ PLITI1" ?6 'STal D)fiES,SXAfN100PPT,I AAA xB -573- ATTACHMENT NO 9 Item 14. - 80 i Page 2 of 5 The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated January 23, 2014 Compliance with all applicable Huntington Beach Municipal Code, City Specifications, California Building and Fire Codes, and any other applicable codes is required The list of requirements below is provided to assist the applicant in identifying requirements applicable to the project, however, this list is not all inclusive and it is the responsibility of the developer to comply with all applicable code requirements 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 Steve Eros, Fire Protection Analyst PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Fire Apparatus Access Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification# 401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access Driving area shall be capable of supporting a fire apparatus (75,000 Ibs and 12,000 lb point load) Minimum fire access road width is twenty-four feet (24') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance Fire access roads fronting commercial buildings shall be a minimum width of twenty-six feet (26') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6n) vertical clearance For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans Fire Access Road Turns and Corners shall be designed with a minimum inner radius of seventeen feet (17') and a minimum outer radius of forty five feet (45') per City Specification# 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access . For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification# 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans Note: The current plans do not show the turning radius into the existing parking lot adjacent to the tennis courts. The widths of the access road is acceptable, but further clarification of the turning radii is required. 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 #415 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans Fire Access Roads Portrayed. Fire Access Roads shall be portrayed on the plans in compliance with City Specification #401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans Item 14. - 81 HB -574- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.22 Page 3 of 5' Fire Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Pnvate, Residential, Commercial and Industnal 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 Fire Personnel Access Main Secured Building Entries 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 building plan notes (FD) Addressing and Street Names Street Naming— Compliance with City Specification#409, Street Naming and Address Process Assignment, shall be adhered to for street naming (copy of City Specification #409 attached) Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD) 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 ('/z") 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 building (FD) GIS Mapping Information 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 building footprint ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access HB -575- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 82 Page 4 of 5 ➢ 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 ➢ 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 Huntington Beach GIS Department at (714) 536-5574 For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes (FD) Fire Master Plan A Fire Master Plan showing the following information is required for this project. 1 Budding locations, height and stones, addresses, construction type, etc 2 Property dimensions or accurate scale 3 Location of the following a) Hydrants with travel distances between called out b) Fire Department Connections c) Red curbing d) Fire lane dimensions, lengths, signage and striping, turning radii at corners and circles/cul-de-sacs e) Street names called out f) Street parking(including widths) Fire Protection Systems Fire Hydrants are required Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet the requirements of NFPA 24 and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards The plans currently do not show compliance with the hydrant spacing requirements of City Specification #407. For Fire Department approval, show the hydrant locations and spacing on the plans in accordance with City Specification #407. Item 14. - 83 HB -576- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.24 Page 5 of 5 NFPA 13D Residential Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required NFPA 13 automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per the California Fire Code for new residential buildings Separate plans (two sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval OTHER: a Fire/Emergency Access and site safety shall be maintained during construction as per Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code The required fire apparatus roads complying Nth Chapter 5 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and City Specification#401 shall be installed prior to lumber drop or construction and the required fire hydrants shall also be in place b Discovery of 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) c 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, 5th 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 HB -577- ATTACHMENT NO SItem 14. - 94 Crime Prevention Through Environments®Design •�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT CPTED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: September 8, 2014 PROJECT NAME: LeBard Park ASSIGNED PLANNER: Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner REQUEST: To review a proposal for 6.5 acres of open space park, 3 2 acres of residential low-density(15 single family homes)h, a new concession and restroom building, storage, and expanded parking lot LOCATION: 20461 Craimer Lane PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Thomas, CPTED Consultant-HBPD TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (949)290-1604/jckthomas@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 VISIBILITY: Concern: There is a CUP for a slope exceeding 3' in height along Cranner Lane at the entry to the project along Lots 1 and 15. Recommend How much higher than 3'9 Why must the slope exceed 3' in height? ACCESS: Concern- Item 14. - 85 HB -578- ATTACHMENT NO 9 26 Is there a pedestrian opening at the end of the"A" Street cul-de-sac? Recommendation. If so,this opening should be eliminated It would be a severe detriment to the residential neighborhood PRIVATE VS PUBLIC SPACE: Concern The public walkways are in close proximity,in some areas,to the residents' private backyards Recommend Barriers such as trees and landscaping should be placed between the walkways and the residential backyards This barrier creates a necessary distinction between the public park and each resident's private space(backyard) CONFLICT BETWEEN USES: Concern: What is the"proposed building"at the end of the Cul-de-sac?I assume it is concessions and restrooms Recommend Include a landscape barrier between the residential backyards and this high activity area, specifically lots 10 and 11 Concern: Overflow lighting into homes Recommend: Use cutoff lighting to prevent lighting overflow into backyards. Note: Residents should be made aware there will be noise from bats,players, and spectators in close proximity to their homes.Park hours should be clearly posted and enforced RESTROOM: Note: Police request review of restroom building. MARCH 10,2014 ORIGINAL COMMENTS: HB -579- ATTACHMENT NO c tem 14. - 86 I have included my original comments dated March 10,2014.It is unclear whether these recommendations have been considered and applied: CONCERN Conflict between users. There is a potential for conflict between users of the baseball field, and the residents whose backyards abut the park. If the expectations of both users are not in line,this conflict will result in calls for service to the police department to mediate problems.To avoid conflict,the following issues should be recognized and addressed: Hours of the park: Clearly post park hours at each entrance to the park. Restrooms: Will there be restrooms9 If so, Police request to review design Barriers: A barrier should be in place to prevent balls from rolling onto Cynthia Lane Barriers can include landscaping or a physical barrier such as a fence(a combination of both would be optimal) Light: Lighting can be strategically placed to throw the light in the desired areas, while using cut-off lighting to keep the light away from the residences. Foul ball fence: Install high chain link or netting behind and around the backstop to mitigate potential for foul balls to enter the residents' yard or home. Placement of baseball fields: Consider the placement of each field and how it affects the adjacent neighbors There is a loud noise each time the bat hits the ball There are dugouts adjacent to backyards, for example Consider moving the T-Ball field closer to the homes and the larger field away from the homes, if possible T-Ball doesn't make as much noise when hitting the ball. CONCERN Walkway There is a planned walkway that borders the south and west perimeter of the homes It is assumed this walkway is intended for those people using the park The height and design of this walkway is a concern to police. What material is used?There should be visibility to and from the walkway from the baseball field.Also, it is imperative that this walkway does not facilitate someone gaming access into an adjacent backyard from the walkway. Item 14. - 87 xB -580- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.28 HCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ..— PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: AUGUST 11, 2014 PROJECT NAME: LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO 12-229 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 12-002/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 12-039% TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17801/ DESIGN REVIEW NO 12-025/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 12-008 DATE OF PLANS AUGUST 8, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 CRAIMER LANE (LEBARD CLOSED SCHOOL SITE/LEBARD PARK) PROJECT PLANNER: JENNIFER VILLASENOR, SENIOR PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: Kellee Fntzal TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1519/kfntzal(@surfcity-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION. TO REVIEW A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE EXISTING APPROX 10-ACRE CLOSED SCHOOL SITE FROM PUBLIC (P(RL)) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE PARK (OS-P) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SIX SPORTS FIELDS) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY — 7 UNITS/ACRE (RL-7) (CURRENT AREA OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND PAVEMENT) THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P-S) TO 6 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE — PARKS AND RECREATION (OS-PR) AND 3 2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL) A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS PROPOSED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESDIENTIAL LOTS AND A LETTERED LOT FOR STREET PURPOSES THE CITY WOULD ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 6 5-ACRE PARCEL A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS PROPOSED TO ADDRESS A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AS WELL AS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING/WATER QUALITY BMPS, TREE REMOVAURELOCATION, AND A NEW CONCESSION AND RESTROOM BUILDING THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 2012 BUT WAS PLACED ON HOLD TO REVISE THE PROJECT AN INITIAL STUDY WILL BE PREPARED TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA HB -581- ATTACHMENT NO 9 Item 14. - 88 The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plan's 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 PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS BY SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 The project must meet the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and provide 1 5 affordable units The 5 carn be accomplished through an in-lieu payment fee Item 14. - 89 xB -582- ATTACHMENT NO. 9.30 I i Villasenor, Jennifer From: September Mirghanban[smirghanban@mac com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 8 30 AM i To: Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: LEBARD PARK PROPOSED PARKING Dear Ms. Vellasenor: This note is regarding the Lebard Park project, and specifically, the proposed additional 20 parking spaces. I live on Cynthia Drive, which is directly affected by neighborhood parking during Little League season. For nearly 20 years, our family as been used to Little League parking on public streets around the ball fields. There is plenty of street parking in the neighborhoods to support parking without having to take more of the park to accommodate cars for the short time that baseball is in season. Parks are for people to en]oy on foot; not to be taken over by parking spaces The money used to build parking spaces would be better spent on park expansion and/or improvement. Also, please insure that the planned "vegetated swale" doesn't lead to a negative effect to Cynthia Drive. This drainage ditch has the potential to be filled with problems that will collect water and other items that will end up as a problem to our street. ' Thank you for your consideration. September Mirghanbari { September Mirghanbari ! f i f t 1 HB -583- ATTACHMENT NO Mtem 14. - 90 Villasenor, Jennifer From: WMSB@aol com Sent. Sunday, May 31,2015 7 00 PM To: Villasenor,Jennifer Cc: Hess, Scott Subject: Fwd Le Bard From WMSB ccDaol com To mvdlasenon5surfcity-hb org Sent 5131/2015 6 57 17 P M Pacific Daylight Time Subj Le Bard From WMSB(a.aol com To mvdlasenor(a)-surfcity-hb org Sent 5/31/2015 6 55 29 P M Pacific Daylight Time Subj Le Bard How can the Le Bard development be compatible with existing when they already want a set back and frontage concession??? Wide lots and Parkway is what makes Meredith what it is Wide streets Two cars can park in front of each lot and 2 in driveway We also don't need parking under the power lines for 11 days a year Parking under power lines will create a hideaway for illicit activities Thank You ; Barry L Williams Cell#714-745-1499 In God We Trust i Item 14. - 91 xB -584- ATTACHMENT NO 12 2 From: Demers Judv To Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: FW LeBard Park Development Proposal Date: Tuesday,June 02,2015 10 00 18 AM Attachments. LeBard Parking Issue.doo: From: Alan Walls [mailto alandwalls@aol com] Sent: Monday,June 01, 2015 11 51 AM To: Demers,Judy Subject: Fwd• LeBard Park Development Proposal Ms Demers, Please forward this communication to each of the HB Planning Commission members At your recent study session regarding the LeBard project, several issues arose but those concerning traffic and parking were dominate Please consider the following evaluation of each Traffic. As stated by HBCSD Superintendent Haulk,the District Office in that building has 38 employees, many of whom leave for lunch as well as arrive and depart In addition there are periodic workshops for teachers which draw at least as many more to the site A mix of vendors, parents, consultants, maintenance workers and outside contractors arrive there daily Two cars per family living in the 15 lots would project half that amount of trips After all, persons who work away from their home do not return for lunch,which reduction evens out trips taken for errands A previous infill development in MG has not caused complaints from the residents Do note that their main objection about traffic was speeding Parkina. Ever since HBCSD publically proposed the LeBard Park development in June 2012, residents from both adjacent neighborhoods opposed the plan because it would replace five acres of parkland Saving that green space,for whatever legitimate uses, has been the one objective of both the Meredith Gardens and Suburbia Park residents as led by Ed Kerins and myself-until the recent study session That was the first time anyone recommended to rescind the 1/3 acre lot extension near MG while paving over one acre of parkland near SP (a more detailed chronology of the project is attached) The specious reason put forth by MG residents cites gentile activities such as picnicking and birthday parties on the 1/3 acre while dismissing robust baseball practice on the one acre This is patently contradictory and parochial Ironically, that SW corner of open space was the very location in September 2012 for a rally to save LeBard Park It was attended by one of the speakers at the study session, Mr Hayden He subsequently invited me on two MG social occasions to encourage support from the attendees The MND cites the existing lots eliminated by this plan as 109 but by my count there are only 96 lined spaces (61 spaces in back of LeBard School and 35 in front) Per the MND,the proposed lot next to the tennis court holds 68, Street"A"holds 24, and another 11 are on Crailet and Warwick. That totals 103 which is more than the 80 spaces allocated in the development plan for the former Wardlow School which also has six baseball fields Subtracting 20 spaces when eliminating the lot extension would still be more than Wardlow's The previous numbers do not include the 39 spaces available on Cynthia Dr,which per the parking study, bears the brunt of the overflow street parking Truly, neither parking lot should be allowed to replace parkland The HB General Plan stresses retention and expansion of parkland- not parking lots Section LU 14 1 entitled"Goal Preserve the City's Open Spaces" its Objective "Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental opportunities and visual relief from HB -585- ATTACHMENT NO Mtem 14. - 92 development'(italics are mine) Parks are not rated by how they are utilized It doesn't matter whether its pick-up soccer, bad mitten, or doing nothing but relieving stress by relaxing on a park bench Parking lots however, are not intended for such activities Please approve the project as recommended by staff without replacing any grass with asphalt Alan Walls, Member, Suburbia Park Committee to Save LeBard I live adjacent to the park is Item 14. - 93 HB -586- ATTACHMENT NO. 12 4 Chronological Background of LeBard Development Plans Ever since the fall of 2010 when the consultant, TRG Land Inc,was hired by HBCSD to develop plans for the property, more than 25 plans were drawn along with parking scenarios In late 2011, one plan depicting 30 lots on five of the 10 acre HBCSD property was informally shown to the Meredith Gardens HOA,the Seaview Little League, and the then FIB Mayor who was a resident there The other adjacent neighborhood, Suburbia Park only learned of the plan when HBCSD held a public meeting and presented it as a fait accompli There had been no mention of the project in any Board meeting agenda Because this plan called for budding on five acres of the park, Ed Kerins from MG and I from SP, led residents from both communities in opposition The dear compromise was to only develop the site of the former LeBard School and to that end in September 2012, a rally was held on the open space in the SW corner of the park Mr Hayden,who spoke at the study session, attended the rally After almost two years of meetings, communications with HBCSD, community groups, City Council candidates and its members, the 15 lot plan concept was adopted by HBCSD and the City in an MOU which called for the City to purchase 6 5 acres of the park The Assistant City Manager and HBCSD negotiated the site details and the first draft called for replacing two LL fields with a large parking lot That was opposed by all other parties and replaced with the current configuration that extended the existing parking lot next to the tennis courts by 20 spaces The MG, HOA has had many board meetings ever since the MOU was signed in May 2014 and circulated the information through their newsletter However, there has never been a recommendation that parkland be sacrificed for parking until three residents spoke at the study session The parws neighbors in Suburbia Park which bears the brunt of the street parking have and will accept overflow parking for the11 days a year It's a small price to pay for many kids' happiness HB -587- ATTACHMENT NO. I Item 14. - 94 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON biv.,nXI1 APB ) THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE - -_— - LEBARD SCHOOL SITE This Memorandum of Understanding(hereinafter"MOU")is made by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a California municipal corporation(hereinafter"City"), and the Huntington Beach City School Distinct(hereinafter"District") City and District may sometimes be hereinafter collectively referred to as the"Parties"or individually as the"Party." WHEREAS,the Parties desire to memorialize a conceptual agreement framework to work cooperatively and to coordinate the future development of LeBard School(hereinafter"the Site') in the City of Huntington Beach,and the purchase of a portion of the Site(hereinafter"the Open Space Parcel' by the City, NOW, THEREFORE,the Parties do hereby agree as follows- 1_ PURPOSE. The purpose of this MOU is to express the Parties' conceptual agreement regarding the future development of the Site and the purchase of the Open Space Parcel by the City and other related issues Specifically,the Parties are in conceptual agreement on the following matters: A District will submit, at its sole cost and expense,the necessary entitlement applications for a subdivision of fifteen(15) single family homes on the existing LeBard school building footprint on the Site,the relocation of one T-Ball field and backstop,the design and installation of parking improvements sufficient to meet parking demand for both the Little League Fields and LeBard U Park,and for walkways,parkways,irrigation,water quality improvements;walls and fences, all as preliminarily depicted on District's conceptual site plan,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein I 14-4189/108898 Item 14. - 95 HB -588- ATTACHMENT NO 13 1 B. City will process the aforesaid entitlement applications in an expeditious and C If the entitlements described in Paragraph IA above are approved,City will purchase the Open Space Parcel,consisting of the 6 6 acres currently used by the Little League,for the amount of$430,000 per acre, or a total of$3,168,000 Said price is based upon District's appraisal price as adjusted by the provisions of the Naylor Act.District agrees that the purchase price may be made in annual payments over a five year term,in equal installments of$633,600 2. APPLICATION OF NAYLOR ACT. The Parties acknowledge that the Naylor Act allows cities to purchase surplus school property at Itwenty-five percent(25%)of the appraised value, and that not more than thirty percent(30%)of the i total surplus school acreage owned by the District may be purchased at the reduced value To apply the reduced value to the entire 6.6 acre Open Space Parcel,City and District agree that the surplus property included in the calculation were the following school sites LeBard School(9 7 acres), Burke School (7 72 acres), and Gisler School(13.92 acres)_ bringing the total surplus acreage to 31.34 acres.Thirty percent (30%) of this acreage equals 9 4 acres The Parties agree that with the purchase of the 6.6 acre Open Space Parcel, a total of 2 8 acres at Burke and Gisler Schools remain for consideration of purchase at the reduced price per the Naylor Act If District reopens Burke or Gisler Schools for public school use, City and District shall agree upon a recalculated Naylor Act surplus/deficit acreage amount to be f used for fixture transactions I 3. SUBSEQUENT SALE OF DEVELOPMENT SITE District intends to sell the subdivided property to a home builder.The home builder will be 1 responsible,at its sole cost and expense.to process all necessary approvals, including architectural design review, for the development of 15 single family homes on the remainder of the Site 2 I44189/108898 i xB -589- ATTACHMENT NO 1.1tem,14. - 96 4 CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. Disti ir; agrees to construct,at its sole cost and expense,the following parking and other improvements to benefit the Open Space Parcel parking lot improvements sufficient for the Little League fields and LeBard Park,the relocation of one T-Ball field and backstop; construction of the i Little League snack bar and storage,installation of all required water quality improvements, and installation of trees,walkways,parkways, irrigation,walls and fences as shown on Exhibit"A"hereto The estimated cost for these improvements,including contingency amounts,is$607,000. 5 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE City and District agree on the following order of events,if entitlements for the development of the Site are approved A_ City and District shall open escrow("the Escrow'")on Open Space Parcel within 60 days of final approval(and expiration of all appeal penods)of all approved entitlements The Parties intend to enter into a subsequent Purchase Agreement for the Open Space Parcel,which agreement shall include Rather joint escrow instructions consistent with this MOU Within ten(10)days following the { commencement of the Escrow,City shall deposit its first annual purchase payment in the amount of $633,600 into the Escrow B District may draw upon the Escrow account to fund the agreed upon improvements to Open Space Parcel Should the cost of the improvements exceed the funds in Escrow, District shall be responsible to fund balance of improvements. C Upon completion of all improvements to the Open Space Parcel,and all other conditions of escrow that may be agreed upon by the Parties,the escrow officer shall be authorized to E I close the Escrow and pass title to the Open Space Parcel to City. 3 14.4189i 10889b Item 14. - 97 HB -590- ATTACHMENT NO 13 3 6. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 41 cE.c,:c1ination,assistance and services rendered in furtherance of this MOU will be carved out in compliance with the objectives and responsibilities of the Parties.Nothing in this MOU shall be construed in conflict with the responsibilities of any Party as defined in Federal,State,or local law, statue,regulation,or any Parties' policies and procedures. The Parties will exchange information and consult with each other before implementing the provisions hereof that may affect the ability of any other party to perform under this MOU. 7. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Parties shall each designate in writing a single point of contact to ensure their respective responsibilities are satisfied.All future correspondence regarding this MOU shall be directed to the designated single points of contact. 8 EFFECTIVE DATE TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. This MOU will become effective when approved by the City Council of City and Board of Trustees of District.This MOU may be terminated by either Party upon thirty(30)days prior wntten notice to the other Party This MOU may only be amended by written instrument executed by both Parties This MOU supersedes all previous offers, agreements,negotiations,understandings, and memorandums of understanding between the parties,whether oral or written Notwithstanding.this MOU shall be deemed automatically terminated as of the date in which both Parties have approved and executed the Purchase Agreement described in Paragraph 5A above. 9 MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION City and District each agree to mutually indemnify and hold each other harmless from and against all claims,causes of action. demands,losses and liability for injury to any person or damage to any property to which the other may be subjected to the extent that the same are the result of an error, 4 144189,1108898 KB -591- ATTACHMENT NO 1,Item 14. - 98 omission or negligent act of the other,its officers or employees,or any other agent acting pursuant to its i ")I,-f r,i ,�iormmg under this MOU Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party,their elected officials,agents, officers and employees,from all costs, damages,liability and claims caused by or arising out of or related to that Party's negligence or willful misconduct.To the extent that more than one Party is determined to have been negligent,the Parties agree that each Parry shall bear its own portion or percentage of liability and to mdemmfy and hold harmless the other Party from that share 10 ASSIGNMENT This MOU or any interest of either Party herein shall not at any time after the date hereof, without the prior wntten consent of the other Party,be assigned or transferred to any other person or entity Each Party shall at all times remain liable for the performance of the covenants and conditions to be performed by it pursuant to this MOU,notwithstanding any assignment or transfer which may be 3 made i 11. NOTICES. All notices, statements,demands,requests,consents, approvals,authonzations appointments or designations hereunder by either Party to the other shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and 1 served upon the other Party,if sent by United States registered mail. 1i return receipt requested,postage prepaid and addressed as follows- To City To District I City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City School District 2000 Main Street 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Attn City Manager Attn Superintendent 1 Either Party may change its address or contact person by giving written notice to the other Party I f C 14-4189/109898 Item 14. - 99 HB -592- ATTACHMENT NO 13 5 12. VALIDITY. I If any one or more of the terms,provisions,promises,covenants or conditions of this MOU shall to any extent be adjudged invalid,unenforceable,void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction,each and all of the remaining terms,provisions,promises,covenants and conditions of this MOU shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest E extent permitted by law I 13. NON-DISCRIMINATION Both City and District covenant by and for themselves, their administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them,that in the performance of this MOU there shall be no discrimination because of race,color,religion,national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status or disability in accordance with the requirements of applicable State law 14. WAIVER f The failure of either Party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms,conditions or covenants in this MOU shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy for a subsequent breach or default of the terms, conditions or covenants herein contained 15. COUNTERPARTS i This MOU may be executed in two(2) counterparts,each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same MOU. I 16. ATTORNEYS' FEES In the event suit is brought by either Party to enforce the terms and provisions of this MOU or to secure the performance hereof, each Party shall bear its own attorneys fees The prevailing Party in such action or proceeding shall not be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees,court costs and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. I 6 14-41891109898 xB -593- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 100 17. INTERPRETATION i in all parts of this MOU shall to all cases be construed simply,as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any Party The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this MOU has been prepared jointly by the Parties and has been the subject of arm's length and careful negotiation over a considerable period of time,that each Party has Iindependently reviewed this MOU with legal counsel,and that each Party has the requisite experience and sophistication to understand,interpret and agree to the particular language of the provisions hereof Accordingly,in the event of an ambiguity in or dispute regarding the interpretation of this MOU,this MOU shall not be interpreted or construed against the Party preparing it,and instead other rules of interpretation and construction shall be utilized. 3 REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK c i f 7 31.4 1 8911 0 9 89 8 Item 14. - 101 xB -594- ATTACHMENT NO 13 7 19. ENTIRETY. The foregoing,and Exhibit"A"attached hereto,set forth the entire MOU between the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have caused this MOU to be executed by and through their authorized officers on 1Y) Qj ,2014. CITY OF HUNT]NGTON BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL A California municipal corporation DISTRICT,a public body MayV Rosemary Sayl ,President Board of Trustees City k �� ,� i �Bridg�eb, Board of Trustees PROVED AS TO FORM. APPROVED AS TO FORM. Parker&Covert LLP Atto1 y COUNTERPART �� Douglas N. Yeoman INI IEWED AND APPROVED: Attorney for District C' ger 8 14-4189/108898 HB -595- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 102 18. ENTIRETY. The foregoing,and Exhibit".A"attached hereto,set forth the entire-MOU between theParties. 1 ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties hereto have caused tills MOU to be executed by and through their authorized officers on ,2414. i CITY OF'HUNTINGTON BEACH, HUNTiNGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL A Califforaia municipal corporetlon DISTRICT,a public body Mayor Rosemary Saylo ,President Board ofTrustees City Clerk Bndg—ef-ICaub,Clerk Board of Trustees APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FQRM:- MDou.(,,la8s Covert T.LPCiVAttorney ( �1�t�K -'< t $ `, 1 N. eOman - - INITIATED,REWEWED AND APPROVED: Attorney for Distnct City Manager COUNTERPART 8 i��a9noss�s Item 14. - 103 HB -596- ATTACHMENT NO 13 9 zm -,N1, . L Y T„ 1 r )+ j Ii' —:-� _ L, y ` _P i7 R '�� 1L", 6 r CRAWEW WAAWX 17 r r f TOTAL JB + ! r uetl _ .� �+E3 I PARR YBSTALL" for HAX#CAP PArdW4G fAI 8 ' y r • T �. �'d� I' t`-' �` 'd� ,I� TOTAL PYIRM,RNO Y i I i ¢ ORAA"1 TOTAL-_ _TN n,a1 � 4G� ------ I l J J p I di rl ; IrT r• + ^x,�, / � I �- �` �j�7 r,f'��'.� .f 9 k '} r l`i Ag]t yg � ' r _IY f � . .. --_ - ••,��.,,1� ---__ ,'. �J,rl 3i��,n' .��+ �f r I - 4/�� 'S ��"�)PS�d}S��1�f3�� /ram. - yef�. r< r � � S� � •,�• }p Mg .. �^�'F{4 !_�y �vso' -'_r � ,� yzr�...� 1�``��e��sl-�~ :,�`� "`_,.- � 1•r T- r ^��_-........ �z�-�.>.�r�u-ru.acr---ae-a.�---.��-�rea,cs...e.,..•. -- :_.�- �,r..-.._rn�rm..a-vmwn__��a=� *�� F �� , � i d r'F 4 CD � ,. *�_ �� 15 LOT-PLAN r+�oe Of-i4 LE BARD HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA sn.er r�f t o ATTACHMENT NO. 13.10 © (752) a MINUTES REGULAR MEETING �.- COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Wednesday, November 19, 2014 600pm City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Chairman Tomaino called the meeting to order at 6 02 p m and Vice Chairman Kreitz led the Pledge of Allegiance MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Couey, Albert Gasparian, Bridget Kaub, Jay Kreitz, Roy Miller, Juana Mueller, Shay Reardon, Nick Tomaino, Maura Van Strien MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Burkart, Jean Nagy, Norm Westwell STAFF PRESENT Janeen Laudenback, David Dominguez, Michelle Roesner PRESENTATIONS: None MINUTES: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Kreitz, seconded by Commissioner Van Strien to approve the Community Services Commission minutes for October 8, 2014. Ayes Couey, Gasparian, Kaub, Kreitz, Mueller, Reardon, Tomaino, Van Strien Absent Burkart, Westwell Abstain Kaub, Miller Item 14. - 105 xs -598- ATTACHMENT NO 14 1 Community Services Commission November 19, 2014 (752) Page 2 of 6 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Diana Abruscato a Huntington Beach resident and leader of Surf City Pickle Ball thanked the Commission for helping put HB Pickle Bail on the map The classes have been a huge success, will all classes full Abruscato thanked Janeen Laudenback, Dave Dominguez, and Chris Slama for their hard work Charlie Cadiente a 9-year-old resident of Huntington Beach participates in the Sea Veiw Little League Stated baseball is his favorite sport, along with his little brother He wants the Commission to keep the little league fields at LeBard park Brian Rechsteiner wanted to express his support of the LeBard Park Master Plan The School district has worked hard to make the transaction a win-win for both the Little League, Parks and Recreation and the school district in the sale of the property Many compromises have been made to try and satisfy the district needs with the community needs Ed Kerins Secretary for the Meredith Garden's HOA, stated he felt the extension of the parking lot would only be used during the baseball season and recommended not extending the parking lot but rather spend the money on park amenities He also wants the Commission to look into having seasonal parking on SCE land adjacent to the developed park, as they already allow parking under special circumstances He also stated concern over bio-swales and how they will impact trees and the landscape and feels the bio-swales have not been evaluated enough Alan Walls a 34-year resident of Huntington Beach stated he approved of the changes from the original plan to the current conceptual master plan He applauded the HB City School Board and City for retaining park land He believes the extended parking lot is not needed as it will only be used during the baseball season and the City has received few complaints from residents regarding the parking during the season The second concern he has concerns the bio-swales, he feels they are not needed Tony Bisson stated his concern that there is a fault line at Indianapolis that runs through the park He believes the cracking at the tennis courts if proof of the fault, and would like for the City of have geologist approve the area safe for residential homes DIRECTOR ITEMS: Dominguez stated that due to the election for City Council resulting in new Council members new appointments will be made to the Commission The December meeting will be a Holiday gathering at Slater 50/50 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING: HB -599- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 14. - 106 Worthy Park Master Plan Revision- Dave Dominguez requested that Commission consider amending the Worthy Park Master Plan to designate the hard courts exclusively for pickle ball The amended plan would remove the basketball courts and provide more area for additional pickle ball courts Commission Kaub asked if the City has received any comments from the basketball players or groups regarding the courts at Worthy Park Dominguez stated there has been no response from the public Kaub asked why the change is needed, as opposed to keeping a dual-use court for both pickle ball and basketball Dominguez stated the request was being made due to the historic lack of use of the basketball courts and the growth of pickle ball Janeen Laudenback added that a dual court only allows for 4 pickle ball courts at the site, but by removing the basketball courts and reconfiguring the area 8 pickle ball courts could be accommodated Tomaino asked if any survey has been performed on how much the basketball courts at this location are being used Dominguez stated no official survey 1 has been conducted but staff has been monitoring use of the court Miller asked if Worthy Park would be the only facility in the City of pickle ball Dominguez confirmed that it would be at this point Kaub asked if the only area left for the public to play basketball in the downtown area would be Dwyer School Dominguez stated that courts are also available at Smith School and Manning Park on Delaware street Motion passed: 9-0 (Burkart; Nagy; Westwell absent) LeBard Park Master Plan- Prior to the item being presented, Commission Miller recused himself due to owning rental property in the immediate vicinity of LeBard School and LeBard Park Dominguez provided background information on the need to approve an amendment to the LeBard Park master plan due to the Huntington Beach City School District's(HBCSD) intention to sell the adjacent school site for a residential project HBCSD prepared a conceptual plan that would include the construction of 15 single family homes on the portion of the school but, leave the existing ball fields and turf areas in place Dominguez explained that the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)to purchase the turf and ball fields from HBCSD The turf and ball fields would then become part of LeBard Park,which requires approval of a Master Plan amendment by the Commission and City Council Mark Rodgers of TRG Land, Inc representing HBCSD presented the conceptual master plan for LeBard Park and provided additional background on the proposed project He stated that the current school budding functioning as the district office for HBCSD is in disrepair and would require extensive work to refurbish and that HBCSD has been working with the City on how best to utilize the land to benefit the City, Seaview Little League and HBCSD He added that the plans allows for the fields to remain in place The proposed plan would also include a new snack bar/restroom budding for Seaview Little League constructed on a portion of the existing school property Water quality improvements to address existing drainage issues at the fields and water quality measures related to the proposed residential development and modifications to the existing parking lot within the park are also included in the plan Tomaino asked if the park play equipment would be changed Dominguez replied that the existing park amenities and layout would remain as it but, some modifications to the parking lot Item 14. - 107 HB -600- ATTACHMENT NO 14 3 and the creation of a bio-swale along the western boundary of the park would be created to address water quality regulations for the parking lot Dominguez explained the steps going forward would require Commission and City Council approval of the conceptual park master plan as well as a change in the land use designation for the ball field areas from Public/Semi-public to Open Space Recreation in order for the area to be classified as park land Tomaino asked if they approved the conceptual plan and then the Water Quality requirements change including the location of the bio-swales, would the new plan be presented to Commission Dominguez stated if any significant changes to the conceptual plan were made, the plan will again be present to Commission for review Commissioner Mueller wanted to confirm that the residents in the area do not feel the extension of the parking lot is necessary since it will only be full during the baseball season Commissioner Kaub stated the parking is not only limited to the parking lot but, a large area of asphalt that was once the school playground This area provides parking for a large number of vehicles but will be lost with the building of the homes Kreitz asked how many spaces there are now and how many spaces will be lost if the extension is not made Rodgers stated if no extension to the parking lot occurred there will only be 38 spaces Currently there are 38 spaces and 34 spaces would be added with the extension Kreitz asked who will be responsible for the restroom maintenance Dominguez stated the City is working on an agreement with Seaview Little League for maintenance responsiblities Commissioner Gaspanan asked if the bio-swales would create a mosquito problem, and how long water is retained in the swale Marc Anderson with TRG stated Water Quality regulations requires water to be flowing and must be able to drain within 48 hours, preventing standing water from forming Tomaino asked if the City has looked into using a french drain Anderson stated there is no storm drain nearby which would be needed for a french drain Commissioner Reardon asked if the ball fields were used for weekday practice or just weekend games Dominguez stated there are weekday practices but the biggest impact to the area is on Saturdays Commissioner Couey asked if there are night games, to which Dominguez stated there are not Couey asked if the bio-swales will be required, no matter what to comply with Water Quality Laws Dominguez stated the bio-swales are a mandated requirement Tomaino asked about moving the bleachers and what will happen to them Rodgers stated the bleachers will be moved to accommodate handicap walkways and one bull pen would be moved to accommodate a'bio-swale Tomaino stated he believed the construction of homes and streets should better accommodate water run-off Rodgers stated the bio-swales are a Federal requirement that must be met and the City must work within the Water Quality compliance laws Kaub stated this is not the "end" plan but a"conceptual" plan to begin the process to better see what the requirements will be and that moving plans forward is the job of the Commission xB -601- ATTACHMENT NO Item 14. - 108 Tomaino stated he wants to make sure all six baseball fields remain at the current size Kreltz asked if the SCE temporary parking lot could be an alternative to extending the existing parking lot Dominguez stated the agreement with SCE currently does not allow for that Motion Passed: 8-0-1 (Miller recused) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Citywide parks and Recreation Master Plan- Dominguez informed Commission that the second Parks and Recreation Master Plan workshop was held focusing on special interest Not as many residents attended but valuable information was received Next month RJM will be performing executive interviews and begin the phone survey RJM Design is on track to completing all data collection and review by the spring New Senior Center- City Council approved Icon West for construction of the new Senior Center A pre-construction meeting will be held the first week of December The beginning of construction is scheduled to start in mid-January Construction should take 18 months to complete Hoag Hospital is donating 3 3 million in total, with 2 million going towards construction and the rest going towards senior service programs The original estimate for construction was $16 million dollars The current bid price came in at Just over$11 million SCMAF Golden Shield Award- Dominguez informed the Commission that the HB Community Services Department received the Golden Shield Award on November 7, 2014 The Golden Shield is awarded by the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation for cities offering quality recreation facilities and participation in Federation events WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS: Janeen Laudenback thanked the Commission for their service The input is great for staff Dominguez thanked the Commission for their input in reviewing the LeBard Park Plan Couey stated the LeBard Park Conceptual plan was a good plan but sees the proximity of the baseball fields will be a problem down the road and there is a need to replace the lost parking spaces with new Item 14. - 109 xB -602- ATTACHMENT NO 14 5 Gaspanan stated he believes the LeBard Park plan is a great plan and congratulated Janeen on the Golden Shield Award Kreitz stated the LeBard Park Conceptual Plan is a huge win since we get to retain the ball fields Miller extended an congratulations to Janeen Laudenback and the Community Services Department for winning the Golden Shield Award He stated he is happy the City has taken a stand to preserve the baseball fields and believes parking spaces are important, but this plan is a win-win for the residence and Sea View Little league Kaub thanked the Commission and staff for the hard work to try to do what is right for the kids and keep the baseball fields at IeBard Park She is pleased to see the process moving forward The process has taken 8 years to get to this point She also congratulated Janeen on the Golden Shield Award Van Strien asked if this conceptual plan will now go before City Council Dominguez stated it would Van Strien asked rf Dominguez would be presenting the plan to emphasize no green space is lost I Tomaino congratulated Janeen Laudenback and the Community Services Department for the Golden Shield Award ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO COMMISSION: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8 05 p m Submitted by David C Dominguez, Secretary, Community Services Commission By Michelle Roesner, Recording Secretary xB -603- ATTACHMENT NO Item 14. - 110 ATTACHMENT #7 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 12-008 not attached ; refer to website: :// i a rs/ / 04-16 web Item 14. - III HB -604- ATTAC H M E N T #8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEBARD PARK & RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarati®n Final (Comments and Responses and Draft IS/MND Changes) Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by Atkins 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 June 2015 HB -605- Item 14. - 112 i 3 Item 14. - 113 HB -606- Contents SECTION 7. Introduction to the Final IS/MND.....................................................................5 I CEQA Requirements ..... ..... . . 5 II Public Review Process 5 III Use of the Final IS/MND 6 IV Purpose and Overview of the CEQA Process. ........ 6 SECTION8. Comments and Responses ..................................................................................7 SECTION 9. Changes to the Draft IS/MND ....................................................................... 194 Tables Table 27 Comment Letters Received during the Draft IS/MND Public Review Period 7 xB -607- Item 14. - 114 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Item 14. - 115 HB -608- SECTION 7. Introduction to the Final IS/MN® This Final Initial Study f Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS f MND) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' and the CEQA Guidelines' and is for the proposed City of Huntington Beach (City) LeBard Park & Residential protect (proposed pro)ect) BEENIMEMIZEM Before approving a protect that may cause a significant environmental impact, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify an environmental document that analyzes the potential effects of a proposed protect In the case of the proposed protect, the CEQA document is in the form of an IS/MND The required content of the IS f MND is specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, which states that the Draft IS f MND shall consist of (a) A brief description of the project,including a commonly used name for the project,if any, (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent, (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding,and (e) I&tigation measures,if any,included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects The Final IS f MND is to include, at a minimum by reference, the Draft IS f MND and any amendments to the protect that have taken place since circulation of the Draft IS f MND Although it is not required in preparation of a Final IS f MND, response to comments received on the publication of the Draft IS f MND is becoming more standard in industry practice, which is the case in this Final IS f MND The City, as Lead Agency, must provide each public agency that commented on the Draft IS f MND with a copy of the response to those comments at least 10 days before the meeting at which certification of the protect is being considered In addition, the City may also provide an opportunity for members of the public to review the Final IS f MND prior to certification, though this is not a requirement of CEQA In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that a Draft IS f MND should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts associated with the proposed protect The Draft IS f MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period as required by state law, beginning April 16, 2015, and ending May 15, 2015 During the 30-day public review period, the City received twenty-nine written comments on the Draft IS f MND The CEQA Guidelines require that the Lead 1 CEQA,Public Resources Code(PRC),Sections 21000 et al (2014) 2 CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations(CCR),Title 14,Division 6,Chapter 3,Sections 15000 et al (2014) HB -609- Item 14. - 116 Agency responsible for the preparation of an IS/MND evaluate comments on environmental issues received from parties who reviewed the Draft IS/MND and prepare a written response addressing each of the comments 3 This Final IS/MND assembles all of the environmental information and analyses prepared for the proposed project, including comments on the information and analyses contained in the Draft IS/MND, and responses by the City to those comments The intent of the Final IS/MND is to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the information and analyses contained within the Draft IS/MND and to provide an opportunity for clarifications, corrections, or minor revisions to the Draft IS/MND, as needed The CEQA Gwdehnes do not require a lead agency to respond directly to comments received from persons who reviewed the Draft IS/MND, however, the City has done so in this Final IS/MND to provide as much information to the public and decision-makers as is possible This Final IS/MND allows the public and the City an opportunity to review the response to comments, revisions to the Draft IS/MND, and other components of the IS/MND, prior to the City Council's decision on the project The Final IS/MND must be provided to agencies that commented on the Draft IS/MND at least 10 days in advance of the meeting at which certification of this document is considered The Final IS/MND serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part C1E='1CM=_. This Final IS/MND was prepared to assess the potential effects of the proposed project, as required by CEQA and in compliance with CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Adm Code Sections 1400 et seq) CEQA, which comprises Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000-21178 and 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq (CEQA Guidelines), is required to mform decision-makers and the public regarding significant environmental effects of projects and the methods to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by requiring implementation of mitigation measures CEQA applies to all California.government agencies at all levels,mcluding local agencies,regional agencies, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts This IS/MND serves as an environmental document to be used in local planning and decision-making processes, and does not recommend approval or denial of the proposed project As the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project, the City will consider whether to adopt the related IS/MND and whether to approve the project s CEQA Guidelines,California Cade of Regulations(CCR),Title 14,Division 6,Chapter 3,Sections 15000 et A (2014) Item 14. - 117 xB -610- SECTION 8. Comments and Responses The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed LeBard Park & Residential Project was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a 30-day public review period that began on April 16, 2015, and concluded on May 15, 2015 During the review period, twenty-nine comment letters were received, as described in Table 27 (Comment Letters Received during the Draft IS/MND Public Review Period) This section includes all comments received on the Draft IS/MND and the City's response to each comment Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes Table 27 %11Commegt1 ers Receiir d aurtng the Drat IS/MND Public Review Period Ali, Na ,*Where Page Wl*re r\ GomrnenterJ nizollon I Letter Date f 8e9rns pv Code I 1 Res nsg4" " Agency 1 Huntington Beach Environmental Board HBEB 5/17/2015 9 10 Organization 2 Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association MGHOA 5/15/2015 11 14 Individuals 3 Alan D Walls ALWA 5/10/2015 25 26 4 Amy and Jordan Bond AMBO 5/12/2015 28 31 5 Anthony Lanza, Esq ANLA 5/18/2015 34 36 6 April and Adam Helliwell APHE 5/14/2015 39 42 7 Ashley White ASWH 5/12/2015 46 49 8 Barry L Williams BAN 5/14/2015 53 57 9 Cortney Keller COKE 5/12/2015 61 64 10 Dawn L Bear DABE 5/14/2015 67 70 11 George and Margot Wdfert GEWI 5/12/2015 74 77 12 Iliana Velazquez ILVE 5/12/2015 80 83 13 Jason Vertican JAVE 5/1412015 86 89 14 Jennifer Vertican JEVE 5/15/2015 93 96 15 Jozann Borenstein JOBO 5/13/2015 100 103 16 Julian Ball JUBA 5/12/2015 106 110 17 Kathy Grunwald KAGR 5/14/2015 114 116 18 Kelly Ramsey KERA 5/12/2015 120 123 19 Kevin Smith KESM 5/15/2015 127 127 20 Kirsten Beecher KIBE 5/14/2015 129 132 21 Marianne Homer MAHO 5/12/2015 135 138 22 Melinda Rosenzweig MERO 5/13/2015 142 145 HB -611_ Item 14. - 118 bt COmme -le tiers Received during the ©rc SjMN9, j bllc Re ew !er-od Pa +Mem P096 „Y #!er t '�e Comm r tetfer° Comm Begs Responses 23 Nancy L Rasoletti NARA 5/14/2015 148 151 24 Pat Allen PAAL 5/14/2015 154 154 25 Susan Claudius SUCL 5/14/2015 155 157 26 Susan Dauer SUDA 5/12/2015 161 165 27 Tanya Ferrell TAFE 5/12/2015 169 172 28 Tony Bisson TOBI 5/15/2015 176 1 184 29 Wen Ling Chou WECH 5/9/2015 1 192 193 The complete text of the comments and the City's responses to those comments are presented in this section, with written comments reproduced in their entirety, and the responses to those comments presented thereafter CEQA does not require written responses to comments received on an IS/MND, however, the City has reviewed the comments received and prepared these responses to provide this information and analysis to the decision-makers and the public Item 14. - 119 HB -612- i Comments from Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB), 511712015 HBEB iCITY OF HUNTINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD PO Box 190 Huntington Beach,GA 92648 May 17,2015 Ms Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntmgton Beach Department ofPlannrng and Building 2000 Maui Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park and Residential Project-Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear-Ms Villasenor At the May 7,2015 Huntington Beach Environmental Board(HBEB)meeting,a committee of three HBEB members (Kim Nicolson Mark Sheldon,and Robert Schaaf)was appointed to review and prepare a r esponse to the subject Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration(ISlMND) with said response submitted for approval by HBEB Chair Kum HBEB-1 Nicolson and subsequently forwar ded to y ou Using the procedure described above,the representatives of the HBEB offer the following comments for your di consideration H BE&2 -School population issues may be mitigated by declining registration(ongrnal reason for all those closures),but it's a valid consideration to raise -The parking lot expansion may not be necessary(see also HB Independent 5115115) It seems that the parking lot only HBEB-3 Ells during the limited Little League season Therefore,it may be sufficient to let the residential street parking absorb that occasional extra demand to allow for more green space Further,leaving this space open,would reduce impact on one ofthe directly abutting residences,at 20462 Ravenwood We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document Please let us know ifyou have any HBEB-4 questions regarding our comments Sincerely, Kum Nicolson Chairperson,Huntington Beach Environmental Board HB -613- Item 14. - 120 Responses to Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB), 5/17/2015 HBEB-1 This comment provides introductory information, stating that the Huntington Beach Environmental Board (HBEB) (commenter) held a meeting on May 7, 2015, to review and prepare a response to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) This comment introduces comments HBEB-2 through HBEB-4, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the Draft IS/MND This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HBEB-2 This comment states that school population issues may be mitigated by declining school registration, ' which was the initial catalyst for closure of schools in the area Section 5 X'V(a)(m) (Public Services/Schools), on Draft IS/MND p 90, analyzed the impacts of the proposed project on the Huntington Beach City School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District and determined that impacts would be less than significant with the payment of development impact fees for any new students contributed to the school districts as a result of the proposed project Therefore, no mitigation is required No change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment HBEB-3 This comment suggests that the proposed parking lot expansion may not be needed and that the project could preserve the existing passive area/green space allowing the surrounding neighborhoods to absorb the increased parking demand that is limited to the Little League season This is not discussed and' analyzed in the IS/MND as the HBCSD is not currently pursuing this concept as part of the proposed project The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation for the proposed project as described, including the parking lot expansion, which in this case could be considered the worst-case scenario No significant impacts were identified as a direct result of the proposed parking lot expansion The commenter goes on to state that foregoing the parking lot expansion would reduce the impact to the single family residence at 20462 Ravenwood As discussed in the paragraph above, no significant impacts were identified as a direct result of the parking lot expansion and no significant impacts were identified as occurring at the single family residence at 20462 Ravenswood that would need to be further mitigated As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval HBEB-4 This comment expresses appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft IS/MND and provides conclusory notes This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 121 HB -614- r Comments from Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association (MGHOA), 5/75/2015 MGHOA May 15,2015 Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association P O Box 6883 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor On behalf of the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Assocaition (HOA),the following comments are submitted regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document The residents of Meredith Gardens,the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard, MGHOA-1 Park,support the project but have serious concerns about the oversights and omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise,and recreation In particular our concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these MGHOA-2 streets considered.Traffic from the new homes coupled with peak season baseball could result in a significant impact, particularly considering the reduction in parking and the additional"circling"that will likely occur as little league and park users search for parking in our neighborhood Furthermore,additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking exacerbates- existing concerns about speeding on Crailet The omission of any analysis of the Projects, potential traffic impacts on Crailet and Craimer in the traffic impact study is an oversight. The City must revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible,and MGHOA-3 recirculate the MND The analysis should include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements(CE)section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEOA) Parking MGHOA-4 The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states thatthe proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street xB -615- Item 14. - 122 AL parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no MGHOA-4 mitigation is recommended.The City's policy requires all new development to mitigate cont parking impacts (CE6),therefore,the City should not allow the Project to cause an existing use to become parking deficient The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The 11 long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be MGHOA-5 considered to be an existing condition, and removal of this parking must be mitigated. If it cannot be mitigated, as required by CEQA,the City must prepare an Environmental 11 Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed new homes The MND appears to suggest this will mitigate parking loss by MGHOA-6 creating new on-street parking in front of the future Project homes,which are proposed to be accessed via a cul-de-sac Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies 11 Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use,the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces MGHOA-7 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion MGHOA-8 into the park be developed We support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed,presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood.There is a fair argument that construction traffic can MGHOA-9 cause significant impacts Given typical construction requirements, construction vehicle trips can easily exceed the number of vehicles that would be expected following construction. The failure to analyze the significant impact construction-related trips is a fundamental flaw in the MND. The absence of that information in the environmental document means that the MND is inadequate and cannot be relied upon to support approval of the proposed project The City must revised and recirculate the document to include this information. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state MGHOA-10 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league"off'season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement Item 14. - 123 xB -616- i MGHOA-10+of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during cont construction" The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park, even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. If MGHOA-11 relocation is possible,the MND should be revised to include such an analysis and be recirculated If not, mitigation should be included to require that current uses of LeBard Park will not be curtailed during construction to ensure no impact on other parts of Huntington Beach Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1,and-2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the MGHOA-12 park,where children play If the retention basin is successful,there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined to be hazardous If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate. In either case,the MND is inadequate in not analyzing the potential impacts of a mitigation measure or in identifying adequate mitigation The MND must be revised and recirculated to address these concerns Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m.in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW.The parking lot is adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m Residents will be disturbed and police calls MGHOA-13 will increase There is no provision to close off this extended parking area which is needed only 11 days a year The HOA recommends a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of MGHOA-14 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SAL baseball season is problematic MGHOA-15 The existing open, passive area is used for badminton, picnics and other open space uses 365 days a year.Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a HB -61 7- Item 14. - 124 year is a significant impact. Use of the SCE property which is included in the city's park MGHOA-15 inventory was not analyzed as a parking mitigation measure.The fact that city cont management does not want to pursue this alternative does not mean it should be excluded. We recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the MGHOA-16 future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community Future developers maybe able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area Retention of open space is one of the City of Huntington Beach's highest priorities General Plan Consistency The MND does not meet the goals for traffic and parking identified by the City of Huntington Beach in the General Plan (2013)Circulation Element sections 2 4, 2 5,3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is revised to ensure consistency with these identified MGHOA-17 General Plan policies,the proposed project will have a significant,unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community We strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues and ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA 11 In closing, Meredith Gardens is not opposed to new homes in our neighborhood and acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the MGHOA-18 school district site forward, but the HOA continues to have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to our neighborhood and our quality of life We look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead Thank you, Ed Kerins Secretary Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association Responses to Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association (MGHOA), 5/15/2015 MGHOA-1 This comment provides introductory remarks and states that the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association (commenter) has reviewed the Draft IS/MND Further, that while supportive of the proposed project, the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association has concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation This comment introduces comments MAHOA-2 through MAHOA-17, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required. Item 14. - 125 1-113 -618- MGHOA-2 This comment states that the traffic analysis is inadequate as the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic analysis nor was the traffic speed on these streets considered Further, this comment states traffic from the proposed single family homes in addition to'the peak season Little League baseball traffic could result in a significant impact, particularly with regard to the reduction in parking and the additional "circling traffic" that the commenter suggests would occur from Little League and park users looking for parking within the neighborhood Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 90, Section 5 XVII(a) (Transportation/Traffic) states that three intersections were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project because these are the three principal intersections that could be directly impacted by the proposed project The project is estimated to result in the addition of approximately 144 ADT, with 11 additional trips in the AM peak hour and 16 additional trips in the PM peak hour The Draft IS/MND concluded that traffic generated by the proposed project would not increase the intersection capacity utilization (ICE) values or the level of service (LOS) for any of the three analyzed intersections and, as such,implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to increased traffic volumes As the principal intersections in the vicinity of the project site would not be negatively affected by the project, the intersection of Crailet Drive ;and Craimer Lane would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project The commenter does not provide specific new or additional information as to why they believe the proposed project could result in a significant traffic impact The Draft IS/MND addressed the concern raised by the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association in this comment and identified no significant impact As such,no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment MGHOA-3 This comment expresses concern that additional traffic from the proposed project and the `lack of parking' would exacerbate existing concerns of the Homeowners Association about speeding on Crailet Drive Further, the comment states that the traffic study failed to analyze the proposed project's impacts on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane and, as such, the analysis needs to be revised, all traffic impacts mitigated to the full extent possible, and the Draft IS/MND recirculated Finally, the commenter suggests that the revised traffic analysis should be consistent with the City's General Plan (GP) (Policies Circulation Element (CE) 5 and CE 17) and analyze additional provisions, such as traffic calming measures As discussed in Response MGHOA-2, the Draft IS/MND sufficiently analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed project in Section 5 XVII(a) (Transportation/Traffic), identifying a less than significant impact As such, no mitigation measures are required for the proposed project The commenter has not provided specific new or additional information that would need to be reanalyzed or specific reasons as to why they believe the proposed project could result in a significant traffic impact The Draft IS/MND addressed the concern raised by the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association in this comment and did not identify a significant impact or necessary mitigation measures As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment The commenter also suggests that the City should address GP Policies CE 5 and CE 17 General Plan Policy CE 5 supports neighborhood circulation improvements to address cut-through traffic volumes, HB -619- Item 14. - 126 high speeds, truck traffic intrusions, demonstrated accident history, parking shortages, or school-related traffic congestion in City neighborhoods Per the policy, these issues can be addressed by such measures as ■ Discouraging creation of new major roadway connections that would adversely impact the character of existing residential neighborhoods ■ Continuing to develop and implement parking and traffic control plans for neighborhoods that are adversely impacted by spill-over parking and traffic, as feasible ■ Implementing the Residential Parking Pernut Program (Municipal Code Chapter 10 42) in residential areas as prescribed in the Municipal Code ■ Considering appropriate traffic-calming measures such as raised medians and provision of bike or transit lanes to mitigate problems posed by schools and other land uses that generate high traffic , volumes at specific tunes Provide solutions to mitigate these problems as warranted by local studies As the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to traffic or parking in the neighborhood, mitigation measures are not required However, this does not preclude the Homeowners Association from petitioning the City to investigate the potential of these traffic cahmuig devices on a merit basis, independent of the CEQA process Further, the proposed project is consistent with GP Policy CE 17 as a TIS was prepared for the Draft IS/MND to analyze and evaluate the project's impacts to the city's circulation system and associated facilities and determined impacts to be less than significant No change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this portion of the comment M GHOA-4 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is insufficient because there is no mitigation recommended to address parking impacts Further, this comment states that the project is not compliant with Goal CE 6 from the City's General Plan (GP),which requires projects to nutigate parking impacts As stated in the Draft IS/MND in Section 2 III (Proposed Project Characteristics) on pp 11 and 12, the 24 proposed parking spaces to be constructed on the new residential street within the subdivision portion of the project site are not untended as parking mitigation for"overspill" parking from LeBard Park but rather are untended for guest parking associated with the single-family residential homes, as required by the Municipal Code Further, in order to analyze the worst-case parking scenario for the proposed project including during Little League events, the Draft IS/MND did not include the proposed 24 spaces in the future inventory of on-street parking spaces The Draft IS/MND concluded that "during the remainder of the year [off season for Little League] and during regular use of the park facilities, the proposed expansion of the on-site parking lot at LeBard Park would meet, and exceed, the daily demand for park users The potential for exceedance of parking capacity (considered as on-site' parking spaces and on-street spaces adjacent to the park) during the peak of Little League activities would not constitute a parking impact, and thus a significant environmental effect, when considered in the context of typical park uses and the amount of time both daily and annually when parking demand is met As such, impacts associated with parking capacity would be less than significant" Therefore, parking impacts would be less than significant, and no nutigation is required No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment Item 14. - 127 1413 -620- Further, the proposed project is consistent with GP Goal CE 6 which requires new development to provide sufficient parking for the proposed uses The proposed parking lot expansion would meet and exceed the daily parking demand for park users and the overall reduction of on-site parking would not result in a significant parking impact In addition to the expanded parking lot, there is adequate on-street parking adjacent to the park which would provide additional parking spaces for daily park users Therefore, the proposed project would provide sufficient parking under normal conditions and would not require mitigation measures related to parking No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment MGHOA-5 This comment states that the shared parking between the School District and LeBard Park must be considered an existing condition with regard to parking and that the removal of the School District parking would cause an impact that must be mitigated Further, this comment states that if the parking impacts cannot be mitigated an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the proposed project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) adopted There is no formal agreement between HBCSD and the Little League to let the Little League use the School District's parking lot during the baseball season Therefore, the shared between the School District and LeBard Park is not considered an existing conditions in accordance with CEQA Starting on Draft IS/MND p 110, Section 5 XVII(f (Transportation/Traffic) analyzed the worst-case scenario assuming that all the parking at the School District site would be removed from use and identified that on-street parking would be impacted on the 11 Saturdays per year that the baseball fields were in use by the Little League during;the peak season However, due to the sporadic nature of this potential impact and the fact that the on-street parking deficit would be low, the Draft IS/MND determined that the potential impact to parking would be less than significant and, as such, no mitigation is required As there were no significant impacts identified nor impacts that could not be appropriately mitigated, an EIR and SOC is not required Further, no changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment MGHOA-6 This comment suggests that the overall parking loss associated with the project is being mitigated by-the provision of 24 new on-street parking spaces on the new residential street (A' Street) that is part of the proposed tentative tract map Further, this comment states that the new on-street parking would"create a problem for future homeowners and is not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies" As stated in Draft IS/MND Section 2 III (Proposed Project Characteristics) on p 11, the 24 proposed parking spaces to be constructed on the new residential street within the subdivision portion of the project site are not intended as mitigation for LeBard Park but are intended for guest parking as required by the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code for single-family residential homes Further, in an effort to analyze the worst-case parking scenario, the proposed 24 on-street spaces on the new residential street were not included in the future inventory of on-street parking spaces As identified below, minor text revisions have been proposed in the Final IS/MND in response to this comment to ensure clarity of project description These minor revisions do not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Gwdehnes Section 15088 5 HB -621- Item 14. - 128 The discussion within Section 5 XVII (Transportation/Traffic), Issue F, has been revised to include clarification regarding the proposed 24 new on-street parking spaces (see Draft IS/MND p 112) Proposed Parking Conditions Under the proposed project, existing Little League baseball fields would continue to be used and would be incorporated into LeBard Park The proposed project includes an expansion of the existing on-site LeBard Park parking lot, which would provide a total of 68 on-site parking spaces at the northeastern corner of LeBard Park In addition to the expanded LeBard parking lot, 50 on-street parking spaces would be available along Cranmer Lane,Warwick Drive, and Cynthia.Drive (IS/MND Appendix J),which would result in a reduction of 3 on-street spaces due to the new residential street and driveway approaches for the reconfigured/expanded parking lot in LeBard Park The proposed project would create 24 parking spaces along the new residential street (A' Street),which would serve the single-family residences as well as the pubhc However the proposed 24 new on-street parking maces were not included in the future inventory on-street parking spaces in order to anal ze e worst-case parktnz scenario from LeBard Park with Little League events as these new parking sees are intended pr nanly as "est parking for the single-family residences In total, the amount of available parking for the proposed project would be reduced from 200 spaces to 142 spaces As such, the proposed project would reduce the amount of parking spaces provided for park visitors and Little League activities MGHOA-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of utilized parking during peak periods of park use The commenter also notes that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied The Draft IS/MND states in Section 5 XVII(f) (Transportation/Traffic) that "under existing conditions, the LeBard Elementary School site parking lot is being used by the School District's employees, however, under proposed conditions, this parking lot would be removed in order to construct the future residential homes In order to establish a parking demand baseline, data was collected for a typical weekday and weekend with and without Little League activities Since the School District's employee vehicles would not be utilizing the LeBard Elementary School site parking lot with implementation of the proposed project, the School District's vehicles were subtracted from the total parking counts during Little League activities for both the weekday and weekend analyses The remaining vehicles are the vehicles accounted for Little League activities, which would still utilize the proposed project's parking lot and adjacent on- street parking with development of the project (IS/MND Appendix J) "As such, the Draft IS/MND did account for peak park utilization and the exclusion of the LeBard Elementary School parking lot spaces from the proposed parking count Further, due to the fact the there is no formal agreement between the School District and the City to use the LeBard Elementary School parking lot as parking for LeBard Park, this parking is not to be considered an existing condition The Draft IS/MND analyzed the worst-case parking scenario, which includes the removal of the LeBard Elementary School parking lot, and determined that impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation measures required Therefore, the parking analysis is not considered inadequate under CEQA as suggested by the commenter No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment Item 14. - 129 xB -622- MGHOA-8 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Cominission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative However, no alternative parking locations are proposed by the HBCSD at this time and any alternative locations would require review and approval by the Community Services Commission The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation for the proposed project as described, including the parking lot expansion, which in this case could be considered the worst-case scenario No significant impacts were identified as a direct result of the proposed parking lot expansion and no mitigation measures are required Exploration of additional parking opportunities is unnecessary No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment MGHOA-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because construction-related vehicle trips were not analyzed and there is a fair argument that the addition of construction-related traffic could result in a potentially significant impact Further, this comment states that the Draft IS/MND must be revised to analyze construction-related traffic and recirculated to include the new analysis During construction, there may be some vehicle delay during various stages of the project In addition, construction traffic from truck haul trips and workers entering and exiting the project site would add to the existing traffic conditions However, project construction would be temporary lasting up to 10 months and be required to implement a traffic control plan, subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works, during construction to minimize disruption to motorists within the project area The project would require approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil import, therefore, approximately 250 haul trips would be required Daily worker trips would vary depending on the construction phase Additionally, haul trips,vendor trips and worker trips would be considered in the required traffic control plan Because project construction would be temporary and the anticipated number of trips for workers, vendors, and hauling materials would be minimal, traffic impacts during construction would be less than significant The Draft IS/MND included construction-related traffic as stated in Section 5 IV (Air Quality) on p 37 in footnote 2, which states "Construction information, including construction duration, construction equipment, area of disturbance, and soil import volume were provided by the City,with the exception of construction duration and equipment for construction of the residences CalEEMod default assumptions were utilized for this information CalEEMod defaults were assumed for construction vehicle trips for material delivery, hours of operation for construction equipment, and construction equipment specifications" Further, as stated in Section 5 IV (Air Quality) on Draft IS/MND p 38, while construction would occur over approximately ten months, construction phases would occur sequentially to reduce the amount of equipment and construction-related vehicular trips being utilized on a daily basis thereby reducing potential impacts to Air Quality and Noise Construction activities would comply with all applicable City regulations and ordinances In addition, construction activities would be minimal in general and are not expected to result in extensive movements on or around the project site The Draft IS/MND determined impacts associated with construction to be less than sigmificant with all mitigation incorporated No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment HB -6233- Item 14. - 130 MGHOA-10 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how the construction phasing and schedule would affect the LeBard Park baseball field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League `off season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" As identified below, minor text revisions have been implemented in the Final IS/MND in response to this comment to provide additional certainty as to when construction will take place in relation to the peak Little League season This information is consistent with the assumptions and analysis provided in the Draft IS/MND Further, these minor revisions do not constitute significant new information' pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 5 Discussions within Section 5 XVI (Recreation) Items (a) and (c) have been revised to reflect a conumtment to conduct construction of the proposed project within the "off' season of the Little League to reduce disruption (see Draft IS/MND pp 96 and 98) Section 5 XVI(a) (Recreation) Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields will be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption A4thaugh it and to ensure that no temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games .c the ,...h...i-_i wring.the peak season would occur dunn constsuctson of the proposed project components within LeBard Park and the sports fields Thus,implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt Little League activities and would provide enhanced facilities for the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games upon completion Section 5 XVI(c) (Recreation) Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would upgrade an existing neighborhood park for continued usage by Huntington Beach residents Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields Abe scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption ensure temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games to mcparary ea diti"iriSreweya,, t1its displaeement wot4d b(t mpofar F" during thgpeak season would occur during construction of the proposed project Coniponents within LeBard Park and snorts fields Thus im£lementation of the 12rO osed project would not disrupt Little League activities and would provide enhanced facilities for park users and the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games upon completion MGHOA-1 1 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach,which could result in impacts in other areas of the City Further, this comment requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to include an analysis of the purported relocation of current uses and recirculated with the new analysis This comment Item 14. - 131 HB -624- also states that if relocation of existing uses would not potentially occur then mitigation should be included to ensure that current uses of LeBard Park would not be curtailed during construction to safeguard other areas of the city from potential impacts Relocation of park uses, even temporarily,is not an option that the project applicant has identified as part of the proposed project The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation for the proposed project as described, including the potential temporary closure of park uses, with the exception of the Little League baseball fields as noted in Response MGHOA-10 No significant impacts were identified as a direct result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required Refer also to Response MGHOA-10 MGHOA-12 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address,the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if�the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by1 the commenter to represent a risk to park users The incorporation of bioretention basins, detention basins, and vegetated swales (referred to as Best Management Practices [BMPs]) is a common engineering practice for managing and mitigating storm runoff in a safe, effective manner The BMPs are designed to attenuate storm runoff flows and discharge the runoff over a longer period of time in order to reduce peak water flows draining off site In addition, the BMPs are designed to serve as water quality measures by filtering out pollutants from the runoff These pollutants are removed from the site through routine maintenance procedures and do not create a risk to persons or biological resources as they are contained within the BMP The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the LeBard School site includes Section V (Inspection/Maintenance Responsibilities for Best Management Practices [BMPs]) (refer to Draft IS/MND Appendix j), which states that the determined responsible party is required to implement the following inspection/maintenance activities and minimum frequency of activities for the BMPs on this portion of the site 1 Vegetated Swale a Required Inspection/Maintenance Activities remove excessive sediment, weeds, and debris Keep grass approximately four to six feet in height (do not over-mow) b Minimum Frequency of Activities minimum twice yearly, ideally at the beginning and end of the rainy season 2 Detention Basin a Required Inspection/Maintenance Activities remove excessive sediment, weeds, and debris Ensure outlet structure is not clogged b Minimum Frequency of Activities minimum twice yearly, ideally at the beginning and end of the rainy season HB -625- Item 14. - 132 As identified below, minor text revisions have been implemented in the Draft IS/MND in response to this comment Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 in Section 5 X(a) (Hydrology/Water Quality) have been revised to require all maintenance and operation requirements within the WQMPs to be implemented (see Draft IS/MND p 67) MMHydro-1 In comphance wth the WIQMP for the LeBard Elementary School site, a detention basin and a flow-based vegetated savale shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed pr elect and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the wQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the detention basin and floav-based vegetated savale All operational requirements, such as ingectaons and maintenance activities. established in the ROMP for LeBard Flementaa School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed prole MM Hydro-2 In comphance avith the WIQMP for the LeBard Park sate, a floav-based vegetated savale and a volume-based bioretentaon basin shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map. All design parameters outlined in the wQMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the flow-based vegetated savale and volume-based bioretentaon basin All operational =uirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities, established in the IQMP efor LzBard F,lementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed po These minor revisions do not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines , Section 15088 5 Further, as the mitigation measures are both routine, Best Management Practices, the , analysis within the Draft IS/MND assumed implementation of the revised text No further change is required to the Draft IS/MND MGHOA-13 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use The Draft IS/MND stated in Section 5 XIII (Noise) that the operation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive noise levels Further, the potential for nighttime noise being generated from illicit activity in the park is considered an existing conditions as the neighborhood has made complaints from this noise source in the past Implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate this existing condition In addition, noise generating activity is subject to compliance with the City's existing Noise Ordinance Development of the proposed project would not change the operational hours of the park (dusk-to-dawn) and, as such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required The Meredith Gardens neighborhood can petition the City Council to make the inclusion of a lockable gate a condition of the project but the issue of a lockable gate is not required as part of the environmental analysis and subsequent mitigation measures No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment Item 14. - 133 HB -626- MGHOA-14 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park The new passive park area/detention basin would result in a net increase in passive park area as this area is currently developed with asphalt on the exiting school site The entire area of the sports fields including the new passive park area is contiguous to the existing LeBard Park and would be incorporated into LeBard Park upon acquisition by the City The area would be accessible to the public similar to the existing passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed Also, refer to Response MGHOA-12 MGHOA-15 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, 'and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The Draft IS/MND included the area of the SCE right-of-way in the environmental analysis since this is within the City's park inventory However, use of this area is not an option for the provision of long- term or permanent parking In addition, there is a current approved park master plan for the design of the SCE area that would require review and approval by the Community Services Commission for any proposed changes The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation for the proposed project as described, including the potential worst-case scenario of providing a parking lot expansion outside of the SCE right-of-way No significant impacts were identified as a direct result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required Therefore, the Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation, where necessary, for the proposed project as-is No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment MGHOA-16 The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities This comment is noted However, the inclusion of potential developer-led, innovative stormwater control design methods is not considered as part of the proposed project The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and mitigation, where necessary, for the proposed project as described in the Project Description Additionally, as analyzed in Section 5 XVI (Recreation), the project does not result in the loss of parkland The project would add 6 5 acres of parkland to the City's inventory The proposed change of park use from passive area to parking lot is offset by the proposed new passive park area that is currently developed with asphalt on the school site No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment HB -627- Item 14. - 134 M GHOA-17 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overrndmg Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA GP Policies CE 2 4 and CE 2 5 require new development to provide circulation improvements to achieve stated City goals and to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible traffic impacts to adjacent land uses and neighborhoods as well as vehicular conflicts related to the project The Draft IS/MND analyzed the proposed project's impacts to the circulation system and traffic volumes and determined that impacts would be less than significant Therefore, no mitigation is required for the proposed project and, as such, the Draft IS/MND is consistent with GP Policies CE 2 4 and CE 2 5 GP Goal CE 3 states that neighborhoods should be protected from adverse conditions associated with cut-through and non-residential traffic Cut-through and non-residential traffic are existing conditions that would not be exacerbated with implementation of the proposed project The Draft IS/MND analyzed the impacts of the proposed project on these conditions and identified a less than significant impact, as such,no mitigation is required As such, the Draft IS/MND is consistent with GP Goal CE 3 With regard to the consistency analysis of the proposed project with GP Policies CE 5 and CE 17, refer to Response MGHOA-3 For consistency of the proposed project with GP Goal CE 6, refer to Response MGHOA-4 GP Policies CE 6 1 and CE 6 2 require that development projects supply parking that supports anticipated demands as well as support and collaborate with property owners to manage the supply of parking The proposed project includes the expansion of the LeBard Park parking lot to accommodate more park users The proposed project would also construct 24 new on-street parking spaces along the new residential street to support the Code-based parking requirement The Draft IS/MND analyzed both on-street and off-street parking demand and supply and determined that parking impacts would be less than significant Therefore, no mitigation is required and, as such, the Draft IS/MND is consistent with GP Policies CE 6 1 and CE 6 2 The Draft IS/MND is consistent with all GP goals and policies noted by the commenter As such, a revised IS/MND does not need to be recirculated and it would be unnecessary to prepare an EIR as there would be no significant effects to report or address in an SOC as suggested by the commenter MGHOA-18 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 13 5 HB -62 s- Comments from Alan D. Walls (ALWA), 5/10/2015 ALWA 5/1012015 20532 Suburbia Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager Planning Commission, RECEIVED 2000 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MAY 12 2015 Ms Villaserior: jet of Planning & Buildmcl I am a resident of HB and live adjacent to the park for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration ALWA-1 concerning the LeBard Project has been submitted for comment.The MND should be amended to reduce the parking spaces by 20,eliminate one drainage swale,and add improvements as detailed below Parking Spaces: -The existing lined spaces total 134 vice 147 as in the MND;the difference apparently due to how the area at the rear of LeBard School was configured by the MND consultant -The proposed spaces in the extended parking[at total 48 when the 20 that encroach into the parkland,, are eliminated. -24 spaces available in the new coal-de-sac will bring that on-site total to 72. -50 more parking spaces that do not serve single family residences and are on the immediately adjacent streets would result in 122. ALWA-2 -Additional adjacent parking that also serves single family residences is available on Cynthia,Craimer, and Warwick.Other local streets provide even more. -MND tables 25 and 26 reflect in the"worst scenario"more than the 122 spaces would be needed only during four hours on a weekend and never on a week day. -Scott Dader,President of the Seaview Little League,advised there are only 11 weekend days In the entire year that are used by the little league. -Mostly due to the evolving usage of parks in HB during the last 50 years,no specific numbers of spaces per baseball field have been mandated- -The adjacent neighborhoods have accepted the street parking for those same years as is evidenced from the lack of complaints.Twenty less would not be noticed but would be the loss of 1/3 acre of park. Drainage Swale: -The retention basin at the south edge of the 15 houses is designed to accept all the rain runoff from the houses and then channel It through a"vegetated swale onto Cynthia Drive. -A second"vegetated swale"runs from the west end of the parking lot then south to Cynthia Drive. It is from 5'-7'wide and 1 Wdeep with a bridge spanning it in the middle. -The ground under these swales is described as"impervious"which results in the runoff either finding ALWA-3 its way to storm sewers or evaporating within the swales. -The existing parking lot has drained runoff through vegetation and sand since LeBard School was built. It can allow evaporation as well or better than the second proposed swale. - There is no need then to construct a wide depression along the same route that has no more runoff under the new project than has existed before. Under both wet and dry conditions the swale will naturally collect debris because of its relative depression. -Adults and children will cross it by many modes of transportation using their most convenient path. Given probable instances of inattention,falls will occur with some injuries. HB -629- Item 14. - 13 6 Park Improvements -In a previous rendering of the 15 lot plan,the HBCSD budgeted$607,000 to remove and relocate a little league field,another practice field,and construct a large parking lot along with the many improvements in the current plan ALWA-4 -Public concern retained the fields in their same condition and eliminated the proposed parking lot thereby saving HBCSD a considerable sum. -Elimination of the 20 parking spaces and the unneeded Swale cited above would save even more funds. -Those savings can be best used by extending the park into the Southern California Edison easement area through its grading,sodding and improvements to the existing facilities This upgrading of the SCE area has long been envisioned by the HB Community Services Dept Sincerely, Alan D Walls,Member Suburbia Park Committee to Save LeBard Responses to Alan D. Walls (ALWA), 5/10/2015 ALWA-1 This comment provides introductory information, outhning the commenter's specific concerns regarding parking, drainage, and overall park improvements This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required ALWA-2 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND miscounted the existing lined spaces on the LeBard Elementary School site, identifying 147 lined spaces rather than the suggested 134 lined spaces by the commenter This would be attributed to use of the parking area on the LeBard school site The commenter also suggests that there is additional parking on the surrounding local streets that could be available for parking during the peak Little League peak season that are not identified in the IS/MND This is a correct statement While the IS/MND does note that other surrounding local streets would likely provide a source of parking during the peak Little League season, the IS/MND does not count this on-street parking for the protect in order to analyze a worst case scenario The commenter goes on to provide their suggested count of on-street and off-street parking spaces in the area surrounding the park, suggesting that a total of only 122 parking spaces would be necessary for the park uses, with the exception of four hours on each of 11 Saturdays per year during which the Little League use the baseball fields While recognizing that there is no mandated threshold for parking provision for baseball fields within the City of Huntington Beach, the commenter suggests that the surrounding neighborhoods would rather accept the potential for sporadic on-street parking impacts during the Little League season than live with the additional off-street parking proposed as part of the protect Finally, the commenter suggests that 20 parking spaces should be removed from the off-street parking count of the proposed protect Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 Item 14. - 137 HB -630- AL WA-3 This comment opposes the construction of the second vegetated swale between LeBard Park and' the baseball fields as the possibility for injuries from falling would increase This comment also states that under existing conditions, the parking lot has drained runoff through vegetation and sand since the construction of LeBard Elementary School and would be able to drain and allow for evaporation as well or better than the second proposed vegetated swale Finally, this comment states that the natural depression where the second vegetated swale would be constructed would still naturally collect debris under both wet and dry conditions Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, vegetated swales are broad, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and base and the swales associated with the proposed project would be graded to have gentle slopes in order to minimize the risk of falling AL WA-4 This comment summarizes previous requests for changes to the proposed project and the associated cost savings to the project and the City The commenter suggests that their proposal to remove an additional 20 parking spaces would provide additional cost savings to the City and would increase the amount of parkland in the City's inventory due to an extension into the SCE right-of-way This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND and is the suggestion of the commenter No further response is required HB -631_ Item 14. - 13 8 Comments from Amy and Jordan Bond (AMBO), 5/12/2015 AMBO Subject FW LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments From:Amy Bond rmailto.imavma(ayahoo.OM1 Sent:Wednesday, May 13,2015 8 58 PM To:Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens,the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park,I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the AMBO-1 MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Cradet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking well exacerbate- AMBO-2 existing concerns about speeding on Cradet and Craimer. I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MIND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements(CE)section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically, The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of g2 spaces,79 off-street and 3 on-street parking spaces The MND states AMBO-3 that this will cause spell-over parking impacts,but no mitigation is recommended The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. 1 Item 14. - 139 xB -632- The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed new homes AMBO-4 Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use,the AMBO-5 amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate AMBO-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to address Air AMBO-7 Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state AM BO-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league"off"season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" AMBO-9 The MND does not analyze whetherthe need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1,and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants AMBO-10 and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants,which the state considers hazardous,are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the park's proximity to the Santa Ana AMBO-11 River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching, and to both existing and 11 planned residences 2 HB -6313- Item 14. - 140 Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. ,n the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m AMBO-12 I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of passive area where AM 130-13 the expanded parking lot is proposed This 3s true only 3n theory The usable increase in area is 3n a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseb2ll season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where community members have held children's birthday parties, played freeze tag,and attended movie nights in the park.Loss of this area 365 days a year in orderto park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. AMBO-14 we recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4,2 5,3,3 1,5,6,6 1,6 2,and 17 Unless the MND is revised to ensure consistency with these AMBO 15 identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, we acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the AMBO-16 school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Projects potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life The community looks forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Amy and Jordan Bond Meredith Gardens Resident,Huntington Beach 3 Item 14. - 141 xB -634- Responses to Amy and Jordan Bond (AMBO), 5/12/2015 AMBO-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments AMBO-2 through AMBO-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required AM BO-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Crai mer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that adchtional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crairner Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 AMBO-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 AM BO-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 AMBO-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 AM BO-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 1413 -635- Item 14. - 142 AMBO-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to mtmmize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 AMBO-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 AMBO-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 AMBO-10 This comment suggests that n-utigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional n-utigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 AMBO-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment a California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 143 Hs -636- AM BO-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 AMBO-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 AM BO-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 AMBO-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overndtng Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 AMBO-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -637- Item 14. - 144 i Comments from Anthony Lanza, Esq. (ANLA), 5178120 7 5 Lanza & Smith ANLA A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3 PARK PLAZA,SUITE 1650 IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614-8540 TELEPHONE (949)221-0490 FACSIMILE (949)221-0027 May 18,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject LeBard ParkMND/Residential Project Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about the MND ANLA-1 analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding recreation, traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, and noise My concerns are summarized as follows Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of passive ANLA-2 area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is a problem The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields Use of this area is problematic The existing open area is where I have gathered with my children and other families, played many types of sporting activities, and attended movie nights in the park Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars during roughly 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact ANLA-3 I recommend that the existing park open space remain as is. It cannot be compensated for by a detention basm needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential storm-water mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community This is simply inappropriate The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space;that should apply here. Traffic ANLA-4 The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on these streets considered I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project will exacerbate existing Item 14. - 145 HB -638- concerns about speeding on Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include ANLA-4 provisions for analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted cont streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically, The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street parking ANLA-5 spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no appropriate mitigation is recommended The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition, and removal of this parking should be avoided or mitigated ANLA-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction&Noise Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, nor mitigated in the MND -- other than to ANLA-7 address Air Quality and noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND HvdroloU/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture storm- ANLA-8 water pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk that children will come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful, the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests, including mosquitoes, which can be a problem in this area due to the park's ANLA-9 Proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the areas designated for these basins are in close proximity to 1)the little league fields and the park areas where children will be playing and family members will be present, and to 2) many existing and planned residences General Plan Consistency ANLA-10 The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is HB -639- Item 14. - 146 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family cont ANL nt I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA 11 While I appreciate the City's efforts over the past several years handling the redevelopment of the school district site, I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's significant impacts ANLA-11 to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life We look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead, including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Very truly yours, LANZA& SMITH Anthony Lanza,Esq Responses to Anthony Lanza, Esq. (ANLA), 5/18/2015 ANLA-1 This comment provides mtroductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis m the Draft IS/MND and the proposed =trgation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment mtroduces comments ANLA-2 through ANLA-10,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required ANLA-2 This comment states that the mclusion of the bioretention basm as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basm is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 ANLA-3 The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the mclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 Item 14. - 147 HB -640- ANLA-4 This comment expresses concern that additional traffic from the proposed project and the `lack of parking' would exacerbate existing concerns of the Homeowners Association about speeding on Crailet Drive Further, the comment states that the traffic study failed to analyze the proposed project's impacts on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane and, as such, the analysis needs to be revised, all traffic impacts nutigated to the full extent possible, and the Draft IS/HIND recirculated Finally, the commenter suggests that the revised traffic analysis should be consistent with the City's General Plan (GP) (Policies Circulation Element [CE] 5 and CE 17) and analyze additional provisions, such as traffic calming measures Refer to Response MGHOA-3 ANLA-5 This comment states that the traffic analysis is inadequate as the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craumer Lane was not included in the traffic analysis nor was the traffic speed on these streets considered Further, this comment expresses concern that additional traffic from the proposed project and the `lack of parking' would exacerbate existing concerns of the Homeowners Association about speeding on Crailet Drive Further, the comment states that the traffic study failed to analyze the proposed project's impacts on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane and, as such, the analysis needs to be revised, all traffic impacts mitigated to the full extent possible, and the Draft IS/MND recirculated Finally, the commenter suggests that the revised traffic analysis should be consistent with the City's GP (Policies CE 5 and CE 17) and analyze additional provisions, such as traffic calming measures Refer to Responses MGHOA-2 and MGHOA-3 ANLA-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commssion that of an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 A NLA-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because construction-related vehicle trips were not analyzed and there is a fair argument that the addition of construction-related traffic could result in a potentially significant impact Further, this comment states that the Draft IS/MND must be revised to analyze construction-related traffic and recirculated to include the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-9 A NLA-8 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bnoretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts of the proposed broretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mtigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bnoretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 HB -641- Item 14. - 148 ANLA-9 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and AMBO-11 ANLA-10 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 ANLA-1 1 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 149 HB -642- Comments from April and Adam Helliwell (APHE), 517412075 APHE May 14,2015 Jennifer Vdlasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Vdlasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what APHE 1 appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on APHE-2 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street APHE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be 111111 considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the APHE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of APHE-5 park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper xB -643- Item 14. - 150 APHE-5 parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that cont analysis is inadequate The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion APHE-6 into the park be developed. I support looking for alternatives 11 Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to APHE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state APHE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" APHE-9 I The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the i Le Bard Park, even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to APHE-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the APHE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences 11 Noise APHE-12 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m Item 14. - 151 xB -644- I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access APHE-12 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of APHE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. APHE-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is APHE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the APHE-16 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, April and Adam Helliwell 10161 Birchwood Dr ,HB Meredith Gardens Residents xB -645- Item 14. - 152 Responses to April and Adam Helliwell (APHE), 5/14/2015 APHE-1 This comment provides introductory remarks and states that the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association (commenter) has reviewed the Draft IS/MND Further, that while supportive of the proposed project, the commenter has concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed nmtigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments APHE-2 through APHE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required APHE-2 This comment expresses concern that additional traffic from the proposed project and the `lack of parking' would exacerbate existing concerns of the Homeowners Association about speeding on Crailet Drive Further, the comment states that the traffic study failed to analyze the proposed project's impacts on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane and, as such, the analysis needs to be revised, all traffic impacts mitigated to the full extent possible, and the Draft IS/MND recirculated Finally, the commenter suggests that the revised traffic analysis should be consistent with the City's General Plan (GP) (Policies Circulation Element (CE) 5 and 17) and analyze additional provisions, such as traffic calming measures Refer to Response MGHOA-3 APHE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the park be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 APHE-4 This comment suggests that the overall parking loss associated with the project is being mitigated by the provision of 24 new on-street parking spaces on the new residential street Further, this comment states that the new on-street parking would "create a problem for future homeowners and is not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies" Refer to Response MGHOA-6 APHE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of utilized parking during peak periods of park use The commenter also notes that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 Item 14. - 153 HB -646- APHE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Comnussion would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 APHE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because construction-related vehicle trips were not analyzed and there is a fair argument that the addition of construction-related traffic could result in a potentially significant impact Further, this comment states that the Draft IS/MND must be revised to analyze construction-related traffic and recirculated to include the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-9 A PHE-8 Tlus comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how the construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park baseball field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League 'off season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 APHE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 APHE-10 Tlus comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 APHE-I I Tlus comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and AMBO-11 HB -647- Item 14. - 154 i APHE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate irutigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adtommng access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 APHE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adtacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-12 APHE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and , other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater iruttgation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response to comment MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 APHE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 61, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed protect would have a significant, umrmtngated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the protect meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 Item 14. - 155 HB -648- APHE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed protect, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required xB -649- Item 14. - 156 Comments from Ashley White (AS WH), 511212015 ASWH May 12,2015 Jennifer VNllasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach DECEIVED Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MAY 15 201 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments l got r.)i Planning &Bu€ing Dear Ms Villasenor: I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith ASWH-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology, noise,and recreation. In particular my concerns are- Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate. The stop controlled Intersection of Crailet and Cralmer was not included In the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on ASWH-2 Crailet and Craimer, I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis Include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5: Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17: Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient.Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street ASWH-3 parking spaces. The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking Impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood. The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the ASWH-4 proposed new homes. Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies, Item 14. - 157 HB -650- Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking Is significantly higher than the proper spaces AS identified. it is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used. The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate. ASWH-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives. Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed,presented,or mitigated in the MND other than to ASWi-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts.There is no mention of the likely Impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state: ASMi-O "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption. Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction." ASVI*i-19 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the Legard Park,even temporarily,create Impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. HydrologyLWater Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bloretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off. if the retention basin properly serves to ASAWO capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,It will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and sell of the park,where my children play. If the retention basin is successful,there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment. If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate. Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the A I parks proximity to the Santa Ana River bed. This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences. HB -651- Item 14. - 15 8 Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p. . in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark ASVVI-12 isolated area after 10 p.m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of ASVM-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed. This is tree only in theory. The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic. The existing open,passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties,played ASM-14 freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development. The requirements ASVM-15 to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community.The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here. General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013). Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element.2.4, 2.5,3,3.1, S,6,6.1,6 2,and 17. Unless the MND is ASVM-16 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant,unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family. I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the ASVt - 17 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality Item 14. - 159 HB -652- ASVM-17 of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cont the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, } c "I 1 t4l I I et At 4I, v , CA V, Responses to Ashley White (ASWH), 5/12/2015 AS WH-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments ASWH-2 through ASWH-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required AS WH-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Cramer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the pro)ect and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 AS WH-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the pro)ect would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 HB -65:')- Item 14. - 160 ASWH-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6. ASWH-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 AS WH-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 ASWH-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 AS WH-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 ASWH-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 ASWH-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 Item 14. - 161 HB -654- ASWH-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the protect site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and AMBO-11 ASWH-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 ASWH-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 ASWH-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking Refer to Response MGHOA-15 ASWH-1S The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-16 ASWH-16 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed protect would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this HB -655- Item 14. - 162 comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 ASWH-17 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 163 HB -656- Comments from Barry L. Williams (BA WI), 5/1412015 BAW! Subject FW Ema ling- MGHALeBardMNDresidentsletter5-12-2015 pdf Attachments MGHALeBardMNDresidentsletter5-12-2015 pdf,ATT00001 htm From:WMSBOaol coin fmatlto WMSBr—o)aol coml Sent:Thursday,May 14, 2015 5 43 PM To:Vdlasenor,Jennifer Cc: Hess,Scott, en!WetersonhbCalgmail.com, dsuIIivan(5)socaI.rr.Com Subject: Emaihng-MGHALeBardMNDresidentsletter5-12-2015 pdf Jennifer BAWI-1 Attached Is the form letter proposed by the MGHA, I whole heartedly agree with It's content, there Is no need at all for the parking under power lines for 11 events a year The project behind Stater Bros Market was to be a compatible project to Meredith , a drive by will tell you what a Ile that was Rolled curbs, no park ways, no room for 2 cars In front of each residence plus a garage set back that allows 2 cars In driveway BAWI-2 We need to use practical experience not some developers biased visual of a project These are proposed million dollar plus homes, should not be lammed In like a condo complex Thank You Barry L. Williams cell 714-745-1499 In God We Trust The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats, however no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email 1 xB -657- Item 14. - 164 May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park& Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith BAWI-3 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction, hydrology, noise,and recreation Ilk In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on BAWI-4 Cradet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND. I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17. Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street BAWI-5 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended. The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the BAWI-6 proposed new homes. Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies BAWI-7 Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces Item 14. - 165 HB -658- identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper cont BA parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that cont analysis is inadequate BAWI-8 T The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion i into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to BAWI-9 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state BAWI-10 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the BAWI 11 LeBard Park,even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to BAWI-12 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the BAWI-13 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the BAWI-14 proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m HB -659- Item 14. - 166 I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access BAWI-14 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of BAWI-15 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month long SAL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. BAWI-16 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development. The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6.1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is BAWI-17 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant 11111 to CECA 11 In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the BAWI-18 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Item 14. - 167 HB -660- Responses to Barry L. Williams (BAWI), 5/14/2015 BA WI-1 This comment provides introductory remarks noting that the commenter supports the response provided by Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association This also introduces comments BAWI-3 through AMBO-17, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns with the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required BA WI-2 This comment references the project located behind the Stater Bros Market as evidence of incompatibility between what a developer originally proposed and the actual inconsistency with the Meredith Gardens community,where the project consists of rolled curbs, no parkways, inadequate space for two cars in front of residences, and a garage setback limit that allows two cars in the driveways Further, this comment states that the City needs to use practical experience with the development of this project and not lam the residential units together like a condo complex This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND However, it should be noted that the proposed residential subdivision would include a new public street designed to City street standards for width, parkways, sidewalks, and curb and gutter Additionally, the project is proposing single-family lots averaging over 7,000 square feet and not small lot or condo development No further response is required BA WI-3 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Comment noted This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required BAWI-4 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 BAWI-5 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between HB -661- Item 14. - 168 the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where' mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 BA WI-6 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 BA WI-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 BA WI-8 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 BA WI-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 BA WI-10 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 BA WI-1 1 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 BA WI-12 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the Item 14. - 169 1413 -662- proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 BA WI-13 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and AMBO-11 BA WI-14 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable bamer be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Iattle League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 BA WI-15 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 BA WI-16 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 BA WI-17 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this HB -66;- Item 14. - 170 comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 BA WI-18 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 171 HB -664- Comments from Cortney Keller (COKE), 5/12/2015 COKE May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Vdlasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith COKE-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction,hydrology, noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on COKE-2 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act 11111 (CEQA) Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street COKE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be 11111 considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the COKE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of COKE-5 park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces xB -665- Item 14. - 172 identified. It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper COKE-5 parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that cont analysis is inadequate. COKE-6 I The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion i into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives 11 Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented,or mitigated in the MND other than to COKE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state COKE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" COKE-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the I LeBard Park,even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it COKE-10 will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the COKE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Noise COKE-12 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m. Item 14. - 173 xB -666- I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access COKE-12 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of COKE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory. The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. COKE-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community, The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013). Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1,5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is COKE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the COKE-16 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, HB -667- Item 14. - 174 Responses to Cortney Keller(COKE), 5/12/2015 COKE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments COKE-2 through COKE-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required COKE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study not was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 COKE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline,where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 COKE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 COKE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 COKE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 Item 14. - 175 HB -668- COKE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 COKE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 COKE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 COKE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 COKE-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adtacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the protect site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and AMBO-11 COKE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, thus comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adtommg access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 HB -669- Item 14. - 176 COKE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 COKE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the Cnty's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater nuttgatton measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the Cnty's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 COKE-IS This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that of the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 COKE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 177 HB -670- Comments from Dawn L. Bear (DABE), 511412075 ®ABE May 14,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Vdlasenor. I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith DABE-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are. Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on DABE-2 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street DABE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended. The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition, and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the DABE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies xB -671- Item 14. - 178 Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces DABS-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion DABS-6 into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to DABS-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state DABE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction." DABS-9 I The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the Le Bard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it DARE-10 will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the DABE-11 park`s proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Item 14. - 179 xB -672- Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark DABE-12 isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of DABE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties,played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. DABE-14 1 recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by'a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3,3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2,and 17 Unless the MND is DABE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant 11111 to CEQA. In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the DABE-16 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality xB _673_ Item 14. - 180 DABE-16 1 of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cont the consideration of alternative uses for the site. Thank you, UGWttYL S&Ar Dawn L Bear Responses to Dawn L. Bear (DABE), 5/14/2015 DABE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments DABE-2 through DABE-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required DABE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that adchtional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 DABE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 DABE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 Item 14. - 181 HB -674- DABE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 DABE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider,the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 DABE-7 Tlus comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to mtmmize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 DABE-8 Tlus comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to nunin ze disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Response MGHOA-10 DABE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 DABE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 DABE-1 1 Tlus comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health HB -675- Item 14. - 182 and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding, which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment DARE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed suivlar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 DARE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 DARE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 DARE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed s California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 183 HB -676- project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 DABE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -677- Item 14. - 184 Comments from George and Margot W11fert (GEWI), 5/12/2015 GEWI May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager CIEV 'F City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms.Villasenor. I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document. As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what GEW-1 appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation. In particular my concerns are: Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document Is inadequate. The stop controlled Intersection of Crallet and Cralmer was not Included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on GEW-2 Crailet and Craimer. I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the Ball extent possible, and recirculate the MND. I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing,identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5: Neighborhood Circulation improvements and section 17- Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEClA). Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient.Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street GEW-3 parking spaces. The IVIND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood. The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the GEWI-4 proposed new homes. Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the CIWs stated policies, GEWI-5 Additionally,the IVINO parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking Is significantly higher than the proper spaces Item 14. - 185 HB -678- Identified. it is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper GEW-5 cont parking has been used. The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate, GEW-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed.I support looking for alternatives. Constructi on n Construction impacts were not analyzed,presented,or mitigated in the MND other than to GEWI-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts. There is no mention of the likely Impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic Impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construcdon-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw In the MND. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule Will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state: GEW-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off' season to minimize disruption. Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction.' GEW-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current us"of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. N d€olo ater uaft Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin dean up requirements after storm run-off. If the retention basin properly serves to GEW-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play. If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment. If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mgation measure is inadequate. Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem In this area due to the GEW-1 I park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed. This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences. Noise GEVVI-12 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located In an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p.m. HB -679- Item 14. - 186 1 I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access GEN-12 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year. R%reation The IVIND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of GEW-1 3 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed. This is true only in theory.The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields. it Is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month long SVU-baseball season is problematic. The existing open,passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties,played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year In order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year Is a significant Impact. GEW-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is.It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development.The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community. The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here. General Plan Consistency The MND is Inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013).Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element:2-4,2.5,3,31,5,,6,6.1,6.2,and 17.Unless the MIT Is GEW-1 5 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant,unmitigated Impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family. I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CECIA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the GEWI-16 proposed Projects potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life.I took forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site. Thank you, A Item 14. - 187 HB -680- Responses to George and Margot Wilted (GEWI), 5/12/2015 I GEWI-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments GEWI-2 through GEWI-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required GEWI-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study not was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated withl the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 GEWI-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, tits comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 GEWI-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 GEWI-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 GEWI-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 HB -681- Item 14. - 188 i GEWI-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 GEWI-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball' practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 GEWI-9 I This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 i GEWI-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 GEWI-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basms with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment 6 Cahfornia Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in Cal forma Quuly 2012) Item 14. - 189 HB -682- GEWI-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 GEWI-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bnoretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 GEWI-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities. Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 GEWI-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 GEWI-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -6s-3- Item 14. - 190 i I Comments from lliana Velazquez (ILVE), 511212015 LVE May 12,2015 Jennifer Vdlasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor i I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative i Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith ILVE-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation I In particular my concerns are. Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on ILVE-2 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street ILVE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the ILVE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies ILVE-5 Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces Item 14. - 191 HB -684- identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper ILVE-5 parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that cont analysis is inadequate ILVE-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion i into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to ILVE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. I Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state I ILVE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction." ILVE-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the I LeBard Park, even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to ILVE-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment. If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate. Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the ILVE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the ILVE-12 proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m HB -685- Item 14. - 192 I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access ILVE-12 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of ILVE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic. The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. ILVE-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is it cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4,2 5, 3, 3 1, 5,6, 61, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is ILVE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the ILVE-16 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Item 14. - 193 xB -686- i Responses to Illana Velazquez (ILVE), 5/12/2015 ILVE-I This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments ILVE-2 through ILVE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required ILVE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Crauner Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter'S concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crairmer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 ILVE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 ILVE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 ILVE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 ILVE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 HB -687- Item 14. - 194 ILVE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 ILVE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 ILVE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 ILVE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 ILVE-1 I This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which ' are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment 7 Cahfornna Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices forMosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 195 HB -688- ILVE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 ILVE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 ILVE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 ILVE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 ILVE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -689- Item 14. - 196 Comments from Jason Vertican (JAVE), 511412015 JAVE May 14,2015 Jennifer Vdlasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Vdlasenor, 11 I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative I Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith JAVE-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what � appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise, and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on JAVE-2 Cradet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street JAVE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the JAVE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Item 14. - 197 x8 -690- i I Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces JAVE-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that * analysis is inadequate JAVE-6 Z The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to JAVE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state JAVE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the JAVE-9 LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it JAVE-10 will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the JAVE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences xs -691- Item 14. - 198 Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark JAVE-12 isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of JAVE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. JAVE-14 1 recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here. General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the Gty of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is JAVE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CECIA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEClp In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the JAVE-16 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality Item 14. - 199 HB -692- JAVE-16I of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cont the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Jason Vertican 20022 Beaumont Or Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Responses to Jason Vertican (JAVE), 5/14/2015 JA VE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology,noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments JAVE-2 through JAVE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required JAVE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 JAVE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline,where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 JAVE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 HB -6931- Item 14. - 200 JAVE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 JAVE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 JAVE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 JA VE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 JAVE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 JA VE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bnoretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bnoretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 JAVE-1 1 Tlus comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health Item 14. - 201 HB -694- and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed protect Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment JA VE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adlouung access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retail the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 JA VE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bnoretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basm is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 JA VE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 JA VE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed s Cahforma Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) HB -695- Item 14. - 202 i project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this ' comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 JA VE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required i Item 14. - 203 HB -696- Comments from Jennifer Vertican (JEVE), 5/15/2015 JEVE May 15,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms.Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith JEVE-1 Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction, hydrology, noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate. The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on JEVE-2 Cradet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5. Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient. Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street JEVE-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the JEVE-4 proposed new homes. Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies HB -697- Item 14. - 204 Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces JEVE-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate JEVE-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to JEVE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state JEVE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" JEVE-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to JEVE-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the JEVE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Item 14. - 205 xs -698- Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark JEVE-12 isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of JEVE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory. The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic. The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. JEVE-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is JEVE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CE QA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the JEVE-16 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality HB -699- Item 14. - 206 JEVE-16 of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including con I the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Jennifer Vertican 20022 Beaumont Cir Responses to Jennifer Vertican (JEVE), 5/15/2015 JEVE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology,noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments JEVE-2 through JEVE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required JEVE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 JEVE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 JEVE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 Item 14. - 207 HB -700- JEVE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 JEVE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 JEVE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 JE VE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 JEVE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 JEVE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 JEVE-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health HB -701- Item 14. - 208 and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMWs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment JEVE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact,which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 JEVE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 JEVE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 JEVE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6.1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed 9 California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 209 1413 -702- project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 JEVE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -70-3- Item 14. - 210 i Comments from Jozann Borenstein (JOBO), 517312075 JOBO Subject FW Building Plans for Le Bard Park' From:JOZANN BORENSTEIN fmailto iozann18!email coml Senn Thursday, May 14,2415 9 24 AM To:Villasenor,Jennifer Subject:Budding Plans for Le Bard Park' May 13, 2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: LeBard Park 6t Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms. Villasenor: I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document. As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, JOBO-1 the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise, and recreation. Ill In particular my concerns are: Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate. The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on Crailet and Craimer. I urge JOBO-2 the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND. I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5: Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17: Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Parki n The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient. Specifically, The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street parking JOBO-3 spaces. The MIND states that this will cause spilt-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended. The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood.The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition, and removal of this parking should be mitigated. 1 Item 14. - 211 HB -704- The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed JOBO-4 new homes. Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies. Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park JOBO-5 use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces identified. ,It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used. The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate. JOBO-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking Lot intrusion into the park be developed. I support looking for alternatives. Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to address JOBO-7 Air Quality and Noise impacts. There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state: JOBO-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off' season to minimize disruption. Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction." JOBO-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park, even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. HydroLovy/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off. If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those JOBO-10 pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play. If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment. if the retention basin is unsuccessful, the mitigation measure is inadequate. Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the park's JOBO-11 proximity to the Santa Ana River bed.This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little League fields where children will be playing and family 11 members watching, and to both existing and planned residences. Noise 2 xB -705- Item 14. - 212 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m.in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p.m. JOBO-12 I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year. Rec reati on The MND states there witl be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of passive area JOBO-13 Where the expanded parking lot is proposed.This is true only in theory.The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet tong and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the bait fields. It is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month tong SVLL basebalt season is problematic. The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact JOBO-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is. It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development. The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community. The City itself states one of its highest pnonties is the retention of open space and that should apply here. General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013). Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the foltowing sections under Circulation Element: 2.4, 2.5, 3, 3.1, 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2, and 17. Unless the MND is revised to JOBO-15 ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family. I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's JOBO-16 potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life. I took forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site. Thank you, Jozann Borenstein The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats;however no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats AN ays exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or follow mg links contained w ithm the email 3 Item 14. - 213 HB -706- Responses to Jozann Borenstein (JOBO), 5/13/2015 JOBO-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments JOBO-2 through JOBO-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required JOBO-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 JOBO-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline,where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 JOBO-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 JOBO-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 JOBO-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 HB -707- Item 14. - 214 JOBO-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 JOBO-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption. Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 JOBO-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City. Refer to Response MGHOA-11 JOBO-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 JOBO-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of Cahfornia10 has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment ,o California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices far Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 215 HB -708- JOBO-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 JOBO-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 JOBO-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 JOBO-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, uninittgated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 JOBO-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -709- Item 14. - 216 Comments from Julian Ball (JUBA), 5/1212015 JU A Subject FN LaBard Park Destruction Attachments MGHA LeBard MND residents letter 5-12-2015 pdf From: hbuclaman0aol com fmailto hbuclaman@aol corn] Sent:Thursday,May 14,2015 4 12 PM To.Vdlasenor,Jennifer Subject: LaBard Park Destruction JUBA 1 I, like most other Meredith Gardens residents am very upset with the LeBard Park MIND Please add my name to the list of very concerned Meredith Garden homeowners Julian Ball 2DD82 Colgate Circle, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats. hONkever no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email i Item 14. - 217 xB -7]o- May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject. Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what JUBA-2 appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction,hydrology, noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on JUBA-3 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CERA) 11 Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically, The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street JUBA-4 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the JUBA-5 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies. Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of JUBA-6 park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces xB -711- Item 14. - 218 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper cont JU parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that cont * analysis is inadequate JUBA-7 I The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion ii into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to JUBA-8 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of 111111 construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state, JUBA-9 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the JUBA-10 LeBard Park,even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to JUBA-11 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the JUBA-12 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching, and to both existing and planned residences 11 Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the JUBA-13 proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m Item 14. - 219 xB -712- I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access JUBA-13 road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is cont needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of JUBA-14 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. JUBA-15 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1,5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is JUBA-16 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEC!A, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the JUBA-17 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Julian Ball 20082 Colgate Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 HB _71;_ Item 14. - 220 Responses to Julian Ball (JUBA), 5/12/2015 JUBA-1 This comment provides introductory comments from a resident of Meredith Gardens and expresses concern about the Draft IS/MND This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required JUBA-2 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments JUBA-2 through JUBA-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required JUBA-3 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the protect and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 JUBA-4 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the protect would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline,where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 JUBA-5 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 JUBA-6 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 Item 14. - 221 HB -714- JUBA-7 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 JUBA-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to nu mmize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 JUBA-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 JUBA-10 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 JUBA-11 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 JUBA-12 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, wluch could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of Californian' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breedmg, which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs 11 California Departinent of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Ouuly 2012) HB -7 1 s- Item 14. - 222 within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment JUBA-13 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 JUBA-14 This comment states that the inclusion of the bnoretention basm as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basm is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 JUBA-15 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the Cnty's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 JUBA-16 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that of the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 Item 14. - 223 HB -716- JUBA-17 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -717- Item 14. - 224 Comments from Kathy Grunwald (KAGR), 511412075 KAGR May 14,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens,the KAGR-1 neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park,I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on these streets considered I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking KAGR-2 will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on Crarlet and Crarmer I urge the City to revise the analysis,mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible,and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing,identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specked in the City's General Plan(2013), Circulation Enhancements(CE)section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces,79 off-street and 3 on-street parkmg spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended The loss of KAGR-3 parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed new KAGR-4T homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners,but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally,the NM parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, KAGR-5 the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate KAGR-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park = be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed,presented,or nutrgated in the MND other than to address Air Quality and Norse impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours KAGR-7 of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND Item 14. - 225 HB -718- Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state KAGR-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league"off'season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" =KAGR 9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and-2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants KAGR-10 and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants,which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and sod of the park,where my children play If the retention basin is successful,there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the park's proximity to the Santa Ana KAGR-11 River bed Tlus is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p in in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single KAGR-12 family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p in I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land di and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable,passable area to offset the loss of passive area where KAGR-13 the expanded parking lot is proposed Tlus is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin,200 feet long and 40 feet wide,located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park.Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open,passive area is where I have held my childrens' birthday parties,played frisbee, had picnics,and attended movie nights in the park Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact KAGR-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure,not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan KAGR-15 (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4,2 5,3,3 1,5,6,6 1,6 2,and 17 Unless the MND is revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies,the proposed project will have a significant, HB -7 1 9- Item 14. - 226 unnutigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise KAGR-15 and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements cont of CEQA,or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. In closing,I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward,but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially KAGR-16 significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Kathy Grunwald Responses to Kathy Grunwald (KAGR), 5/14/2015 KAGR-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments KAGR-2 through KAGR-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required KAGR-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Crauner Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic utripacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 KAGR-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking inripacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 Item 14. - 227 HB -720- KAGR-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 KAGR-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 KAGR-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 KAGR-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 KAGR-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 KAGR-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result m impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 KAGR-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basm is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 HB -721- Item 14. - 228 KAGR-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California12 has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment KAGR-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 KAGR-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 KAGR-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 12 Cahfornia Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 229 HB -722- KAGR-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6.1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 KAGR-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -72;- Item 14. - 230 Comments from Kelly Ramsey (KERA), 511212015 KERA May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach MAY 18 2015 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dept of Planning&Building Subject. LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration {MND} Environmental Impacts Document. As a parent and resident of Meredith KERA-t Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation treasures regarding traffic,parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation. In particular my concerns are: Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The strap controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic"from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on KERA-2 Crailet and Craimer. I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND. I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming_measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5: Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17: Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient.Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on street KERA-3 parking spaces. The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood. The long- established snared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking'should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the KERA-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies. Item 14. - 231 HB -724- Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces KERA-5 identified. It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used. The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that 0 analysis is inadequate. KERA-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed. I support looking for alternatives. Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented,or mitigated in the MND other than to KERA-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts. There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state KERA-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption. Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction." KERA-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bloretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off. If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it KERA-10 will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment. If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate. Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the KERA-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed. This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences. HB -725- Item 14. - 232 Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 pm. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark KERA-12 isolated area after 10 p.m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of KERA-1 3 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed. This is true only in theory. The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park. Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open,passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties,played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 36S days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. KERA-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is. It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development.The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community. The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here. General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan(2013).Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element. 2.4, 2.5,3, 11,5,6,6.1, 6.2,and 17. Unless the MND is KERA-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the KERA-161 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my familys quality Item 14. - 233 HB -726- KERA-16I of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cunt the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, 7 �b ti t c Kd'Ci Cx r 7 OA Responses to Kelly Ramsey(KERA), 5/12/2015 KERA-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments KERA-2 through KERA-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required KERA-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 KERA-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact HB -727- Item 14. - 234 Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline,where nutigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 KERA-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 KERA-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter I suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 KERA-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 KERA-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 KERA-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 KERA-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 Item 14. - 235 HB -728- KERA-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 KERA-11 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adtacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the protect site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California" has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed protect Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment KERA-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adtoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 KERA-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adtacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 KERA-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a 13 California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in Cal forma Quly 2012) 1413 -729- Item 14. - 236 year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 KERA-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 KERA-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 237 1113 -730- Comments from Kevin Smith (KESM), 511512015 KESM From Kevin Smith To: Villasenor.Jennifer Subject Le Bard Paris Development Date. Fnday,May 15,2015 147 31 PM Hello, I have reviewed the Parking Study (Appendix J)of the LeBard Park Environmental KESM-1 Document As a parent and resident of Mendeth Gardens,I have a concern about the lack of parking spaces proposed in the plan The mitigation measures for parking are insufficient The MND states the current parking condition to be 147 striped parking spaces and 53 on-street and that the proposed project would result in 68 stripped parking spaces and 50 on-street resulting in the loss of 79 stripped parking spaces and 3 on-street parking spaces The overall loss of 82 parking spaces with no KESM-2 mitigation is unacceptable Table 5 on Page 12 of the Parking Study clearly shows that weekend demand for parking with Little League Events far exceeds the proposed number of spaces in the current plan Allowing this overflow to spill into the surrounding neighborhood is not an acceptable solution More work needs to be done on this The City would not allow new construction to be deficient in adequate parking and should not allow this project to cause adverse impacts to our neighborhood I feel the best solution would be to have the city work with Southern California Edison to utilize the empty space under the power lines to the East of the park. The space would be used on weekends during the Sea View Little League season The entrance to this overflow KESM-3 parking could be in the form of a locked gate at the East end of the proposed parking lot extension Keys to the gate could be given to all the Little League team managers The first ones to the fields in the morning would be responsible for unlocking the overflow parking gate KESM-4 Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns I look forward to the meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council Regards, Kevin Smith 20352 Ravenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-746-9856 Responses to Kevin Smith (KESM), 5/15/2015 KESM-1 This comment states that the commenter is a resident of the Meredith Gardens neighborhood and, after reviewing the Draft IS/MND and associated parking study, has concerns about the lack of parking HB -731- Item 14. - 23 8 proposed for the project This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required KESM-2 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation to address this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and states that the City would not allow new construction to be deficient in parking and should not allow this project to either Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 KESM-3 This comment provides the commenters favored solution to the parking issue which includes the City working with SCE to utilize the space within their right-of-way as an overflow parking lot during the Little League season This comment also suggests installing a lockable gate and giving keys to Little League team managers to unlock in the morning of games Refer to Response MGHOA-15 KESM-4 This comment expresses appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft IS/MND and states that the commenter looks forward to working with the City on refining the proposed project in the upcoming months This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 239 HB -732- Comments from Kirsten Beecher (KIBE), 511412015 KIBE Kirsten&Gavin Beecher 20272 Ravenwood Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 kirsten beecher@vahoa com May 14,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subiect• LeBard Park&Residential Proiect MND Comments I Dear Ms Villasenor I i respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negati e Declaration (MND)Environmental impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens,the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park,I have serious concerns about what appear to be Oaring KIBE 9 omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking, construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular,the area for proposed parking is very close to my home and given the activity that already occurs in the parking area within plain site 1 rom the main street,I am very concerned about what else would occur In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled inte ection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on hese streets considered.I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the I ck of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on Crailet and Craimer,I ur the City to KIBE-2 revise the analysis,mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible,and recirculat the MND i respectfully request the updated analyses include provisions such as analyzing,identify ng and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as sp cified in the City's General Plan(2013),Circulation Enhancements(CE)section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Enviror mental Quality Act(CEQA) Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces,79 off-street and 3 on-street parking KIBE-3 spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts,but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared Parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed KIBE-4 new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners,but it is also n t an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies, KIBE-5 Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces Identified It is often HB -73;- Item 14. - 240 Kasten&Gavin Beecher 20272 Ravenwood Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 kirsten beeches yahoo com KIBE-5 the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been u ed.The cont absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate. KIBE-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intru4 ion into the park be developed.I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed,presented,or mitigated in the MND other th n to address KIBE-7 Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauli g routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts our neighborhood.The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related tips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. i Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability rather than to state. i KIBE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sp its fields would be scheduled during the little league"off"season to minimize disruption Al hough it is not anticipated,during construction of the park Improvements there may be a terr porary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" The WIND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of I he LeBard KIBE-9 park,even temporarily,create Impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1,and-2 do not address the vegetated and bioretenti n basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture tormwater KIBE-10 pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean tha those pollutants,which the state considers hazardous,are accumulating within the vegeta ion and soil of the park,where my children play if the retention basin is successful,there is the ri k to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined m'st be prevented from entering the natural environment.If the retention basin is unsucceSSfL 1,the mitigation measure is inadequate. Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may servt as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to t park's KIBE-11 proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing an J family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences. Noise KIBE-12 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m.in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW dlacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p.m Item 14. - 241 xB -734- Kirsten&Gavin Beecher 20272 Ravenwood Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 kirsten.beecherCa yahoo com I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that KIBE-12 prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the corit area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable,passable area to offset the loss of assive area KIBE-13 where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory.The usable increase in area is in a detention basin,200 feet long and 40 feet wide,located between the new residences and the ball fields it is not adjacent to the park,Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic. The existing open,passive area is where my family has attended movie nights in the hark and other community events.loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 aturdays a year is a significant impact. i KIBE-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is it cannot be compensated for y a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development.The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure,not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of opens ace and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its Ge leral Plan (2013).Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following ctions KIBE:-15 under Circulation Element.2.4,2 5,3,3 1,5,6,61,6.2,and 17 Unless the MND is revi ed to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies,the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family.I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA,or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a State ent of 11111 Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing,I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward,but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's poter tially KIBE-16 significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life.I look forward to wc rking with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Beecher xB -735- Item 14. - 242 Responses to Kirsten Beecher (KIBE), 5/14/2015 KIBE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further,this comment introduces comments KIBE-2 through KIBE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required KIBE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 KIBE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a ' sigmficant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 KIBE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 KIBE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 KIBE-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 Item 14. - 243 HB -736- KIBE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 KIBE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off" season to mimm»e disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 KIBE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 KIBE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 KIBE-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of Cahforma74 has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment 74 Cahforma Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control an California Quly 2012) 1113 -737- Item 14. - 244 KIBE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 Pm in the area of the parking lot expansion due to i]hcit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 KIBE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 KIBE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 KIBE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 KIBE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 245 HB -738- Comments from Marianne Homer (MAHO), 5/12/2015 AHO May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what MAHO-1 appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction, hydrology, noise, and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Cradet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on MAHO-2 Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parkin The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street MAHO-3 parking spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the MAHO-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies xB -739- 'Item 14. - 246 Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces MAHO-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate MAHO-6 I The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion i into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to MAHO-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would MAHO-8 be scheduled during the little league "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" MAHO-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park, even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to MAHO-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the MAHO-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Item 14. - 247 HB -740- Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p m in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark MAHO-12 isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of MAHO-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park' Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open,passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties,played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. MAHO-14 1 recommend the existing park open space remain as is. It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1,6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is MAHO-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEC!A In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the MAHO-164 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality xB -741- Item 14. - 248 MAHO-161 of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cont ii the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank ypu, r r, V Responses to Marianne Homer (MAHO), 5/12/2015 MAHO-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the ' Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, ' hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments NIAHO-2 through NIAHO-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required MAHO-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Cranner Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the protect and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Cranner Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 MAHO-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the protect would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 MAHO-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 Item 14. - 249 HB -742- MAHO-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 MAHO-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 MAHO-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 MAHO-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction"Response MGHOA-10 MAHO-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 MAHO-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 MAHO-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health HB -743- Item 14. - 250 and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of Califorma15 has established design guidehnes to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidehnes and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment. MAHO-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 MAHO-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 MAHO-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) nght-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities. Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 MAHO-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified m the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed 15 California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 251 HB -744- project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 MAHO-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose�the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of;the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -745- Item 14. - 252 Comments from Melinda Rosenzweig (MERO), 511312015 HERO May 13,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Vdlasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear MERO-1 to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction,hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate exL_ MER:erns about speeding on Cradet and Craimer I urge MERO-2 the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically, The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street parking MERO-3 spaces The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended. The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the MERO-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of MERO-5 park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper Item 14. - 253 HB -746- i MERO-5 parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis cont is inadequate MERO-6 I The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into i the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to MERO-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction- related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state MERO-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the MERO 9 LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1,and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean MERO-10 that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful,there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the park's MERO-11 proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE MERO-12 ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or HB -747- Item 14. - 254 MERO-12♦ retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking cont i problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of passive MERO-13 area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. MERO-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following MERO-15 sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies,the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's MERO-16 potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Melinda Rosenzweig 10171 Birchwood Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Item 14. - 255 xB -748- Responses to Melinda Rosenzweig (MERO), 5/13/2015 MERO-I This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments MERO-2 through MERO-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required MERO-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craumer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the protect and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Cranlet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated withithe new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 MERO-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the protect would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 MERO-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 MERO-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 MERO-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 HB -749- Item 14. - 256 MERO-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 MERO-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 i MERO-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 MERO-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 MERO-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California's has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment 16 Cahfornia Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of Cahforma Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 257 HB -750- MERO-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to acit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adtommg access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 MERO-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adtacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 MERO-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 MERO-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed protect would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the protect meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 MERO-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed protect, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -751- Item 14. - 258 Comments from Nancy L. Rasoletti (NARA), 5/1/2015 NARA Subject FW Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments From: N L Rasoletti[mailto nir0socal rr coml Sent:Thursday, May 14,2015 3 06 PM To:Villasenor,Jennifer Subject:Subject LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments 1 Date: May 14, 2015 To: i Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager-City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From: Nancy L. Rasoletti 20152 Viva Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 nlrCcbsocal rr com Subject: LeBard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor, I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant NARA-1 oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise, and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate NARA-2 existing concerns about speeding on Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements(CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street parking spaces The MND NARA-3 states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition, and removal of this parking should be mitigated 1 Item 14. - 259 HB -752- The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed new NARA-4 homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the NARA-5 amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces Identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used. The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate NARA-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot Intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction Impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to address Air NARA-7 Quality and Noise Impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND Additionally, the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park j field availability other than to state NARA-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league"off"season to minimize disruption Although It is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and gams if the schedule changes during construction " NARA-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create Impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants NARA-10 and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will man that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play If the retention basin Is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural di environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins In the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the parks proximity to the Santa NARA-11 Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching, and to both existing and planned residences Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p m in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family NARA-12 residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark Isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation NARA-13 The MND states there will be an Increase in usable, passable area to offset the foss of passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory The usable increase in area is in a 2 HB -753- Item 14. - 260 NARA-13 detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It Is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season oont is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park Loss of this area 36S days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact NARA-14 I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of Its highest priorltles Is the retentlon of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically,traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation NARA-15 Element 2 4, 2 S, 3, 3 1, S, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 Unless the MND is revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated Impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the piolect meets the requirements of CEQA, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the NARA-16 school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Nancy L. Rasoletti 20152 Viva Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 nlrtcbsocal rr cem The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats_hoK aver no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats Uways exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained«ithin the email 3 Item 14. - 261 xB -754- Responses to Nancy L. Rasoletti (NARA), 5/1/2015 NARA-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments NARA-2 through NARA-15,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required NARA-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Craiimer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 NARA-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 NARA-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 NARA-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for�the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 NARA-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 HB -755- Item 14. - 262 NARA-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 NARA-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 NARA-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 NARA-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 NARA-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adtacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the protect site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California" has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed protect Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment 17 Cahfomia Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices forMosquito Control an California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 263 HB -756- NARA-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10.00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 NARA-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 NARA-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 NARA-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2.5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 61, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 NARA-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -757- Item 14. - 264 Comments from Pat Allen (PAAL), 51112015 PAAL Subject FW LeBard From: PAT ALLEN rmailto biafoot926460yahoo coml Sent:Thursday, May 14,2015 3 34 PM To:Vdlasenor,Jennifer Subject: PAAL-1 HI I am writing to support the concerns of The MGHOA I and the other residents find the cities proposal to need these changes PAT ALLEN I The IS team to Ntktns has scanned this email and an} attachments for vtruse5 and other threats,howe\,er no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats Always exetctse caution before acting on the content of an email and before openmg attachments or following links contained-,i itlun the email Responses to Pat Allen (PAAL), 5/1/2015 PAAL-1 This comment supports the concerns as well as the requested revisions to the Draft IS/MND of the Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association (Response MGHOA) Commented noted This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND nor provide specific comments No further response is required here but refer to Response MGHOA Item 14. - 265 HB -758- Comments from Susan Claudius (SUCL), 511412015 SUCL May 14,2015 i Jennifer Vdlasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens,the neighborhood SUCL-1 adjacent to Le Bard Park,I have serious concerns about what appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking,construction, hydrology,noise,and recreation In particular my concerns are Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Cradet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis,nor was traffic speed on these streets considered.I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing SUCL-2 concerns about speeding on Crailet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis,mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible,and recirculate the MND I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing,identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan(2013),Circulation Enhancements(CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Pa rki ng The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces,79 off-street and 3 on-street parking spaces The MND states that SUCL-3 this will cause spill-over parking impacts,but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood The long-established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be III considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the proposed new homes SUCL-4 Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies SUCL-5 Additionally,the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use,the = amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces xs -759- Item 14. - 266 SUCL-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been °0rit used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate SUCL-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented,or mitigated in the MIND other than to address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of SUCL 7 operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood.The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field i availability other than to state SUCL-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for Le Bard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league"off"season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated,during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" SUCL-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1,and-2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to capture stormwater pollutants and SUCL-10 prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed,it will mean that those pollutants,which the state considers hazardous,are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play If the retention basin is successful,there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate Moreover,the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the park's SUCL-11 proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and 11 family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences. Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m.in the SUCL-12 proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark isolated area IF after 10 p m Item 14. - 267 xB -760- I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road SUCL-12 that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or cont retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year. Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable,passable area to offset the loss of SUCL-13 Passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed. This is true only in theory. The usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SVLL baseball season is problematic. i The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a j SUCL-14 detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development. The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element. 2.4, 2 5, 3, 3.1,5, 6, 6.1,6.2,and 17. Unless the MND is SUCL-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies,the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family. I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA,or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the redevelopment of the school district site forward,but I have serious concerns about the SUCL-16 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality of life. I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank you, Susan Claudius Responses to Susan Claudius (SUCL), 5/14/2015 SUCL-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments SUCL-2 through HB -761- Item 14. - 268 SUCL-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This, comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required SUCL-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled' intersection of Cranlet Drive and Crauner Lane was not included in the traffic study not was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased parking spaces will exacerbate exiting speeding issues on Ctailet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions, such as traffic calming measures, and then be recirculated with the' new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 SUCL-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 SUCL-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 SUCL-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 SUCL-6 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 SUCL-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to mtmmize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 Item 14. - 269 HB -762- SUCL-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to nun mlze disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 , SUCL-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 I SUCL-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if�the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 SUCL-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California" has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design guidelines and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment SUCL-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a 18 California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) HB -763- Item 14. - 270 year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 SUCL-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between, the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 SUCL-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 SUCL-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 61, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unnutigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 SUCL-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 271 HB -764- Comments from Susan Dauer (SUDA), 5/12/2015 Su DA Subject FW Lebard Project Attachments lebard project pdf From:Susan Dauer fmaitto mamasoozl0@ctmail coml Sent:Wednesday, May 13,2015 3 31 PM To:Vdlasenor,Jennifer Subject: Lebard Project Hi Jennifer, SUDA-1 I have concerns about the upcoming Lebard Park&Residential project Attached is a letter about my concerns Thanks Susan Dauer The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for ,iruses and other threats, ho1A ever no technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email i HB -765- Item 14. - 272 May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of-Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject LeGard Pat g Rcsidentral Progect MND Comments Dear Ms V rllasenor I respectfully aczbmit the, following cor€ me€its regarding in the e Bard Bark Wgated Negative Declaration tIVIND) Envr:onmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of f eredi'th Gardens the neighborhood adjacent to le Bard Part, I have ,er ous concerns about what � SUDA-2 appea, to be blatant oversights and glaring ornrss€ons rl' the NIND anelysrs and :uoposed ,I rn3tt £trot Et £'.3xatr€r a regarding tr;�f°if, -er ,og construction, hydialo , nu,se,ard$t^'c; atio 3 � In particular rnl co,.�e€n�are Trcat`lc The traffr, analysis used in t'le hAND doc�omerlt is inadequate The stop controlled i intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on SUDA-3 Cra€let and Craime€ I large the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impa£ts to the toll extent possible grad recirculate the MND 1 respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming !Measures on,impacted streets in t erecrith Gardens as specified in the Crty's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enh-,incenments (Cf) sect€on S Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Envl€onmental Quality Act (CEOA) Parking Elie rnitrgatron measures for parking are not suffrclent specifically,Tile 'AND state that the proposed project Would result in a total loss of 82 spares, 79 oft-street and 3 on-street SUDA-4 parking spaces The Mh}D states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the parkas a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood °thc long- established shared parking between the school district and e Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking slaaces will be created in front of!be SUDA-5 proposed new homes No, only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also:noT an acceptable means for providing parking per the C€tv`s stated policies Item 14. - 273 HB -766- Additionally, the MND parking analysis apes not acknowledge that during peak perked of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces SUDA-6 identified It is often the case toddy that pal k users park on the aiphalt when all proper, parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is1nadeguate SUQA-7 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion nto the park be developed i support looking for alternatrves Const€€rction Construction impacts were not analyzed, Presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to SUDA-8 address Air QuaRv ar d,Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize constructlors traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related tufts appears to be a fundamental flaws in the MND. Adchtionally, the NIND dries not addles,. how construction phiisirag and schedule will affect !e Bard Parr field availability other than to state SUDA-9 "Consti€rctton for the proposed improvernent>tsar Le a,d Parr and the existing sports fields wood be sclreouled during the little league off" season to rmnsrnize disruption Althougn it is not anNipated,ouring cry€3stiuction of the park impro,ernentsthere rnav be a temporary displacement of the Sea View tittle League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during 111 construction I SUDA-1tl The IY1ND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses,of-tile Leltard Park,evert temporarily,create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach, Hydrgjogy� l�� terQuaiity %litigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address tine vegetated andsbioretentlon basal clean up requirements after storm run off If the retention basin'properly serves to SUDA-11 capture storriwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entenrig,the watershed,it ,,will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park,where my children play if the retention basin is successfula there is the risk to children to some into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate ,vloreove-, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the SUDA-12 park`s proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern a� the area designated for these basses are in close prommity to the little league fields where children will be,ptaying and family members watching and to both existing and planned residences guise HB -767- Item 14. - 274 The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 pm. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residence-, Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark SUDA-13 isolated area aftei 10 da m I support a nartigxt= measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retail-ling the area as passive park lard and finding other solutions to the Sattuday°parking problem that occurs 11 days a year Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of SUDA-14 passNe area .,vhety the expanclpd parking lot £: proposed This is true only in thoory The usable ncrease in ari2a r- in a detention basin 200 feet long Gild 40 ieet wide, located between tree new rest denies and the ball fiLlds It is not adjacent to the parr Use of this area other than curing the three month long�Vtt baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is cohere I have held iffy children's birthday parties,played freeze tag, and attended movie nights m the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 1.7 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact I S'IJDA 15 I recommend the existing park omen space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a detention basin ,seeded to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residentral stornrwater mitigation measures should be borne by tits future developer 'hiough a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden can the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Fran 6orjststency The MND is incons€stent°with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and narking do riot meet Ike reauiror eats of the iollowing sections under circulation Element 24, 2 5,3, 3 1, 5,6,6 1,6 2,and 17 unless the MND is SUDA-16 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the propose project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and nay family I strongly large the City to revise artd recirculate the MND to adequately address hese issues to ersuie thcr p,olewt meets, the ientiriements of �k, or prepare an Envtronme,,tal Impact Report and adopt a Statement of O errrding,Consideratrons pursuant lill toCEQA In' closing, I acknowledge the Oty's efforts over the past several yeas to move the redevelopment of the school disVict site forward, but 1 have serious concerns about the SUDA-17 proposed Project's potentially significant impacts, to my neighborhood and my far-Ov's quality of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead incluchng the consideration of alternative uses for the site Thank Vow, R .r Item 14. - 275 HB -768- Responses to Susan Dauer (SUDA), 5/12/2015 SODA-1 This comment provides introductory text and expresses concern for the proposed project and references the attached comments This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required SODA-2 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis nni the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments SUDA-3 through SUDA-16,which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required SODA-3 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Crammer Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 SODA-4 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 SODA-5 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 SODA-6 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 HB -769- Item 14. - 276 SUDA-7 This comments supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 SUDA-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 SUDA-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 I SUDA-10 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 SUDA-1 1 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 SUDA-12 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California's has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs 19 California Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 277 HB -770- within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design gwdehnes and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment SUDA-13 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise m�the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 SUDA-14 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 SUDA-15 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 SUDA-16 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a sigruficant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 HB -771- Item 14. - 278 SUDA-17 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed protect, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required Item 14. - 279 HB -772- i Comments from Tanya Ferrell (TAFE), 511212015 TAFE May 12,2015 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject Le Bard Park&Residential Project MND Comments Dear Ms.Villasenor I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Le Bard Park Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Environmental Impacts Document As a parent and resident of Meredith Gardens, the neighborhood adjacent to Le Bard Park, I have serious concerns about what TAFE-1 appear to be blatant oversights and glaring omissions in the MND analysis and proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic,parking, construction, hydrology,noise,and recreation. In particular my concerns are- Traffic The traffic analysis used in the MND document is inadequate The stop controlled intersection of Crailet and Craimer was not included in the traffic analysis, nor was traffic speed on these streets considered. I am concerned that the additional traffic from the Project and from the lack of parking will exacerbate existing concerns about speeding on TAFE-2 Cradet and Craimer I urge the City to revise the analysis, mitigate all traffic impacts to the full extent possible, and recirculate the MND. I respectfully request the updated analysis include provisions such as analyzing, identifying and implementing traffic calming measures on impacted streets in Meredith Gardens as specified in the City's General Plan (2013), Circulation Enhancements (CE) section 5 Neighborhood Circulation Improvements and section 17 Site Development Permit Process and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Parking The mitigation measures for parking are not sufficient Specifically,The MND states that the proposed project would result in a total loss of 82 spaces, 79 off-street and 3 on-street TAFE-3 Parking spaces. The MND states that this will cause spill-over parking impacts, but no mitigation is recommended.The loss of parking for the park as a direct result of this project will more than likely cause significant adverse impacts to our neighborhood. The long- established shared parking between the school district and Le Bard Park must be considered to be an existing condition,and removal of this parking should be mitigated. The MND suggests that 24 new on-street parking spaces will be created in front of the TAFE-4 proposed new homes Not only will this create a problem for future homeowners, but it is also not an acceptable means for providing parking per the City's stated policies. xs -773)- Item 14. - 280 I Additionally, the MND parking analysis does not acknowledge that during peak period of park use, the amount of utilized parking is significantly higher than the proper spaces TAFE-5 identified It is often the case today that park users park on the asphalt when all proper parking has been used The absence of this activity in the parking analysis means that analysis is inadequate TAFE-6 The Community Services Commission asked that an alternative to the parking lot intrusion into the park be developed I support looking for alternatives Construction Construction impacts were not analyzed, presented, or mitigated in the MND other than to TAFE-7 address Air Quality and Noise impacts There is no mention of the likely impacts of truck j hauling routes or hours of operation that should be required to minimize construction traffic impacts to our neighborhood. The failure to analyze the significant impact of construction-related trips appears to be a fundamental flaw in the MND. Additionally,the MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule will affect Le Bard Park field availability other than to state TAFE-8 "Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the little league "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedule changes during construction" TAFE-9 The MND does not analyze whether the need to potentially relocate current uses of the LeBard Park,even temporarily, create impacts in other areas of Huntington Beach. 11 Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation measures MM Hydro-1, and -2 do not address the vegetated and bioretention basin clean up requirements after storm run-off If the retention basin properly serves to TAFE-10 capture stormwater pollutants and prevent those pollutants from entering the watershed, it will mean that those pollutants, which the state considers hazardous, are accumulating within the vegetation and soil of the park, where my children play If the retention basin is successful, there is the risk to children to come into regular contact with pollutants that State of California has determined must be prevented from entering the natural environment If the 111111 retention basin is unsuccessful,the mitigation measure is inadequate 11 Moreover, the inclusion of open collecting basins in the park with no outlets may serve as an attraction for pests including mosquitoes which can be a problem in this area due to the TAFE-11 park's proximity to the Santa Ana River bed This is of particular concern as the area designated for these basins are in close proximity to the little league fields where children will be playing and family members watching,and to both existing and planned residences Item 14. - 281 xB -774- Noise The discussion does not cover the noise that would be generated after 10 p.m. in the proposed new parking lot located in an isolated area of the park that extends to the SCE ROW adjacent to single family residences. Unlawful activity can be expected in this dark TAFE-12 isolated area after 10 p m I support a mitigation measure such as a lockable barrier similar to the adjoining access road that prevents access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed or retaining the area as passive park land and finding other solutions to the Saturday parking problem that occurs 11 days a year. Recreation The MND states there will be an increase in usable, passable area to offset the loss of TAFE-13 passive area where the expanded parking lot is proposed This is true only in theory Th'e usable increase in area is in a detention basin, 200 feet long and 40 feet wide, located between the new residences and the ball fields It is not adjacent to the park Use of this area other than during the three month long SAL baseball season is problematic The existing open, passive area is where I have held my children's birthday parties, played freeze tag, and attended movie nights in the park. Loss of this area 365 days a year in order to park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year is a significant impact. I recommend the existing park open space remain as is It cannot be compensated for by a TAFE-14 detention basin needed to accommodate new residential development The requirements to include residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer through a revised mitigation measure, not through the loss of park area and burden on the existing community The City itself states one of its highest priorities is the retention of open space and that should apply here General Plan Consistency The MND is inconsistent with the City of Huntington Beach's own stated goals in its General Plan (2013) Specifically, traffic and parking do not meet the requirements of the following sections under Circulation Element 2 4, 2 5, 3,3 1, 5, 6,6 1,6.2,and 17 Unless the MND is TAFE-15 revised to ensure consistency with these identified General Plan policies, the proposed project will have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community and my family I strongly urge the City to revise and recirculate the MND to adequately address these issues to ensure the project meets the requirements of CECW, or prepare an Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CECW In closing, I acknowledge the City's efforts over the past several years to move the TAFE-16 redevelopment of the school district site forward, but I have serious concerns about the proposed Project's potentially significant impacts to my neighborhood and my family's quality xB -775- Item 14. - 282 TAFE-16 I of life I look forward to working with you on project refinements in the months ahead including cont the consideration of alternative uses for the site. Warmly, Tanya Ferrell 10141 Jon Day Drive Responses to Tanya Ferrell (TAFE), 5/12/2015 TAFE-1 This comment provides introductory comments, noting that they have concerns about the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and the proposed mitigation measures regarding traffic, parking, construction, hydrology, noise and recreation Further, this comment introduces comments TAFE-2 through TAFE-15, which outlines the commenter's specific concerns regarding the issues mentioned above This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required TAFE-2 This comment states the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because the stop controlled intersection of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane was not included in the traffic study nor was traffic speed considered on these streets This comment also expresses the commenter's concerns that additional traffic from the project and decreased on-site parking spaces will exacerbate existing speeding issues on Crailet Drive and Cranner Lane The commenter requests that the Draft IS/MND be revised to mitigate all traffic impacts and include provisions such as traffic calming measures and then be recirculated with the new analysis Refer to Response MGHOA-3 TAFE-3 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the parking analysis determines there will be spill-over parking impacts but does not incorporate mitigation for this impact Further, this comment states that the loss of parking as a result of the project would likely result in a significant adverse impact to the surrounding neighborhood and urges that the shared parking between the School District and the City (for LeBard Park) be considered as the existing parking baseline, where mitigation should be incorporated for the loss of the School District parking spaces Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-5 Item 14. - 283 HB -776- TAFE-4 This comment suggests that the 24 new on-street parking spaces that would be created in front of the proposed homes would not only create a problem for future homeowners but is also an unacceptable means for providing parking per City's stated policies Refer to Response MGHOA-6 TAFE-5 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND parking analysis is inadequate as it does not account for the significantly higher amount of parking utilized during peak periods of park use Further, the commenter suggests that park users park on the asphalt once all proper parking spaces have been occupied Refer to Response MGHOA-7 TAFE-6 This comment supports the statement by the Community Services Commission that if an alternative to the proposed parking lot could be identified and constructed, the Commission would consider the alternative Comment is noted Refer to Response MGHOA-8 TAFE-7 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND did not analyze the likely impacts from construction- related traffic and does not include required hours of operation in order to minimize construction traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-9 TAFE-8 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not address how construction phasing and schedule would affect LeBard Park field availability other than to state that "construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields would be scheduled during the Little League "off" season to minimize disruption Although it is not anticipated, during construction of the park improvements there may be a temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games if the schedules changes during construction" Refer to Response MGHOA-10 TAFE-9 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not analyze the potential displacement of current uses of LeBard Park, even temporarily, to other areas of Huntington Beach, which the commenter suggests could result in impacts in other areas of the City Refer to Response MGHOA-11 TAFE-10 This comment suggests that mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 do not address ,the cleanup requirements of the vegetated swale and bioretention area after storm events The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as it does not analyze potential impacts if the proposed bioretention basin is unsuccessful or of an additional mitigation measure that would address accumulated pollutants within the bioretention basin or vegetated swale which are considered by the commenter to represent a risk to park users Refer to Response MGHOA-12 HB -777- Item 14. - 284 TAFE-1 1 This comment expresses concern that the inclusion of open basins with no outlets within the park, specifically located adjacent to the baseball fields, may attract pests, such as mosquitoes, which could be problematic to existing and future residents, especially since the project site is in close proximity to the Santa Ana riverbed Refer to Response MGHOA-12 In addition, the Cahfornm Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California' has established design guidelines to reduce sources for mosquito breeding,which have been incorporated into the design of the BMPs which are incorporated into the WQMPs prepared for the proposed project Therefore, the identified BMPs within the Draft IS/MND would be consistent with these design gwdehnes and would not result in an increased pest or mosquito impact No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment TAFE-12 This comment states that the noise analysis did not include the potential noise generated after 10 00 PM in the area of the parking lot expansion due to illicit activity that would occur in the isolated part of the park Further, this comment recommends two options as a means for reducing nighttime noise in the proposed parking lot area (1) incorporate mitigation to require that a lockable barrier be installed similar to the adjoining access road that would prevent access to this unused area other than the 11 Saturdays a year it is needed for Little League parking or (2) retain the existing passive park area and identify an alternative to the potential Saturday parking impact, which would only occur 11 days a year during peak Little League use Refer to Response MGHOA-13 TAFE-13 This comment states that the inclusion of the bioretention basin as the increased passive area to offset the passive area lost for the proposed parking lot is problematic as the detention basin is located between the new residences and the baseball fields, and is not located adjacent to the park Refer to Response MGHOA-14 TAFE-14 This comment states that existing passive area of the park is used for recreational sports, picnics, and other open space uses 365 days a year and should not be lost in order to "park 17 cars 11 Saturdays a year" Further, this comment states that the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which the commenter suggests is included in the City's park inventory, was not analyzed as an alternative location for parking and requests that the City analyzes utilizing the SCE property for additional parking The commenter recommends that the existing passive area of LeBard Park remain as it is and states that the inclusion of residential stormwater mitigation measures should be borne by the future developer, not by the loss of existing parkland This comment also states that future developers may be able to design innovative methods of stormwater control without impinging on existing park area, as the retention of open space is one of the City's highest priorities Refer to Response MGHOA-15 and MGHOA-16 20 Cahfonna Department of Health and the Mosquitos and Vector Control Association of California Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California Quly 2012) Item 14. - 285 HB -778- TAFE-15 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND is inconsistent with the goals for traffic and parking identified in the General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Sections 2 4, 2 5, 3, 3 1, 5, 6, 6 1, 6 2, and 17 and suggests that if the Draft IS/MND is not revised to ensure consistency with these goals, the proposed project would have a significant, unmitigated impact on the Meredith Gardens community Further, this comment recommends that the Draft IS/MND be revised and recirculated to ensure the project meets the requirements of CEQA or that an EIR is prepared with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) pursuant to CEQA Refer to Response MGHOA-17 TAFE-16 This comment provides conclusory remarks, stating that while the commenter does not oppose the proposed project, they have serious concerns about the potential for significant impacts to their neighborhood and the quality of life This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required HB -779- Item 14. - 286 Comments from Tony Bisson (TOBI), 511512015 TOBI Tony Bisson 20442 Craimer Ln. MAY 15 20,15 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Dept of PisnMng Jennifer Villasenor,Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Planning and building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 May 15,2015 To whom It concerns, Attached is my citizen's reply addressing some key points mentioned in the"Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration"document filed on April 16,2015. 1 am a resident who has lived directly across the street from the proposed development off and on since from 1976.1 am currently living there caring for my elderly parents who will be the most negatively impacted persons by this proposal. They will be affected negatively by it's environmental impact due to noise and toxic airborne particulate matter during demolition and construction,as well as after completion due to loss of fresh ocean air and light sky views that they paid a TOBI-1 premium for.My father has significant allergy and respiratory problems and depends on fresh airflow for his health which is a major reason he purchased property in near the ocean and specifically on this site I also share these allergy problems so I know very well about the importance of fresh clean unobstructed air that we get at this location.For this reason,I and my family have always lived near the shore adjacent to open space. My family's property is located directly on the comer of Craimer Lane and Warwick Drive with unobstructed access and views of the park and school site.It is quite possibly the most choice lot site in Meredith Gardens.The proposed housing development will also shade their swimming pool in the afternoon light shortening it's usability for much of the year and eliminate the view it currently has of trees and sunset skys. Item 14. - 287 HB -780- This proposed development plan and mitigation scenario is specifically designed to appease the largest body affected,Seaview Little League,an organization that we TOBI-1 support and enjoy.It offers nothing of any direct benefit to the neighbors who live cont. closest to the site and in fact greatly negatively impacts these property owners by shifting the noise traffic and parking problems from the school site to their open streets creating a noise,air pollution and safety problem as well as negatively affecting the overall quality of life in the area. The loss of trees and bordering planter spaces along Craimer Lane and Warwick Drive are to detriment of the beauty and quality of the street as it has existed since the neighborhood was built in 1965-67 The poposed narrowing of required narrowing of planters and buffers form to 4'from the mandated 10'width is unacceptable and further shifts the burden and negative impact of this proposed TOBI-2 development away from the Seaview Baseball League and the residents of Cynthia Drive and places it on the backs of the residents of Meredith Gardens and specifically the residents of Craimer Lane. The size scope and impact of this development is too great and needs to be scaled down from the proposed 15 lots to something more reasonable so it does not unduly impact the residents of the area and users of the park and baseball fields. Attached are some specifics relating to key points covered in the report, TOBI-3 Thank you for your serious attention to this matter.I look forward to a reasonable resolution of these concerns and new lower impact development plan. 1-113 -781- Item 14. - 288 Biotreatment Vegetated Swale: Too much of the existing and newly annexed parkland is being designated as "biotreatment vegetated swale."Swale is another word for marsh or swamp. TOBI-4 These are not intended to be pleasingly landscaped areas but are in fact marshy trenches and urban runoff waste pits that will divide the park and make physical, and unaesthetic visual boundaries within the park and baseball fields. These trenches will not be easily passable and will inflict tripping hazards and environmental hazards to users of the parkland and baseball fields. Effluent from the homes will flow into these marshy basins from rains and daily urban runoff laced with bacteria and toxins from yard waste, pet waste, car washing, as well as pesticides and causing a breeding ground and habitat for vermin, mosquitoes and bacteria. Pet waste from irresponsible pet owners who let thir dogs use these proposed swales as hidden bathrooms will further enhance the pollution problem of these pits. Runoff from the new development TOBI-5 and feces of wild animals that use these areas as habitat will collect and fester in the moist marshy conditions causing a health hazard for baseball players, children and all people who use the park site. The park space these swale pits occupy will be lost usable space that the parks currently have and is not mentioned in the report for any form of mitigation or compensation.These areas also need to be designated and included as part of the developed property boundaries and overall acreage because they are in fact part of their sewer and drainage system. Excessive runoff in heavy rain events will inundate the adjacent parkland and TOBI-6 baseball fields and eventually flow unabated onto Cynthia Street causing a flood hazard creating undue liability for the city and its residents at large. I I Grading A Conditional use permit to allow for 5'or grading of the proposed site should not TOBI-7 be granted. The site is not level and appears to the eye to slope up from Craimer Lane. Water currently flows down towards Craimer Lane. How is water supposed to flow from the start of the new street to the Swale pits without putting this street underground and making the removal and re-grading of the baseball fields necessary to compensate for the new topography? Item 14. - 289 HB -782- 'J I 11 p Lot size and street shape A permit allowing for a deviation from the Zoning Code requiring lot Widths to be TOBI-8 60'should not be granted.The narrowness and dogleg shapes of the reposed lots is not in alignment with the existing area and will not allow for the required 24 parking spaces in practical reality. A full 60 feet of frontage per lot is needed as required in the zoning code to allow for driveways and the promised 1.6 on-street parking spaces per residential unit which is at or below the existing homes allotment in the area.These spaces will be needed for park use year-round. Conditional Use Permit requesting a variance of 4' instead of the required 10 feet on the boundary of Warwick Drive Conditional Use Permit requesting a variance of 4! instead of the required 10 feet on the boundary of Warwick Drive should not be granted. Any new development or redeveloped areas along the street borders should remain consistent with the ToB1_9 wide planter space that exists now to provide adequate separation from the parking lot, proposed homes and to allow for privacy and noise abatement for the preexisting residents. These park-view homes without existing neighbors on I or more sides initially sold for a premium and will suffer an undue burden and loss of property value due to this project.This impact needs to be mitigated by requiring MORE buffer space, trees and landscaping on the borders the park and proposed development. The proposed housing with side exposure bounding Craimer Lane needs to be set back a distance that has been established in the neighborhood of 20 feet TOBI-10 from curb to the walls of the homes bordering the street.This spacous aspect of Meredith is a key part of why this remains a desirable and unique neighborhood a 50 years after it's construction. Currently, the planters'are 17 feet from the edge of the curb to the back of the back edge of the brick planters. Cars park a full 4'beyond that This buffer space TOBI-11 needs to remain in any new construction in order to separate existing homes from the noise and pollution of cars parking and to maintain the beauty and spacious environment established throughout the neighborhood. HB -783- Item 14. - 290 Expanded parking lot proposal into existing parkland. A conditional use permit for to expand the parking lot on Warwick Drive should not be granted The proposed development should be scaled back to a lower number of residences and some of this space dedicated to replacing the parking lot they are displacing on the proposed development site. TOBI-12 Adequate parking for such a large sports facility needs to be to be consistent with existing sports parks in the area and closer to the status quo Expanding parking lots into existing park space unduly affects the residents and users of Lebard park. This area is a pleasant hilly part of the park with trees where kids play and dogs can socialize safely. The residents of both Surburbia Park and Meredith gardens have opposed the loss this parkland in order to partially mitigate the existing 125 on-site parking spaces that will be lost to this 0 development. Low Income Housing-Ordinance 230 TOBI-13 Ordinance 230 Requirement for low income housing requires that 10%of the new homes be "affordable."This number should be rounded up from 1.5 units to t2 full units and not down to one unit. These homes need to be built on site and not shifted to some lower income part of the city in a future mitigation plan. Parking access needs to be assessed properly to allow for the actual number of peak use parking spaces the School District Property provides: Blacktop vehicles:85 Parking Lot Vehicles:45 T0131-14 Published figure. 109 combined. Actual number of lost parking spaces Is 130 which is 21 spaces more that will be needed to be mitigated and accounted for both for the use of Seview Little League and peak use events that occur throughout the year in Lebard Park. Other large sports parks and publicly owned attractions in the Orange County and Huntington Beach provide more spaces than the proposed allotment. This lack of adequate parking will negatively impact the users of the baseball park and Item 14. - 291 HB -784- "f t over-burden the residents of the bordering neighborhoods,beyond an extent TOBI-14 which is acceptable or fair. One site Parking needs to remain more consistent cord with the current amount. Demolition Permit: A permit should not be granted without an environmental impact study to determine the effects of toxic compounds and materials in the 46 year old building The city needs to assess the potential negative health effects on the area's fragile elderly residents and children who live immediately downwind of the site. Some of these residents have existing respiratory conditions that will TOBI-15 aggravated during construction. The existing homes and parkland will be covered in particles from the demolition and subsequent construction causing undue negative health effects.The Santa Ana river estuary is also located down wind from the site.This open space environment is home to many migratory birds and is an essential and sensitive natural habitat. These toxic materials and dust particulate exposes,the city, any future selected developer and their subcontractors to liability and potential lawsuits. Noise impact of construction Will be substantial to existing elderly residents and people who work at home will be negatively affected economically. TOBI-16 88 decibels at 50 feet is comparable to someone shouting in your ear.This ear damaging level of sound is exempted for construction projects according to the report. That is an unacceptable condition of the proposal for any human, pet or natural wildlife living nearby.The ones most affected will be the people because they can not move to new locations like Wildlife can. Once the site is developed, the ongoing maintenance and the 15 additional grounds crews visiting the site each week would unduly impact the adjacent TOBI-17 residents, especially those on Cralmer Ln and Cralet Drive. Noise pollution from landscape crews already impacts this otherwise quiet neighborhood seven days a week.Any noise ordinances in place limiting decibel levels or specific equipment such as leaf blowers are ignored and unenforced in the city. HB -785- Item 14. - 292 Section V: Pace 119. Proposal to use existing sewer and water lines on Craimer Lane. The adjacent homes on Craimer Lane are 50 years old and have aging sewer TOBI-18 and drainage lines with root problems and backflow issues during heavy rainstorms presently.Tieing another 15 fast fling modern houses into the the aged existing sewer system has the potential to greatly impact and perhaps even damage the older structures due to increased backflow and overall system overuse especially in times of heavy rains. Aesthetics:The new development proposal proposes lot sizes but does specify what the building's sizes are limited to in relation to their lot size or what the specific height limits are. If the proposed street slopes down 3 feet below Craimer TOBI-19 lane will roof heights be permitted to compensate for that difference? Building height and density will have a substantial impact on adjacent properties by restricting their views towards the park and sunset as well as limit their ocean breezes.This is a very significant and undisclosed part of the proposal. Loss of views, light and ocean breezes has a significant environmental impact on residents and their property resale values. Arborist Report. Currently there are many beautiful trees on the school site that enhance the views and park-like experience for residents and people passing by.This report concludes that none of these trees are worth saving and therefore will all be killed TOBI-20 to make way for this development. The loss of these trees will only be partially mitigated by private landscaping. There is no mention of any trees lining the proposed new street or how many trees will be planted in the new parking lot along on Warwick Dr. There is no mention that existing planters will be saved or replaced other than the proposal of limiting the buffer space to a scant 4 feet. This narrow width does not allow for + enough soil or drip area for comparable trees. The existing planters and green Item 14. - 293 HB -786- TOBI-20 spaces along both Craimer Lane and Warwick need to be landscaped in a way cont that mitigates the loss of so much green space and tree views that have been part of this neighborhood and park for 50 years. Park improvements and mitigation. The plan calls for two 1/2 court basketball courts.There is no mention of where these courts will go or if they will be lighted at night for pick-up games and/or leagues. Basketball draws teams of 5 or more TOBI-21 players and if these courts become popular, large groups of people could be visiting the park to use them, Basketball is a much louder and rowdy sport than tennis or'baseball. Noise and increased parking pressure during peak baseball times could be an issue that needs to be addressed before this plan'is approved. The report does not mention what the vision of the future park will be beyond the TOBI-22 baseball fields a bathroom, snack bar, new extended parking lot and the loss of some existing green space. Section V Section XIX"Geology/Solls"This document makes no mention of the existing geology of the site. A visible fault line runs through the site as evidenced by the significant cracking on the existing blacktop. The original developers did not build on this line for a very good reason. A massive sink hole was discovered in 2013 at the corner of Indianapolis Avenue and Brookhurst Street.This life-threatening and seismically caused event TOBI-23 required emergency excavation and road closures for many months in order to be studied and repaired. It is violation of California law to build on this site. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prohibits building for human occupancy astride active faults.Public Resources Code,Section 2621 et seq, requires sellers of existing residences to disclose to potential buyers on a Natural Hazards Disclosure Form if the property is located in a designated fault zone. A proper seismic survey of the site by an independent geologist needs to be done in order to adequately access this site before sale or development. <End of reply> HB -787- Item 14. - 294 Responses to Tony Bisson (TOBI), 5/15/2015 TOBI-1 This comment summarizes the commenter's background and states that the proposed project will negatively impact the commenter's elderly parents due to noise, air quality, aesthetic, and traffic impacts as well as shade the commenter's swmmming pool in the afternoons Further, this comment states that the proposed project is designed to appease the Seaview Little League and does not consider the negative environmental impacts that would occur to the surrounding Meredith Gardens neighborhood The Draft IS/MND analyzed all environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, including aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic and identified impacts and nutigation, where necessary Further, as stated in Section 5 II (Aesthetics) beginning on Draft IS/MNDp 31, the proposed residential homes would have building heights consistent with surrounding residential homes and, as such, would not create a new source of shading This comment does not provide, new or specific additional information that would change the analysis prepared in the Draft IS/MND No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment TOBI-2 This comment states that the loss of trees and bordering planter spaces along Cramer Lane and Warwick Drive is detrimental to the beauty and quality of the streets and the overall neighborhood This comment also states that narrowing the planters to a four-foot width from the mandated ten-foot wide further shifts negative impacts of the proposed project to the residents of Meredith Gardens Finally, this comment states that the size, scope, and impact of the proposed development is too great and that the project should be scaled down in order to reduce impacts to the surrounding residents The Draft IS/MND analyzed and identified impacts and nutigation for the proposed project as described in Draft IS/MND Section 2 (Project Description), including the park expansion and 15 residential lots While a scaled back project is not an option that the City is currently pursuing as part of the proposed project, this does not preclude the commenter from petitioning the City to investigate the potential of doing so, independent of the CEQA process However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval Further, as stated on Draft IS/MND p 78 in Section 5 XI (Land Use), the proposed project would obtain a variance to provide a 4-foot planter in hew of the 10-foot planter, as noted by the commenter It should be noted that the project is requesting the variance in order to construct a 10-foot streetscape including landscaped parkways along Warwick Drive similar to the existing Meredith Gardens neighborhood as no parkway currently exists along the LeBard Park parking lot The Draft IS/MND determined that impacts from obtaining the variance for the 4-foot planters would be less than significant and, as such,would not require nutigation This comment does not provide new or specific information regarding the project that would change the analysis provided in the Draft IS/MND No changes to the IS/MND are required in response to this comment Item 14. - 295 HB -788- TOBI-3 This comment introduces fiirtlier concerns from the commenter and expresses their appreciation for the- opportunity to comment on the Draft IS/MND This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required TOBI-4 This comment opposes the incorporation of the biotreatment vegetated swales as, in the commenter's opinion, swales are marshy trenches where urban runoff waste accumulates Further, this comment states that the swales will divide the park and would result in an increased risk for falling Refer to Responses MGHOA-12 and ALWA-3 TOBI-5 This comment states the effluent and runoff from the proposed residential homes and users of LeBard Park will accumulate in the biotreatment swales and basins and, as such, create a health hazard to park users Further, this comment states that the loss of park space from the construction of the biotreatment swales and basins was not analyzed in the Draft IS/MND Refer to Response MGHOA-12 TOBI-6 This comment states that excessive runoff from heavy rainfall events would inundate the adjacent parkland and baseball fields and eventually flow unabated onto Cynthia Street, which would result in a flooding hazard for the residents and the City Refer to Response WECH-3 TOBI-7 This comment states that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for grading of the site should not be granted as the new topography would result in hydrological issues The Draft IS/MND analyzed the proposed project's hydrological impacts associated with grading the site (as described by the commenter) and impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation measures MM Hydro-1 and MM Hydro-2 incorporated Further, it is the City's discretion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed project and associated grading at the time of submittal of the plans for review The Draft IS/MND effectively analyzed the worst-case land use scenario The comment does not identify new or additional information that would change the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and relates to a future City of review of plans This does not address an environmental issue related to the Draft IS/MND No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-8 This comment states that a permit allowing a deviation from the Zoning Code requiring lots widths to be 60 feet should not be granted as the resulting shape of the proposed lots would not be able to accommodate the required on-street guest parking and the necessary driveway The Draft IS/MND states in Section 2 III (Proposed Project Characteristics) that "because approximately half of the proposed residential lots would not meet the minimum 60-foot lot width required in the Residential Low HB -789- Item 14. - 296 Density (RL) zoning district, the applicant is proposing a planned unit development (PUD) subdivision, which requires provision of a public benefit The applicant proposes to provide a new restroom/concession/storage building for the expanded park as well as upgraded passive park amenities"The inclusion of a public benefit in the form of a new restroom/concession/storage building is a project feature that satisfies the loss of lot width However, it is the City's discretion to approve the proposed project's Tentative Tract Map and associated reduced lot widths Further, the Draft IS/MND addressed the project as-is and determined in Section 5 XI (Land Use/Planning) that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations The proposed tentative tract map and associated project plans indicated that 24 on-street parking spaces would be available to accommodate on-street parking for the fifteen homes within the subdivision in addition to the code required off-street parking. A condition of approval is also recommended to ensure that at least 1 on-street parking space per residential lot is provided This i comment does not identify new or additional information that would change the analysis in the Draft IS/MND and relates to a future City of review of plans The Draft IS/MND effectively analyzed the worst-case land use scenario This comment does not address an environmental issue related to the Draft j IS/MND No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-9 This comment states that a CUP should not be granted for the variance of four feet instead of the required ten feet on the boundary of Warwick Drive This comment requests that new development or redevelopment of the site should remain consistent with the wide planter space of ten feet in order to provide adequate separation from the parking lot, privacy, and noise abatement for existing residents Additionally,LeBard Park does not have a continuous perimeter parking lot planter along Warwick Drive or landscaped parkways adjacent to the street The proposed project would provide both Further, this comment states that existing residents would suffer a loss of property value due to this project and the reduced planted space As stated on Draft IS/MND p 11 in Section 2 III (Proposed Project Characteristics), the proposed project would require a variance request, not a CUP, from the City to provide a 4-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet The Draft IS/MND analyzed the environmental impacts from the proposed project as-is and determined that impacts related to aesthetics, land use/planning, and noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as necessary Further, it is the City's discretion to approve the variance for the proposed project at the time the development plans are submitted The Draft IS/MND effectively analyzed the worst-case land use scenario This comment does not address an environmental issue related to the Draft IS/MND No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-10 This comment states that housing with side exposure bounding Crai mer Lane needs to be set back a distance of 20 feet from curb to wall, as this standard has been established throughout the neighborhood The project would require a 10-foot street side setback for proposed homes on lots along Crauner Lane Item 14. - 297 HB -790- The tentative tract map also proposes a 7-foot-wide common area/lettered lot from the back of the sidewalk along Cranner to the side property line of new lots along Cranner These lettered lots'would be landscaped and provide 7 feet between the property side wall and the sidewalk that would be fully landscaped Existing homes with side property line walls along Cranner vary from 0 to 5 feet from the back of sidewalk Refer to Response to comment TOBI-8 However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-1 1 This comment states that existing planters are located 17 feet from the edge of the curb to the back edge of the brick planters and that cars park four feet beyond that Further, this comment states that this established buffer space needs to be maintained in order to separate existing housing from noise and pollution of cars parking in the parking lot and to maintain the beauty and spacious environment of the neighborhood Refer to Response to comment TOBI-8 All comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-12 This comment states that a CUP should not be granted for the expansion of the parking lot on Warwick Drive and that the proposed project should be scaled back to a lower number of residences to provide more space for the parking lot expansion Further, this comment states that the expansion of the LeBard Park parking lot should not expand onto existing parkland as this area of the park is highly utilized by the neighborhood Refer to Response MGHOA-8 TOBI-13 This comment states that in accordance with Ordinance 230,which requires 10 percent of the residential units to be "affordable," the proposed project should provide two affordable units The Draft IS/MND stated in Section 5 XI (Land Use/Planning) that "in accordance with Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230, the proposed project is required to allot a minimum of 10 percent of the units to be affordable The future subdivision developer would be required to process an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit" The Draft IS/MND did not state in the document that the proposed project would offer one affordable unit, as the commenter states Further, the number of affordable units will be negotiated between the City and the future subdivision developer during the Affordable Housing Agreement process This comment does not address an environmental issue related to the Draft IS/MND No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision-makers prior to consideration of project approval TOBI-14 This comment states that the parking analysis in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate as the published number of on-site parking spaces to be removed is 109 while the commenter states that actually 130 parking spaces would be lost and, as such, would need to be mitigated for Further, this comment states that the proposed on-site parking is inadequate as there is a higher parking demand than allotted parking spaces and will result in more cars parking on the surrounding streets, which will impact the existing neighbors Refer to Responses MGHOA-4 and MGHOA-7 HB -791- Item 14. - 298 TOBI-15 This comment states that a demolition permit should not be granted without the preparation of an EIR to analyze the potential impacts from toxic compounds and materials that could be present in the 46- year-old [LeBard Elementary School] building Further, this comment expresses concern for health impacts associated with the release of toxic compounds for the existing residents as well as for the Santa Ana estuary's fauna Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 62, Section 5 IX(b) (Hazards/Hazardous Materials) states that the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified the potential for chemical pesticides within the soil of the project site as well as the potential for asbestos-contammg maternal (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) to be included within structural materials, which could result in a potentially significant impact during demolition and grading However, mitigation measures MM Haz-1 through MM Haz-3 were incorporated to reduce the potential impacts from pesticides, ACM, and LBP to a less than significant level by requiring additional surveys and testing prior to the issuance of a grading pernut and/or any site development Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials, including air-borne particles No change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment TOBI-16 This comment states that construction noise would result in a substantial impact to elderly residents and people who work from home as 88 decibels at 50 feet is an unacceptable construction condition of the proposed project Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 87, Section 5 XIII(d) (Noise) states that based on worst-case assumptions, construction of the project would have the potential to generate hourly average noise levels up to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site However, City Noise Ordinance Section 8 40 090 exempts construction noise from the Noise Ordinance noise level limits provided that City pernuts have been obtained and the construction activities do not take place between the hours of 8 00 PM and 7 00 AM on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday Construction pernuts would be required in order for the project to proceed, and no nighttime construction or construction on a Sunday or holiday would be permitted Therefore, although construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the neighborhood surrounding the project, construction would comply with the applicable requirements of the City noise ordinance to prevent excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant No change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment TOBI-17 This comment states that noise pollution would result from ongoing maintenance and landscaping activities, which would impact surrounding residents Further, this comment states that in current conditions any noise ordinance hmntmg decibel levels have been ignored and/or unenforced within the City Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 82, Section 5 X1II(a) (Noise) states that while single-family residences are not a sources of substantial operational noise,landscaping equipment and loud noise could result in the occasional nuisance noise However, City Noise Ordinance Section 8 40 095 establishes regulations for the operation of leaf blowers, including time, distance, and duration restrictions Enforcement of the existing City regulations would ensure that the proposed residences would not result in excessive noise levels Further, implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate the Item 14. - 299 HB -792- t i existing noise conditions at the site as loud landscaping nuisance noise is already present in existing conditions However, this does not preclude the Homeowners Association from petitioning the City to investigate the lack of enforcement of the noise ordinance on a merit basis, independent of the CEQA process No change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment 7OBI-18 This comment states the homes on Craimer Lane are 50 years old and have existing problems with their sewer and drainage lines, especially with heavy rainfall,which would be exacerbated with the construction of 15 additional residences as part of the proposed project Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 118, Section 5 XVIII(a) (Utilities/Service Systems) states that wastewater generation from the proposed concession and restroom building and 15 single-family lots (to be developed at a future time) would be very low, when considered together for generation purposes Implementation of the proposed project would construct on-site sewer mains within the new residential street, which would connect tol the existing public sewer mains in Craimer Lane Further, all connections to existing wastewater infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Compliance with the applicable Waste Water Discharge Requirements, as monitored and enforced by the OCSD, would ensure that I the proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board with respect to discharge to the sewer system Therefore,) the proposed project would not exacerbate current conditions and impacts would be less than significant The commenter does not provide specific new or additional information as to why they believe!the proposed project could result in a significant service system impact The Draft IS/MND addressed,the concern raised by the commenter in this comment and identified no significant impact As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment 7OBI-19 This comment expresses concern about the proposed building height limits of the residential units as building heights and density would, in the commenter's opinion, have a substantial impact on adjacent properties by restricting views and blocking the ocean breeze Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 9, Section 2111 (Proposed Project Characteristics) states that the maximum building height for the single- family residential units is two stories, or approximately 30 feet, and that the 15 single-family homes would be architecturally consistent with surrounding development Further, beginning on Draft IS/MND p 31, Section 5 II(a) (Aesthetics) states that the new residential units would be similar in height as surrounding residential land use designations and, thus, would not block a scenic vista or, ocean breezes different from the existing conditions In addition, implementation of the proposed project would result in infill development within an already developed, urban landscape and, as such, would be consistent with the surrounding residential land uses The commenter does not provide specific new or additional information as to why they believe the proposed project could result in a significant aesthetic impact The Draft IS/MND addressed the concern raised by the commenter in this comment and identified no significant impact As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment HB -7933- Item 14. - 300 i I I TOBI-20 This comment states incorrectly that the Draft IS/MND concluded that none of the existing trees are worth saving and will be killed to make way for the development This comment also states incorrectly that the loss of the existing trees would only be partially mitigated by private landscaping and states that the Draft IS/MND does not mention the proposed landscaping plan for the protect Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 32, Section 5 II(c) (Aesthetics) states the Arbonst Inspection Follow-up Report determined that based on the species varying levels of maturity, the various trees' levels of performance and structural integrity, and the presence of pathogenic disease conditions, none of the 29 exiting trees are i candidates for boxing and relocation It is recommended that nursery trees with better systemic I performance and structural conformity be imported for transplantation into the site rather than the exiting trees Implementation of mitigation measure MM Aes-2 would ensure that all healthy, mature i trees removed from the protect site are replaced at a 21 ratio Further, mitigation measure MM Aes-2 requires that a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of exiting mature trees shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a permit to remove and/or plant trees Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 19, Section 21II (Proposed Protect Characteristics) outlines that I landscaping plan for the LeBard Park and residential portions of the proposed protect As mentioned above, all trees required to be removed within LeBard Park would be replaced at a 2 1 ratio Across the single-family residential portion of the protect site,open spaces would consist of courtyards,gardens, and landscaping/planting pocket areas as required by the Zoning Code This would be reviewed as part of the plan check review process for residential lots All proposed landscaping would comply with applicable City regulations and ordinances The commenter does not provide specific new or additional information as to why they believe the proposed protect could result in a landscaping or aesthetic impact The Draft IS/MND addressed the concern raised by the commenter in this comment and identified no significant impact As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment TOBI-21 This comment incorrectly states that the proposed protect includes two half-court basketball courts, which increase noise pollution and parking demand within the park The proposed protect does not include the construction of basketball courts and, as such, this comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis of the Draft IS/MND This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required in response to this comment TOBI-22 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not mention what the vision of the future park will be beyond the proposed park improvements The Draft IS/MND analyzed the environmental impacts of the protect as it is proposed and, as such, only analyzed the park improvements that would be implemented as part of the proposed protect described in Draft IS/MND Section 2 (Pro)ect Description) The Draft IS/MND is not required to analyze the impacts outside the scope of the protect as proposed and future changes to LeBard Park would be subtect to future protect-specific CEQA analysis and approval by the City This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft Item 14. - 301 HB -794- i IS/MND as analyzed for the proposed project No further response is required in response to this comment TOBI-23 This comment states that the Draft IS/MND does not mention the existing geology of the site and states that, in the commenter's opinion, a visible fault line runs through the project site as evidenced by the cracked blacktop This comment also references a sink hole that was discovered in 2013 at the corner of Indianapohs Avenue and Brookhurst Street as an example of why the project site cannot be built upon Further, this comment requests that a seismic survey of the site by an independent geologist be conducted in order to adequately access the site before development Beginning on Draft IS/MND p 54, Section 5 VIII (Geology/Soils) summarizes the different geologic aspects of the project site in relation to the various CEQA geologic issues, such as, but not limited to, the presence of unstable or expansive soils, the potential for liquefaction, and the risk of erosion and siltation Further, Section 5 VIII(a) (Geology/Soils) of the Draft IS/MND identified that the closest major active faults to the project site are the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 14 miles south of the project site, and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, located approximately 2 miles east of the project site The project site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to hazards associated with ruptures of a known earthquake fault and impacts would be less than significant Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all seismic regulations of the California Building Code and the Uniform Building Code during plan check 'and permitting to ensure the structurally mtegnty of the proposed project The Draft IS/MND addressed the concern raised by the commenter in this comment and identified no significant impact As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment HB -795- Item 14. - 302 Comments from Wen Ling Chou (WECH), 51912015 WECH Wen Ung Chou 10041 Theseus Dr 1-113,Ca 92646 May 9, 2015 Ms Jennifer Villaseflor Acting Planning Manager/Planning Comm. RECEIVED 1 2000 Main St, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: LeBard School IVIND draft MAY 14 20b Dei)' ,)f FItanning Buitdtnq Ms. Villasefior, WECH-1 In response to the LeBard MND, I have 2 serious qualms and would like to make my suggestions to remedy both. Qualm#1 Taking out precious green to make for 20 add'I parking spaces Parking abounds beyond Cynthia and Cramer sts in both neighborhoods, People simply need to walk a bit more.As it stands Beverly street which is next to Cynthia, has never been 1/3 utilized on game days let alone other streets further beyond. I believe the same phenomenon is true in Meredith Garden neighborhood. WECH-2 I call LeBard Park puny for such big neighborhoods. We the neighbors treasure and cherish what little bit of open green space we have. Where these 20 parking spaces are designated for existence,there exit mature trees,the scape is rolling and idyllic,just about the only area that is natural and easy on the eyes. people lay on the green, under the trees, chatting,picnicking, listening to summer concerts,dogs chasing squirrels up the trees,well you get the idea So, please don't take out this gorgeous green to accommodate more concrete for heaps di of metal for only 11 days out of the year Qualm#2 Swales to drain into Cynthia - It's distressing to see more water Will drain into Cynthia--.WF-c.H:-iich then flow into Suburbia Lane. Everything drains into Suburbia lane; it is like some kind of water dump. Brookhurst street which is much elevated drains Into it, Edison easement by the Santa WECH-3 Ana River drains into it.These are big volume dumpers. Now this new 15-house development intends to add more exacerbation to our flooding problem come rainy days. So,pleao add a"depression"at where Brookhurst meets Hercules to allow some water to flow somewhere else This is not going to solve our flooding problem, but should lil alleviate some pain. Sincerely, '7 Item 14. - 303 HB -796- Responses to Wen Ling Chou (WECH), 5/9/2015 WECH-1 This comment provides introductory text This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft IS/MND No further response is required WECH-2 This comment supports the retention of as much existing park/green space as possible, suggesting that the "20 add'1 parking spaces" are not needed as much as the park/green space The commenter also indicates that streets outside the scope of the parking study, such as Beverly Street, have sufficient parking capacity to accommodate additional on-street parking from Little League events Further,!this comment summarizes the various activities that the neighborhood utilizes the passive parkland for land requests that this area of the park remain the same as in existing conditions This comment does,not address areas of the draft MND, rather provides the commenter's opinion on aspects of the proposed project, specifically, the proposed parking lot expansion Refer to Response ALWA-2 WECH-3 This comment expresses concern that the project proposes to drawn into Cynthia Street, which then flows into Suburbia Lane Further, this comment claims that Brookhurst Street and the SCE right-of-way also drawn into Suburbia Lane, which flood in existing conditions without the additional runoff from!the project This comment suggests adding a "depression" at the location where Brookhurst Street meets Hercules to redirect part of the storm run-off flow According to the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared for the proposed project (refer to Draft IS/MND Appendix K), the proposed project would include a detention basin and outlet facility, which has been designed and adequately sized to mitigate the proposed project's 100-year storm event runoff volume below the existing condition 25-year storm event runoff volume Further, implementation of the proposed project would significantly reduce the amount of storm runoff draining from the project site, with utilization of the detention basin and outlet facility, as shown inTables 6 and 7 within the Preliminary Hydrology Study (refer to Draft IS/MND Appendix K) Therefore, the proposed project would improve existing conditions related to off-site flooding by constructing the detention basin and outlet facility,which will release runoff over a longer period of time, to decrease the amount of peak flow draining to Suburbia Lane As such, no change to the Draft IS/MND is required in response to this comment However, all comments will be forwarded to appropriate City departments and decision- makers prior to consideration of project approval i HB -797- Item 14. - 304 i I SECTION 9. Changes to the Draft IS/HIND This section includes revisions to text, by Draft IS/MND section, that are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft IS/MND in response to public comments received on the document, or as initiated by Lead Agency staff Revisions are shown below as excerpts from the Draft IS/MND text, with a lifte thfatigh deleted text and a double underline beneath inserted text In order to indicate the location in the Draft IS/MND where text has been changed, the reader is referred to the page number of the Draft IS/MND as published on April 16, 2015 All changes appear in order of their location in the Draft IS/MND The changes made in response to comments and staff clarifications have been reviewed and do not constitute a substantial revision of the Draft IS/MND for purposes of the CEQA analysis There are no new avoidable impacts or mitigation measures that must be added to reduce the project's effect to less than significant The new information added merely clarifies, amphfies, and makes minor changes to the IS/MND without a change in the project's potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures described in the Draft IS/MND Page 10, last bulleted item school site into an approximately parcel, ■ Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the LeBard sc pp y 6 5-acre p I which would be acquired by the City and 3 2 acres would be subdivided for development of a 15- unit single-family planned unit development (PUD) Lot sizes would average approximately 7,216 square feet (so in total area Associated infrastructure would also be constructed to include a pate u he street with access from Craiimer Lane t Page 25, third bulleted item ■ Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the LeBard school site into an approximately 6 5-acre parcel, which would be acquired by the City and 3 2 acres would be subdivided for development of a 15- unit single-family planned unit development (PUD) Lot sizes would average approximately 7,216 sf in total area Associated infrastructure would also be constructed, to include a pie street with access from Craumer Lane Page 67, mitigation measure MM Hydro-1 through mitigation measure MM Hydro-2 MMHydro-1 In compliance with the VAMP for the LeBard Elementary School site, a detention basin and a flow-based vegetated Swale shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed pmject and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map.All design parameters outlined in the VAMP shall be implemented in the design and construction of the detention basin and flow-based vegetated swale All olZ m aonal requirements such as i=„digg gad maintenance actaintae& established m the 1=2&LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented dunug the geratzonal phase of thebroposed broaect. The LeBard Park site WQMP consists of 2 acres on the southern portion of the project site and is divided into three DMAs (DMA 1A, 2A, and 3A) (as shown in Figure 7) The WQMP for the LeBard Park site includes a flow-based vegetated swale, which serves as the water treatment BMP for DMA 1a, and a volume-based bioretention basin, which serves as the water treatment BMP for DMA 2A (IS/MND Appendix K) DMA 3A includes an existing sports field and parkland, which would not be Item 14. - 305 xB -798- not require a BMP IS MND Appendix K disturbed by construction of the protect, and, as such, does q ( / pp ) Due to the lack of underground storm drain facilities, filtration treatment facilities are not feasible and the site must surface drain to the surrounding streets (IS/MND Appendix K) Therefore, the LeBard Sehse�Park Site would utilize a vegetated swale and a bioretention basin to ensure water quality is in compliance with all applicable permits, plans, and ordinances as noted in mitigation measure MM Hydro-2 MMHydro-2 In compliance with the W1QMP for the LeBard Park site, a low-based vegetated swale and a volume-based bioietentzon basin shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map. All design parameters outlined in the I�QMP shall be implemented in the de rcgn and construction of the flow-based vegetated Swale and volume-based biontention basin. All operational requirements such as inspections and maintenance activities. established in the ROMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase o�the,Pro osed_Lrolect Page 89, last paragraph The proposed protect would result in the construction of 15 single-family residential homes land accommodate an estimated population of approximately 39 residents' Based on the U S Census Bureau 2013 population estimate, the City has a population of 197,575 persons If the estimated 39 residents were assumed to be new residents to the City, this would represent an addition of 0 0092 percent of the City's total population Per the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City's population is anticipated to grow to 217,822 by 2015 (City of Huntington Beach 2013) Thus, the population of the proposed protect would fall within the future estimates of the City's population Therefore, the proposed protect would not induce substantial population growth in the area and impacts would be less than significant Page 91, first full paragraph In addition, the proposed protect is not anticipated to substantially increase the population of the City Based on the U S Census Bureau 2013 population estimate, the City has a population of 197,575 persons, with 2 56 persons per household 7 The proposed protect would result in the construction of 15 single-family residential units which could increase the population by approximately 39 residents If the estimated 39 residents were assumed to be new residents to the City, this would represent an increase of 0 0882 percent of the City's total population Thus, the proposed protect would not result in a large increase in population that would need to be served by the Huntington Beach Fire Department Besides the small increase in population, protect construction would comply with all relevant fire codes and would be subject to review and approval by the Huntington Beach Fire Department to ensure adequate fire safety Page 92, first full paragraph Based on the U S Census Bureau 2013 population estimate, the City has a population of 197,575 persons, with 2 56 persons per households The proposed project would result in the construction of 15 single-family residential units which could increase the population by approximately 39 residents If the estimated 39 residents were assumed to be new residents to the City, this would represent an increase of HB -799- Item 14. - 306 0 0002 percent of the City's total population Thus, the proposed project would not result in a large increase in population,which would need to be served by the Huntington Beach Police Department Page 96, last paragraph Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields will be scheduled during the Little League"off' season to minimize disruption Althattgh ft is eat ftntielpffted-, and to ensure that no temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games .r the sehedii =I = b a -b uriii �lie_peak season would occur during qQn5tructon of the pro on sed pro ect components within LeBard Park and the snorts fields Thus implementation of the pro osed project would not disrupt Little League activities and would provide enhanced facilities for the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games upon completion Page 98,first paragraph Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would upgrade an existing neighborhood park for continued usage by Huntington Beach residents Construction for the proposed improvements for LeBard Park and the existing sports fields weeld-will be scheduled during the Little League "off' season to minimize disruption , there tn&y b— and ensure that no temporary displacement of the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games I hrphfed aeeess to areas E)f the park during eoiis"etiaii,vA-Aeh would be ft feffToi!ftfy eendmdafi Heweieef-, the peak season would occur du-ring construction of the proposed project within LeBard Park and the sports fields Thus =plementation of the proposed project would not disrupt Little League activities and would provide enhanced facilities for park users and the Sea View Little League baseball practices and games upon completion . Page 112, "Proposed Parking Conditions" section, first paragraph Proposed Parking Conditions Under the proposed project, existing Little League baseball fields would continue to be used and would be incorporated into LeBard Park The proposed project includes an expansion of the existing on-site LeBard Park parking lot, which would provide a total of 68 on-site parking spaces at the northeastern corner of LeBard Park In addition to the expanded LeBard parking lot, 50 on-street parking spaces would be available along Craimer Lane, Warwick Drive, and Cynthia Drive (IS/MND Appendix J), which would result in a reduction of 3 on-street spaces due to the new residential street and driveway approaches for the reconfigured/expanded parking lot in LeBard Park The proposed project would create 24 parking spaces along the new residential street (A' Street), which would serve the single-family residences as well as the public However, the 12tol2 osed 24 new on-street narking spaces were not mclude 1 in the future inventory on-street parking space n order to analyze the worst-case 12arktng acenano from LeBard Park with Little T ea2ue events as these new an rkin�, spaces are intended primarily Item 14. - 307 HB -800- as guest parking for the smile-family residences In total, the amount of available parking for'' the proposed protect would be reduced from 200 spaces to 142 spaces As such, the proposed protect would reduce the amount of parking spaces provided for park visitors and Little League activities Page 120, "Proposed Parking Conditions" section, first paragraph Implementation of the proposed protect would result in an increase in demand on the existing water supplies due to the future construction of 15 single-family residential units According to the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City's population was 204,8341 1 402 1n 2010 and single- family residential land uses were noted to have used 13,754 acre-feet of water in 2010, which equals 12,278,796 gallons per day (Psomas 2011) With a population of 204,9 11 1 2, this results in i an average water use per capita of approximately 60 gallons per day. Page 130, "Utilities/Service Systems" section, first paragraph Utilities/Service Systems The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of utilities and service systems is the service area of i each specific utility district The increased use of public utilities associated with cumulative protects would add to the incremental demand for these utilities If the cumulative protects exceed the growth protections that were utilized by the public utility districts to plan for the capacity of their system,i the public utilities providers may not have adequate infrastructure or funding in place to serve the cumulative protects Thus, there would be a potentially significant impact to public utilities and service systems However, the proposed protect site would accommodate an estimated population increase of 39 residents,representing 0 0002 percent of the City's total population HB -801- Item 14. - 308 it [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Item 14. - 309 HB -802- ATTACHMENT #9 i i r 1 S' viciNPfV MAP y 1 Q7 1.67 6 J x e x TQWNER 6 - � '+!'_� I� J C n'1rryq. P.1awust,sen�aememine a.= Ma kj,d gt K Stnool GIetrIR €AT a li si 1 y "I6 a 4 a Vic.9r5n = MAP PREPARER e a C f3.ti _ _ ~~~ Hip Land SolutbnG.In, LOT 13 3f$950 HamElw TralY l(pJf # —_S 9-BgB 9d69 x # , 'e .� .e ,i,e • 1 I e _ •#, x I , m % r �Y-I Yh4 ,w n � •��.' s - 'v >, �- � � e "� 2•'.Enrtk9 r IrN+Pb311o'seml-Wht{Ps) W -- x M g__. __ xa. -. rr''�T. __ - - 3.5Ew°M5 n I•*.G+iaes. eM+d.t+u>a�.�, x to.. ,5 121 + - �� ., - - - S t anA•yl Reld% a. tft 5,4•aae+: 5 CRY er H nqt oe 1 �- x ��1- � 3� I��q � I 9eaelc-Sw+u. aiParrtx Eaercn eq •k1 . ""$$'' - _ - - x °. p In�.x g.'PrvpertY h J—d 2enc'%".m�ewrr•, a"m"�d ]fi �T.K _ - • � „k �_- ___ 1 iFIRHMaS+SinSa[a26f] EEASE.NE S` li a 8 • q ,� x voRS % -- � `:,.c'r x { ��V ae` �aaJ J -- � ,nt -�' e��1 q.• .I le.+nllRln x9d wk..d lMra.,xn+r wm°GB m se.air..,oln�Eahe�, � � e mCCAll sr•rynM in e Mav,Pag. %+ x .:��q\ _,� �Tn aemno-w nnerc,oas.na nawnl 3 " L r• �'{ ° � 1 11111 _ � x _°r cerau,3,4,ae ray �_* '�� 5 M M P1F'u II 4weoGeG;Eoek x. � >+ x y _ • �� - __ ','� e x 11a1,fags dSE[41gIN41 ka tea-"-' q Ra w ... -- _ % -t--_ wnerd Ntlenepx uW rrhral USN�Emk W x so SPlmtdl seek 911%Fug.9a6[91e,�d1 � rr1f dp Ya V 1S id 19 Sg d! yg 25 E3 $] 24 30 _ I 1--I ' nmlou.crap«.°xvn. P+ I N T vAicea'y F.w-0., O arnos r' • `W "¢per �F e� I- tountY al0rnp..GIMmN. y I�1 � I i _ '� 17Ff 6OTt 6tYklos' Wf20 R` u5rc `�� '�~ L0T5 EE`k led 62pp5+q.TL, 0.1lrc LOT4 aE'%]eK Edel.a R 0.tl a< __ _�x�r ��_——• tJ1x5 60`k 1fC' 62Tf3 R 0.1! LUT6 aR'x18E leexid h. E.dl ac i—L - Y r-'y fSOJ 71 `S8J s bmaiea 81ds.oq�, asl urc eaxui �+a wa. uia wxw ]ia9.o h eiTa n caxrrrr' sa - -- i�1ui Eaxilv6.' _ 7 � _ _ � '� d� �sg� � W?u trxdm• axds.r -. ads.e 31r C r `� mat me2�Ea�s 1.Ou 4 SR 55 r --- 7 ' T'FS IOR W1m IF�TX1W 6R wtt+xixalE .. V � m 67 �4�f 5T C LDr 2 l-44 4 23 6d {frP� �Sg i �i8. C y1 J LET$ LOT 3 13.5 1,01 C1 �I -ra l 0 L0uT$fi _ �•ya=, 'J- s!tY Y Lywr_�4r4oia ] _ —` � d�•E I -Warwick Delve --_ f/ b5 - L I 7 LOT,3 LU712 BLDG — I r F^�-Y rr �`1 CST C [32.� O I2.® Y .. •1- -- , - •`� I I f ` r 1 to AlI1LLr1ni: 1(1x 15-__ AE LEG aE•lCG ---'pC igC�TCP �' (r / I I __ � �3 '4 —8L Ens � N aLLLfff��CHFRS - + ter°�. It 1� 1! `/ Id !] le 2l 6E) 8 1S 4� 00- 0- 3e Drive J 1 J 1 c 4fr p5 441 m F -J ..*++r+nrm.ee.zwem aarox.avm� ,fip • m; r u LL IT€tlINICAL SM PLAH TENTATIVE TRACE N4.17gE1 _ Iry the CRy Nu�lnygn Salclf,Coo*rry el OrengS[Nlennla 4 I i --- �� - f NQTFs:. iVet L1rlw@_- - Y CVRRER�T GEN€ES PLAN-N OF R SIDE T RILq LOW 1 YING DESIGNAT I4N OF RESIDENTIAL LO'W PEINSITY D RP GENERAL PLAN-RCSPD EN TIAL LOW DE11511 RL-1 AND RErnEAIION FORTHE PARK LOT 'P CURRENTZONING-IE AND FlslFCPR4P 55� S6 WITH A�UNDERLAYING DESIGNATION OF LOT 3 1 _ _ KE,%l Dt FIAi.LOW DENSITY C3_SJ LOT'G u 4 pJy.� r1 PAOPOdED ZONING- KESIOENTIAL LOW DENSITY _ LOT 5 r I!q�] E_ [/2,-1t.,,I RL-7 AND PARK AND RCCREATIOM 63 -__w . Yx_ - III Y 61 \2l � w.l � --- _ -�-.� LOT S - Ci3.2) - l� AGES ! f rrr - --- TREES YILLL BE REPLACED AT A 2:1 RATIO - CID (D LO7 e C _ LQ � LOT 15 5' LOT 13 LOT 1-0 a -- - j n 0 - J �, Cia s Cika - 'W3IW ftk ba Iwe _ xa 41 — -- - - LOT B _ �� _ �'`-' �¢ lytL4� � _� � 1. ` l l i, e 1e -..�--i-- j 3ECTVON,9 i -LOT 9 Wra T L OT 101 } LOT I V 1 l C7 x LOT 16 •LE1��T1f t 2� r J i nFi9 � 1 IkAC11Ek9 � -_ Iy - sevu " risell.o ridn w�-•� Y � V - 'i.¢Mtix.. I -_-- _-----_� C r� le Drive _.. - ' {� SECTION G sa r re 1 +�r I (D SECTION❑ SFCTION F SFCTION F SECTION G r i 1—I I breE,arrwrvmmla u�na-r 'm DETAIL SmEET T �.. ar nsc_r3u T NTATNE TRRi✓I'NO,17601 u+��aw w �j '1 � 1 � In mn CRR Mur�tlnplm beath�County al Lan94 Cellltr,1� ' n,.. ••w _li w.+mnr..naax.rww. I i I CD / TYP.fJIL PAM UL PAMCM STALLS PAMMNp SPAM AUW,CWMEP U/k,MAP1Y M • _ _ __ / AIA CYKKA DaiVE gVVTrwIaNwAprn NPOIeerIRl,Ila1C11Y IR9YD Vt a _ ?1'FrJu_',CT iApghG 5T11115 oq Sri wvrawe f 58 r1Ve ram' l -- mart 9uO i ADA HMIDTAP ACCESSIDLLIlY WTALPAMMB lfi 147 (MAT.51[WE S%ar%KS LOT I SLOPE Of 2%) F r SLOPE !. > V` al CJ u LOT 7 ' �60) , Sa LOT 1 i LOT CLOT 4 LOT 5 /3.3 — — .I 1�� LOT 6 13.2 IC fry �• 1 `l.2 �} et I I _�-�. O �# -L C. A i 52 1] l5 —_ I LOT LOT7 _� LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 13 ,35 Q3• _ _ iaz- _ --- ---Warwick Drive )f I 1 -T L. I f C. LOT 9 LOT 12 SLOG l s= ] ; r - y— LOT lO l LOT 11 v G LOr 16 J �! �._.r•Ins I I I L2 / - -=s r--------- ---_ - Cynthia Drive + I I T `L I r tie f9 i I I! O � 1Fz �� / H i5 3a l7 18 L4 20 2f 21 \J 2q )5 26 2] IZafl� 129� rive \«\ ti� m c t 0 fa qs q4 � MNTniMv dE�HICT'ObIO%EtrIT:I �'• LAN ( NG AtA ATM TA CCT ACTN NO. 1D 601 ___-a _ 1 I M Mi CIrY Mun .wnH er D�N'9G OPNar/i i ATTACHMENT # 10 Demers, Judy From: De Coite, Kim Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 2 52 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Demers, Judy Subject: FW LeBard Park Project Planning Commission Meeting, June 9, 2015 Attachments: Le Bard Parking Issues 1 jpg, LeBard Parking Issues 2 jpg, LeBard Parking Issues 3 jpg From: april helliwell [mailto:aprilhelliwell@yahoo.coml Sent:Tuesday, June 09, 2015 2:51 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: KHayden@JonathanEn rc r com; Ashley b moore@yahoo.com; White, Ashley B , lemnlaw@gmail Corn Subject: LeBard Park Protect. Planning Commission Meeting,June 9, 2015 Dear HB Planning Commission, I Attached you will find 3 documents that help explain the parking problem that exists in and around the LeBard park school site and baseball fields The documents include photos of Crailet Dr in Meredith Gardens and the parking impact Sea View Little League has on that street during practice and game days(which is 6 days a week) You will also find photos of how the blacktop area aroundl the LeBard School site is used as a parking lot during game and practice days , We would like to present these photos to you to help reiterate our need for a permanent parking solution to the LeBard Park project We'd also like you to note the days on which these photos were taken The photos of Crailet Dr were taken on a Thursday afternoon People continue to think that parking is only an issue on the weekends Baseball games and practices happen 5-6 days a week Also, the photos of the LeBard blacktop parking area were taken on June 6,2015 Again, people think baseball is a short 11 week season,ending in mid May Baseball season continues throughout the summer and will resume with fall and winter ball in September We implore the planning commission to please consider the current parking situation around LeBard Park when making a decision on how to proceed with parking solutions for the future LeBard project 1, as well as other members of my neighborhood will be speaking tonight about the traffic and parking issues in our neighborhood We will be referencing the attached documents I thank you for your time and support Sincerely, April Helliwell President Meredith Garden Homeowners Association HB'-g LATE COMMUNICATIONS Fvte L 11 ULF 314 ! 7=01 . ,A Mk w � J ez s 26 4'. -w ,-` 4 ff k 4 1 I � Lebard- Park Parking Issues Below you will find a photo of the current parking Impact of Sea View Little League on Crailet Dr., in Meredith Gardens. This type of parking occurs on both game and practice days. eZ a r L. i Heavy street parking does not just occur on the weekends. Both of these photos were taken on THURSDAY, June 4, 2015. r. HB -809- Item 14. - 316 Lebard Park Parking Issues Below you will find photos of how the blacktop area around the LeBard school is being used as a parking lot and the impact of street parking on Cynthia Dr.. in Suburbia Bark. Both the blacktop parking area and the sur- rounding streets are full during baseball practice and game days. 3 These photos also show that baseball is not just an 11 week season. These photos were taken on Saturday, June 6, 2015. Playoff, all-star, travel ball, and skill clinics continue throughout the summer. Fall and winter ball will also re- sume in September. Baseball is not just a spring sort in HB. .y T" T a F l ^vim 1 ~w 1 rw Item 14. - 317,.,,.. HB -810 Demers, Judy From: Debbie Loehner[dloehner@verizon net] Sent. Thursday, June 04,2015 3 44 PM To: Demers, Judy Subject: LeBard Park Redevelopment Dear Commissioners. I live at 10172 Crailet Dr in one of seven houses that will be impacted by the proposed 15 house development on the LeBard school site I have reviewed the planning report and am very concerned about the grading issue as well as the set backs for the backyards In the report there is mention of grading requirements from 18 inches to 5 feet The houses also only have a proposed 20 foot set back When this proposal was first brought to the attention of the Meredith Gardens homeowners, we were assured that the housing development would be like-sized houses and lots and that the houses would fit the character of our neighborhood I am not opposed to houses being built behind me, I just want to make sure that they are at the same level as mine, and with the same sized yards My backyard is a out 3 8 feet wide I do not want a house taller than mine looking down into my backyard, nor do I want someone's back door 20 feet from where I spend the majority of my time outside This would be a gross invasion of privacy I would like to request a condition of approval form before any final decisions are made Please contact me at Debbie Loehner 10172 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-962-6222 (home) 714-510-6222 (cell) Debbie Loehner Email. dloehnerQverizon.net HB -811- Item 14. - 318 Demers, Judy From: Robert Fix[Robert Fix@amtrustgroup com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8 57 AM To: Demers, Judy Subject: FW LeBard Park Development Proposal Importance: High Rob Fix Home Office Underwriting Manager AmTrust Surety 17771 Cowan, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 949 263 3356 office 949 929 1729 mobile Robert Fix a(_amtrustQroup com www amtrustsurety com CA Insurance License No OF60644 'f-�*erlai{'TIe-"ILge t�I^C:'I'ocn mil k—the imsividoal 0'eiY--v,o svnlch 1`Is aant;'--ed This er'ta; 'ra}c3n ain u-I M mahnit tn?t Is proplielar, ,i" (H tv,Pge� �o—i&eitiat and exe-Dt from atsocs.I"e under:,ppwtC ble(A'v �f}m'ar(-no,the inteileed'ec r e',zt yLL are ,ereb,,not,iea°hat any dissc inatiOn 'tic'n or _ pring of;nts core nL n c�--)n Is 5 lr`v prohibited i`,ou i ecetvet3 t�is erar by arciCer,t please niU`i ttie ser der Imine latrhy ar, dest;av tt is e gal'ar•L�a i ,p sa L;f It From: Robert Fix Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 8:54 AM To: 'j.demers@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: LeBard Park Development Proposal Ymportance: High Dear Ms Demers, Please forward this communication to each of the HB Planning Commission members My wife and I have resided at 20522 Suburbia Lane since November of 1991 We live adjacent to the park Since 2011, both adjacent neighborhoods, Meredith Gardens and Suburbia Park have been working with Ed Kerins of MG and Alan Wells of SP to oppose the original TRG Land Inc (consultant) 30 lots on five acres of existing park land and open space The clear compromise was to develop the site on the footprint of the former LeBard school and retain the park land and open space After two years of meetings, discussions with HBCSD, City Council candidates and members, a 15 lot plan on the footprint of the former school was adopted by HBCSD and the City in a Memo of Understanding (MOU) calling for the City to purchase 6 5 acres of the park The City Manager and HBCSD drafted the first site detail which eliminated two little league fields replaced by a large parking lot This first draft was opposed by all parties, and was replaced by the current site detail plan that extends the existing parking lot next to the tennis courts by 20 spaces Numerous communications and HOA board meetings have occurred since the MOU was signed in May 2014 Information and the site detail plan has been circulated to both adjacent neighborhoods There has NEVER been a recommendation to pave over parkland or open space until three residents of MG spoke at a recent study session One of the speakers, Mr Kent Hayden, attended a rally to save LeBard Park in September of Item 14. - 319 xB -812- 2012 held in the SW corner of open space, the very location submitted for paving over-grass for a 1 acre parking lot Just this past weekend, baseball tournaments were held at Seaview little league 1 saw 50 — 100 people, , families, children, dogs, using this open space We're happy to have the open space, parking lots not so much I strongly recommend that you approve the project as recommended by staff, and not replace any park land or open grass with asphalt Thank you for your consideration Regards, Rob Fix Vice President AmTrust Surety 17771 Cowan, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 949 263 3356 office 949 929 1729 mobile Robert Fix(o)-amtrustgroup com www amtrustsurety com CA Insurance License No OF60644 :onf oen,a°ity Flo:ice T^is ernzX rness6_ee 15 MtEtIdEd vnl� for the-rcmdual or entity*c whith i,n,aazYessed This email nay ct naam u�Tonratic :,^a,is prop,ieta,y or pr-1 ileEe:., confidential and eyempa fro n dtsclosu^e undei app tcahle law if you are no;the t ttende;:re_p,ett you ere'yereby n4:Mi i thct ary this em,nat+on ai,Im wticn or cepyin,of.--is cornniunicaz,on is strip y proh'brted If you received this ern it r}acciaem pi:?ase n(tlfy the se^de• n)madlately ar a:tesr-ov this emot'ai,d a,I cop~s off, AOMobile-AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Download on the App Stores"" I Get it on Google PlayTM ' -Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.,registered in the U.S.and other countries.App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc -Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Confidentiality Nctice:This email message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.This email may contain Information that is proprietary or privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure unc.er applicable lark.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemiration,distribution or copy€rig of this cos�monication is strictly prohibited.if you received this email by accident,please notify the sender Immediately and destroy this ernail and all espies of it. HB1)813- Item 14. - 320 Demers, Judy From: Alan Walls[alandwalls@aol com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 3 18 PM To: Demers, Judy Subject: LeBard Project Ms Demers, Please forward the comments below to all the Planning Commissioners before this evening's meeting Planning Commission Members I have written to you before urging that the open parkland in LeBard Park be retained Based on the Meredith Board of Directors letter to you of 6/8/15, they agree, stating, our"primary concern is the preservation of the LeBard Park and ' adjoining open space" However one MG resident today submitted a recommendation to convert two acres of LeBard,'s open (passive) parkland into parking spaces to accommodate the Little League on 11 Saturdays per year I will not belabor you further but to note per the last draft of the new HB General Plan, Goal OSC-8 calls for"Adequately sized;and located active and passive parks meet the changing recreational and leisure need of existing and future residents" , Sections A-G of that same goal further develop that theme Please retain the park for people not cars Thanks, Alan Walls i Item 14. - 321 HB -814- i Demers, Judy From: September Mirghanban [smirghanbari@mac com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4 17 PM To. Demers, Judy, Demers, Judy Cc: Alan Walls Subject, LEBARD PARK Dear Planning Commission Members. I am writing regarding the proposed restructure of the LeBard Park I have lived in this neighborhood for nearly 20 years and live directly across from the open green space west of the ball fields I will be one of many taxpayers in this neighborhood whose quality of life will be directly affected by the decisions the Planning Commission makes regarding this proposal We are a community that needs to spend more time outdoors doing healthy things to improve our lives I am happy that the city has decided to purchase this valuable land, however, I hope it wasn't to build a parking lot On our city s website, it states, "Parks Make Life Better! in Huntington Beach by providing access to the serenity and inspiration of nature, outdoor space to play and exercise, facilities for self-directed and organized recreation, positive alternatives for youth which help lower crime and mischief, and activities that facilitate social connections, human development, the arts, and lifelong learning Parks and Recreation programs assist the City of Huntington Beach in achieving our mission To provide sustainable quality services to maintain and enhance our safe and vibrant community " I believe this and hope that by not allowing any of the open space to be taken away from the many that use it, we can continue to have a good quality of life That open green space is used not only by the Little League, but by neighborhood children to play, tots learning to play soccer and football, family gatherings, and homeowners walking their animals I am strongly opposed to removing that green space in order to accommodate parking, which is already handled quite well with street parking For decades, Cynthia Drive residents have lived with the parking on our street, and prefer that to taking away open park area There are several potential negatives aspects to a parking area of that size 1 A concrete or asphalt area of that size could create additional water run off that will have to be dealt with 2 A large parking area will promote a reason to congregate— especially at night by people who don't belong there doing things they shouldn't be doing This will be a security issue 3 The noise problem that will be created will directly affect surrounding neighbors Parking on the street promotes arriving and leaving without unwanted issues 1 cannot image an instance where decision makers like yourselves have ever said, "I wish we had built that parking lot instead of keeping green space " Building a parking area of that size when our streets already accommodate the parking demand is like watering your yard while it's raining What a waste of our precious resources Thank you for your consideration - September Mirghanban HB1-s 1 s- Item 14. - 322 Item 14. - 323 xB -816- fc � - - _ -.__�_� � � — - _ - __ _ -_- lily I'~ `''+F � 1�1 ��'b{ 5s F+ ��a �' 7�i o'r�'J�•' �� y �I 'Aid y� 7` .. _ - i� YY 1�+'1 •r- � ^� � rei � +�•I,I� 1 `�I'` � -F I IF I+� ' � � .a.•'�_r IY � I 1 jl{_ _ � �-"'__ '4•• 1` J YI �I DIY �` ` .._. _ 1 } 1 {Yj --W` .___.! II alllf:l ',1,. I, EI.,u I i , af" ET IN, E,4 I I dTp ,,IrCLFATL`' flEMI "IRWI- Yffb I fil ��M� � 111 1dt,lA] ro IL 1 I fof,ETATEI: FILTE" :T�Pl,, ' M1 ......�.--....,...w..rw�.�ww��..-•---•u4tn..�._..--.-.—.�= _ �.. ln,l' 1+...nr....1 ^.I r�-li...��+• —.�wwa i.�—+�ld��- ...,... _._..,.�� '.'.-.,..�..._..-... �� t�-� �.- �'~ i I Item 14. - 325 xB -818- I June 8, 2015 Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association P.O. Box 6883 Huntington Beach CA 92615 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Ref. LeBard Park & Residential Project The Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association board of directors concerns lasted below reflect our residents views voiced at school district, community and city meetings over the past two years. We are supportive of the proposed development if these concerns are mitigated. The proposed development will have a significant impact on LeBard Park use, park users and local residents. These impacts are described in our response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I. Our primary concern is the preservation of LeBard Park and adjoining open space. Extending the parking lot into the park gains 17 parking spaces that would only be used eleven Saturdays a year or 3% of the available days in a year. Temporary use of the adjacent SCE property for overflow purposes could i be requested for those overflow days. The notion that the Lot A detention basin open space area makes up for this loss of open space used daily by park users is invalid for configuration, location and city policy reasons. The Environmental Board, the Community Services Commission, local residents and our board of directors have all stated the parking lot should not extend into the park. Recommendation: Make a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-039 with the provision that the parking lot not extend into the park. Direct staff'to' investigate use of the SCE property for overflow parking purposes on a temporary basis. II. Grading and construction of the project will have a significant impact on LeBard Park use, park users and local residents for many, many months. LeBard Park currently is sorely lacking in amenities and maintenance. The Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the school district states $607,000 will be used for LeBard Park project improvements. The funds saved by not constructing the parking lot extension should be applied to upgrade existing park amenities and facilities to compensate for this impact. In addition, funds not spent on water quality and drainage purposes should also be applied to upgrade park amenities and facilities. Recommendation: Make a motion to modify Mitigation Measure no. 2 on attachment no. 1.7 to state the landscape plan should cover the landscaping and amenities contained in the LeBard Park phase 11 plan for the existing park. HB -819- Item 14. - 326 i III. The staff report calls for palm equivalent trees to replace existing mature trees to be removed. Park users cluster under shade trees and avoid palm trees to escape the heat from the sun. Recommendation: Make a motion to modify Mitigation Measure no. 2 on attachment no. 1.7 by replacing the word "palm" with "shade tree". IV. The applicant has stated plans are to perform construction outside of the March thru May little league season but there is no condition of approval requiring this nor is their any penalty if this does not happen. Recommendations: Add a condition of approval requiring construction and completion of park construction outside of little league season. Add a condition of approval providing for a $X,000 fine per day for non-compliance. V. The applicant is proposing a 20 foot rear yard set back for lots 1 thru 6. Adjacent homes on Crailet Drive typically have a 38 foot rear yard set back. Residents are concerned that homes that can be built 20 inches higher on a lot 17% larger, 20 feet from the property line will overpower them and ruin their quality of life. Recommendation: Make motion to change the suggested condition of approval, for tentative tract no. 17801. 1.c from a set back of 20 feet to 38 feet. VI. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes traffic impacts will be less than significant and traffic is not addressed in the staff report. The residents of Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane are significantly impacted by speeding cars during little league season. Recommendation: Make a motion directing staff to investigate traffic calming measures on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane. VII. The proposed parking lot extension into the park would be located in an isolated, unlit area of the park adjacent to residences. It is likely noise and nefarious illegal activities will occur after 10 p.m. that will necessitate police calls. Recommendation: Add a condition of approval requiring a lockable barrier to allow parking only on the eleven Saturdays a year there is an overflow parking need if the parking lot extension into the park is constructed. Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. Ed Kerins Secretary Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association Item 14. - 327 xB -820- Villasenor, Jennifer From: James, Jane Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 8 23 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: FW LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal/HB Planning Commission Presentation/June 9, 2015 @ 7 00 PM/HB City Council Chambers Attachments: LeBard Parking Proposal Final 06082015 JPG Importance: High Jane James City of Huntington Beach Planning Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-536-5596 iiames@surfcity-hb org www huntingtonbeachca gov From: Kent Hayden [mailto:KHaydenCd)JonathanEngr com] Sent: Monday,June 08, 2015 5.02 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: aprilhelliwelwahoo.com; Dominguez, David; ashlev.white@kroger.com; ed kenns; Jeff Kane; ScotsID@aol com; hydnfmly aol.com Subject: LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal/ HB Planning Commission Presentation/June 9, 2015 @ 7:00 PM/ HB City Council Chambers Importance: High Dear HB Planning Commission Attached is the proposed plan for installing parking against the West wall of LeBard Park between the SEAVIEW Little League Majors and Minor A outfield fences This plan shows that eighty-six(86) to ninety-eight(98) parking spaces could be placed in this area, including required handicapped parking spots The current plan does not mention what would happen to the several handicapped parking spaces that were detailed into the current SVLL parking plan 14 years ago Where are the disabled baseball fans going to park? This plan provides for set-backs of 35 feet to 30 feet at each end of the parking lot for vehicles to enter, exit and turn- around The plan also allow for parking spaces that are 20 feet long by 10 feet wide, larger than the parking space code of 18 feet 5 inches by 9 feet All of the vehicles using this parking facility would enter and exit off of Cynthia Drive in Suburbia Park The parking facility would actually provide a benefit to the Cynthia Drive residents by reducing on street parking in front of those homes This plan also includes a walkway area between the Majors scoreboard and the Safety Fence to limit the possibility of baseballs traveling over 230 feet into the parked cars The details for the height and length of this fence would need to be worked out The existing parking around the current SVLL complex has safety fencing and liability signs stating "Park-At- Your-On-Risk" There have been very few incidents with this type of system in the past 14 years This plan also allows for player warm-up areas outside the Majors left field fence and outside the Minor A center field fence This proposed parking area is not being utilized regularly by Meredith Gardens and Suburbia residents The area is actually in disrepair with numerous gopher holes and nightly irrigation mis-management If you go to this area around 10 00 PM you will see 100s if not 1000s of gallons for water wasted every night HB -821_ Item 14. - 328 I would like to discuss this plan tomorrow night at the Planning Commission meeting This plan would be a very good compromise by all five (5) concerned parties, Meredith Gardens, Suburbia Park, Seaview Little League, HDCSD, and The City of Huntington Beach Everyone needs to participate in the inconvenience as a result of these fifteen (15) $1,300,000 homes being built and the impact associated with this new development Meredith , Gardens cannot and will not bear this inconvenience alone And, this plan would eliminate the cost of the seventeen (17) new parking spaces to be built north of the LeBard Park tennis courts, that green space is utilized far more than the west end of LeBard Park When you take into the account the elimination of cost of installing and maintaining these seventeen (17) unnecessary parking spots, the water savings and mowing maintenance for the nearly acre of land, I think that this plan solves several issues, not to mention the reduction of very heavy traffic on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane that was not even part of the traffic study I look forward to your support Sincerely, Kent E. Hayden Meredith Gardens Special Events Director 714-231-1065 Cell Phone Email: khayden(a)-ionathanengr com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any and all electronic files or data attached hereto is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the intended recipient,or the recipient's agent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received this e- mail in error,please notify sender immediately and delete the file from your computer Thank you Item 14. - 329 HB -822- NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE Minor A Majors Outfield Fence Outfield Fence Grass Warm-Up Area Grass Warm-Up Area Walkway H ! ence:1 10, j N Parking ! %* ! 