Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal of Foundation Requirements of the Sunset Beach Specif it of Huntington Beach ` vim- 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntin onbeachca.2v Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION July 19, 2016 Karen Otis Otis Architecture 909 Electric Avenue, #207 Seal Beach, CA 90740 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 909 Electric Avenue, #207, Seal Beach, CA 90740 APPELLANT: Councilmember Erik Peterson PROPERTY OWNER: Magdy Bassaly, 7515 Oaktree Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 REQUEST: An appeal filed by Karen Otis, pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) and Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), which specify the appeal process for any decision, requirement or determination made by the City in the administration of the zoning code or specific plan. The appeal is regarding the foundation requirements specified in Section 2.4 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP). LOCATION: 16471 and 16475 S. Pacific Ave., 90742 (south side at 23rd Street in Sunset Beach) DATE OF ACTION: July 18, 2016 On Monday, July 18, 2016, the Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application, and your application was denied, finding that the City's adopted Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) requires development proposed within the—FP3 floodplain designation, which includes beachfront properties, to be supported on piles or caissons pursuant to Section 2.4 of the SBSP. Notice of Action: Denial of Foundation Appeal July 19,2016 Page 2 The City Council directed staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to the SBSP and a Zoning Map Amendment to remove the-FP3 (Floodplain Overlay) designation on all Sunset Beach beachfront properties and the requirement to comply with the 1985 County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to 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 barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code§66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Ricky Ramos, the project planner, at (714) 536-5624 or via email at rramos@surfcity-hb.org, or the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, AICP Director of Community Development SH:JJ:RR:kdc c: Scott Hess, Director of Community Development Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner Property Owner Project File (06071816 Denial of Foundation Requirements(SBSP) .doc) e Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: 7/18/2016 l� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a . , REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION F MEETING DATE: 7/18/2016 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Deny Appeal of the Foundation Requirements of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) —Appellant: Councilmember Erik Peterson Statement of Issue: An appeal was filed by Councilmember Erik Peterson of the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of the foundation requirements of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP). Section 2.4 of the SBSP requires development proposed within the —FP3 floodplain designation, which includes beachfront properties, to be supported on foundations constructed with piles or caissons. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending denial of the appeal. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and find that the City's adopted SBSP requires development within the -FP3 floodplain designation, which includes beachfront properties, to be supported on piles or caissons pursuant to Section 2.4 of the SBSP. Alternative Action(s): The City Council may take an alternative action such as: 71. Deny the appeal and direct staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to the SBSP and a Zoning Map Amendment to remove the -FP3 (Floodplain Overlay) designation on all Sunset Beach beachfront properties and the requirement to comply with the 1985 County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study. 2. Deny the appeal and direct staff to initiate an update to the 1985 County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study for Sunset Beach. Direct staff to process a Zoning Text Amendment to the SBSP to revise the flood requirements based on the updated flood study. 3. Continue the appeal and direct staff accordingly. HB -4 31- Item 21. - I Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 2 of 8 Meeting Date: 7/18/2016 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 909 Electric Avenue, #207, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Property Owner: Magdy Bassaly, 7515 Oaktree Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 Location: 16471 and 16475 S. Pacific Ave., 90742 (south side at 23rd Street in Sunset Beach). (However, this appeal pertains to all beachfront properties in Sunset Beach.) Planning Application No. 2016-065 is an appeal filed by Karen Otis, pursuant to Section 4.2 of the SBSP and Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), which specify the appeal process for any decision, requirement or determination made by the City in the administration of the zoning code or specific