4 It Parking Aisle spot i ' M ! ! CL + ! ! x s + rt tc + ! @ C 01 Center Aisle ! I — ! ! Parking Aisle 10' + 1 Parking j ! spot ! ! Vilest Wa l l 3 04Jk �' � e~F sw4y r I,; a ';� v�,, lSif iA Irk C � bbsda J u" 101.5 �• l hF'`F n3�`, a�7 s`�� r Pr`ki a S' 1Q x�Dt '. t , 35� � 1� 434 $ sprs Par1Ei g"Ot Waal i alr� a r+�ces g * x i ;� p x'9 166sq 3 �Set 3C ,#z 5r s f� t c7t$ h a n d lad pkin s � 5 � iV 0 i i Item 14. - 331 xB -824- Villasenor, Jennifer From: James, Jane Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 6 14 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: FW LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal/HB Planning Commission Presentation/June 9,2015 @ 7 00 PM / HB City Council Chambers Jane James City of Huntington Beach Planning Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92649 714-536-5596 JJames@surfcity-hb org www huntingtonbeachca gov From: Marti Cassell-Fix [maiIto.Marti.Cassell-Fix@quantum.com] Sent:Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4.40 PM To: James, Jane Subject: RE: LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal / HB Planning Commission Presentation/ June 9, 2015 @ 7:00 PM / HB City Council Chambers Let me rephrase,to be more accurate See highlight below From: Marti Cassell-Fix Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 3:37 PM To: 'jjames@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: RE: LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal / HB Planning Commission Presentation/ June 9, 2015 @ 7:00 PM / HB City Council Chambers Dear HB Planning Commission Please note that the plan that has been in the works for the past 2 years that is currently up for approval is a good compromise developed by residence of Meredith Gardens, Suburbia Park,as well as Seaview Little League, HDCSD;and The City of Huntington Beach That plan does not increase the traffic on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane from what it was when the school or district office was in service All access to the district office and the SVLL parking lot has always been through those streets The addition of the houses is predicted to be less traffic than the district office.And with the removal of the main parking lot from Seaview, the overflow traffic will likely split between the two neighborhoods, making it less than what it is today (I'd predict Suburbia will take the bigger hit with the current plan than Meredith since it's more accessible to the fields) It is mentioned that this parking would benefit the residents of Cynthia I do not live on Cynthia, but I'm sure this is NOT the case We live around the corner and people park in front of our house when there are games This is a very minor inconvenience Even if it were everyday, (which it is not.. it is probably around 12 days a year, if that,which is less than 4%of the days in the year), no one would want to give up open green space to avoid a car in front of their house, especially not those who overlook it I do not believe that Suburbia Park residences were consulted on this proposal at all HB -825- Item 14. - 332 In the mornings, before I leave for work, and on the days I work from home(one or two days a week), I see residents back there every day, throughout the day,with their kids and with their dogs And on the weekends,with or without baseball, there are always kids playing there So though there aren't often organized parties in that area,there are always people enjoying the open space I agree the area is in a bit of disrepair, however, it is utilized at least 90%of the days of the year Ideally,we could leave both spaces open and use the SCE dirt area for parking As I understand it,the SCE space can't be agreed on until after the plan is signed So maybe the addition of any parking can wait until after that?That's probably a stretch, but thought it worth mentioning Either way, please stick with the original, well thought out and agreed to plan Thank you for your consideration Marti Marti Cassell-Fix , Quantum Corporation Office 949 856 7723 Mobile 949 400 3848 marti.cassell- fix(a-guantum.com From: Kent Hayden [mai Ito:KHayden(J1JonathanEngr com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:02 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: aprilhelliwell(uDyahoo.com; Dominguez, David; ashley white(a)kroger.com; ed kerins; Jeff Kane; ScotsID@aol com; hydnfmly aol com Subject: LeBard Park West Wall Parking Proposal/ HB Planning Commission Presentation/June 9, 2015 @ 7:00 PM/ HB City Council Chambers Importance: High Dear HB Planning Commission Attached is the proposed plan for installing parking against the West wall of LeBard Park between the SEAVIEW Little League Majors and Minor A outfield fences This plan shows that eighty-six(86) to ninety-eight(98) parking spaces could be placed in this area, including required handicapped parking spots The current plan does not mention what would happen to the several handicapped parking spaces that were detailed into the current SVLL parking plan 14 years ago Where are the disabled baseball fans going to park? This plan provides for set-backs of 35 feet to 30 feet at each end of the parking lot for vehicles to enter, exit and turn- around The plan also allow for parking spaces that are 20 feet long by 10 feet wide, larger than the parking space code of 18 feet 5 inches by 9 feet All of the vehicles using this parking facility would enter and exit off of Cynthia Drive in Suburbia Park The parking facility would actually provide a benefit to the Cynthia Drive residents by reducing on street parking in front of those homes This plan also includes a walkway area between the Majors scoreboard and the Safety Fence to limit the possibility of baseballs traveling over 230 feet into the parked cars The details for the height and length of this fence would need to be worked out. The existing parking around the current SVLL complex has safety fencing and liability signs stating"Park-At- Your-On-Risk" There have been very few incidents with this type of system in the past 14 years This plan also allows for player warm-up areas outside the Majors left field fence and outside the Minor A center field fence Item 14. - 333 HB -826- This proposed parking area is not being utilized regularly by Meredith Gardens and Suburbia residents The area is actually in disrepair with numerous gopher holes and nightly irrigation mis-management If you go to this area around 10 00 PM you will see 100s if not 1000s of gallons for water wasted every night I would like to discuss this plan tomorrow night at the Planning Commission meeting This plan would be a very good compromise by all five (5) concerned parties, Meredith Gardens, Suburbia Park, Seaview Little League, HDCSD, and The City of Huntington Beach Everyone needs to participate in the inconvenience as a'result of these fifteen (15) $1,300,000 homes being built and the impact associated with this new development Meredith Gardens cannot and will not bear this inconvenience alone And, this plan would eliminate the cost of the seventeen (17) new parking spaces to be built north of the LeBard Park tennis courts, that green space is utilized far more than the west end of LeBard Park When you take into the account the elimination of cost of installing and maintaining these seventeen (17) unnecessary parking spots, the water savings and mowing maintenance for the nearly acre of land, I think that this plan solves several issues, not to mention the reduction of very heavy traffic on Crailet Drive and Craimer Lane that was not even part of the traffic study I look forward to your support Sincerely, Kent E. Hayden Meredith Gardens Special Events Director 714-231-1065 Cell Phone Email: khayden(a?_ionathanengr.com _ attached hereto is intended soles CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any and all electronic files or data att ch Y for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is pnvaleged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the intended recipient,or the recipient's agent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received this e- mail in error,please notify sender immediately and delete the file from your computer Thank you HB -827- Item 14. - 334 NOT TO SCALE Minor A Outfield Fence Grass Warm-Up Area Majors Scoreboa CD r+ 0 Q0 CL 0 -1CL N � CU rg� •. epG sgN P Item 14. - 335 xB -828- The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply with applicable data security and retention requirements Quantum is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt I xB c829- Item 14. - 336 Item 14. - 337 Hs -830- i R"' ECEIVED , PETITION TO HB PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESERVE OPEN GREEN SPACE RAWAB Iikk am strongly against the 60 car parking lot that has been recommended to r Fe W�► c0,em � open space in the SW comer of LeBard ParWs grass fields that was recently recommended T e loss of approximately one acre of open space would have a lasting and negative effect on the community This is an area popular with kids,families, dog owners, and Little Leaguers This poor recommendation arose from the loss of parking surrounding the former LeBard School when 15 houses are built on that site am willing to accept more street parking to preserve our limited open space since that provides the most benefit to the community PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE �. r' - A q 2-C- V L.- (-�4'j ��'-,•�G{�✓'" �f�'''�i y��.�`=tom �V c� �% �.�1 e lr�.Y,'I �% • (��''�!G-' ��-- R. jT0 xV --1 -11VLL—j0 ( %1 fozut `t„i'r(f .�E/�,�.r" �� I �.- � fir!��/ 'c�f�%--€%i�it=�. ��✓' f /f��fr r 5 HB -831- Ct,V'? 1e vpLj,,tt,j,Item 14. - 338 i Item 14. - 339 xB -832- PETITION TO HB PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESERVE OPEN GREEN SPACE IN LEBARD PARK I am strongly against the 60 car parking lot that has been recommended to replace about one acre of the open space in the SW comer of LeBard Park's grass fields that was recently recommended The loss of approximately one acre of open space would have a lasting and negative effect on the community This is an area popular with lids, families, dog owners, and Little Leaguers This poor recommendation arose from the loss of parking surrounding the former LeBard School when 15 houses are built on that site I am willing to accept more street parking to preserve our limited open space since that provides the most benefit to the community PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE .S+e Fez ©6a QtOA , w.n 6�7h 446 �s V f � CTI A4 Or �A d vo 5 IL r 1-082- CVPA� I)r- HB -833- Item 14. - 340 i i Item 14. - 341 xB -834- PETITION TO HB PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESERVE OPEN GREEN SPACE IN LEBARD PARK I am strongly against the 60 car parking lot that has been recommended to replace about one acre of the open space in the SW corner of LeBard Park's grass fields that was recently recommended The loss of approximately one acre of open space would have a lasting and negative effect on the community This is an area popular with lads, families, dog owners, and Little Leaguers This poor recommendation arose from the loss of parking surrounding the former LeBard School when 15 houses are built on that site I am willing to accept more street parking to preserve our limited open space since that provides the most benefit to the community PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE ,j C i a roz. GN e / lhg2lSta Lu�-b Gc �o �J s .�� z.o5�I Sc��S�a►� r..�` � G j� ON ' r � xB -835- Item 14. - 342 I Item 14. - 343 xB -836- -cky hart-Yahoo Mail https//us-mg6 mail yahoo com/neo/launch7 rand=0bngdjud1t100 PETITION TO HB PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESERVE OPEN GR. I Download 1 of 2 I PETITION TO HB PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESERVE OPEN GREEN I am strongly against the 60 car parking lot that has been recommended t( open space in the SW corner of LeBard Park's grass fields that was recen approximately one acre of open space would have a lasting and negative I an area popular with kids, families, dog owners, and Little Leaguers. This poor recommendation arose from the loss of parking surrounding the houses are built on that site. I am willing'to accept more street parking to preserve our limited open spa j benefit to the community PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS �f i�v�� i3�Y�►-�, � fir; j ;�_ tiJ, a©8 BEv,5nL)Y- pR Sarin S�s-te� ©©&Z- BEv6,9�Y IDg- �d✓T. �,et} gZ6k� J j fdi�z C3�v�2v7 &L4FJVA t HuLryf Atty IC-C-qY It.43 . Cat- 4Z b PUIS?-11 ' � ra•6Z .Be n c tiaz 3�es1.�t��. HB -837- Item 14. - 344 i Item 14. - 345 HB -838- ATTACHMENT # 11 From: Matthew Fertal TO, Vdlasenor,Jennifer,Wilson,Fred Subject: LeBard School Housing Project Date: Tuesday,June 23,2015 5 05 41 PM Attachments: Le Bard Housing Project door Hello Jennifer, Thank you for taking the time to sit with me and discuss the proposed housing project on the former LeBard School property. You were very patient and helpful I have attached a letter to the Mayor and City Council expressing my request to have the City Council approve the project as initially proposed to include the expansion to the parking area Also, any additional parking within the SEC Easement will further lessen the impact from the loss of on-site parking currently servicing the little league Please forward the attached letter to the City Council Thanks again and best regards, Matthew Fertal 20372 Craimer Lane (714) 357-2644 HB -839- Item 14. - 346 Matthew Fertal 20372 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 357-2644 June 24, 2015 Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: LEBARD SCHOOL HOUSING DEVELOPOMENT Dear Mayor and City Council, Thank you for receiving my written communication regarding the proposed housing development on the former Le Bard School property My family and I have resided in the Meredith Gardens neighborhood for over 22 years Meredith Gardens is a wonderful neighborhood and a gem within the City of Huntington Beach During the past 22 years my family has enjoyed the benefits of Lebard Park and the convenience of the Seaview Little League. Our four sons played Little League at Seaview During the past few years, there has been much public discussion regarding the proposed housing development on the existing HB City School District office property I recognize how challenging it's has been for all parties to reach consensus on a project design that will satisfy the varied interests associated with this property In general, I have been supportive of the new housing development. City Planning staff, the School District, Seaview Little League and other stakeholders all have valid concerns. After many months, it now appears that the School District will be able to sell their property, a developer will be able to build new homes,the Suburbia Neighborhood will have minimal impact and the Seaview Little League will retain all six of their ballfields and receive a new snack bar and restrooms So far so good Except for one thing The little league will lose use of over 100 existing parking spaces How do you make up for the loss of over 100 parking spaces without having a significant impact?These parking spaces are necessary for the majority of the little league season. The little league season starts with try outs in January, followed by Opening Day in February and Championship Games well into the month of June This activity is usually six days a week Item 14. - 347 HB -840- Unfortunately, despite these compromises,there are stakeholders who weren't made whole under the current development proposal. These are the residents in Meredith Gardens who live closest to LeBard Park These residents will feel the biggest impact of the lack of on-site parking at the reconfigured LeBard property. There are many young families with small children who reside in Meredith Gardens. The increase of on-street parking will cause significant congestion and unsafe conditions on our streets. I am not sure, the City Council can, in good concise approve the various environmental documents that accompany the development application that state there are no adverse impacts on the neighborhood You can't eliminate over 100 on-site parking spaces and have attendees to the little league games park on quiet residential streets and then state that there is no impact At a minimum, you must approve the project, as proposed,to include the expansion of the exiting parking lot This will at least show a good faith effort to mitigate the impacts I believe the Planning Commission Recommendation suggests that the expansion parking lot is not necessary This is absolutely unacceptable as a mitigating measure. The argument that the expansion parking lot will eliminate a portion of a green belt does not outweigh the negative impact of not providing additional on-site parking Furthermore,this portion of the green belt is currently brown due to the lack of water during the serve drought It is more sensible to add the much needed parking and to save water by not keeping this small area green. I would also request that the City consider arranging for additional little league parking within the SCE Easement under any arrangements that SEC will find acceptable Any relief of on street parking will lessen the impacts on the neighborhood. As I mentioned, Meredith Gardens is a wonderful neighborhood and is an asset to the City of Huntington Beach. Approving the project as proposed will not leave the residents of Meredith Gardens to shoulder the brunt of the impacts Thank you again for your consideration and I request that the City Council approve the project as proposed to include the expanded parking lot Sincerely, Matthew Fertal xB -841- Item 14. - 348 i From, James,,Jane To. Villasenor,Jennifer Subject, FW LEBARD PARK MEETING Date. Fnday,June 12,2015 8 42 43 AM FYI Jane James City of Huntington Beach Planning Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-536-5596 JJames@surfcity-hb org www huntmgtonbeachca gov I I From: De Coite, Kim Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1 51 PM I To: Brenden, Patrick, Crowe, Bill, Hoskinson, Michael, Kalmick, Dan; Mandic, Connie, Pinchiff, Edward, Semeta, Lyn Cc: D'Alessandro, Paul; James, Jane, Hess, Scott, Demers, Judy Subject: FW• LEBARD PARK MEETING Please see below i I Kimberly De Corte Administrative Assistant Planning and Building Department 714-536-5276 kdecoite@surfcity hb org From: September Mirghanban [mailto smirghanbariCa3)mac coml Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2 13 PM To: Demers, Judy Cc: Alan Walls Subject: LEBARD PARK MEETING Dear Planning Commission Members. I attended the meeting last evening, and also spoke to you regarding the LeBard Park issue First, let me say that I was very impressed with the level of attention and interest that you are giving this matter That seems to mirror the same amount that the residents of that community are also giving It is always nice to see the support from the community, however, I have to ask myself where most of those people were during the planning phase of this project Over the last two years, there were several plans that were put forth that have been discussed by the City Council, and the one initially discussed last night was the one that the City Council, as well as those people who have been involved in this process from the beginning have endorsed I saw a lot of Hail Marys last night at the last minute I guess I don't understand the process of approving a project if what the City Council approved continues to be readdressed There were some comments made last night that I would like to Item 14. - 349 1413 -842- comment on* 1 I did hear several Commission Members say that there seems to be a lot of disagreement over the parking issue. Most people at that meeting were in agreement that no additional parking area should be built either on the west or east side of the park. Please keep in mind that Suburbia Park presented nearly 60 signatures from residents who were unable to attend the meeting last night who voiced their opposition to putting a parking lot on the west side of the property with their signatures on a petition Imagine those additional 60 people standing up in support of keeping our green space 2. It appears that most of this project has centered on keeping the Seaview Little League completely happy; to the point of even scheduling the construction activities around the little league schedule Everyone seems to be extremely accommodating and giving to the needs of the league. With that in mind, the president of the league spoke last night and indicated that the league does not want or need the extra parking. What they need is the open space to accommodate the young children practicing and warming up. There is no other place on the property for that many children to do this, and the league stated that they cannot afford to practice anywhere else. 3 Some questions were raised regarding the traffic study The main concern that I heard several times was the safety of the children that live on Crailet and Kramer This same issue exists on Cynthia Drive as well This same issue exists around every school in the district, and they have found ways to control it. This is a current problem that has to be addressed, and the project hasn't even started! Speeding is an enforcement issue that the City should address now. 4 Staff mentioned that the traffic study underestimated the actual number of parking spaces currently available, in an effort to be conservative with its numbers. They only counted the spaces on the north side of Cynthia Drive, and you can trust that the south side is completely used too. 5. Someone mentioned that there needs to be a shared burden Just because the construction traffic will go in through Meredith Gardens doesn't mean there isn't shared pain. Come over to Cynthia Drive during baseball season on a Saturday There isn't one open spot for parking, and many times people park partially blocking my driveway People who want to enjoy access to the Santa Ana Riverbed access that through Cynthia Drive also, and that's where they park People in our neighborhood know that the noise from the public address system, and the parking is a part of the overall package It's like living on a golf course and getting mad when you find a golf ball in your yard 6 Another resident brought up the fact that the westside open green space is in disrepair with gopher holes and sprinklers that dump hundreds of gallons of water unnecessarily. That's a maintenance issue that should be handled by the responsible party Using that as a reason to tear out the grass and replace it with asphalt is ridiculous. 7 The issue of homeowner privacy and quality of life is the most important issue raised For those homes that will be directly behind the new homes,the setback cannot be far enough and the height of the new homes is deeply concerning. These homeowners have been in their homes for decades, and having to deal with a loss of quality living, as well as home value, is unacceptable. I believe that proceeding in a gradual manner through this parking issue is best As mentioned during the meeting, it's extremely unlikely that an unnecessary asphalt lot will ever be jackhammered and replanted. No one is a loser by being cautious in this particular manner. xB -843- Item 14. - 350 i This issue can be handled in phases After the new homes are built, and if there is a parking issue, it can be addressed in the future. It is disappointing that the City isn't willing to just buy the entire property and make it all a park The City of Huntington Beach has been on a roll and will have a financial windfall with all of the new apartments, single-family homes, and retail that is being built all over the city. Too bad we can't use some of those funds to keep green space instead of building on every square inch that is possible Thank you for your consideration. September Mirghanbari Item 14. - 351 HB -844- ATTACHMENT # 12 i untongt®n beach Planning Commission • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION June 10, 2015 Huntington Beach City School District ATTN Jon Archibald, Assistant Superintendent 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-0021 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ VARIANCE NO. 2015-001 (LEBARD PARK AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) APPLICANT: Huntington Beach City School District, 20451 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 PROPERTY OWNER: Huntington Beach City School District City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 REQUEST: GPA: To amend the existing land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Park (OS-P) on 6 5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed ZMA: To amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBardElementary School portion of the project site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6 5 acres CUP: To expand the surface parking lot at LeBard Park and to provide water quality and accessibility upgrades within the expanded park area A CUP is also required to allow the development of the proposed 15-lot subdivision on a site with a grade differential greater than three feet TTM: To subdivide the closed LeBard school site into an approximately 6 5-acre parcel, which would be acquired by the City, and the remaining 3 2 acres would be subdivided for development of a 15-unit single- family planned unit development (PUD) and associated infrastructure The residential lots would be sold to a private home builder for construction of the homes in the future MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project VAR: To provide a four-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet LOCATION: 20451 & 20461 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (LeBard Park and LeBard closed school) DATE OF ACTION: June 9, 2015 Item 14. 352 Phone 714-536-5271 Fax HB -845-540 WWW s Notice of Action GPA 12-005/ZMA 12-001/CUP 12-039/TTM 17801/MND 12-008NAR 15-001 June 9, 2015 Page 2 On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 with findings and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council, approved General Plan Amendment No 12- 002 by approving the draft City Council Resolution and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council, approved Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 with findings for approval by approving the draft City Council Ordinance and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council, approved Tentative Tract Map No 17801 with findings for and suggested conditions of approval, approved Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 with findings and modified conditions of approval, and approved Variance No 15-001 with findings and conditions of approval Please see the attachment list for the applicable documents for each application The MND, GPA and ZMA applications will now be forwarded to the City Council for final review and action at a noticed public hearing You will be notified of the upcoming City Council meeting when it is scheduled Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission on the TTM, CUP, and VAR becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($1,763 00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Three Eighty-Three Dollars ($3,383 00) if the appeal is filed by any other party In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is June 19, 2015 at 5:00 PM. Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the conditions of approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance in order to expedite the processing/completion of your total application The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval, unless actual construction has started "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action if you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020 " Item 14. - 353 xB -846- Notice of Action GPA 12-005/ZMA 12-001/CUP 12-039/TTM 17801/MND 12-008NAR 15-001 June 9, 2015 Page 2 I If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, the project planner, at JVillasenor@surfcity-hb org or(714) 374-1661 or the Planning and Building Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271 Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By 9PM:9f� Jan James, lanning Manager SH JJ JV kd Attachments 1 Findings and Conditions for Approval - MND No 12-008, ZMA No 12-001, TTM No 17801, CUP No 12-039 and VAR No 15-001 2 GPA No 12-002 Draft City Council Resolution 3 ZMA No 12-001 Draft Ordinance c Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Budding Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Paul D'Alessandro, Assistant City Attorney Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Inspection Manager Jennifer Vdlasenor, Acting Planning Manager Property Owner Project File xB -847- Item 14. - 354 i ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/VARIANCE NO. 15-001 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.12-008 : 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008 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 30 days Comments received during the comment j period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the project ! 2 Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to air quality, aesthetics, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance Air quality mitigation measures would ensure that established emissions thresholds are not exceeded through sequencing of construction phases The proposed aesthetics mitigation measures ensure that the proposed homes would be designed in accordance with the City's adopted urban design guidelines and that exterior lighting proposed in association with the homes would not impact adjacent properties In addition, the aesthetics mitigation measures require existing healthy, mature trees to be replaced at a 2 1 ratio The proposed biological resources mitigation measures would ensure that existing trees to remain in place and nesting birds in the project area are protected during site development and result in a less than significant impact The mitigation measures also specify procedures for the protection of cultural, archeological and paleontological resources during the development of the project The mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event these resources are discovered during grading and construction activities Geology/sods mitigation measures would incorporate measures with site preparation and fill placement and compaction requirements in order to mitigate impacts to liquefaction and unstable soils at the project site The mitigation measures also require compliance with NPDES through preparation of a SWPPP to minimize soil erosion during construction The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures require that a sods survey be prepared for the project site to ensure that any potential hazardous materials do not remain on site and require testing and remediation, if necessary, for asbestos and lead prior to demolition of the existing building Hydrology/water quality and utilities mitigation measures ensure that vegetated swales and a bioretention basin are utilized to ensure water quality is in compliance with all applicable permits, plans and ordinances 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 Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design, standard code requirements, conditions of approval and the recommended mitigation measures FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001: G PCWOA1151GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 1 Item 14. - 355 HB -848- i 1 Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 to rezone the approximately 10-acre closed LeBard school site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) and Open Space — Park and Recreation (OS-PR) is Consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies of the General Plan as identified below The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No 12-002, 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 uses to the north, south, and west and park uses to the east (LeBard Park) As discussed in the environmental assessment for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development A Land Use Element Goal LU 2 Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services Policy LU 4 2 5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act Objective LU 9 1 Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 2 1 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i e , infdl) be Compatible with existing structures Policy LU 13 16 Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development Policy LU 13 1 7 The type, intensity and density for reuse and/or development of surplus school sites shall be determined by the following a compatibility with the type and character of adjacent uses, c the land use designations and policies for surrounding properties as defined by this plan, e working with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formulation of a reuse plan, Goal LU 14 Preserve the City's open spaces Objective LU 14 1 Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development B Housing Element Policy H 2 4 Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan C Recreation and Community Services Element G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 2 HB -849- Item 14. - 356 Ob'ective 4 1 Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions The project will result in redevelopment of closed school site with a single-family residential PUD, which contributes new product to the City's housing stock, while preserving existing recreational sports fields The 6 5-acre area is developed with six sports fields, which would be acquired by the City and added to the City's overall parkland inventory The project would provide new and upgraded amenities within the existing LeBard park and sports fields area Consisting of a new restroom and Concession building, ADA-compliant walkways, and drainage features The project includes an , affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals Proposed improvements in conjunction with the residential subdivision include a new public street designed to the City's street standards and associated infrastructure The proposed change of General Plan land use and zoning designations for a portion of the site to RL is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for the sports fields area to OS-P and OS-PR, respectively, is the appropriate designation for newly acquired parkland Design of the residential units would be subject to the City's design guidelines and residential mfill ordinance requirements to ensure that the design of the proposed homes is Compatible with the surrounding residences and sensitive to the privacy of adjacent i homes The project will be Conditioned to have increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) to minimize potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences 2 Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 would only change the land use designation rather than a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the proposed zoning district 3 A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed The changes would expand the opportunities for housing and preserve existing sports fields to address the existing and future community's needs 4 Its adoption will be in Conformity with public Convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice The zoning map amendment would provide for Compatible residential land uses and 6 5 acres of City parkland The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and represents an appropriate transition of a closed school site FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17801: 1 Tentative Tract Map No 17801 is consistent with the requirements of the Open Space Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) and Residential Low Density (RL) zoning districts 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 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 the designations of Residential Low Density and Open Space — Park, as proposed on the subject property, or other applicable provisions of this code G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 3 Item 14. - 357 xB -850- 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 approximately five units per acre, which is within the allowable density of seven units 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 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 an elementary school and is currently used as an administration building for the school district The project site is surrounded by residential development and paved roads The site does not contain significant biological resources 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 The subdivision will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements The project will provide a new parcel that would be acquired by the City for public park use FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039: 1 Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 for the development of 15 single-family residential units and associated infrastructure and site improvements on a site with an approximately three- foot grade differential 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 transition a closed school site with proposed single-family residential uses similar to those existing uses in the vicinity It will result in less than significant environmental impacts including traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and hazardous materials The project is located on an existing developed closed school site and increased minimum setbacks will provide for a good transition to the existing residential neighborhood with adequate setback buffers from abutting single-family residences 2 The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding residential uses in terms of lot size, design, setbacks, onsite parking, and allowable building height The residential homes would be required to comply with the City's adopted urban design guidelines, which would ensure compatible design 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 The project would comply with the development standards Of the RL district in terms of minimum onsite parking, height, setbacks, and lot coverage Variations to lot width are permitted as part of a Planned Unit Development 4 The granting Of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density In addition, it is consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan A Land Use Element G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 4 HB -851- Item 14. - 358 Goal LU 2 Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation j infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services Pollcy LU 4 2 5 Require that all commercial, industrial, and public development incorporate appropriate design elements to facilitate access and use as required by State and Federal Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act OblectIve LU 9 1 Provide for the development of single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 2 1 Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i e , infill) be Compatible with existing structures i Pollcy LU 13 16 Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available first for other public purposes, such as parks, open space, adult or child care, and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development I Policy LU 13 1 7 The type, intensity and density for reuse and/or development of surplus school sites shall be determined by the following a Compatibility with the type and character of adjacent uses, C the land use designations and policies for surrounding properties as defined by this i plan, e working with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formulation of a reuse plan, Goal LU 14 Preserve the City's open spaces Objective LU 14 1 Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide, maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development B HousIng Element Pollcy H 2 4, Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan C Recreation and Community ServIces Element Oblective 4 1 Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions The project will result in redevelopment of closed school site with a single-family residential PUD, which contributes new product to the City's housing stock, while preserving existing recreational sports fields The 6 5-acre area is developed with six sports fields, which would be acquired by the City and added to the City's overall parkland inventory The project would provide new and upgraded amenities within the existing LeBard park and sports fields area consisting of a new restroom and concession building, ADA-compliant walkways, and drainage features The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Proposed improvements in conjunction with the residential subdivision include a new public street designed to the City's street G PCWOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 5 Item 14. - 359 HB -852- standards and associated infrastructure The proposed change of General Plan land use and zoning designations for a portion of the site to RL is consistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods The proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for the sports fields area to OS-P and OS-PR, respectively, is the appropriate designation for newly acquired parkland Design of the residential units would be subject to the C►ty's design guidelines and residential infill ordnance requirements to ensure that the design of the proposed homes is compatible with the surrounding residences and sensitive to the privacy of adjacent homes The project will be conditioned to have increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) to minimize potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences i FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO. 15-001: 1 The granting of Variance No 15-001 to permit a four-foot-wide landscape planter along a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Warwick Drive in lieu of the required 10 feet will not , constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification The current parking lot at LeBard Park does not have perimeter landscaping and the existing sidewalk along the street is not separated by a landscaped parkway The proposed project would incorporate both of these features and bring the park into greater compliance with existing codes Similar to many of the City's existing parks that were originally built with the original surrounding subdivision, the park is surrounded by single-family residential uses with limited parking designed to code requirements that are no longer in effect The variance is required to make improvements to the parking lot and park while maintaining the current amenities and providing for minimal disruption to the public's use of the park i 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, location and surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification The site is constrained by existing amenities within the park The area for improvements to the parking lot and park that would provide landscaped parkways, new sidewalks and ADA-compliant walkways is limited due to the location of existing tennis courts and passive recreation area in the park so that they would not be affected by the proposed improvements Under current zoning regulations, the parking lot requires a 10- foot perimeter landscaped area The park was established with the original subdivision in the 1960s with no perimeter landscaping and minimal planter areas throughout the parking lot The continuation of the park use is permitted and the area for improvements is limited by the existing amenities in the park Compliance with the 10-foot perimeter landscaping area would result in impacts on the existing park amenities and disruption of those amenities to the public 3 The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights Benefits of the project include improvements that would enhance the aesthetics, safety and accessibility of the existing parking lot and LeBard Park The variance would allow for these improvements to occur without affecting existing amenities within the park (i e — existing tennis courts and passive recreational area) that serve the public 4 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification The variance is applicable to a portion G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 6 HB -ss33- Item 14. - 360 i of the parking lot along Warwick Drive Due to existing improvements within LeBard Park, the variance is necessary to achieve upgrades within the park such as ADA-compliant walkways and improvements such as adjacent sidewalks and landscaped parkways that are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood The reduction in the perimeter parking lot landscaping will enhance pedestrian safety as it allows for a landscaped parkway adjacent to the street to buffer the sidewalk where none currently exists The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Open Space — Park on the subject property because it would allow for improvements to be constructed that would enhance the overall aesthetics, safety and accessibility of the existing parking lot and LeBard Park MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1 The future residential developer shall comply with the Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines and building code requirements to ensure that the 15 single-family residential units are architecturally consistent with the surrounding residential land uses (MM Aes-1) 2 The Applicant shall obtain a permit associated with the City's Tree Ordinance from the Public Works Department for any proposed activity that may disturb existing trees on the project site A landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a minimum of 2 1 ratio with 36-inch box, shade tree or other species as required by the Parks, Tree and Landscape Division shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a permit to remove and/or plant trees (MM Aes-2) 3 All lighting associated with the single-family residential development, including any proposed !, street lighting, shall comply with all applicable City lighting standards to minimize light spill caused by these new light sources For example, all exterior lighting shall be directed onto walkways and/or driveways within the development and away from adjacent properties (MM Aes-3) 4 Construction phases shall occur sequentially to ensure that construction emissions are not compounded to exceed the maximum daily emission thresholds due to overlapping construction phases (MM Air-1) 5 Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 feet for birds of prey) of the active nest Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor (MM Bio-1) 6 If the conservation of the existing trees in place is determined to be the preferable option to importing nursery trees for transplantation, then the following measures shall be undertaken to ensure the protection of the tree's roots systems and foliage canopies ® Tree protection zones shall extend to the trees drip lines or a minimum of 6 feet out from the trunks whichever is greatest G PCWOA\15\GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039 TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 7 Item 14. - 361 HB -854- ® Tree protection zones shall be fenced with durable chain link fencing during the construction operations period to prevent encroachments The fence(s) shall be held in place with galvanized fence posts that are set into the sod without footings The fenced tree protection zones shall prohibit access from the construction side of the trees ® Maintained free of soil importation or exportation, storage of materials, trenching, and vehicular or construction traffic during the operations period ® Top-dressed with 2 inches of coarse organic mulch during the construction period The area within 2 feet of the trunks shall remain free of the accumulation of mulch ® The trees shall be maintained using current practices including irrigation, fertilization, and pruning throughout the construction period ® The protection zones shall be maintained free of encroachment Encroachment shall i only be undertaken after consultation with the project arbonst in advance to consider the use of alternate or specialized construction methodologies intended to limit potential impact to any affected trees ® Shall only be encroached within the root zones beneath the canopy drip lines using pneumatic excavation equipment (Air-spade) or hand tools All woody roots that are encountered in such excavation operations within the drip lines should be cut using sharp pruning tools and shall not be ripped, torn, or otherwise frayed or damaged, using sharp pruning implements or saws (MM Bio-2) 7 The following mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented to address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources within the proposed project area This program shall include, but not be limited to, the following actions ® Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the future developer shall provide written j verification to the City that a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior Standards as an archaeologist and is a Registered Professional Archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program The retained archaeologist shall have experience identifying artifacts, features, and shell madden sites in Orange County This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency The City, prior to any pre-construction meeting, shall approve all persons involved in the monitoring program ® The qualified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program ® The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Protocol document, which shall outline all procedures and authorities for the monitoring project, protocols for a Worker Education Training seminar designed to educate construction workers on archaeological field methods and protocols, and trainings on the penalties for collecting archaeological items ® In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources The qualified archaeologist shall assess, record and either collect or protect the find until such a time that the find can be subjected to Phase it test excavations, if necessary ® The results of the cultural resources monitoring program shall be summarized in a Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring Report The report shall document the field and analysis results and interpret the artifact and research data within the research context and shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the issuance of any G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 8 HB -855- Item 14. - 362 building permits The report would include California Department of Parks and i Recreation (DPR) Primary and Archaeological Site forms (MM Cul-1) 8 The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontological monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits Paleontological monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontological monitor If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to MM Cul-3 through MM Cul-5 (MM Cul-2) 9 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources (MM Cul-3) 10 Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository { with permanent retrievable paleontological storage These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontological mitigation and CEQA compliance The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented (MM Cul-4) 11 Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources (MM Cul-5) i 12 If human remains are encountered during construction, the find would be handled in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5, which states that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin i and disposition pursuant to California 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 will 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 within 24 hours of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (MM Cul-6) 13 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all recommendations contained in the NMG Geotechnical, Inc Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Design Parameters Report (2014) are incorporated into the proposed project during construction The following recommendations shall be documented on the project grading plans ■ The estimated remedial removals for the site shall be on the order of 5 feet deep to fully remove the soft and loose artificial fill and weathered alluvium in order to reduce future settlement potential G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 9 Item 14. - 363 HB -856- ® The removal bottoms shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement ■ Upon completion of the remedial removals, the approved removal bottoms shall be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, except when soft, wet soils are encountered The removal bottoms and fill materials shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 ■ Fill materials shall be placed in loose lifts no thicker than 6 inches and shall be relatively free of deleterious material I ■ The moisture content of new compacted fill soils shall be placed at above the optimum moisture content within the compactable moisture range Appropriate equipment support or other measures (e g , mixing, stockpiling, drying) may be needed to achieve the uniform and correct moisture content for placement of the fill (MM Geo-1) 14 In accordance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a project-specific SWPPP to minimize soil erosion, which would implement best management practices (BMPs), such as but not limited to the following ® Minimizing Disturbed Areas Clearing of lands is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized ■ Stabilizing Disturbed Areas Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the project site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping in Protecting Slopes and Channels Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and increases in runoff velocity caused by the project are managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels v Controlling the Site Perimeter Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project site and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents ■ Controlling Internal Erosion Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the project site are detained (MM Geo-2) 15 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the sods report (MM Haz-1) 16 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor, as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Section 35005, assess onsite buildings for the presence of lead-based paint The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment (MM Haz-2) 17 Prior to any site redevelopment, the project applicant shall have a California Certified Asbestos Consultant assess on-site buildings for the presence of asbestos-containing materials The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommended in the assessment (MM Haz-3) 18 In compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Elementary School site, a detention basin and a flow-based vegetated swale shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 10 xB -857- Item 14. - 364 shall be implemented in the design and Construction of the detention basin and flow-based vegetated swale All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented during the operational phase of the proposed project (MM Hydro-1/Utilities) 19 In Compliance with the WQMP for the LeBard Park site, a flow-based vegetated swale and a volume-based bioretention basin shall be incorporated into the design of the proposed project and shown in the Final Tentative Tract Map All design parameters outlined in the WQMP shall be implemented in the design and Construction of the flow-based vegetated swale and volume-based bioretention basin All operational requirements, such as inspections and maintenance activities established in the WQMP for LeBard Elementary School Site shall be implemented dunnq the operational phase of the proposed project (MM Hydro-2/Utilities) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17801: 1 The Tentative Tract Map No 17801 received and dated January 21, 2015, shall be the approved layout except as modified per the conditions herein a Turning radii for the parking lot access off Warwick Drive shall be designed to comply with the minimum requirements of City Specification No 401 — Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access (FD) b Fire hydrants shall be shown on the project plans and installed and in service before Combustible construction begins Hydrant location and spacing shall be shown on the plans in accordance with City Specification No 407 — Fire Hydrant Installation Standards (FD) C Identify a 20-foot setback restriction for Lots 1 through 6 on the tentative tract map per Condition No 6 a iv 3 d The parking lot expansion area (from the eastern boundary of the existing parking lot to the SCE right of way) shall be eliminated from the project plans 2 The final map for Tentative Tract Map No 17801 shall not be approved by the City Council until General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 are approved and in effect 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit and 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 4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the required Precise Grading Plan shall include the following a The proposed water quality/detention basin within Lot A of the subject TTM No 17801 shall be designed and constructed as useable parkland for public park use G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_lTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 11 Item 14. - 365 HB -858- b All design parameters and dimensions for all proposed storm water quality and/or detention features (including any engineered and/or b1ofiltration media) shall be shown on the PGP C The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report shall be prepared to accurately model the limits and function of the proposed water quality and/or detention basins with respect to all volume and Capacity requirements for detention, infiltration, duration of detention and limits of useable parkland d The Final Water Quality Management Plan shall conform to the final designed and modeled stormwater system, including detention (PW) 5 Prior to issuance of Building Permits, an Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with the Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval by the City Attorney, and accepted by the City Council Said agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract 6 Prior to recordation of the final map a At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works, Fire, and City Attorney's office for review and approval The CC&Rs shall include the following i Provide for maintenance, repair and replacement by a Homeowner's Association (HOA) for all common area landscaping (Lots B & C and parkways along 'A' Street), irrigation, drainage facilities, water quality BMP's, and private service utilities u The Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall execute a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City that the HOA shall be responsible for the Continuing maintenance and liability of all landscaping, irrigation, water quality and drainage features associated with the proposed water quality basin (adjacent to the City Park and indicated as Lot "A" on Tentative Tract Map 17801) The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as removal of trash, debris and silt buildup, removal and replacement of dead/damaged lawn (and any other plantings) resulting from the operation of the basin and any other aspects of maintenance that are warranted by the improvements The agreement shall state that the HOA shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, liability, and fees imposed by the City The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R's III Appropriate language shall be placed into the project CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to utilize on street parking within the development during park use hours IV Provide for disclosures to all potential buyers in the purchase and sale agreement that 1 The buyer is aware that they are purchasing a home adjacent to sports/baseball fields and may be subject to errant/fly bails on their property G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 12 xB -859- Item 14. - 366 2 On-street parking on `A' Street shall remain available for general use by the public 3 Lots abutting single-family homes on Crailet Drive (Lots 1 through 6) shall maintain 20-foot rear yard setbacks 7 Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with MND No 12-008 8 Comply with all applicable Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 and Variance No 2015- 001 conditions of approval CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 12-039/ VARIANCE NO. 15-001 : 1 The project plans received and dated January 21, 2015, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning j units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan If located on a future building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks b Turning radii for the parking lot access off Warwick Drive shall be designed to comply ! with the minimum requirements of City Specification No 401 — Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access (FD) c Fire hydrants shall be shown on the project plans and installed and in service before combustible construction begins Hydrant location and spacing shall be shown on the plans in accordance with City Specification No 407 — Fire Hydrant Installation Standards (FD) d The proposed foot bridge connecting the tot lot area within LeBard Park to the sports fields shall be redesigned to include a handrail The railing shall meet all applicable requirements of the California Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Building and Community Services Departments e A minimum of one parking on-street parking space shall be provided per lot f Lots 6, 10 and 11 shall provide one additional driveway parking space in addition to the code required driveway spaces The additional driveway space may be tandem (i e — behind) the code required driveway spaces g The parking lot expansion area (from the eastern boundary of the existing parking lot to the SCE right of way) shall be eliminated from the project plans 2 Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 shall not become effective until General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 are approved by the City Council and in effect G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 13 Item 14. - 3 67 HB -860- 3 Green building strategies shall be incorporated into the construction of the residential units that meet ail mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards Incorporation of sustainable or "green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U S Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http//www usgbc org/DisplayPage aspx?CategorviD=19} or Budd It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http //www builditgreen org/index cfm?fuseaction=guidelines) 4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed a At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the appiicant/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 b Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building Department Double walls along the existing homes on Crailet Drive shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to a six (6') foot tall wall located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line The two-inch gap shall be filled with foam and capped or another alternative subject to approval by the Planning and Building Department Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property Any removal of wails on private residential property and Construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage c A fencing/netting plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Budding and Community Services Departments for review and approval The fencing/netting plan shall be prepared by a qualified sports fencing/netting company and include backstop modifications and/or netting at heights appropriate to ensure adequate protection of the new homes from errant/fly balls based on the configuration of the sports fields 5 Prior to submittal for budding permits, the following shall be completed a Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of budding permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 14 HB -861- Item 14. - 368 b Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning and Building Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department c Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s) d The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning and Building Department e The final design of the 15 homes shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board for conformance to the Urban Design Guidelines and HBZSO 6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed a An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location The plan { shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works b General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 shall be approved by the City Council and in effect 7 The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed a Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning and Building Department b All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them c A new storage/restroom/concession building shall be constructed per the location on the project plans, dated January 21, 2015 (Public Benefit) d All improvements (relocation of bleachers and bullpens, ADA-compliant walkways, parking lot improvements, drainage improvements, water quality/detention basin with passive park amenities) within LeBard Park and the sports fields shall be completed (Public Benefit) 8 Conditional Use Permit No 12-039 and Variance No 15-001 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning and Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date 9 The development services departments (Planning and Building, Fire, Planning 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 Planning Commission's action If G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 15 Item 14. - 369 HB -862- the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241 18 10 The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and i employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof I G PC\NOA\15\GPA 12-002_ZMA 12-001_CUP 12-039_TTM 17801_MND 12-008_VAR 15-001 (LeBard) Attachment 1 16 HB -863- Item 14. - 370 ATTACHMENT # 13 3 i General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-002 Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 12-001 MND No. 12-008 LeBard Park and Residential Project City Council Meeting July 6, 2015 Project Site {{ Approx. 10 acres • Developed in 1960s • Closed as school in 1981 Used by HBCSD for : 1 administrative offices - Existing uses: a pprox. 37,000 s.f. building, p 6 sports fieldstp asphalt . " • blacktop/ parking In 2014, City Council approved MOD with HBCSD to purchase � approx. 6.5 acres (6 sports fields) and process entitlements for a ` 15--lot 5F6 subdivision on the paved (blacktop/building) area W N r� cti Requests. GPA 12111111111111002 e I ��3 ��# '�y �W•'ems If d qP t�� ._�^ -• �f�i x e _ d 9 _ RL � r y i RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE- PARK PROPOSED GENERAL L PLAN Request : Z,MA 12-001 lor� I IS— " 4 S, al I i RESIDENTIAL LOW DEt � OPEN SPACE-PAR RECREATION SUBDISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING PLAN Ij rF CD Requests, MND No . 12mOO8 Vl Draft MND • MND analyzes potential impacts of the proposed project • Prepared in accordance with the requirements CEQA Recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts x Concludes that the project, as proposed, does not result in significant environmental impacts Response to Comments RTC Text Changes • 29 comment letters were received during the 30 day MND review period 0 Responses are provided to each comment that raises an environmental concern (not a requirement of CEQ,A) • None of the comments or resulting text changes to the MND trigger requirements for recirculation or preparation of an EI'R RTC and text changes are incorporated by reference into Final MND Planning Action • on June 9, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the GPA, ZMA and draft MND to the City Council in conjunction with approval of a TTM, CUP and VAR to permit construction of a 15- lot single-family residential development and improvements within Le Ba rd Park. o The TTM, CUP and VAR entitlements do not become effective until x the GPA and ZMA are approved and in effect The Planning Commission approved the project with the following modifications — Eliminated the parking lot expansion (17 parking spaces) from the project — Required replacement trees to be shade trees rather than palm trees CD -- Required the final design of the 15 homes to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. r-r Planning C Meeting • The Planning Commission also approved a recommendation to the R City Council requesting consideration of. — Use of SCE ROW for overflow parking — Implementation of traffic calming - measures in the surrounding r 4 neighborhoods 25 speakers raised concerns about: x z �- Traffic/'Speeding in neighborhood — Parking: Location/intrusion into a park/Safety/Necessity — Compatibility of new residential — Drainage + Analysise, GPA/ZMA _ ,M • Properties to the north, south and west are designated and v►e l a single-family � de developed with residential uses Open Space: appropriate designation for sports fields g area to be acquired by the City Consistent with LeBard Park Dr �. 