plan. The appeal is regarding the foundation requirements specified in Section 2.4 of the SBSP. Although the appeal was filed as a result of the City's review of a proposed project to develop two single-family beachfront homes, action on a specific development project is not a part of the requested action. An appeal of a determination made by the City does not require public notification but is listed as a public hearing on the City Council agenda so that the public can comment. B. BACKGROUND: In October 2010, the City Council approved the entitlements for the annexation and the establishment of General Plan and zoning designations for Sunset Beach. In August 2011, Sunset Beach was officially annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. Since then the City has been working with the Coastal Commission to achieve certification of the Coastal Element amendment and the SBSP. After official annexation in 2011, the County of Orange continued to conduct land use and development review in Sunset Beach on behalf of the City pursuant to a pre-annexation agreement. Land use and development review included planning and zoning issues, entitlements, code enforcement, business licenses, building permits, and utility and right-of-way issues typically under Public Works' purview. Projects that required Coastal Development Permits were submitted to and processed by the California Coastal Commission. In April 2015, the City and County agreed that the City would commence land use and.development review in Sunset Beach. Because the City's draft Specific Plan is still not certified by the California Coastal Commission, the City reviews land use and development proposals (Conditional Use Permits, Variances, etc.) for"approval in concept" with the Coastal Element and the SBSP adopted by the City Council. After the City's review, applicants then apply for Coastal Development Permits through the Coastal Commission and return to the City for building permits. On June 24, 2015 Administrative Permit No. 15-009 (Attachment 3) was approved, which granted an "approval in concept" to construct two new three-story single family residences at the project site subject to final Coastal Development Permit approval by the Coastal Commission. Although it is already required by the code, the approval included a code requirement that the development shall comply with the requirements of the Coastal Floodplain Development Study Orange County Coastline (dated January 1985) and the HBZSO Floodplain Overlay District (SBSP Sections 2.4 and 3.3.8). Item 21 . - 2 JiB 432- Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 3 of 8 Meeting Date:7/18/2016 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a hearing on the appeal on May 24, 2016. There were three speakers at the hearing. Karen Otis expressed concern about the lengthy process she and her client have been through to try and develop the subject property. She also indicated that Orange County did not adopt the 1985 flood study which served only as a guideline. Mike Adams noted that the 1985 study is outdated and that there are no issues with wave action in Sunset Beach that would require the use of a pilings foundation. A third speaker provided general information. The Planning Commission discussed the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map designation of zone X for all developed areas in Sunset Beach, the process for amending the SBSP, and whether it would make sense to recommend that the City Council initiate an amendment to the flood requirements in the SBSP without additional information to support such a recommendation. The Planning Commission sympathized with the applicant but concluded that development within the —FP3 floodplain designation on the beachfront properties in Sunset Beach requires the use of piles or caissons pursuant to the SBSP and HBZSO. Planning Commission Action on May 24, 2016 A motion was made by Pinchiff, seconded by Kalmick, to deny the appeal carried by the following vote: AYES: Crowe, Kalmick, Semeta, Pinchiff, Brenden, Hoskinson NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Mandic MOTION PASSED A motion was made by Brenden, which was not seconded, to recommend to City Council to direct staff to revisit the SBSP to eliminate reference to the 1985 flood study and replace with new language with greater clarity on the basis for foundation type. MOTION FAILED A motion was made by Kalmick to ask the City Council to direct staff to take a look at inconsistencies in the SBSP within the flood section. MOTION WITHDRAWN D. APPEAL: Councilmember Erik Peterson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's appeal. The appeal was filed due to conflicts in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, FEMA flood zoning, and Sunset Beach LCP. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The following analysis includes a review of: 1) the text of the City's adopted SBSP to demonstrate the non-discretionary requirement for the use of pilings or caissons in the development of beachfront properties in Sunset Beach; 2) the issues raised in Councilmember Peterson's appeal; HB -433- Item 21. - 3 Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 4 of 8 Meeting Date:7/18/2016 3) the three main issues raised in the applicant's original appeal letter, and 4) potential options the City Council can take as action on this appeal. Sunset Beach Specific Plan The area known as Sunset Beach was in the unincorporated area of the County of Orange. In 1990, a Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program was adopted by the County to regulate land uses and development in Sunset Beach. In 2010-2011, when the City was processing the Sunset Beach annexation, an MOU (Attachment No. 13) was prepared between the City of Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach Community Association (SBCA). Section I.A.4. of the Agreement (Page 2 of Attachment No. 13) stipulated that the City shall adopt and maintain the goals, policies, and standards of the existing 1990 Sunset Beach Local Coastal Program Specific Plan as modified with changes discussed and mutually approved in writing by the City and the SBCA transition Committee. The City Council adopted SBSP complies with the intent of the MOU. In reference to the SBSP foundation requirements, beachfront properties have an —FP3 designation (Attachment No. 5) and are required to have foundations supported on piles or caissons based upon the following: 1. Section 2.4 Shoreline Management, Flooding, and Sea Level Rise on page 25 As a follow-up,action to the storm the County of Orange completed a Coastal Flood Plain f2tvel2prnent Study.,in 1985 L.to analyze saf measures for structures alon2 the coast. Desi n uidelines for residential develo meat along the coast are established in Chapter Four of the Coastal Flood Plain Development Study, These guidelines are based on the assumption that The Coun designated the homes seaward of South Pacific Avenue as bei22 in a—•FP3 district sulaect to floes hazard.The Coastal Flood Plain Development Study requires that any new structure in this area be raised to a specific height above a point on South Pacific Avenue.. In addition to 2rovid!29,protection a ainst flood darnaie, the requirement to build on RL2212M South Pacific Avenue provides a safe mar in should conditions at Sunset Beach return to the waxltej were in the 1930s when homes were vulnerable to attack.by waves. Harries o shallow footings can to ralpidly damn ed or destr'o ed if their sar d support is lost to erosion_. 2. Section 2.4.2 Flooding on page 26 New development shall be required to comply with flood airy r ulations and the 1985 Coun study, untl such tine that it is superseded, as required by Section 3.3.8 of this SRecific Plan. 3. Section 3.3.8 Flood Plain District on page 59 The Hunt! ton Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Flood lain Overlay District fie ulations and Coun of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Stu as'arnended are hereby incorporated into the Sunset Beach Specific Plan and shall be applicable as designated !2y the floodplain nap. Finished floor elevations shall also be in compliance vAth Section 3.3 Site Devement Standards. Item 21 . - 4 HB -434- Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 5 of 8 Meeting Date: 7/18/2016 The text of SBSP Section 2.4 above summarizes the design requirements recommended in the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study (see excerpt below). SBSP Section 2.4.2 states further that all new development comply with the study. Additionally, SBSP Section 3.3.8 incorporates by reference the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study and Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) of the HBZSO (see excerpt below) and states that their provisions shall be applicable in designated areas. The use of the words requirement, required, applicable and shall in these sections is to denote that these are mandatory provisions and not voluntary guidelines. County Flood Plain Development Study The design requirements of the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study (Attachment No. 4) referenced in Section 2.4.2 of the SBSP specify that beachfront properties (between South Pacific Avenue and the sandy beach area) in Sunset Beach which are designated as FP-3 (Floodplain Overlay) in the accompanying maps must be supported on piles or caissons with a minimum length of 20 ft. (page 39 of Attachment No. 4). Sections 5.1 and 5.2 on page 39 of the Study state: 5.1 Specific Design_QUectives. Structures in the 'FP-3 zone at Sunset Beach must be specifically dessigued to: a. prevent flooding within the structure and prevent flood damage to components of the structure, and b. convey salt water away from the structure.. 3.2 Design Considerations. 