10 designation t Single-family residential: similar lot sues and density as surrounding neighborhoods CD .p W J 00 t� Analysis • Approval of the General Plan and Zoning amendments would allow the HBCSD to re-purpose the closed school site for public recreation and residential uses in a manner that would : — Be consistent with surrounding zoning and General Plan land use designations and provide compatible lot sizes and density to surrounding single-family residential Result in the preservation and acquisition of approximately 6.5 acres of parkland Retain existing sports fields and minimizes changes; avoids disruption of activities and use of the fields — Be consistent with City Council direction and the approved MOU between the City and the HBCSD — Provide appropriate designations for the transition of a permanently closed school site to another use Recommendation • Approve 'MND 12-008 with findings and mitigation measures !, • Approve GPA 12-002 by approving draft City Council Resolution • Approve ZMA 12-001 with findings by approving draft City Council Ordinance w 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 6, 2015 at 6 00 p m in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items ❑ 1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 12-008/ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 12-002/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 12-001 -LEBARD-PeRK eN L-PR !cant- Huntmgtan Beach City School District Property Owners: Huntington Beach City School District, City of Huntington Beach Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project GPA: To amend the existing land use designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public (Residential Low Density) (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 units per acre (RL-7) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Park (OS-P) on 6 5 acres where the sports fields are currently developed ZMA: To amend the existing zoning designation for the LeBard Elementary School portion of the project site from Public- Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) on 3 2 acres and Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) on 6 5 acres The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2015, to consider the above request in conjunction with associated tentative tract map, conditional use permit and variance entitlements and recommended approval of the above request to the City Council Location: 20451 & 20461 Craimer Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (LeBard Park and LeBard closed school) City Contact: Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act It was determined that Item #1 with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted The mitigated negative declaration (No 12-008) is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271 ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or on line at http //www huntingtonbeachca aov on Thursday, July 2, 2015 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising C\Users\esparzap\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content 0ut1ook\BGU3Z50B\07-06-15 MND 12- 008 GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001 (LeBard)docx only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 ts/ C\Users\esparzap\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content OutlookWUMOM07-06-15 MND 12- 008 GPA 12-002 ZMA 12-001 (LeBard).docx Esparza, Patty From: David Ward [DWard@ocregister com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9 39 AM To De Colte, Kim, James, Jane, Sandra Campos Cc: Villasenor, Jennifer, Esparza, Patty, Estanislau, Robin, Flynn, Joan, Lyon, Lauren Subject: RE Legal to be Published Next Thursday in HB Wave Good morning The proof is below Have a great weekend PROOF Ad#10062292 Run Date 6/25 Cost$133 65 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTIN+GTONV BEACH NOTICE I5 HERESY GIVEN that on hkndi July 6,2(n5 at 6:00 p rri. In to City Counci Charn ers,2Wp Main Street, Hun tarn Stick,the City C4u i will hold a public heartng an the following planning mid zoning 1i 01 UrTMATNID UWAT E olecLARAYMN K06 t24MM QFAEVAL VILAM Ail EhPI` YId06 124XW ZONt= UM flYtd „ '1 - Ys iI> Y�Yi Aye Huntington h C Sc'hood District ram Huntington ch C school viastriot, city of W gton Beach Items 111111 1 k To analyze the potential errAorimental impacts associated with the psciect GP"i To aid the existing,land use despanaflon fair the LeBard Elementary Such oil pon5on of the pMact site from Public(R=deritial Low )JP(RL))ter ftfiidai twi Low Density-7 unft per acre(RL-7) an 9 2 acres and 011 S e -Park(t� ) on 6-6 s where the sports fields are currently i o �sand the iindsting niriq d o for the LeSard Elernentary Schooll portion of the pro act srle fromPubl r~Samrpuhic (li to Residental Low Denser(RQ on12 acres and Space - Perlks and Rmeation KS PR)can S 5 arms. The Pilarrninq Commission hold a pub r- ing on.lam 9,2015,to consider thin above request in oonjunction with associated lentarNe tract neap, =ndibonal use permit and vadanice entitlements and recorrtir1rittnditd approval Of the above reqLw5t to the Citv Cour il. Liocialliam 20451 $2ml Cralrner lame. Hunting- ton Bei CA U648 {LeBard Park and LeB,ard closed schoc 103ft rlib"Jennifer Vilasenor m+1IMncE Its Y' &MIX that the In, et'avtrioni rental assesurient for the above rant was orocessed and completed in a crdance with the Calibrnia Envirtannrtantal Qualil- ty Act was daterrridned that Itarn #1 with mitigation,would not have any 9" Rant eavi- nrmerrtal eflecis that a m.. ated n ire declar�n se t mttigated rrleg�alive declaration (No. 12-C t is on ale at the City of Hu n h Plann j and t3uii'dong Departrineri-,a=Man Street,and is available for PLUW Inspection and corniinant by corr=ung the Planning and Building Departrnerst,or by telephoning�7141 &-52711. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in Me ftming and Buildhq Dei ment, MW Main fit, Hunthnoon Beach, CaIddrini 92548.fi is on b ��attbN� A copy of the staff report will be avail a to interned partite at the City CIO 's C�ice or on Dine at htty lt'teww.humngtonbeaahca.»r r an Thursday.July 2,2015, ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing mid express canic its or submit fence for or a0wrist the appal ion as callrn+ed alp. It you chalkinge the City C ouncil's action in court you ma be Im-Aed to raising only'those issues you or surnerane else r ' at the pui�lic�e�aring r scnlaed in this ncatice,or in written correspondence d8- livered to the City aL or prior to, the IDWic hei N there a Iurdwr Q lone Please call the Planning and Building meat at (714)�- 71 anfrefer to the above mi Ihrect yetz written commurkations to the Ciily Clerk Joan LW Flynn.City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Nor Street,2rid Floor Huntington Beach.Cargorna 92648 714-53&SW ,Putfthed:The Hurnti nggon Beach'4'4'ave June 225,2015 1 92 1 - Oc RZ - LECALADIENTMNQ F.714.2472724 k' - r � � f From: De Coite, Kim [madto KDeCoite(-a surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Friday,June 19, 2015 8.36 AM To: David Ward; James, Jane, Sandra Campos Cc: De Coite, Kim, Villasenor, Jennifer; Esparza, Patty, Estanislau, Robin, Flynn, Joan; Lyon, Lauren Subject: Legal to be Published Next Thursday in HB Wave Please see attached document to be published in next Thursday's HB Wave Account# 1001083723 Please email Lauren Lyon at Lauren Lyon @surficty-hb org for confirmation Thank you, Kimberly De Coite Administrative Assistant Planning and Building Department 714-536-5276 kdecoite@surfaty-hb org 2 i A�13/►V-O9-008-L ; ,wan-aod pjogaj al JBlv7naJ ;a ®09L5®A213AV;!jegeD al zasili;fl c woe/G�m mu► ; ep ule aumpeq e,q zapday p sues V ; ,Bated a selpe;Sawfr�143 151-051-01 151-051-02 151-051-03 Alfredo Chiri Joseph Nguyen Beksa John Edward J E Revoc Li 20612 Salt Air Cir 20602 Salt Air Cir 28512 La Noche Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6044 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6044 Mission Viejo, Ca 92692-2227 151-051-04 151-051-05 151-051-06 Adam Murguia Beverly Swenson Kenneth Howard 20582 Salt Air Cir 20572 Salt Air Cir 20562 Salt Air Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 151-051-07 151-051-08 151-051-09 Richard Holdaway Richard Keith Byron Betty Jane Wickstrom 20552 Salt Air Cir 20542 Salt Air Cir 20522 Salt Air Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 151-051-10 151-051-11 151-051-12 Ronald James Blanchard Juan Carlos Callerio Carole Cribbs 20512 Salt Air Cir 20502 Salt Air Cir 20511 Salt Air Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 151-051-13 151-051-14 151-051-15 Emily Khaw Robert Natelborg Adam Wade Johnson 1755 Akaakoa St 20541 Salt Air Cir 20551 Salt Air Cir Kailua, Hi 96734-4272 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 151-051-16 151-051-17 151-051-18 William Popoff James Michael Horist Joshua Halbmaier 20561 Salt Air Cir 20571 Salt Air Cir 20581 Salt Air Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 151-051-19 151-051-20 151-051-21 Frank Mack Soroush Soroushi Robert Malin 20591 Salt Air Cir 20601 Salt Air Cir 20611 Salt Air Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6045 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6045 151-051-22 151-051-23 151-051-24 Quyen Tay Hoang William Pierce Robert Daniel 16269 Livingstone St 20602 Pebble Ln 20592 Pebble Ln Fountain Valley, Ca 92708-1738 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6043 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 151-051-25 151-051-26 151-051-27 Stephen Kimble Alec Walker William Miles 20582 Pebble Ln 22842 Azure Sea 20562 Pebble Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Laguna Niguel, Ca 92677-5439 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 151-051-28 151-051-29 151-051-30 Scott Adams Alexander Christian Gassler Ryan Cherney 20552 Pebble Ln 20542 Pebble Ln 20522 Pebble Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 ua6P3 dn-dod asodxB ® jaded paa� @09LS a}eldwal®Iliany ash ®09�5® �/ A—C) � as Bull 6u01e pugs ® stg4�®1�Rse� i A2l3Ad-O9-008-L i 3wdn-dod Pjogaj al jaIqnaj ;uvwv"=W ; @09L5®AV3Ad 7kIJegeo al zasyu;n worAiene mmm a u ein a zai d ap sues , as ed sa pe saw i. � , P � 4�4 1 q J � � , I g I. � 151-051-31 151-051-32 151-051-3 3 Vu Duong Cullough Matthew Phillip Mc Roger Niederland 20512 Pebble Ln 20502 Pebble Ln 20511 Pebble Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6028 151-051-34 151-051-35 151-051-36 Ginnis Marissa Marie Mc Ronald Eatherton M Liz Orban 20521 Pebble Ln 8422 Northport Dr 20551 Pebble Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6028 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4425 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6028 151-051-37 151-052-01 151-052-02 Bruce Thompson Donald Walker Osvaldo Baglione 20561 Pebble Ln 9982 Saline Dr 9891 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6028 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6035 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6037 151-052-03 151-052-04 151-05 3-01 De Sloover Mary B M B RevocTr Kyle Riccio Diane Bridzell 9881 Spinnaker Dr 9871 Spinnaker Dr 1019 Holt Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6037 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6037 Placentia, Ca 92870-4240 151-053-02 151-053-03 151-05 3-04 Scott Klauss Michael Kistler Jackie Czerniachowski 9952 Spinnaker Dr 9942 Spinnaker Dr 9932 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 151-053-05 151-053-06 151-053-07 Dolores Hutchins Patrick Driskill Henry Hines 9922 Spinnaker Dr 9912 Spinnaker Dr 9902 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 151-053-08 151-053-14 151-053-15 Jane Brown Ryan Myers Richard Bolf 9892 Spinnaker Dr 9901 Voyager Cir 7540 Westlawn Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6038 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Los Angeles, Ca 90045-1064 151-053-16 151-053-17 151-053-18 Barry Macdonald Richard Howell Zumwalt Family Trust 9921 Voyager Cir 9931 Voyager Cir 9951 Voyager Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 151-053-19 151-053-20 151-053-21 Richard Dean Zumwalt Colleen Davidson Vincent Paul Colf 9941 Voyager Cir 9961 Voyager Cir 9972 Voyager Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6527 151-053-22 151-053-23 151-053-24 Carl Allen Michael Engelmann Plaza Noel E Tovar 9962 Voyager Cir 9952 Voyager Cir 9942 Voyager Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6527 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6527 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6527 61A4 F wj86P3 dn-dod asodxa ® jaded PaN F ®09L5 a�eldwaj®band ash 009 L5 Q)AV3AV 04 Gull 6uole Well ® slags 1®Iaa�Ase3 i Aa3AV-O"08-L ; ,Wdn-dod pjogai a!ja!gAaj +uap sues ®09Ls®AH3AV 4uegeo a!zesuan � � ap � woo kane mmm ap uye aampey e'a z900b ® , salad g selpe j saWl ijq 151-053-25 151-053-39 151-053-40 Amy T Nguyen Terence Glynn Jerome Hood 9932 Voyager Cir 9941 Silver Strand Dr 9951 Silver Strand Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6527 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6511 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6511 151-053-41 151-053-42 151-053-43 Kim Phan Eric Rivas Blair Kerley 9961 Silver Strand Dr 9972 Silver Strand Dr 9962 Silver Strand Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6511 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6512 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6512 151-081-01 151-081-02 151-081-03 John Larinto Benon Michael De Charles Mullen 20502 Pierview Ln 20522 Pierview Ln 20532 Pierview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 151-081-04 151-081-05 151-081-06 Gregory Antonucci Stanley Hanson Roland Ochsner 20542 Pierview Ln 20552 Pierview Ln 20562 Pierview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6030 151-083-01 151-083-02 151-083-03 Edward Luparello Lawrence Kemper David Gray 9892 Saline Dr 9882 Saline Dr 9872 Saline Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6034 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6034 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6034 151-473-16 151-473-17 151-473-18 Christopher Kyaw James Wayne Wrather Scott Stetson 9891 Big Sur Dr 9901 Big Sur Dr 9911 Big Sur Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5309 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5311 151-473-19 151-473-20 151-473-21 T Mary Alves Howard Dell Christopher Preston Boutcher 9921 Big Sur Dr 9941 Big Sur Dr 9951 Big Sur Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5311 151-473-22 151-473-23 151-473-24 Frances Friedrich Raseknia Joe Family Tr Karl Seitz 20341 Running Springs Ln 20331 Running Springs Ln 20321 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5358 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5358 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5358 151-473-25 151-473-26 151-473-27 Peter Yuichi Koga Ninh Nguyen Keith Soon Kim 20311 Running Springs Ln 20301 Running Springs Ln 20281 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5358 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5358 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5356 151-473-28 151-473-37 151-473-38 Wagner Omar Montiel Sam Milazzo Terry Biefeld 20261 Running Springs Ln 20282 Colonial Cir 20292 Colonial Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 926466-55356 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5321 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5321 W-T wi96P3 dn-dod asodxa ® jaded paq f r ®09L5 a�e!dwal�aAd ash ®09ts® V /Z-00 2. o at null auole puss ® I6/� sl@qe'1®laad Ase3 i AH3AV-O9-008-6 1 ,Wdn-dod pjogaj ap japgnqu �uawao�ey� 009LS(DAH3AV;!jege6 a)zesppp;n waxAje mmm ; ap up aintpeq e19 zappdaa ap®as a ; salad a sa0pe}sawr;b4 151-473-39 151-473-40 151-473-41 Sean William Nelson Stewart Edward Deutschle Kevin Antonelli 20312 Colonial Cir 20322 Colonial Cir 20332 Colonial Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 151-473-42 151-473-43 151-473-44 Angel Mordekhay Mark Kramer Annette Singhal 20331 Colonial Cir 20321 Colonial Cir 20311 Colonial Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5348 151-474-02 151-474-03 151-474-04 Vuu Of Tang Living Trust Gates Thomas A T A Rehs Tr Robert Range 20242 Running Springs Ln 20252 Running Springs Ln 20262 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5357 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5357 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5357 151-474-05 151-474-06 151-475-01 Jaime Lafosse Hong Kim Pham Dale Lee Hoerth 20282 Running Springs Ln 20302 Running Springs Ln 20312 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5357 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5300 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 151-475-02 151-475-03 151-475-04 Nader Abdelnour Wendy Sack Jake Quan Ngo 20322 Running Springs Ln 20332 Running Springs Ln 20342 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 151-475-05 151-482-08 151-482-09 Julie Parrah Lauren Trainor Thuytien Tonnu 20352 Running Springs Ln 9882 Big Sur Dr 9892 Big Sur Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5310 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5310 151-482-10 151-482-11 151-482-12 Franklin Woo Show Tien Wang Brian Rechsteiner 9902 Big Sur Dr 9901 Vicksburg Dr 9891 Vicksburg Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5312 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5337 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5335 151-482-13 151-483-09 151-483-10 Holger Kasper Albert Sau-Yin Yeung R Colin Kelley 9881 Vicksburg Dr 9882 Vicksburg Dr 9892 Vicksburg Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5335 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5336 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5336 151-483-11 151-483-12 151-483-13 Frank Yonemon Nick Hannappel Jo Anna Heier 9902 Vicksburg Dr 9912 Vicksburg Dr 9922 Vicksburg Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5338 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5338 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5338 151-483-14 151-483-15 151-483-16 Ramzi Rabbat Raymond Prebish Christopher Manning 20402 Redwood Ln 20392 Redwood Ln 20382 Redwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5331 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5331 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5331 6)04 P ,ua5p3 dn-dod asodxa ® jaded psai r 1 6//� ®0915 a;epdwal®lGanV asn @09 LS® V ��-DO t 04 a 16uole pues ® slaqe'1®1oad RSe3 i Aa3AV-09-008-6 ,wdn4od pjogai a!ja!anau ;uawawryJ 009LS®AH3AV4!aege6 ai zas!p;n woa�Saane�rmeHnn ; ep uge aenmpey el g za!!dea ap®as ; aaead a sa0i2e}sa0an61441 151-483-17 151-483-18 151-483-19 Morton Brian Cnv Robert Chu Edward Charles Solomon 20372 Redwood Ln 8392 Seaport Dr 20381 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5331 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 151-483-20 151-483-21 151-483-22 David Neptune David Mirliss Mary Mc Gaffey Rubenstein 20391 Running Springs Ln 20401 Running Springs Ln 2290 Century HI Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 Los Angeles, Ca 90067-3512 151-483-23 151-483-24 151-483-25 Huy Ngoc Pham Paul Gauweiler Dinah Santiago 15142 Yawl St 20441 Running Springs Ln 9941 Hot Springs Dr Garden Grove, Ca 92843-5216 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5329 151-483-26 151-483-27 151-483-28 Caro Peter De Harold Bosworth Thomas Byrns 9921 Hot Springs Dr 9911 Hot Springs Dr 9901 Hot Springs Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5329 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5329 151-483-29 151-483-30 151-484-01 Christine Mary Lopez Frederick J Hoffman Kenneth Wischmeyer 9891 Hot Springs Dr 9881 Hot Springs Dr 20362 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5327 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5327 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 151-484-02 151-484-03 151-484-04 Frank Zink Jerome Arthur Fulton Huyen Nguyen 20372 Running Springs Ln 20382 Running Springs Ln 20392 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5371 151-484-05 151-484-06 151-484-07 Robert Brown Andrew Anthony Grillo David Elder 20402 Running Springs Ln 10052 Valley Forge Dr 20432 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5361 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-3741 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5361 151-484-08 151-484-09 151-484-10 Michael Mosham Christine Teubert Nguyen Thanh Tri 20442 Running Springs Ln 20462 Running Springs Ln 9972 Hot Springs Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5361 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5361 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 151-484-11 151-484-12 151-484-13 Franck Caponera Teresa Aartman Firouzbakhsh Shahin 9962 Hot Springs Dr 9952 Hot Springs Dr 25582 Aria Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 Mission Viejo, Ca 92692-5053 151-484-14 151-484-15 151-484-16 Gary Jenkins James Murray Nicholas Barlow 9922 Hot Springs Dr 9912 Hot Springs Dr 9902 Hot Springs Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 67P/9- P „ua6P3 dn-dod asodxa ® jaded pau P 009�s eIe!duwal�anV ash ®091s® V ��00�— o4 oul0 6uo'e puee ® � r° �� slagol @lef Asea i A2113AV-09-008-11, 3Wdn-dod paogai a!Ja!gAgJ ®09L5 0AHa"4!aegeo a!zas!!!-n , ww�iJane Mmuu► , ap u,}e amipe ap sues y el @ zapdab ® , Jelled a s91e3e;sauanbsq 151-484-17 151-484-18 155-101-01 Rosa Amelia Molina Howard Neff Michael Tran 9892 Hot Springs Dr 9882 Hot Springs Dr 10011 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5328 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5328 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 155-101-02 155-101-03 155-101-04 Clearther Taylor Leon Simpson Michael Daniel 10031 Birchwood Dr 10041 Birchwood Dr 10051 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 155-101-05 155-101-06 155-101-07 Robert Casum Ferguson 2013 Family Trust Ralph Marcarelli 10071 Birchwood Dr 10081 Birchwood Dr 10091 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5430 155-101-08 155-101-09 155-101-10 Huff Elizabeth De Keith Panza Antonio Perez 10101 Birchwood Dr 10111 Birchwood Dr 10121 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 155-101-11 155-101-12 155-101-13 Charles Nichols Raphael Borenstein Tonya Boyce 10131 Birchwood Dr 10141 Birchwood Dr 1220 Johnson Dr 109 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Ventura, Ca 93003-0535 155-101-14 155-101-15 155-101-16 Adam Helliwell Glen Rosenzweig Marc Rozenberg 10161 Birchwood Dr 10171 Birchwood Dr 10181 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 155-101-17 155-102-01 155-102-02 Charles Clair Trout HenryJue George Pascine 10191 Birchwood Dr 10012 Birchwood Dr 10032 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5431 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5431 155-102-03 155-102-04 155-102-05 Jeffrey Flory William Grunwald William Correia 10042 Birchwood Dr 10052 Birchwood Dr 10072 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5431 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5431 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5431 155-102-06 155-102-07 155-102-08 Daniel John Samarin Daniel Derieg Stephen John Shea 10082 Birchwood Dr 10092 Birchwood Dr 10102 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5431 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5431 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 155-102-09 155-102-10 155-102-11 Michael Buchs Paul Oates Christopher Leister 10112 Birchwood Dr 10122 Birchwood Dr 10132 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 r „LL86p3 dn-dod asodxa ® jaded paai ®09L5 a;e!dwal @haAV asn ®09L5® ��DD ; 03 au6 6u0'e puss ® s1�gB®I�d�e3 A1113AV O9-008-L ; ,wdn-dod pjogam 91 aajgAaj 4wwww =40 i 609tS®AH3Ad;!aegeu al zesimn a sues aiorAjaAwmm ► ; ap uge aimpey el q zatidae p® ; salad a sakes}sauar; ijq 155-102-12 155-102-13 155-102-14 Faramarz Zarinshenas Fred Barla Charles Abarta 10142 Birchwood Dr 10152 Birchwood Dr 10162 Birchwood Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 155-102-15 155-102-16 155-102-17 Wayne Taniguchi Littleworth Selwyn 0 & M L Tru Ning Yeh 10172 Birchwood Dr 10182 Birchwood Dr 10181 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 155-102-18 155-102-19 155-102-20 Cann William Mc Jeffrey Kane Craig Jonathan Silver 10171 Crailet Dr 10161 Crailet Dr 10151 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 155-102-21 155-102-22 155-102-23 Robert Gagliardino Stephen Peterson John Dover 10141 Crailet Dr 10131 Crailet Dr 10121 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5437 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 155-102-24 155-102-25 155-102-26 Pepek Family Trust Reynaldo Lugo Mark Harrer 6611 Silent Harbor Dr 10101 Crailet Dr 10091 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2643 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 155-102-27 155-102-28 155-102-29 Paul Lewis Page Clifford White Leigh Nguyen 10081 Crailet Dr 10071 Crailet Dr 10051 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 155-102-32 155-103-01 155-103-02 Kien Son Ngo John Russell Regis Andrew Guerin 10011 Crailet Dr 20421 Kenworth Cir 20431 Kenworth Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 155-103-05 155-103-10 155-103-11 John Almquist James Doody David Sandifer 20471 Kenworth Cir 20442 Kenworth Cir 20432 Kenworth Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5446 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 155-103-12 155-103-13 155-103-14 Cheng-Kun I Philip Louis Penney Cory Mayes 103 Luminous 10072 Crailet Dr 10082 Crailet Dr Irvine, Ca 92603-4260 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5436 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5436 155-103-15 155-103-16 155-103-17 Cornelis Jan Heman Dejong Thomas Domenici Douglas Young 10092 Crailet Dr 10102 Crailet Dr 98 Palula Way Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5436 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Aiea, Hi 96701-2824 „043 dn-dod esodxa jaded pwA P ®09Ls%eIdwal @fU9Ad asn e ®09 Ls® W /Z—�0 2. at auy 6uole puce ® 7/b//•� slage'1®lead eise� e i A1113AV-09-008-11, i ,wdn-dod paogaj 91 jelpAlu 4uawaUJu4J i ®09L5®AH3AV l!aege6 a1 zesnan ap sues i ueom eSaeAe'mrmnn ap ule amWeq e,9 za0dea salad a sallaq sa areba;i 155-103-18 155-103-19 155-103-20 Nadine Rogers Amer Robert L Steve Ernest Carfano 10122 Crailet Dr 10132 Crailet Dr 10142 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 155-103-21 155-103-22 155-103-23 David Stepancich James Caspary Raymond Loehner 10152 Crailet Dr 10162 Crailet Dr 10172 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 155-103-24 155-103-25 155-103-30 Robert Mills Ebrahtem Yeroushalmi Rick Harris Whipple 10182 Crailet Dr 20472 Kenworth Cir 20441 Kenworth Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 155-103-31 155-103-32 155-103-33 Kelsey Peterson Hanna Samawi T Crook 20462 Kenworth Cir 20461 Kenworth Cir 3222 Los Feliz Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 Los Angeles, Ca 90039-1509 155-131-01 155-131-02 155-131-03 Warren Caltabiano Ehrencron Family Trust Keith Allen Winokur 205 Staley Ln 10261 Jon Day Dr 10281 Jon Day Dr Crescent City, Ca 95531-7964 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5458 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5.458 155-131-07 155-131-08 155-131-09 James Mecklenburg Mark Sherman Gavin Beecher 20252 Ravenwood Ln 20262 Ravenwood Ln 20272 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5456 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5456 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5456 155-131-10 155-131-11 155-131-12 Gordon Hanscom Barrett Westover Thomas Power 20282 Ravenwood Ln 20292 Ravenwood Ln 20302 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5456 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5456 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 155-131-13 155-131-14 155-131-15 Rowell William Greene Paul Frink Michael Elwell 20312 Ravenwood Ln 20332 Ravenwood Ln 20342 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5413 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 155-131-16 155-131-17 155-131-18 Kevin Smith William Epperson Jeffrey Sheldon 20352 Ravenwood Ln 20362 Ravenwood Ln 2121 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 Newport Beach, Ca 92661-1522 155-131-19 155-131-20 155-131-21 James Barr Kevin Qualls Irene Jean Heavern 20382 Ravenwood Ln 20392 Ravenwood Ln 20402 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 6A+ w1e6P3 do-dod asodxa jaded Paaj � 6 /� 009L5 alelftel® aA aAv asn ®09L 2 2-5® � -0p at aw,p 0uo�e pose ® ® 7 / Ida 1®1 i AH3Ad-09-008-L wdn-dod pjogaj aI ae nai ;uewaoje4J r I� ap sues ®09L5®Aa3AV t!aege al zaslll�n wax&ane mmnn ap use amipey e,@ za8daa ® , salad g sallae�sa anblil 155-131-22 155-131-23 155-131-24 Nicholas Baker Milton Riley Okan Hemsen 20412 Ravenwood Ln 20422 Ravenwood Ln 20432 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 155-131-25 155-131-28 155-132-01 Barry Leon Williams Thomas Willson Ellen Manley 20442 Ravenwood Ln 20462 Ravenwood Ln 20251 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5417 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5457 155-132-02 155-132-03 155-132-04 Jon Wayne Krueger John Thompson Jeremy Gause 20261 Ravenwood Ln 20281 Ravenwood Ln 20291 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5457 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5457 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5457 155-132-05 155-132-06 155-132-07 Hoang Nguyen Wood Family Trust Rosita Saidian 20301 Ravenwood Ln 1835 Newport Blvd A109-4 2300 Midvale Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Costa Mesa, Ca 92627-5031 Los Angeles,Ca 90064-2104 155-132-08 155-132-09 155-132-10 Donna Mohan Cecile Dillon Edward Hart 20341 Ravenwood Ln 20351 Ravenwood Ln 20361 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 155-132-11 155-132-12 155-132-13 John R Gunther Eric Zeutzius Shawn Ryan 20371 Ravenwood Ln 20381 Ravenwood Ln 20391 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 155-132-14 155-132-15 155-132-16 Charles Buckingham Denise Duffy Ralph Lopez 20401 Ravenwood Ln 20411 Ravenwood Ln 20421 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5416 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5416 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5416 155-132-17 155-132-18 155-132-19 Anthony Lawrence Lanza Douglas Williams Barry Bisson 20431 Ravenwood Ln 20441 Ravenwood Ln 20442 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5416 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5416 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5404 155-132-20 155-132-21 155-132-22 Tan Phan William Amsbary Kent Elliott Hayden 9861 Bond Cir 20422 Craimer Ln 20412 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-3627 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5404 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5404 155-132-23 155-132-24 155-132-25 Jeff Stearns Katz Steven D S D Revoc Tr Patrick Allen 20402 Craimer Ln 20392 Craimer Ln 20382 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5404 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 C.1,04 r wiefin dn-dod asodxe jaded paad � ®09L5 a3eldwa1®�Gany asn @09LS® V SJ /2,-00 2. o of aull 6uole puce ® ® �'� //�� slagei®lead Ase3 i A1113AV-O"08-11, ; ,wdn-dod pjogaj al,a anaj }U"Ludu W r ! ap sues 009Ls®A2l3Ad41aege al zas!I!;fl woxAse a mmm ap uge aengpeq el g aaildaa ® , jasad q safpq sawr;n 144 155-132-26 155-132-27 155-132-28 Fertal M J &T D 1991 Trust Suzanne Jo Hunt Paul Grant Richmond 20372 Craimer Ln 20362 Craimer Ln 20352 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 155-132-29 155-132-30 155-132-31 Karl Staggemeier Patrick Douglass John Aigner 20342 Craimer Ln 20332 Craimer Ln 20312 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 155-132-32 155-132-33 155-132-34 Ronald Bell Inge Lindenstadt Russell Ludwig 20302 Craimer Ln 20292 Craimer Ln 10092 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5403 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5402 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5453 155-132-35 155-132-36 155-133-02 Roger Anderson Patrick Lacey Roger Dale Brandt 20262 Craimer Ln 20252 Craimer Ln 20231 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5402 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5402 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5401 155-134-01 155-134-02 155-134-03 Darlene Bacca Denise Magro Laura Gaughan 20251 Craimer Ln 20261 Craimer Ln 7 Sea Island Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5467 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5467 Newport Beach, Ca 92660-5133 155-135-01 155-135-02 155-136-01 Michael Hyams George Wilfert Michalek Gilbert Stanleytr 10222 Stonybrook Dr 10211 Birchwood Dr 20361 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5423 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5434 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5414 155-136-02 155-136-03 155-141-01 Steven Chin Nicholas V Trautman Gregory Howell 20371 Craimer Ln 20381 Craimer Ln 20561 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5414 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5414 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 155-141-04 155-141-05 155-141-06 Scott Seymour Clafferty Allen Mc Richard Bauer 920 Kings Rd 20511 Suburbia Ln 20501 Suburbia Ln Newport Beach, Ca 92663-5718 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 155-141-07 155-141-08 155-141-09 Hung Bui Robert Fix Adele Lucy Walls 20512 Suburbia Ln 20522 Suburbia Ln 20532 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5450 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5450 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5450 155-141-11 155-141-12 155-142-01 Robert Reynolds Donald Greenwood Gwen Miller-Viertel 20541 Suburbia Ln 20531 Suburbia Ln 8631 Truxton Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5129 G#0+ f „,a5P3 din-dod asodxe jaded pool r @09LS%e!dwal @kany esn I ®09ds® f,Z -00 Z of auU tiuofe puce ® 1, 7 b /� slage7 4908d Asea i AH3AV-O9-008-L ndn-dod pjogaj al jalpAaa +uap suesy� 009LS gAH3AV 41aegen el zeslim euo�•/Ijane•Annnnn ap w am e e e zal as ap suag 1p 4� 4 I - Id salad @ sall�e4 sauenblia 155-142-02 155-142-03 155-142-04 Thai Vu Tran Stephen Vasquez September Mirghanabari 10052 Cynthia Dr 10062 Cynthia Dr 10082 Cynthia Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5439 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5439 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5439 155-142-05 155-142-06 155-142-07 Hoang Minh Le Patricia Ann Gregg Howell Foster 10092 Cynthia Dr 10102 Cynthia Dr 10112 Cynthia Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5439 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 155-142-08 155-142-09 155-142-10 Brooks Hubbard Johnson-Headding Linda Atr Jorge Echeverria 41825 Green Tree Rd 10132 Cynthia Dr 10142 Cynthia Dr Temecula, Ca 92592-3511 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 155-142-11 155-142-12 155-142-13 Terry Hihara Timothy Philips Todd Jones 10152 Cynthia Dr 10162 Cynthia Dr 10172 Cynthia Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 155-142-14 155-142-15 155-142-16 Viola Pearson Gavin Barlow Brian Semmelroth 10182 Cynthia Dr 10192 Cynthia Dr 10202 Cynthia Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5441 155-142-17 155-142-18 155-142-19 Adolph Rodriguez Thomas Shockley Steve Carroll 10212 Cynthia Dr 10211 Beverly Dr 10201 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5441 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5428 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5428 155-142-20 155-142-21 155-142-22 Robert Kohles Peter Hauk Jillian Johnson 10191 Beverly Dr 10181 Beverly Dr 10171 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 155-142-23 155-142-24 155-142-25 A Mccown Cann Michael Mc John Carter 10151 Beverly Dr 10141 Beverly Dr 10131 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 155-142-26 155-142-27 155-142-28 Joseph Isaacs Harlan Clinton Bateman Cynthia Dye 10121 Beverly Dr 10111 Beverly Dr 10101 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5426 155-142-29 155-142-30 155-142-31 Bender Elsa Family Tr Lindsey Margaret Loi Nguyen 10091 Beverly Dr 10081 Beverly Dr 10061 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5424 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5424 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5424 67014 r vua6p3 do-dod asodxa ® jaded papa r 009LS a3eldwa1 @kaAd ash it o09LS OAUMV §1 �Z_00L o;au6 6uole puce V e 7/6�'— slagel®lead Rsea i AH3AV-O9-008-L i Iwdn-dod pjogaj al ja!pnip }uawaojeyj @09L5®A213AV tuegeb al zesinn ep sues auarA iiane�mmm ep uge airnpey el a zapdaa awed @ sop q sauanbq 155-142-32 155-142-33 155-143-01 Karen Pate Hien Van Nguyen Donald Craft 10051 Beverly Dr 10041 Beverly Dr 20581 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5424 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5424 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5466 155-143-02 155-143-03 155-143-04 Kevin Martin Dolores Dwyer Matthew Austin 20591 Suburbia Ln 20601 Suburbia Ln 20611 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5466 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 155-144-01 155-144-02 155-144-03 Susan Luciani E Sue Hanlon Rex Moses 10042 Beverly Dr 10052 Beverly Dr 10062 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5425 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5425 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5425 155-144-04 155-144-05 155-144-06 Frank Jester Barbara Adams Stanton Steven Kremsky 10082 Beverly Dr 10092 Beverly Dr 10102 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5425 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5425 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5415 155-144-07 155-144-08 155-144-09 Jack Lynne Daniel Lauritis Boneita Bayless 10112 Beverly Dr 10122 Beverly Dr 2709 Golden Rain Rd 4 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5415 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 Walnut Creek, Ca 94595-1979 155-144-10 155-144-11 155-144-12 Hugh Dunkerley Calvin Leroy Gunnell Barbara Langan 10142 Beverly Dr 10152 Beverly Dr 10162 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 155-144-13 155-144-14 155-144-15 Brian Fried Patrick Craig Mike Sciarme 10172 Beverly Dr 10182 Beverly Dr 10192 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 155-144-16 155-145-02 155-145-03 Doris May Parrish Paul Taylor Mark Ball 4165 Warner Ave 105 20552 Lavonne Ln 20562 Lavonne Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-4265 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5447 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5447 155-145-04 155-145-05 155-145-06 Doug Parry Shirley Karina Cornelis Welman 3213 Princeton Way 20582 Lavonne Ln 20592 Lavonne Ln Anchorage, Ak 99508-4438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5447 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5447 155-145-07 155-145-08 155-151-01 David Struck Robert Hardy School Huntington Beach Distri 20602 Lavonne Ln 20612 Lavonne Ln 20451 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5464 6 A/+ r „1e6P3 dn-dod esodxa jaded paai @09L5 meldwal®band ash ®09LS® /Z-oo L i at Bull Ale puag ® S `��//j spage,®169d Asa3 r ' dn-dod plogaJ al Jal�n� *..o...o., .yam @09L5®Aa3A0+!,Iryru d!—!1!411 AH3AV-O9-008-L ap sua9 , auoo•IVane-n�wlnn ; ap use ejnWey el a zalldag s , Japed a selpe;sauanbiq 155-193-01 155-193-02 155-193-03 Nerney Kevin Mc Mark Edwards Peter Alfius Rasoe 10012 Meredith Dr 10032 Meredith Dr 10042 Meredith Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 155-193-04 155-193-05 155-193-06 Wende Sue Mackenzie Lightle Morey John P J P Family Tr Richard Wheeler 10052 Meredith Dr 10072 Meredith Dr 10082 Meredith Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 155-193-07 155-193-08 155-193-19 David Erickson William Manker Van La 10092 Meredith Dr 4822 Oceanridge Dr 10211 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4925 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-6427 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5409 155-193-20 155-193-21 155-193-22 Ann Maureen Steinfeld Scott Arthur Sonnenberg Richard Asdel 10201 Jon Day Dr 10191 Jon Day Dr 16471 Northwood Rd Nw Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5409 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Prior Lake, Mn 55372-1615 155-193-23 155-193-24 155-193-25 Geoff Kendle Christopher Taylor Gregory Ferrell 10171Jon Day Dr 10151Jon Day Dr 10141Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 155-193-26 155-193-27 155-193-28 Justin Wai-Men Lee Daniel Raymond Leedy David Firooz 10131 Jon Day Dr 9788 Argyle Dr 10111 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4204 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 155-193-29 155-193-30 155-193-31 Agop Gocoglu Gerald Duhonich Homer Robert E Living Tr 10101Jon Day Dr 10091Jon Day Dr 10081Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 155-193-32 155-193-33 155-193-34 Christopher Scott Patton Peek Lon E 2Nd Hong Phuc Thi Le 10071 Jon Day Dr 10051 Jon Day Dr 10041 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 155-193-35 155-193-36 155-194-01 Peter Bonacic Robert Rice Kuchinski Family Trust 10031 Jon Day Dr 10011 Jon Day Dr 10012 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5405 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 155-194-02 155-194-03 155-194-04 Elaine Thomas Susan Claudius Loretta Rae Shook 10032 Jon Day Dr 10042 Jon Day Dr 10052 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 T C.rA IF VUa6P3 do-dod asodxe ® Jade®iq r 7 /b / ®09L5 at$Idwa, ®lean�s� ®09L5® /L-CO L 11 a1 aull 6uole puce / /.� 9alel®ice i Ab3AV-O9-008-L { mdn-dod pjogai al j9l9n9J +"ap sua i ®09LS�3AV MJegeo dl zdslll;n a jawAsane��y mm a u ain e e zap de eP sua5 , ea ed a sa as sauenblg � , P � LPN 1@ J � � i 1 1. � � 155-194-05 155-194-06 155-194-07 Philip Ling Patrick Ton Gary Nelson 730 Sequoia Dr 10 Rue Marseille 10092 Jon Day Dr Sunnyvale, Ca 94086-8227 Newport Beach, Ca 92660-5907 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 155-194-08 155-194-09 155-194-10 Kelly Blatt Eric Pendergraft Kenneth Normann 10102 Jon Day Dr 10112 Jon Day Dr 10122 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 155-194-11 155-194-12 155-194-13 Matt Herrington Tuan Van Nguyen Anthony Ross 10132 Jon Day Dr 10142 Jon Day Dr 10152 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 155-194-14 155-194-15 155-194-16 Thomas Landini ShahJahan Kasravi Donald R Nickerson 10172 Jon Day Dr 10182 Jon Day Dr 10192 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5408 155-194-17 155-194-18 155-194-19 Froning James C&Janet E V Tr Vaughn Sigmon Pejovich K L Family Trust 10202 Jon Day Dr 10212 Jon Day Dr 24681 El Camino Capistrano Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5410 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5410 Dana Point, Ca 92629-3013 155-194-20 155-194-21 155-194-22 Manizheh Yomtoubian Harvey Thomas Christopher Thomas Reynolds Po Box 3595 10191 Stonybrook Dr 10181 Stonybrook Dr Newport Beach, Ca 92659-8595 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 155-194-23 155-194-24 155-194-25 Louis Bronsard Marie Marguerite Louise Parent Robert Barna 10171 Stonybrook Dr 10151 Stonybrook Dr 10141 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 155-194-26 155-194-27 155-194-28 Ronald Radziminsky Sidney Kuperberg Thomas Saito 10131 Stonybrook Dr 10121 Stonybrook Dr 10111 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 155-194-29 155-194-30 155-194-31 Linda Marcovici Colin Babb Jane Ju 10101 Stonybrook Dr 10091 Stonybrook Dr 10081 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5420 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 155-194-32 155-194-33 155-194-34 Karl Staggemeier Eric Keller Whalen K Wong 10071 Stonybrook Dr 10051 Stonybrook Dr 10041 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 6`A- r w,a6P3 do-dod asodxa jaded paai P //'� 009L5 a;eldwal®Ajand ash®09L5® 2--0 p?j o>s aw,l 6uole puae ® 7 6 s9a4a7 49 Ase3 i Aa3Ad-O9-008-L ; ,wdn-dod paoga�a��a��naa +YOlY0YJC1yJ { ®09LS�13AV-4!jegeo 81 zesimn ' we rAaane-mNkm ' a u am e e MOOS ap sues as ad sa sa anb o i P � 4� 4 1 J ® { I g I- � 155-194-35 155-194-36 155-195-01 James Johnson Lane Robert M Lame Family Tr Mcmillin Family Trust 10031 Stonybrook Dr 10011 Stonybrook Dr 10012 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5418 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 155-195-02 155-195-03 155-195-04 Valerie Morris Brandon Loomis John Keith Ramsey 10032 Stonybrook Dr 10042 Stonybrook Dr 10052 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 155-195-05 155-195-06 155-195-07 Bryan Bear Christopher Sheetz George Blau 10072 Stonybrook Dr 10082 Stonybrook Dr 10092 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5419 155-195-08 155-195-09 155-195-10 Dolores Sanfelice Robert Kalatschan Robert Brover 10102 Stonybrook Dr 10112 Stonybrook Dr 10122 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 155-195-11 155-195-12 155-195-13 Arram Fundukian Karen Dean Andrew Michael Noble 105 61St St 10142 Stonybrook Dr 10152 Stonybrook Dr Newport Beach, Ca 92663-2008 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 155-195-14 155-195-15 155-195-16 Jack Anthony Felcoski Harold Schubert Jack Pavlik 10172 Stonybrook Dr 10182 Stonybrook Dr 10192 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 155-195-17 155-201-01 155-221-01 Susan Wellington County Sanitation Wen Ling Chou 10202 Stonybrook Dr 10844 Ellis Ave 10041 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5423 Fountain Valley, Ca 92708-7018 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5452 155-221-02 155-221-03 155-221-04 John Voorhees Charles Cornman Robert Morales 12132 Sky Ln 10061 Theseus Dr 10081 Theseus Dr Santa Ana, Ca 92705-3192 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5452 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5452 155-221-05 155-221-06 155-221-07 Matthew Vadala Earl Gunnerson Lyons John Joe J J 2013 Tr 10091 Theseus Dr 10101 Theseus Dr 10111 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5452 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 155-221-08 155-221-09 155-221-10 Gary Wong Brett Bayless Sean Kelly 10121 Theseus Dr 10131 Theseus Dr 10141 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 P w06P3 do-dod asodxa ® jaded paq I -,®0915 a;eldwel®tiaAb esn ® 95® 04 DUN 6UOJL,PUSS ® 11 ]/ SlageB®Iaad dse3(iJ i Aa3Ab-09-008-L i 3wdn-dod pjogaA al jelpApi }uawaoaetp 009LS®AV3"Njegeb el zeslllLn ap sues wo��Gane nnnnnn ap We eunipeq e19 zalldea ® ; jalad a selpej sawnikoq 155-221-11 155-221-12 155-221-14 Harold Stephens Olin Lapham Eileen Root 10151 Theseus Dr 10161 Theseus Dr 10181 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 155-221-15 155-222-01 155-22 2-02 Geraldine Taylor Dave Wheeler Eric Pellkofer 10191 Theseus Dr 10042 Theseus Dr 10052 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5453 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5453 155-222-03 155-222-04 155-222-06 Laurent Hart Ronald Reyes Veronica Dvorak 10062 Theseus Dr 10082 Theseus Dr 10102 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5453 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5453 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5400 155-222-07 155-222-08 155-222-09 Patrick Allin Robert Tower Ted Higashioka 10112 Theseus Dr 10122 Theseus Dr 10132 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5400 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5400 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 155-222-10 155-222-11 155-222-12 James Stanley Mitchell Living Trust Eric Davis 10142 Theseus Dr 10152 Theseus Dr 10162 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5455 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 155-222-13 155-222-14 155-222-15 Gary Lee Stuart William Plumley Ogas Family Living Trust 10172 Theseus Dr 10182 Theseus Dr 10192 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5455 155-222-16 155-222-17 155-222-18 James Joseph Martin Ronald Castillo David Quatman 10181 Edye Dr 10171 Edye Dr 10161 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 155-222-19 155-222-20 155-222-21 Tony Carmel Almaguer John Ryder Fares Gabriel Sawaya Po Box 6673 10141 Edye Dr 10131 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-6673 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 155-222-22 155-222-23 155-222-24 Michael Campagna Maribel Ullrich Daniel Roberts 10121 Edye Dr 10111 Edye Dr 10101 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 155-222-25 155-222-26 155-222-27 Kenneth Roberts Scott Buyan Richard Adams 10091 Edye Dr 10081 Edye Dr 10061 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5442 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5442 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5442 6 YO/+ f wjLe6P3 dn-dod asodxe jaded p881 P k � @09LS e;eldwal®IGaAd esn _ @09LS® tL� -00?L oiaua6uolepuag ® 716 sloge,®leadAsea r 1 }uawaoJey� 1 1je e6 a Zesl 1 Jll13AH O�J-008-6 ,wdn-dod p�oga�al�al�n� ®0965®Jlll3AH 3. q I I.311 011orAIane-MMM ; ap U40 alnlpey el g aandaa ap®a5 ; jelled q salpq saWnbiq 155-222-30 155-222-31 155-223-01 Paul Alan Morin Peter Truxaw W Kenneth Brown 10041 Edye Dr 10051 Edye Dr 20621 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5442 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5442 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 155-223-02 155-223-03 155-223-04 Steven Perez William Kirkpatrick Thang Tran 20631 Suburbia Ln 20641 Suburbia Ln 20651 Surburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 155-223-07 155-223-08 155-223-13 Amy Marie Barry Les Draper Gerard Wessels 20691 Suburbia Ln 10032 Edye Dr 10082 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 155-223-14 155-223-17 155-223-18 Sarah Barlow John Hobson Bryan Bartik 10092 Edye Dr 10042 Edye Dr 10052 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 155-223-19 155-223-20 155-223-21 Eimeren James Van Barbara Peters Robert Morse 10112 Edye Dr 10102 Edye Dr 10062 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5445 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5445 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 155-223-22 155-223-23 155-223-24 Harry Christopulos David Raskin Henry Harrison Wray 687 Pershing Dr 20661 Suburbia Ln 20681 Suburbia Ln Walnut Creek, Ca 94597-2036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5451 155-224-01 155-224-02 155-224-03 Rex Frye Mark Venanzi Premier Pacific 20622 Lavonne Ln 20632 Lavonne Ln 2660 E Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625-2133 155-224-04 155-224-05 155-224-06 Steven Anderson Boyd Hachten Dendinger Stephen Josephtr 20652 Lavonne Ln 20672 Lavonne Ln 20682 Lavonne Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 155-224-07 155-224-08 155-224-09 Marie Murray Julie Dung Nguyen Pavel Sandru 20692 Lavonne Ln 10192 Edye Dr 19251 Carpenter Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 Villa Park, Ca 92861-1301 155-224-10 155-224-11 155-224-12 James Davis Robert Lang Timothy Howard 10172 Edye Dr 10152 Edye Dr 10142 Edye Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 �o P� r „ua6P3 dn-dod asodxa waded peal r 00915 i4eldlual®ILland asn ®09@.S® 1Z-00 Y of sun 6UOIL,PUN ® � 7161 /6�� sla4g7®1��a3 i A2l3fl\1-09-008-L ; ,wdn-dod p�ogai a!�a!�n� #Uwww '"+' { 009LS®AH3AV I!jegen a!zesinin ep sues worAAane'mmm ep uge eimpey el q zandag - aagad q sa'!3%sananbal 155-224-13 155-231-01 155-231-02 Kee Russell Mc Deborah Anderson Gerald Reynolds 10132 Edye Dr 10001 Cliff Dr 10021 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6604 155-231-03 155-231-04 155-231-05 Robert Cornelius Holly Barrett Evans Michael Patzer 10031 Cliff Dr 10051 Cliff Dr 10061 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 155-231-06 155-231-07 155-231-08 Yoshimi Matsuyama Scott Franklin Joseph Pearson 10071 Cliff Dr 10091 Cliff Dr 10101 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6604 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6606 155-231-09 155-231-10 155-234-01 Hanks Laura J Family Tr Kathryn Lee Knapp Janis Olson Jones 10121 Cliff Dr 78800 W Harland Dr 10161 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6606 La Quinta, Ca 92253-6829 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6634 155-234-02 155-234-03 155-234-04 Gary Burton Clan Teves Sherri Lovering 10181 Cliff Dr 10201 Cliff Dr 10211 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6634 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6608 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6608 155-234-05 155-234-06 155-234-07 Christopher Healey John Bennett Azgour Uri 10221 Cliff Dr 10231 Cliff Dr 20662 Spindrift Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6641 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6641 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6614 �f IT' �z-�o L 716 //J uaBp3 do-dod esodxe ® jaded paai � 009LS ale!dwel @AjaAd ash ®09LS® P at awJ 6uc!e PUGS ® ` s'agel elaed Ikea i AMAV-09-008-L )Wdn-dod pjogaj al jalanai 4uvLu0"J=4' ; ' MOON , @09LS®AHM}Iaeged al zasla� ap sues w�Naneemm aPu' am 4a1@ M ON as ad a sa!3 sauef;bIv 151-051-03 151-051-13 151-051-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20592 Salt Air Cir 20521 Salt Air Cir 20612 Pebble Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6036 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6043 151-051-26 151-051-35 151-053-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20572 Pebble Ln 20541 Pebble Ln 9972 Spinnaker Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6029 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6028 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6039 151-053-15 151-474-06 151-483-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9911 Voyager Cir 20302 Running Springs Ln 20371 Running Springs,Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6520 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5300 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 151-483-22 151-483-23 151-484-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20421 Running Springs Ln 20431 Running Springs Ln 20422 Running Springs Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5370 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5361 151-484-13 155-101-13 155-102-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 9942 Hot Springs Dr 10151 Birchwood Dr 10111 Crailet Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5330 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5432 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5437 155-102-30 155-102-31 155-103-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10041 Crailet Dr 10031 Crailet Dr 20422 Kenworth Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5435 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5446 155-103-17 155-131-01 155-131-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10112 Crailet Dr 10251 Jon Day Dr 20372 Ravenwood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5438 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5458 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5413 155-132-06 155-132-07 155-132-20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20311 Ravenwood Ln 20331 Ravenwood Ln 20432 Craimer Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5404 i55-132-34 155-134-03 155-141-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20272 Craimer Ln 20281 Craimer Ln 20521 Suburbia Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5402 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5467 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5449 155-142-01 155-142-08 155-144-09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10042 Cynthia Dr 10122 Cynthia Dr 10132 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5439 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5440 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5427 r ,a5P3 do-dod asodxa jaded pool f MLS Keldwal 0GaAV asn so ®09Ls® V �L—00 li oa Dull 6u 6®le pugs ® ; 7 slaqal 61mW Asaa AH3AV-09-008-1 .dn-dod pjogaa al j819nPJ ;uawametp i 00915 @AS3AV:tlaege6 al zesimn wowAAawmmmm ; ap uye amy�ey ell @ MON ap vas ; aaled g selpe;sonanbiq 155-144-16 155-145-04 155-193-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10202 Beverly Dr 20572 Lavonne Ln 10102 Meredith Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5429 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5447 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-4927 155-193-22 155-193-27 155-194-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10181 Jon Day Dr 10121 Jon Day Dr 10072 Jon Day Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5407 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 155-194-06 155-194-19 155-194-20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10082 Jon Day Dr 10211 Stonybrook Dr 10201 Stonybrook Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5406 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5422 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5422 155-195-11 155-221-02 155-221-13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10132 Stonybrook Dr 10051 Theseus Dr 10171 Theseus Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5421 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5452 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5454 155-222-19 155-223-22 155-224-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10151 Edye Dr 10072 Edye Dr 20642 Lavonne Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5443 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5448 155-224-09 155-231-10 Occupant Occupant 10182 Edye Dr 10141 Cliff Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5465 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6606 -00 z- 7 T P „,95P3 dn-dod esodxa ® jaded psaj r ®0915 a;el��®�� n ' ®0915® i of au0 6uole pua0 i A83AV-09-008-11, ; „idn-dod pioqu a)jelvAqu ®09ds®Aa3AV miewo all zesilmn ep sues woaNaArmmm ep uge aumpey ell 9 amldaa ® rated g selpej sawnbga 1 2 5 HB Chamber of Commerce Orange County Assoc of Realtors Huntington Beach Tomorrow President Dave Stefanides President 2134 Main St Ste. 100 25552 La Paz Road PO Box 865 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 6 6 6 Building Industry Assoc of South Calif Building Industry Assoc of South Calif Building Industry Assoc of South Calif Attn Elyse Sminada, Govt Affairs Asst ATTN victor Cao,Government Affairs Manager Michael Balsamo,CEO, OC Chapter 17744 Sky Park Circle#170 17744 Sky Park Circle#170 24 Executive park,Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92614 7 9 17 SCAG Environmental Board Chair Kirsten Berg Richard Spicer Kim Nicolson 18870 Kithira Circle 818 West 7th, 12th Floor 918 Palm Ave, Apt A Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 19 19 20 0 C Ping & Dev Services Dept 0 C Planning& Develop Dept City of Costa Mesa Director Michael Balsamo Planning Director P O Box 4048 P O Box 4048 P O Box 1200 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 21 22 26 City of Fountain Valley City of Newport Beach Department of Transportation, Dist 12 Planning Director Planning Director Maureen El Harake, Branch Chief 10200 Slater Ave P 0 Box 1768 3347 Michelson Dr Suite 100 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Newport Beach, CA 92663-8915 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 27 28 30 Local Solid Waste Enf Agy Huntington Beach Post Office HB City Elementary School Dist 0 C Health Care Agency Director New Growth Coordinator Gregg Haulk, Superintendent 1241 E Dyer Road, Suite 120 6771 Warner Ave 20451 Craimer Lane Santa Ana, CA 92705 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 30 33 33 HB City Elementary School Dist HB Union High School District HB Union High School District John Archiald Stephen Ritter Greg Plutko, Superintendent 20451 Craimer Lane 5832 Bolsa Avenue 5832 Bolsa Avenue ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 34 36 46 Cannery Hamilton Properties, LLC OC County Harbors, Beach & Parks Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Ascon Landfill Site c/o Tamara Zeier Dept Chairperson One Pointe Drive, Suite 320 P 0 Box 4048 PO Box 693 Brea, CA 92821 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 San Gabriel, CA 91778 42 42 42 OC Sanitation District AES Huntington Beach, LLC Richard Loy 10844 Ellis Avenue Eric Pendegraft, Plant Manager 9062 Kahului Drive Fountain Valley, CA 92708 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 46 47 47 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians AYSO Region 55 AYSO Region 56 AcJachemen Nation Commissioner Russ Marlow David Fike 31411 La Matanza Street 18111 Brentwell Circle 20091 Tranquil Lane San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-2625 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 „LLa6P3 do-dod asodxa ® waded paal F 091s a�eldwal ekaAv ash e09ds® V §J 1 L-,o0 2 at gulf 6uole pua8 ® ; 7/i/� slagel®land Asea dn-do o as a ja an ;uawaoaey� r IJe e6 a zest � A83AV-09-008-6 � �w d W Q I i. � a sues � ®09L5®Aa3AV�. Q I I!�Il WO AIane mmm Sp uye eAnpe4 el g aa8da8 p- i salad a sallP sa�ganbl 47 47 47 AYSO Region 143 Huntington Beach Jr All American Huntington Beach Pop Warner Football David Kuiper Football Kelly Moses 16033 Balsa Chica#104 Barry Kudlack PO Box 5066 PMB#163 18432 Goodwin Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 47 47 47 Gold Coast Extreme North Huntington Beach Futbol Club South Coast Bayern Futbol Club Rick Bauer, President President Shereen Walter Marissa Pena 20501 Suburbia Lane 1511 Lakeside Lane 22222 Eucalyptus Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Lake Forest, CA 92630 47 47 47 Huntington Beach Youth LaCrosse Oakview Renewal Partnership Fountain Valley Pony Baseball Michael Mutrie Jose Rodriguez Al Letua 17761 Misty Lane 7850 Slater Ave, Space 59 14591 Yucca Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 47 47 47 Huntington Beach Girls Softball Huntington Valley Little League Ocean View Little League Gerry Steele, President Michael Kircher Stephanie Green, President 6172 Shelly Dr 9767 Cornwall Drive 18041 Starmont Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 47 47 47 Robinwood Little League Seaview Little League South Huntington Beach Girls Fast Pitch Kathryn Beutel-Lui Michhel Mailman Softball 6551 Rennrick Circle P 0 Box 5305 Barry Colburn P 0 Box 7332 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 47 47 53 AYSO Region 117 West County Family YMCA California Department of Fish and Wildlife Commisioner Alan Gandall Rom Erickeson Carla Navarro Woods,Orange County Reserve 9082 Pioneer Dr 2300 Univeristy Dr Manager 600C Shelimaker Road Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach,CA 92660 54 56 57 Karen Cadavona Southern California Gas Company Kathleen Belohovek Southern California Edison Jennifer Vaughn, Public Affairs Manager 18849 Lister Lane Third Party Environmental Review 12631 Monarch St Huntington Beach,CA 92646 2244 Walnut Grove Ave,Quad 4C 472A Garden Grove, CA 92841 Rosemead, CA91770 6145L 12- //J--- „ua6P3 do-dad asodxa jaded pau � 009LS meldwal®/Gang ash a' ®Q9L5® ; ai aey 6�1e Pub ® slage7®lead/sea Dornbo, Johanna SUPPLEMENTAL ��, a �� ,®ea♦, m�....s a From: j wood <wood jack@yahoo corn> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 5 02 PM Meeting Date: / To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Lebard Park and School Site Land Use Change Agenda Item No. Dear Huntington Beach City Council, I am writing in regards to the matter of the Lebard Park Use Change that will be discussed at the council meeting on Monday July 6th It is likely that I will be unable to attend the meeting, so I am putting my thoughts in this message I moved into Meredith Gardens in the fall of 2007 with my wife and our young son At that time there were signs in most yards attempting to bring awareness to the issue of the HBCSD selling off the Lebard School along with other sites they own As the economy slowed down, so did the talk of,the sale, but this issue has never completely gone away When we first moved in, my son was not yet old enough to play T-ball at the little league fields A couple of weeks ago, he completed his final game as a little leaguer on the 12 year old All-Star team For me, that puts into perspective how long this issue has been debated I have been, and continue to be the Treasurer of Seaview Little League, and I am proud of the positive impact that the League has on 100s of families each year Above all, however, I remain a resident of Meredith Gardens You are likely getting a large number of Meredith Gardens residents sending letters, or at the very least signing the petition that is going around requesting this matter be sent back to the applicant for a myriad of reasons I do not agree with that letter, nor do I agree with MGHA has attempted to represent themselves in this matter MGHA DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME The MGHA is a social club They are not a traditional HOA that has CC&Rs and collects dues They are "elected" by those who care about whether we play Bocce Ball or Badminton at the summer picnic They are simply a group of residents in our neighborhood that puts on Chili Cook-Offs and organizes progressive dinners The idea that they feel they can claim to represent me on civic matters is offensive To that point, at the most recent Planning Commission meeting that addressed this matter, 3 separate members of the "MGHA board of directors" stood up and spoke (April Helliwell, Kent Hayden, Ed Kerins) Each of them presented wildly different proposals that often contradicted each other Mr Hayden said he wants to pave an acre of grass, while Mr Kerins extolled the evils of removing any of the park in favor of parking lots The Planning Commission chair, Mr Peterson, noted that he was quite confused with what the MG residents were asking for, and ultimately acknowledged that the MGHA is not a traditional HOA Mr Peterson also noted that he has never seen a parking lot reverted to grass, so we must think long and hard before paving open spaces, I agree The letter sent to you by the MGHA board offers up approximately one dozen random points of contention, many of which are factually incorrect, or outside the purview of this project I see this as simply an attempt by a group of residents, many of whom have been relatively uninvolved for the last i 8 years to try to stop this project at the 11th hour I hope that you see thru this weak attempt and move forward with the previously approved MOU and Planning Commission recommendation We need to tear down the eyesore and health hazard that is Lebard school and move forward with the proposal that has been crafted and re-crafted over the last 8+ years It is not a perfect proposal, but it is a good one Yes, Meredith Gardens is bearing the brunt (but not all) of the impact of the changes due to this project The fact is, Lebard school is in Meredith Gardens, not Suburbia I recommend strongly that the council vote in favor of the project as it was received by the planning commission Please do not send this back to the applicant, and most of all, please don't pave our parks Thank you, Jack Wood Meredith Gardens Resident (20311 Ravenwood Ln) Seaview Little League Treasurer 949-466-0327 2 Esparza, Patty From: Vdlasenor, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 5 33 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW LeBard Project From: Alan Walls [mailto•alandwalls@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 4:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: LeBard Project City Council Members, By now you will have received communications from Meredith Gardens' (MG) residents and at the July 6th meeting they will petition the LeBard project be modified due to alleged deficiencies in the parking and traffic studies One of their remedies after successfully lobbing to eliminate a parking lot extension near Warwick Dr, is the construction of an alternate 98 car parking lot on the SW corner of the park behind the large baseball fields Please consider the following Ever since the HB City School Board proposed building 30 homes on parkland at the SW corner in of the park in June, 2012, residents from both neighborhoods vigorously opposed any loss of park That goal was attained in September 2014 when the plan that included the now excised parking lot extension was finalized Residents recognized parking spaces would be lost but neither the MG, HOA nor Suburbia Park(SP) residents registered complaints until the recent Planning Commission meetings The Planning Commission rejected their claims and no appeal of their decision was filed The unbiased professionals who prepared the MND noted that on-street parking would be over capacity, "with or without implementation of the proposed project"They further found that by the"most conservative estimate" there would be only 34 overflow vehicles exceeding available on-street parking and those could be accommodated on the south side of Cynthia(SP) and the north side of Crailet(MG) In other words, building another parking lot exactly the size being lost around the school would not reduce any on-street overflow parking The MND duly concluded "impacts associated with parking capacity would be less than significant' (italics theirs) Sixty SP residents from streets immediately adjacent to the park signed a petition acknowledging that there would be more parking but were willing to accommodate it to save the fields and open park They knew at least half or probably more of the extra spaces needed would be in SP since Cynthia Dr is so close to four of the fields that some watch games from their cars The MND had many references to the overflow parking mainly occurring on both SP's Cynthia Dr and MG's Craimer/Warwick Dr The streets surrounding LeBard are, after all, public Both neighborhoods have accommodated Little league parking for the last 20 years without complaint- until now All of us have often parked in front of someone else's house to attend a sports or other venue and not given it a thought Superintendent Haulk of HBCSD has publically stated that District Office personnel and business visitors made hundreds of trips through MG on week days The new 15 families that replace them would not come close to that number and since their children would be playing on the same areas as MG kids, they would be even more concerned about child safety Bottom line, do not allow the pleasure of going to a park be dashed by eliminating the park A park is not a nuisance to surrounding neighborhoods - it's a benefit Ask any psychologist or real estate agent Thanks for your consideration Alan Walls, resident and member of the Suburbia Park Committee to Save LeBard Park SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meebng Date: 24 1 Agenda Item No.. Dombo, Johanna From: Steve Vasquez <sevasquezl@yahoo com> COMMUNICATION Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 12 18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject. LeBard Development&"Proposed" Parking Lot Meeting Date: Dear City Council Members, Agenda Item No. ,(21/-- For the past 7 years, the Huntington Beach City School District(HBCSD), the local community and Seaview Little League have hashed out various development options for the closed LeBard School site Most were detrimental to the adjacent Suburbia Park and Meredith Gardens neighborhoods, and were ultimately eliminated However, the most recent proposal has garnered sold support from the parties involved The LeBard development plan calls for 15 new homes to be built solely on the old school site pad Moreover, the city of Huntington Beach would acquire the remaining 6 5 acres to preserve as Open Space&baseball fields HBCSD initially proposed the plan --which has gained broad acceptance among the local community as well as from Seaview On June 9, the Planning Commission approved it, minus the proposed 17+ parking spaces This was a great compromise which would benefit the entire community Unfortunately, some Meredith Gardens' residents didn't feel that way Out of concern for parking congestion and increased traffic, a few individuals proposed --in the"11th Hour'--an 80 to 90-car parking lot be built on the west end of the LeBard site A 2-acre grassy area of open space popularwith kids playing, families, people walking their dogs, adults exercising, as well as hundreds of youth baseball players practicing A wasteland? An ideal location for a parking lot? Most would STRONGLY disagree! In fact, over 140 Suburbia Park(as well as 25 non-Suburbia) residents signed a petition adamantly opposing the last- minute parking lot HBCSD is against Seaview representatives are against it And the entire Suburbia Park neighborhood is against itl While claiming to be concerned about traffic problems, ironically some Meredith Gardens' residents recommended the 17+ parking spaces near their homes be eliminated Seems these individuals are see'king favoritism, and are proposing ideas harmful to the overall community The Parking Lot.. is a TERRIBLE ideal! Any parking lot permanently destroying open space on the LeBard site is a poor option First off, the additional parking is only needed about 3 months of the year during peak baseball season The remaining time, the new parking lot would become a vacant asphalt wasteland A paved eyesore which would likely attract illegal nighttime activities More importantly, Suburbia Park has just ONE entrance leading into the tract from Brookhurst Street And as every local resident knows, the left-turn stacking lane into the tract can be a dangerous one' The turn lane can safely accommodate only 3 cars at a time With vehicles traveling 45 MPH or faster along Brookhurst, any car"sticking" out is vulnerable to being badly rear-ended I myself have nearly been rear-end there on multiple occasions Add 60 to 90 cars solely accessing Suburbia Park during peak baseball season --and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or killed from the increased traffic! Recommendations to alleviate traffic problems need to address the"quality of life"and safety concerns of BOTH, Meredith Gardens as well as Suburbia Park Any investigation seeking solutions for"traffic calming" measures need to include the streets of Cynthia, Suburbia, Lavonne, and Beverly NOT just Cailet&Craimer Some Meredith Gardens' residents feel they bear the brunt of parking problems However, as one who lives on Cynthia Drive right next to the baseball fields, I can attest Suburbia Park absorbs our fair share of baseball-related traffic In fact, Cynthia provides approximately 80 street-based parking spaces from both sides of the street And during game days, my street is often filled to capacity The adjacent streets of Suburbia, Lavonne, Beverly and Theasus also experience a noticeable increase from baseball-related traffic Moreover, those in Meredith Gardens feel traffic will rise unbearably with the loss of parking around the school site In reality the opposite is likely to occur As permanent parking spaces are eliminated, families will seek the most convenient parking location closest to where their child is playing Look at LeBard's proposed site plan --and MOST(4 of 1 6)of the baseball fields are situated closer to the Suburbia Park neighborhood. So NO Meredith Gardens does not, and will not bear the brunt of traffic congestion' We residents in Suburbia have been willing for years to be "inconvenienced" -- in order to preserve much-need Open Spaces It's a compromise we readily accept Possible Solutions to the traffic issues 1) Seaview can encourage teams to carpool to games, 2) Baseball season could be expanded a few weeks to"spread out" games, and thus reducing traffic, 3) Seek limited use of the Southern California Edison easement area to help alleviate congestion Either way, permanently destroying irreplaceable and much-need Open Space does not benefit the community as a whole Our kids, families, seniors, and others in the area need and deserve the grassy areas of LeBard to remain open space The city is not spending nearly$3 2 million for a parking lot' Nor should we LeBard needs Open Space, NOT a parking lot Please REJECT.. the terrible& harmful Parking Lot proposal. Thank You, Steve Vasquez 2 Fikes, Cathy From: Rich & Mary D [glacierrwd@socal rr com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9 59 AM To: Hardy, Jill, Katapodis, Jim, Sullivan, Dave, Delgleize, Barbara, O'Connell, Billy, Peterson, Erik, Posey, Mike Cc: Fikes, Cathy Subject- LeBard Park/Seaview Little League Park Dear City Council Members July 2, 2015 1 am writing you today requesting that you accept the Approved Planning Commission Plan for the infill development of the HBCSD LeBard site and not consider a last minute proposal to pave over a portion of the Seaview Little League site for additional parking My wife and I have lived in the Park Huntington track for 37 years and our children and grandchildren have taken advantage of Seaview Little League fields and LeBard Park facilities To pave over a portion of the LeBard Park Little League Field would be a travesty to both park users and future Seaview Little League Hall of Famers To remove this area FOREVER from park use and baseball use is short sighted especially since there are only 12 to 13 days a year that there is heavy use by Seaview Little League family's There is sufficient curb space on the surrounding public streets to handle all the parking for families using LeBard Park and,baseball facilities For the past 12 years my wife and I have walked, almost daily, from the Le Bard Park across the Santa Ana River to the Fairview Park and back where we join our friends at one of the two tables in Le Bard Park to discuss and solve, in our own little way, the world problems The green grass in LeBard Park needs to be retained for all of our citizens to use and enjoy In closing, approve the Planning Commission plan for the infill development and let the HBCSD move oni with their project Sincerely, Richard Davidson Mary davidson SUPPLEMENTAL Park Huntington Resident COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No._. � i Fikes, Cathy From. Duncan, Greg [greg duncan@psgdover com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 1 48 PM To: Hardy, Jill, Katapodis, Jim, Sullivan, Dave, Delgleize, Barbara, O'Connell, Billy, Peterson, Erik, Posey, Mike, Fikes, Cathy Subject. Lebard School Property Discussion Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the HB City Council- i It was nice to see you at the parade on Saturday It was a great parade as always and my family and I enjoyed it I am writing to you regarding the following i I Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 12-008, Resolution No 2015-30 approving General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Ordinance No 4605 approving Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 (Lebard Park and School Site Land Use Change to Residential-20451 Craimer Lane) i As long time participants in Seaview Little League, my family considers little league, youth sports, sports facilities, parks, and open space to be extremely important to the quality of life of the residents and especially the children of Huntington Beach Thanks very much for your past efforts to protect and extend our city'is parks and rec facilities I would like you to be aware that we are IN FAVOR of the aforementioned Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, Resolution No 2015-30 approving General Plan Amendment No 12-002 and Ordinance No 4605 approving Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 (Lebard Park and School Site Land Use Change to Residential- 20451 Craimer Lane) We think this project is a good compromise that will bring needed funding to our school system, make better use of public property, and ultimately result in a superior sports facility for our children Best Regards, Gregory and Allison Duncan (and Zachary, age 10) 9351 Candlewood Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. Agenda item No. t Fikes, Cathy From: Robert Fix[Robert Fix@amtrustgroup com] ��L Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 2 15 PM COMMICATI To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Lebard Park Development Proposal Meeting Cate: Agenda item No. Dear City Council, My wife and I have resided at 20522 Suburbia Lane since November of 1991 We've raised two sons through Hawes elementary, Sowers middle school, and they're now a sophomore and senior at Edison High School We live immediately adjacent to the park Since 2011, both adjacent neighborhoods, Meredith Gardens and Suburbia Park have been working with Ed Kerins of MG and Alan Wells of SP to oppose the original TRG Land Inc (consultant) 30 lots on five acres of existing park land and open space The clear compromise was to develop the site on the footprint of the former LeBard school and retain the park land and open space After two years of meetings, discussions with HBCSD, City Council candidates and members, a 15 lot plan on the footprint of the former school was adopted by HBCSD and the City in a Memo of Understanding (MOU) calling for the City to purchase 6 5 acres oflthe park The City Manager and HBCSD drafted the first site detail which eliminated two little league fields replaced by a large parking lot This first draft was opposed by all parties, and was replaced by a site detail plan that extends the existing parking lot next to the tennis courts by 20 spaces The recent planning commission eliminated this 20 space extension, and are recommending investigating the adjacent SCE property for overflow parking on a temporary basis The overflow parking issue is primarily to accommodate Sea View Little League season which occurs on 11 Saturdays per year (3 months out of the year) Numerous communications and HOA board meetings have occurred since the MOU was signed in May 2014 Information and the site detail plan has been circulated to both adjacent neighborhoods During this process, there has never been a recommendation to pave over any additional parkland or open space until three 1 residents of MG spoke at a recent study session One of the speakers, Mr Kent Hayden, attended a rally to save LeBard Park in September of 2012 held in the SW corner of open space, the very location submitted for paving over grass for a 1 acre parking lot In early June, a baseball tournaments was held at Seaview little league, and I counted over 100 people, families, children, dogs, using this open space over the course of the day Some MG residents have voiced concerns that their neighborhood will be unfairly absorbing the brunt of the parking issue As a 24 year resident of Suburbia Park, living immediately adjacent to the baseball fields, I can assure you that Suburbia Park absorbs it's fair share of little league related traffic and parking Cynthia Drive, next to the fields, provides about 80 street parking spaces The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was conducted by unbiased professionals who did NOT recommend mitigation for either parking or traffic related to the LeBard Project In fact, the parking addendum to that MND noted that the bulk of the public street parking was in Suburbia Park The 60 Suburbia Park residents who live the closest to the park/baseball fields have signed a petition acknowledging that there will be more street parking congestion during little league season, but we have agreed to accommodate We are happy to do so, for the kids and for the rest of us to enjoy the open space year round) The open space surrounding the baseball fields at Lebard is the last open space east of Brookhurst until;you reach to ocean Permanently paving over much needed open space does not benefit our community The i parking issue only occurs for three months out of the year The other nine months of the year a paved parking lot would be unused and an eye-sore Our communities need and deserve the grassy areas and open space of Lebard to remain We strongly recommend that you approve the project "as is" and as it was approved by the HB planning commission Many people have worked hard and long to reach this compromise, and it would be a shame to not complete the desired outcome when we're all this close Thank you for your consideration Regards, Rob Fix Vice President ArnTrust Surety 17771 Cowan, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 949 263 3356 office 949 929 1729 mobile robert fix@amtrustgroup com www amtrustsurety com CA Insurance License No OF60644 Confidentiality Notice This email message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed This email may contain information that is proprietary or privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you received this email by accident,please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and all copies of it AOMobile-ArnTrust Financial Services, Inc. Download on the App Stores"' I Get it on Goode PlayTM -Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.,registered in the U.S.and other countries.App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. -Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Confidentiality Notice.This email message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.This email may contain information that is proprietary or privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this email by accident,please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and all copies of it. 2 i Fikes, Cathy From. Karen Hafeli [kmhafeli@gmail com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 1 13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park usage Dear City Council Members, I am writing regarding the proposed LeBard Park project I am a resident living on Cynthia Dr who will be directly affected by the decisions you make regarding this project I believe that the project that has been approved is the one that should continue to be moved forward Any alteration to the park that would include tearing out grass to put in a parking lot is greatly opposed by my family Once this space has been taken away the probability of it ever being turned back to green space is nil Our family,and those of our neighbors who also use this space for our daily enjoyment,are strongly against any notion of replacing it with a parking lot Thank you for your consideration Karen Hafeli I i SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 7 14Z;L Agenda Item No. i Huntington Beach City Council Members Mayor, Sirs and Madam Reference Lebard Park parking We have been a residents of the city for the past 20 plus years living within 7 houses of Lebard Park and the school district offices During those years we have had to share the parking in front of our home with the parents of the Little Leaguers for about 11 or 12 Saturdays a year The rest of the year there is no difficulty in finding parking in our tract or adjacent to the park or the school district offices The idea of adding additional parking in place of the open space of the park itself is not only a terrible waste of monies but a tremendous loss of open area for the sake of some inconveniences 11 or 12 Saturdays a year We don't believe this park space should be sacrificed for the sake of 4-5% of a years use We, and we speak for most of our neighbors, do not think the limited usage of the parking space in front of our homes justifies the loss of this open space, the additional cost and potential problems Each of these proposed parking lot expansions sites is immediately adjacent to residences and only separated by a block wall I know I wouldn't care to live next to a parking lot and its various negative aspects Another aspect that has not been addressed is the additional parking will provide an added attractive nuisance to the area, which will require an additional police patrol attention This parking can attract the ever present homeless and their motorhomes that are currently seen in various shopping area parking lots camped out This will be due to the fact we will now finally have a restroom in the park, something we have never had before In addition, the homeless using the bike trail and Edison right-of-way adjacent to the park for their travels will now have a convenient place to refresh in the restroom They also will be basically out of sight of the general public using the ballfields fencing for anonymity The homeless who previously used the Mobil station at Victoria and Brookhurst, no longer have that restroom available to them, as the station has been torn down They will still use the bridges for shelter in cold or wet weather but the park will provide attractive amenities for them if the parking lot goes in It doesn't matter which part of the park it's located in Young people will find the area secluded from sight and be able to use it as a spot for possible use of illegal substances and activities In this scenario, we were all young once and know somewhat of which I speak (The parking lot will be located with an entrance off of one or the other tract streets, making it difficult to patrol There is no route available to drive from one side of the park to the other without going out of a tract onto Brookhurst and over to the other tract street This is just another example of the policing or monitoring problem ) The EIR should also address the concerns of the city police department and those of the park rangers (if they are to be involved in some aspect of this facility) Councilman Katapodis can address some of these issues because of extensive law enforcement experience in the past We thank you for your attention to this issue, as it is very important to all of the Lebard neighbors Robert A Hardy and Carol A Hardy SUPPLEMENTAL 20612 Lavonne Lane Huntington Beach 92646 ® �� ,' 714 378-0028 ON Meeting Date: Ik j— Agenda Item No. _Za Fikes, Cathy From: Rebecca Hart[becky hart@yahoo com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9 33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard Project I Dear City Council members, I'm Becky Hart, a resident of Suburbia Park, and I have been working closely with Alan Walls for the past 3 years to help find a resolution to Le Bard Park I am so glad (and I bet you are, too[) that we are all on the finish line with this project' I won't be able to be there this Monday, July 6, so I thought I would write to you my thoughts on the discussion about the parking spots that will be taken up by the new homes, and the increase in people parking in Meredith due to this situation Meredith is understandably concerned with the increase in traffic from the new homes - one Meredith resident pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting about two weeks ago that there will indeed be more traffic on the weekends because now there will be families, whereas before there were employees who only worked through the week Add that to the lost parking spaces and logic dictates that more people will be parking; in Meredith Now is this really going to be a problem? Another Meredith resident, who coaches for the Seaview Little League, said that, right now, he never sees but a handful of cars parked in the Meredith neighborhood associated with the Saturday games And, currently, Cynthia, Beverly, and Suburbia Park Lane (the 3 closest roads in Suburbia Park) all get inundated with cars every Saturday during baseball season So perhaps Meredith will actually become more like Suburbia Park, In otherl words, it seems they don't get overwhelmed at all right now If this is the case, then adding parking spaces to the tennis court area and/or to the free space behind the big baseball field off of Cynthia would be unnecessary and wasteful of precious free space I also found out from a law enforcement official who lives in my neighborhood that putting in those extra parking spaces would invite greater nefarious activities (such as drug dealing) than what already goes on at night in that park (he has see this happen many times before) I then began to wonder about one of the major problems Meredith seems to have right now with the baseball crowd and that is speeding This occurs in Suburbia Park as well (as I found out from my Beverly neighbors when I was getting a petition signed) I am sure we can do something to the incoming streets to Meredith to mitigate that (speed bumps perhaps?) And finally, it seems to me that perhaps there are simply too many baseball people for this small areal Even right now, without taking out the school and putting in new houses Maybe we should limit the number of kids who can play here Perhaps that would solve a lot of these issues Perhaps we can put the parking issue on the back burner for now and do an impact study next year when Seaview is in season again SUPPLEMENTAL Thanks so much for your time) COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 4 11r 1 Agenda Item No. � Fikes, Cathy From: September Mirghanbari [smirghanbari@mac com] �. �TALI Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 3 19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICAT10h Subject: LEBARD PARK Meeting Date: s Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission Members I Agenda Item No. Over the last two years, there were several plans that were put forth that have been discussed by the City Council. Of those, one was finally approved by the City Council. A lot of money and effort has been invested in approving that plan I have a very high sense of frustration over the discussions that took place at the last planning commission meeting Some residents, who have not been involved throughout the approval process, voiced their last minute opinions, and would like to continue to suggest more changes to an already approved plan Those few residents have suggested that the almost 2 acres of open green space on the southwest area of the park be destroyed so that a parking lot could be built in its place Most residents believe that is a terrible idea, including the Seaview Little League for whom we have worked this entire project around. Please keep the following points in mind 1 Most residents are in agreement that no additional parking area should be built either on the west or east side of the park. Please keep in mind that Suburbia Park has presented nearly 60 resident signatures showing their support for leaving the open space green The street parking in our neighborhood can more than handle the Seaview parking demands, which are a few months out of the year- not year i round. We have done it for decades, and prefer that to adding more concrete. Building another parking lot would be like building a pool in the middle of the ocean 2 It appears that most of this project has centered on keeping the Seaview Little League completely happy. Everyone seems to be extremely accommodating and giving to the needs of the league With that'in mind, the president of the league has indicated that the league does not want or need the extra parking What they need is the open space to accommodate the young children practicing and warming up There is no other place on the property for that many children to do this, and the league cannot afford to practice anywhere else. 3 This open space is used by local residents for various activities such as football, soccer, walking dogs, and family gatherings Nothing that a parking lot offers can match the joy that children get from using this space as a way to stay physically and mentally healthy The new homes will also bring more children into the neighborhood who will also need a place to play. 4 With all due respect to our neighbors in Meredith Gardens,there may be a misunderstanding of the current idea of what they believe regarding parking burden Suburbia Park has always had just as many cars parked on its streets during baseball season as they do We want to continue to share in that burden, and welcome any additional parking on our already available open street parking 5 As a whole, Huntington Beach is growing leaps and bounds building new retail and residential properties We need building-free outdoor space more than we could ever need a parking lot On our city's website it states, "Parks make life better " Yes,they do, and please don't forget that. I can't image a time when people in your positions ever felt like they had made a mistake leaving a park intact versus ripping it away from the local residents However, if it turns out to be a mistake, that parking lot can always be added in the future I believe that proceeding in a gradual manner through this parking issue is best. i 1 i This issue can be handled in phases After the new homes are built, and if there is a parking issue, it can be addressed in the future Thank you for your consideration September Mirghanbari i i i i 2 RECEIVED FROM '�-� �� i AS PUBLIC RECORD FO IL EET;NG OF CITY CLEW OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Housing Development Issues Affecting the Seven Homeowners Directly Impacted The homeowners were not sufficiently communicated to by the School Board or the retained development company. The agreement to match existing lot and home sizes with the consideration to blend with the character of the neighborhood was not followed. Even though the directly impacted homeowners will essentially be in a construction zone for up to two years,no consideration for repair, correction or the costs of damage caused to existing homes and properties has been provided. Specific issues are: a Ground elevation—Plan is to grade the ground level of new homes to between 3 to 5 ft. higher than current levels,placing the new homes considerably higher than existing homes and impacting the privacy and property values of the current residents located directly behind. This needs to be reevaluated; b Setback of new homes to the rear fence—Plan is to allow a 20 foot setback of the homes that is not in character with the current neighborhood configuration of at least a 40 feet setback. The overall impact is to have a higher building nearer the back fence overshadowing the existing neighbors and causing a complete loss of privacy and any solitude. This will impact the value of the existing homes. This needs to be reevaluated; c. Layout of the houses—Consideration was not made as to the best location of the house on the 7 lots behind the impacted homes,so that they would cause the least impact on current homes, such as moving the entrance street to directly behind the existing homes. Alternative house layouts should be presented for review, prior to accepting the current one; d. Property damage to existing property due to the construction—Consideration was not made to cover the damage to the 7 existing homes directly impacted by the construction. Dust,dirt noise pollution,loss of trees, plants and yards all needs to be considered. In addition,weekend privacy will be impacted by Saturday construction. Market value of the existing homes will be reduced during the years of construction and a remuneration package to cover loss of value needs to be provided. A plan to bring impacted homes back into pre-construction condition also needs to be provided. SinD mond F. Loehner Robert A. Mills f Ter a Caspary / Cheryl L.Rogers Robert L Amer Davi Stepanc►ch Steve il 4 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 8 25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL, Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#22866 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council- Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: September Mirghanban Description: -----Original Message----- From- September Mirghanban [mailto•smirghanbari@mac com] Sent- Wednesday, July 08, 2015 10.14 PM To CITY COUNCIL Cc Alan Walls, Demers, Judy Subject LEBARD PARK- PARKING Honorable Mayor and Council Members Thank you all so much for the attention that you are giving the Lebard Park project. I was in attendance at the latest City Council meeting, and had an opportunity to share my three minutes of thoughts on this matter After hearing all of the public speakers, as well as each of you,I would like to draw your attention to the following uncontested points- 1 No matter whether a resident of Meredith Gardens or Suburbia Park,we all are in agreement that given an infinite budget, we would like to see the entire property purchased by the City and turned into the only truly great park in Southeast Huntington Beach 2 For safety reasons, the longer the dilapidated school building sits vacant, the more trouble it invites, so we would like to see the structure removed as soon as possible I walked down Cynthia Drive one evening at about 1 Opm, and someone hiding there pointed a red laser at my chest There will be more of this type of trouble to come. 3 For many years, we have all been good neighbors to the Seaview Little League (SLL) We have become accustomed to the extra noise generated, loss of front yard privacy, additional traffic, and crammed parking. We aren't talking about dealing with something new These neighborhoods have always dealt with these issues, and whether this project moves forward or not, we will continue to deal with these same issues. 4. We all agree that removing parking spaces from the current black top area is going to create a parking issue. 5 In addition to the obvious use by the little league,this park and its open space are used by local residents on a daily basis. Where the difference begins has everything to do with how to resolve the parking issue i Please consider the following as you work through your due diligence in resolving that matter I When the current approved layout for the property was agreed upon, ALL residents, school board members, and Council Members agreed that we would save as much open green space as possible. 2. About one month ago, three outspoken residents of Meredith Gardens, who have not been to any of the previous two years of meetings, voiced their concerns about speeding traffic and over-burdened parking on their street They were concerned about the safety of their children. Unfortunately,this is not due to the proposed project. This issue has been going on for years, and whether this project goes forward or not, it will continue to be a problem. This is not a product of this project or anything to do with it. This is a traffic enforcement issue, and should be treated as such. This problem also exists on Cynthia Drive in Suburbia Park. 3. These same few residents have been saying that there needs to be a "shared burden." The notion that Suburbia Park is not already sharing in the burden is absurd. Our surrounding streets handle more parking than Meredith Gardens currently does,and will take more than they will when the project is completed. Building a parking lot on the SW corner to be used on an infrequent basis would be wasteful of a true environmental resource. We have more than enough area parking to handle the increase of parking into our neighborhoods. As Mayor Hardy mentioned, it's easier to park in Suburbia Park than Meredith Gardens, and we will continue to handle most of the parking 4. Drivers want to park where it's convenient for them, as can be seen on any baseball game day The closer to the park that the street is, the more cars will park there.No matter how much volume is pushed into the neighborhoods for parking, no street that already feels overburdened in the current condition will be further burdened. There are only so many parking spots on each street It will definitely increase volume onto other streets in the neighborhoods, and many of us have agreed to that rather than taking away valuable open green space 5. The open green space on the SW corner of the property is extremely valuable in many ways. Seaview Little League made a few thought-provoking comments The president of SLL voiced his dire need for the open green space so that on game day, as well as during the week, that area be available for warming-up as well as practice and play. Secondly, he said that SLL majors field, which backs that open space, is actually not meeting the leagues current distance requirements, and will need to move the fence back in the near future. Lastly, he mentioned that if there were a parking lot in that area, whether temporary or permanent, some sort of bamer would have to be built to insure that the cars and people in that area would not be injured. 6 Although we are highly supportive of the SLL activities in the park, many of us in the neighborhood use that open space for our activities too. The east side of the park is set up for little children to play on the swings and slides. Children are not the only ones who want to enjoy the open green space. The SW side green space is used daily by young and older residents for various activities. 7 If the City is able to get permission to use the Southern California Edison property at times when absolutely necessary, that ends the conversation about building a parking lot 2 on the SW corner Although we don't feel that extra parking is necessary at all, it could be gated off so that when not needed,there is nowhere for unwanted cars to congregate, and create a security issue for the police department to deal with 8 Building a parking lot on the SW corner of the park so that we can accommodate parking for a minority part of the year, would be like Huntington Beach building a parking lot to accommodate the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people that come into our city for the Fourth of July and summer events After that, we would all get to look at an empty piece of blacktop for eight months of the year That's not what we do in downtown. Please don't do that in our neighborhood Use the same solution; let people find parking in the neighborhoods. Again, I implore you to take a gradual approach to this parking issue Once the homes are built, we can readdress this issue You won't make a mistake by waiting to see what the traffic and parking will look like once this project is completed. You can always put a parking lot in later if it is proven that one is needed. Those pushing to make this lot a part of the approval process are speculating on what MIGHT happen I suggest we wait until the facts are in Thank you for your consideration September Mirghanban cc Planning Commission Expected Close Date: July 10, 2015 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3 Estanislau, Robin From: Villasenor, Jennifer Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 1 58 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW LeBard Housing Project For 7/20 CC meeting item LeBard (continued from 7/6) From: Matthew Fertal [mailto.matthewfertalCa)gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:06 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer, Wilson, Fred Subject: LeBard Housing Project Hello Jennifer, I hope I didn't come across to brash at the Public Hearing the other evening regarding the LeBard Housing Project I was bothered by the lack of concern the representatives from Sea View Little League and the Suburbia Park neighborhood were showing towards the impact of the on-street parking expected to be absorbed by the Mendrth Gardens residents It appears the City Council is willing to consider the option to have temporary parking within the SCE Easement during Little League season. This option would certainly provide significant relief of on-street parking within the Mendrth Gardens neighborhood Another option, that I don't believe was addressed, was the expansion of the existing parking lot to add 17 more parking spaces. Although this expansion would eliminate a small portion of the existing "green space", I don't believe that a few of Suburbia Park's residents desire to keep this green space outweighs the impacts on the Meridith Garden's residents from insufficient on-site parking Therefore, I again request that the recommendation to the City Council include the development of the additional 17 parking spaces and the temporary use of the SCE Easement for parking during the Little League season Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter Sincerely, Matthew Fertal 20372 Craimer Lane i A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Office Memo SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Fred Wilson, City Manager Meeting Date: 7 — 2D FROM Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Agenda Item No...,-,/tr Janeen Laudenback, Community Services Director DATE May 28, 2015 SUBJECT: LE BARD PARK OPTIONS FOR OVERFLOW PARKING At the July 6, 2015 City Council meeting, the City Council considered a residential project at the former LeBard School During Public Hearing and Council comments, parking issues related to the little league activity were raised As a result, City Council asked Staff about the possibility of utilizing the Southern California Edison (SCE) license area that comprises 2-acres of the adjacent 5-acre park for overflow parking to serve Seaview Little League While parking for the little league is not related to the residential project, Staff contacted SCE and has confirmed that the area can be used for overflow parking with certain restrictions The use of the SCE property for parking is not part of the defined project as approved by the Planning Commission and before the City Council As conveyed by SCE, the company will not allow its property to be used for parking if it is required to meet zoning codes or minimum parking requirements for a project As such, use of the SCE property cannot be a condition of the Project It is Staffs intent to work with Seaview Little League on general parking issues related to their activities as a result of issues brought up by residents If needed, City Staff can later make the appropriate application to SCE for potential overflow parking If the Project is approved, and there is a need to address parking for the little league, the following process would be required to use the license area for overflow parking • SCE approval of a site plan showing the parking area, including dimensions and proposed improvements • Community Services Commission and City Council approval of a revised Master Plan for the park • New or amended License Agreement between the City and SCE for the parking area Keeping within SCE's regulations for clearances under the drip lines and transmission towers, Staff feels that an area large enough to initially accommodate about 22 vehicles could be created for overflow parking Ideally, the area could be utilized for parking on Saturdays during the baseball season (approximately 20-24 days total) and utilized for Memo to City Council LeBard Park Overflow Parking Page 2 park open space at all other times Parking could occur over turf, decomposed granite or another softscape surface suitable for recreational activity Estimates for material other than what is currently on site will be developed based on the need for actual amount of parking Please note, expanding parking beyond the 22 vehicle area would require special approval by SCE Under some circumstances, SCE may allow overflow parking under drip lines, utilizing a Deviation Permit process Under the process, the City would have to make justification as to why parking under the lines is the only or best option SCE's policy is to limit license agreements to five The City currently licenses the 2-acre area for park and public recreation use The license term is for 5-years at a cost of $448 per year Should any of the area be utilized for overflow parking, a different license fee rate would apply The current annual cost per acre at LeBard is $224 based upon SCE's rate for park and public recreation uses A fee of approximately $13,000 per acre would be applied to any areas used for overflow parking City Staff would look to negotiate this amount with SCE based on the limited days of utilizing the area for overflow parking purposes only Finally, since the SCE license area is included in the park inventory and has an approved master plan for development, a master plan update would have to be approved by the Community Services Commission and City Council showing the parking area and improvements Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1 54 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject- FW LEBARD PARK PARKING ISSUE -----Original Message----- From: September Mirghanbari [mailto:smirRhanbari(@mac.com] Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:40 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: De Coite, Kim; Alan Walls Subject: LEBARD PARK PARKING ISSUE Honorable Mayor and Council Members: As the upcoming meeting approaches regarding the Lebard Park issue, I would like to once again ask that you base your decisions on what to do about the parking issue with a tiered approach. 1. Based on sheer numbers, you will find that a majority of residents of both Meredith Gardens and Suburbia Park are opposed to removing any green area to make room for a permanent black top parking lot, which would restrict the enjoyable use of that area by all parties involved. 2. Because the option of parking in both neighborhoods is a very viable solution to the lack of parking spots available to accommodate every car that will be using the facility, let's try that solution first. If parking on the surrounding streets does create an unexpected problem, then you can always approve a parking lot being built later. 3. The people pushing for the additional parking lot on the SW corner of the park are speculating. There are no facts or traffic studies that show this is going to cause any additional traffic problem in either neighbor. I prefer that we use facts; not fortune telling. 4. The open green space gets more use every day than the tennis courts, yet, no one is suggesting that they be removed, and the parking lot be extended in that area. All areas of the park that are currently used are valuable. 5. It is my understanding that Southern California Edison has granted their permission to allow use of their property should parking needs demand it. I don't believe it will ever be needed, as our street can more than handle the issue. However, I believe that's the least invasive choice. Thank you for your consideration. SUPPLEMENTAL September Mirghanbari COMMUNICATION cc: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 7 - La Agenda Item No. zf 1 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach comVIeeting Date: 7 �� Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1 04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL, Agenda Alerts No ZJ Subject- Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (no ic'a'tionT .-� Request#22991 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Jason Gradel Description: Dear Huntington Beach City Council, My name is Jason Gradel, I am the Vice President at Seaview Little League In addition to these responsibilities, I manage my 9 year old son's minor league team and assistant coach for my 5 year old daughter's tee ball team. As if this wasn't enough time spent on the fields, I somehow convinced my wife to join the board and she has served as a lower division and now upper division player agent the past 3 seasons I am writing to you in regards to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No 12-008, Resolution No 2015-30 approving General Plan Amendment No. 12-002 and Ordinance No 4605 approving Zoning Map Amendment No 12-001 (Lebard Park and School Site Land Use Change to Residential-20451 Craimer Lane)that will be addressed at the council meeting on Monday, July 20th at 6.00PM I will unfortunately be traveling on business and unable to attend, but I wanted to share with you my thoughts on the most recent discussions. Seaview has worked closely with the City, School District and neighbors in the Meredith Gardens and Suburbia Park areas over the past several years to develop a plan that would provide compromise and not grossly favor one entity over another I believe the most current proposal does just that However, recently, a group of residents assembled a proposal to develop open, green space into parking behind two of the fields. Cited in this proposal are parking and traffic claims that I believe are unsubstantiated and a statement that"all impacts rest solely on Meredith Gardens Residents"which is simply misleading. A few clarifications I am offering 1) Traffic in the Meredith Gardens area during season should incur negligible impact and during evening and off season see a noticeable reduction. The 112 parking spaces being removed are entirely accessed through Meredith Gardens today Seaview will not have those spots anymore and based on the layout of the new development, there will be full access to the fields on the Suburbia side There will only be a small sliver where people can access through Meredith Gardens and Crailet(currently exists) With removal of the district offices, which also are used for numerous community groups (Girl Scouts, AYSO, etc),there should be a sharp reduction in school-related traffic throughout the working day and in the evening Things such as pre-schol registration, submitting TB tests, AYSO registration, etc simply will no longer occur in the Meredith Gardens community 2) The green space behind the current Majors and Minor A fields is not appropriate for paving over and using for parking during a barely 4 month portion of the year. As you may be aware, Huntington Beach in general is facing a dramatic shortage of field space 1 for youth programs This shortage forces many leagues to look outside Huntington, Beach for options or in our case,be creative and maximize what we have available By converting this space to practice areas last season we accomplished not only provided adequate practice space but were able to further integrate the lower division teams into the full Seaview experience like upper division games and snack bar The future of our league is in the lower division and we owe it to those children and families to provide the best,most accessible experience possible 3) Park improvements do not solely benefit Seaview and the notion that we acquire all the benefits without cost or inconvenience is not at all accurate a Seaview will lose a substantial amount of open space we currently use for warm up and general accommodation of visitors These areas include hutting areas and bullpen space b Seaview is responsible for the build out of the snack bar In addition, Seaview will lease this space from the City, so it becoming recurring operating expense, unlike today. c Landscape will also require our relocation of all field storage facilities. This is a considerable loss as all our fields and coaches rely on these buns to secure equipment Seaview will need to invest in new solutions which will run several thousand to more than $10,000 d Other infrastructure upgrades will be requested of Seaview and they are not defined at this time Huntington Valley were responsible for tens of thousands of dollars of improvements not covered by developer or City. In closing, I ask you to support the Seaview Little League and Suburbia Park positions on this plan We simply cannot continue to remove green space from our parks. I also would like to restate that the overwhelming majority of Meredith Gardens residents,have been wonderful partners in this process and generally support the plan as it stands Should we all move forward in this process, I have no doubt the Seaview board and member community will continue to be focused on continuing the tradition of partnership in the area Kind regards, Jason Gradel Expected Close Date: July 18, 2015 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored z i Dombo, Johanna From: Lucy Chou <Ibco@earthlink net> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 7 30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park No more parking lot Mayor Hardy, Council members, The HB Planning Commission was convinced and did as the numerous residents from both Meredith Garden and Suburbia Park requested at the meeting that no parkland to be lost to parking lot The majority of us spoke that all parking spaces to be lost to the 15-lot development will be absorbed by neighborhood streets FURTHER OUT from the ball fields These streets will offer up plenty more parking in addition to Crailet,Craimer in MG,and Cynthia, Lavonne in Suburbia Park who currently host most of the ball field parking in their streets Since there is no fear of cars double or triple park in Crailet,Craimer(MG) and Lavonne, Cynthia in (SP) and all other essentials remain the same as it has been for 20 plus years, please reject the suggestion of a parking lot replacing open parkland by the western wall of LeBard Park i This open parkland is well used by surrounding residents for recreation from both neighborhoods and by Sea View Little League for practicing and down time socializing It will be a tremendous disservice to our residents to put a parking lot there i Thank you for your service, Lucy Chou/Suburbia Park SUPPLEMENTAL CO I1® meeting e AA ftm Dombo, Johanna From: Ed Kerins <edkerins@netscape net> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4 43 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Alan Walls Subject: LeBard Park& Residential Project We understand staff will advise you that SCE has a process which will allow temporary parking on their property We calculate 159 vehicles can be parked on the useable area using city parking space and drive aisle standards Park construction will have a significant impact on the existing park and its usage for many, many months We request you direct staff to ensure that "MOU improvement funds" saved by not constructing two parking lots and relocating ball fields be used to improve the existing park per the LeBard park phase 2 design Thank you Mayor Hardy and other council members for all your support Ed Kerins Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meefittg Date:,., AgwAs ltem No. �0 i I Dombo, Johanna From: Steve Vasquez<sevasquez1@yahoo com> SUPPLEMENTAL Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7 21 AM To: CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Subject: Fw LeBard Traffic"Calming" Solutions MMA0 Date: __2Z��E On Monday, July 20, 2015 9 17 AM, Steve Vasquez <sevasquez1 @yahoo co wrote . Dear City Council Members, My name is Steve Vasquez & I live in Suburbia Park Over the past few weeks, a few residents of Meredith Gardens have proposed a large parking lot be built in the western portion of the LeBard School site As I expressed in the last City Council meeting this is a TERRIBLE idea for several reasons, First off, the proposed area consists of a 2-acre grassy area of Open Space-- popular with kids playing, families, people walking their dogs, adults exercising, as well as youth baseball players practicing Moreover, this parking lot would be used only 3 to 4 months of the year, while it would become a vacant asphalt wasteland the remaining time An area likely to attract illegal nighttime activities Lastly, Suburbia Park has a dangerous left-turn lane from Brookhurst St leading into the tract Add 60 to 90 cars solely accessing the neighborhood during peak baseball season and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or killed from a rear-ended car accident' Please REJE�T_..the harmfiil�Park�ng�Ldttidea ff, Below are several Traffic "calming"Solutions for both Suburbia Park and Meredith Gardens 1) SCE Easement Area-- is the MOST important option to investigate" It's an expansive&open dirt area, which can accommodate a large#of cars on a limited basis A closing gate is already in place, and Seaview volunteers could direct traffic, since the entrance/exit is a single lane 2) Seaview Little League --should encourage"Carpooling"among teams' As an incentive, possibly"reserve" 8 to 10 of the closest parking spaces for large SUVs, vans or other vehicles transporting 7 or more people (Sat only, from Feb to May ) If the idea is popular increase the#of reserved parking spaces' 3) Provide 2 "Drop-Off'Zones (yellow curb) --one in each neighborhood A Meredith Gardens on Warwick Dr (south side) B Suburbia Park on Cynthia Dr (north side, at the gate) 4) Expand Baseball Season by 2 weeks; Play some games on Sundays These recommendations would spread out games, and thus reduce neighborhood traffic 5) DON'T"Host"the Tournament of Champions at Seaview! It's a 2-wk, single elimination tournament among 7 leagues, begins early June 6) Brookhurst St. (inside of Meredith Gardens) -- Keep open and available for parking. Ask HB Parking Control officers to"ticket" any car displaying a"For Sale" sign (Code 10 40 125(a) --Vehicle For Sale on street, parking lot) This is a common problem on that street 7) Most residents would strongly prefer to preserve "Open Space", & NOT build any new parking lots at LeBard However, IF Meredith Gardens residents are still concerned about parking congestion --"Reconsider" implementing the proposed 17 Parking Spaces! Not an ideal option, but one to seriously consider 8) Regarding Neighborhood "Speeding" -- request"Temporary Radar Speed Signs" Locate a sign on Cynthia Dr(Suburbia Park) &on Crailet Dr (Meredith Gardens)for the first 2 to 3 weeks of the baseball season i I I 9) Permanently post"Caution: Children at Play -- Please Drive Slowly" city-owned signs on Cynthia Dr &Crailet Dr Over 160 local residents have recently signed a Petition strongly opposing a parking lot in the western part of LeBard Seaview is against the parking lot The school district is against it, &Suburbia Park is STRONGLY against it' We residents in Suburbia readily accept the additional baseball-related traffic-- in exchange for"preserving" Open Space in the western area of the LeBard site Please senously consider the above Traffic calming "alternatives " Thank You, Steve Vasquez 714-803-1762 I 2 Es arza, Pat SUPPLEMENTAL From: Domer, Ken Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3 08 PM To. Agenda Alerts Meeting Date: 7 — 2,D /S Subject: FW Lebard Master Plan Development Attachments SVLL Access pdf Agenda Item No. I did not see Joan copied on this From: Scott Dater [mailto.sdater(abergelectric.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12.52 PM To: Hardy, Jill, Katapodis, Jim; Sullivan, Dave; Delgleize, Barbara; O'Connell, Billy, Peterson, Erik, Posey, Mike Cc: Domer, Ken, Jack Wood; v_p(aseaviewlittlelea ue corn, CHaulkC�hbcsd us; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Lebard Master Plan Development Honorable Mayor Hardy and City Council Members, My name is Scott Dater and I am the president of Seaview Little League I am writing you on behalf of our board and the 500 players and their families to provide you with some clarifying information to make an informed decision on the future of the school district property and Seaview Little Leagues fields and open space Over the past several months I have attended school district meetings, planning commission meetings and city council meetings to listen to the concerns of local residents as well as supporters of the current plan There are two items that I have heard that concern me the most and I wanted to share them with you 1 The new development and current parking plan will increase traffic in the Meredith Gardens tract • Seaview Little League is not increasing its player count so there will be no additional traffic generated by the league • If you look at an overhead view of the fields (attached for reference) you will see that a majority of the current and future access to our fields is from the Suburbia Park subdivision and they have stated on several occasions they are in favor of the current plan without an additional parking lot • The addition of 15 homes should create less traffic into Meredith Gardens than the countless number of trips made in and out of the district offices on a daily basis • The amount of truck traffic into Meredith Gardens should be reduced with the elimination of truck traffic to the district offices • Traffic from large gatherings such as district meetings, girl scout meetings, AYSO meetings and countless other community events will be eliminate with the removal of the district offices 2 Seaview Little League is the only entity that is benefiting from the improvements at Lebard • Seaview Little League is getting very little out of the development deal and if fact it will be costing the league several thousands of dollars to accommodate the new development ➢ We will need to relocate and rebuild our equipment and field maintenance storage bins behind our minor A and majors fields which will take away valuable practice space 1 ➢ A snack bar and restrooms are being built for our use However, if the situation is the same as Huntington Valley Little League, we will have to pay to outfit the interior of the snack bar and rent it from the City all at a cost to the league ➢ Based on conversations with the president of Huntington Valley Little League,there will be a variety of other infrastructure costs the league will incur that will not be covered by the City or the developer • We will no longer have warm up space alongside our fields because now it will be a walkway/greenbelt • Our stands from various fields will be relocated that will reduce our view areas for the families At the last council meeting I shared with you the importance of having the open space behind our majors and minor A fields for our younger players to practice and for our old players to warm up prior to games As stated in the information above, we will already be losing a portion of our open space in these areas with the need for storage space If a parking lot is added behind our majors field it will all but eliminate this space for good Along with the elimination of this open space, we will also have safety issues to deal with balls leaving the field and hitting cars or people with the increased activity in the area We have spent months and years working with the school district, local residents and the City to develop a plan that could work and I believe we have one in place right now The longer this project stays in limbo the greater concern that I have for our future players and families having a league in place to support them and their needs The Board of Directors has been holding off on making improvements to the fields and support areas without having an approved plan in place We pride ourselves on providing the best fields in the district and would like to make them even better, but we can't risk spending the money without knowing the what the future holds Thank you very much for taking the time to consider this information and for all your efforts in finding a solution to this issue Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions Scott Dater President Seaview Little League (310) 463-0327 2 Limited Miner A Access from MG LEGEND W - PARNINGLQi SP'RCEG MU$7ING 72WANUD b I'll NGPARc A'1E E A.99AC {INCLUDING SCE LICEN5 E RR . •'^ WAN5.l[1N 6SAC (� I AIPARK 11A Coach Pitch and Minor C Access from MG RESTROOYSI . '. CONCESSION rsTrNa PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL Law FLOW ' irEL08 ., - IVA i[:'K 11NIr'F BASIN MinoiA w — �I 77 is r PARX(N13 ) CKISTING - EX75 RNG 1, dE7f.T£ onPA K PEN BLED GMERS A. LOW I FLOW Mayors ' a, ExrsrlNa Plcridc aLEAc ryas i' £i{fS7rMG AREA Coach Pitch FIELD [TYPJ- -�_ EXI:STWO •^{ ^' LOW FL .�.. . OW FIELD EXI97PND EXISTING' C� _ 1 - 6AVN PLAY.,. WSLXs r ;y �W+li ��AGraeRS Minor -_- _ r CONCRETE WACLf it OlsrrNc., PfR ADA SrANDAROS -• `., 1 FIELD F' 6 I - BR(OGE B10•SWALE [SEE DE 1 ,[TURF] !FU - .. 39 CW-STR9ET PARKr -i {PARK SIDE ONLY) Majors, Minor A and Minor B Access from Tball and Coach Pitch Suburbia Field Access from Suburbia AN TY LEBARD PARK OCTOBER 97.291E City at Huntington Such, CA I Bio- Tuft 7Qr1 t Tar} _ Blo• EaxIn ' Swale Exlsting Existing Exisling Walk Prupased -- Fuld Turf Walk. Field) Field Residential SECTION 1 SECTION 2 BRIDGE DETAIL Rro sed Basin _ Exialing Flald J _ Sw4Naalelk Existing na Walk1 Walk SECTION 3 ClaBhnuxe IIlk I i 3 f Prod Basin Reslfgoms f Concession Path i 1 y rr kexidentia P — arking i SECTION 4 a Q 10 24 6a LEBARD PARK - SECTIONS i L nd OCTOBER 17.2014 City of Huntington Beach, CA 7/20/2015 - 4 i i General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-002 Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 12-001 M N D No. 12-008 LeBard Park and Residential Project City Council Meeting July 20, 2015 Project Site • Approx. 10 acres • Developed in 1960s • Closed as school in 1981 • Used by HBCSD for administrative offices • In 2014,City Council approved a MOU with HBCSD to purchase ®• ® approx. 6.5 acres (6 sports fields) and process entitlements for a h 15-lot SFR subdivision on the paved (blacktop/building)area • Planning Commission approved project w/modifications on June 9th . — COMMUNICATION Meeting Date; 7 1 Agenda Item No. 7/20/2015 Request GPA&ZMA:to amend General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for Low Density Residential and Park uses WIND:to analyze RL » _ r, environmental impacts of project pursuant to _ CEQA The City Council held a - - public hearing on July 6th RE9JENTIALL0W'D WJH OPENSME-PATIK and continued action on PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN the project with the public hearing closed LeBard Park — Parking Options At the July 6th City Council meeting, City - Council directed staff to report on the potential use and costs of the SCE License area for parking for Seaview ' I Little League Per SCE, use of the 2-acre SCE area adjacent to the City-owned LeBard Park could be permitted subject to the following conditions; • A separate license agreement specific to parking with max. 5-year term increments will be required • SCE will allow use of area for overflow or temporary parking only • Parking cannot be tied to any code requirements or project approvals • No parking under drip lines or within 50 feet of towers 2 7/20/2015 LeBard Park — Parking Options Parking Area Design • Approx. 22 vehicles can be parked based upon clearances required by SCE(expanding parking under drip lines requires special approval) • Use existing driveway for access • Turf or decomposed granite surface suitable for parking and recreational uses Use • Temporary use — based on needs (e.g. — Saturdays during baseball season) • Work with Seaview Little League Board to develop conditions for use of parking area Next Steps • Receive City Council direction to seek SCE approval of parking area and improvements and negotiate new license agreement • Prepare update to LeBard Park Master Plan for Community Services Commission and City Council approval Recommendation • Approve MND 12-008 with findings and mitigation measures • Approve GPA 12-002 by approving draft City Council Resolution • Approve ZMA 12-001 with findings by approving draft City Council Ordinance 3