5.2.a. Foundations. The structure must be supported o n guiles or eaissous with a minimata pile or caisson le th of 20 ft The 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Study was prepared for the County to establish technical criteria and standards as a basis for review of structures and protective devices where ocean wave forces and flooding by ocean water must be considered on private coastal property in five areas of coastal Orange County, including Sunset Beach. It was intended to provide technical design criteria as a supplement to zoning, land use, specific plans and Local Coastal Programs. In some instances, the recommendations of the study are referred to as guidelines. However, the City's adopted SBSP incorporates the study by reference and clearly states in Section 2.4.2 that compliance with the study criteria is required. HBZSO Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) is the citywide floodplain ordinance and is incorporated into the SBSP. It is based on FEMA's requirements. Section 222.14.0 (-FP3 Standards of HB -435- Item 21 . - 5 Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 6 of 8 Meeting Date: 7/18/2016 Construction) requires the use of pilings in -FP3 as shown below.- Elevation and Structural Support. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated on adequately anchored pilings or columns so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal portion of the structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated at or above the base flood level. The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading values used shall comply with standards adopted by the City. Fill shall not be used for structural support of buildings. In summary, it is clear that the text of the City Council adopted SBSP (including the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study and HBZSO incorporated by reference) requires the use of pilings or caissons in the -FP3 designation adopted for beachfront properties in Sunset Beach. Councilmember Peterson's Appeal Letter Issues Councilmember Peterson's letter cites that the appeal is due to conflicts in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, FEMA Flood Zoning and Sunset Beach LCP. The current FEMA flood map designates all the developed area of Sunset Beach and the majority of the beach as flood zone X where no special construction standards are required. However, based upon the attached documents, the County decided to complete the 1985 flood study to identify higher standards than what the FEMA flood map required at the time to try and address the recurring flooding in Sunset Beach. As noted above, the higher flood standards which included, among others, the use of pilings or caissons were eventually incorporated into the County and City SBSP. These standards do exceed the current FEMA requirements. Applicant's Original Appeal Letter Issues The applicant's appeal letter cites three main reasons for the appeal: 1. "This project started in the County under County requirements, and was submitted during the transition period. It is unfair to change the interpretation of requirements at this juncture." 2. "County has made it abundantly clear (and documented it in their letters and emails) that the flood report by Moffat and Nichol Engineers was simply a guideline and that County Planning did not dictate foundation types." 3. "The soils engineer, structural engineer, and City Building Department Plan Checker have all reviewed the foundation and approved it since they evaluate each project on a case by case basis focusing on exact soil conditions specific to the project lot." As discussed in the Background section of this report, the appeal was filed as a result of the City's comments during the administrative review of a proposal by the appellant to construct two single- family homes on beachfront properties in Sunset Beach. The appellant's letter is specific to the processing of her project and is essentially a request for approval of an alternative foundation type for the project. The letter states, "We strongly disagree...and ask that the mat slab foundation...be approved." The issues raised in the appeal refer to the County's implementation of the SBSP requirements and review process when it still retained land use authority in Sunset Beach. The appellant states that the County did not apply the same foundation requirements. However, it was the County's specific plan that adopted the—FP3 designation along beachfront properties and incorporated the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development study criteria. County staff indicated in an email that they Item 21. - 6 HB -436- Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page 7 of 8 Meeting Date:7/18/2016 do not follow the 1985 flood study because it is very outdated although the County's SBSP was never amended to delete the flood requirements (Attachment No. 17). During the annexation process, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sunset Beach Community Association, which required the City to retain the requirements that were in the County's SBSP. Once the City took over land use and development review from the County, the City's adopted SBSP, which includes clear language that the use of piles or caissons for development on beachfront properties is required, applied to all projects. Finally the appellant contends that the proposed foundation system is based on site specific soil conditions of the project site and that the project's engineers and City's plan check engineers approved the foundation type. The SBSP does not contain provisions to allow for alternative foundations. Therefore, information such as additional soil testing, letter from a geotechnical engineer proposing the installation of sheet piles as an equivalent flood protection alternative to piles or caissons (Attachment 6), etc., are superfluous in this hearing. While an analysis of the various foundation types and their suitability for use in development along beachfront properties in Sunset Beach may be warranted in the context of an updated technical study (if such a study is directed by the City Council), it would not change the requirements or allow the City to deviate from the provisions of the adopted SBSP. City Council Options The SBSP states that minor modifications that are simple amendments to the exhibits and/or text that are intended to clarify and not change the meaning or intent of the Specific Plan may be accomplished administratively by the Director. However, major modifications to the exhibits and/or text that are intended to change the meaning or intent of the Specific Plan such as changing the flood requirements and allowing alternative foundation types, would require an amendment to the SBSP. In its action on this appeal, the City Council could direct staff to pursue such an amendment to the SBSP. This would require a zoning text amendment to the SBSP, a zoning map amendment, a local coastal program amendment, environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a technical study to replace or supplement the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development study and provide new or additional design recommendations as well as supporting documentation to remove the —FP3 designation from the beachfront properties. Alternatively, the City Council could decide not to update the 1985 flood study and rely on the current FEMA flood map to dictate floodplain development standards. It should be noted that FEMA is currently performing detailed coastal engineering analysis and updated flood mapping of the coast of California which has not occurred since 1984. The analysis and mapping will revise and update the flood and wave data for Orange County and the preliminary flood maps are tentatively scheduled for distribution in August 2016. F. SUMMARY: The project site is located in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan on beachfront property with a —FP3 floodplain overlay designation. Beachfront properties within the —FP3 overlay are required to be supported on foundations constructed with piles or caissons pursuant to Section 2.4 of the SBSP. The adopted SBSP, as currently written, does not specifically permit other foundation types. Deviation from the prescribed foundation requirements could be permitted through an amendment to the SBSP, which is a policy decision subject to City Council direction. The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the appeal based on the following: HB -437- Item 21. - 7 Dept. ID CD 16-007 Page.8 of 8 Meeting Date: 7/18/2016 - The City Council adopted SBSP requires the use of piles or caissons in the -FP3 designation for beachfront structures; - The adopted SBSP, as currently written, does not specifically permit other foundation types; and - The appellant's project site is beachfront property within the -FP3 floodplain area and subject to the foundation requirements specified in the SBSP. Environmental Status: The review of the appeal by the City Council is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve quality of life Attachment(s): 1. Beachfront FP3 Map 2. Appeal letter, received and dated March 22, 2016 3. Notice of Action -Administrative Permit No. 15-009 4. Excerpt from County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study (January 1985) (Entire study available at: htt ://huntin tonbeachca.g ov/q overnment/de artments/ tannin /maior/files/Coastal-Flood plain- Development-Orange-County-Coastline.pdf) 5. Excerpt from City of Huntington Beach Sunset Beach Specific Plan (November 2015) (Entire SBSP available at: http:Phuntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Sunset-Beach-Specific-Plan-Draft.pdf 6. Letter from Applicant's Geotechnical Engineer Proposing Use of Sheet Piles 7. Response from FEMA Regarding Proposed Use of Sheet Piles 8. Sunset Beach LCP Review Board Comments 9. Information about pilings, caissons, and mat slab foundations. 10. Appeal letter from Councilmember Erik Peterson received June 1, 2016 11. Figure 11 (Land Use Regulation Map) of the County's Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) adopted in 1990. The legend references a FP-3 Line (heavy dashed line) behind the beachfront properties and that "structures must be protected from flowing water based on wave activity in the FP-3 zone located seaward of the FP-3 line." The FP-3 Standards under the County Code as well as the City's Zoning Code require development on pilings or columns. 12. Pipeline Comments from Mike Ferguson 13. Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Sunset Beach Community Association 14. Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City and the County of Orange 15. County of Orange FP3 Standards (Section 7-9-113.6 requires pilings or columns) 16. Seal Beach and Newport Beach Flood Requirements 17. Email from County staff dated November 18, 2015 18. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 24, 2016 Item 21. - 8 HB -438- ATTACHMENT # 1 Qir �... i : al Y l f , t , , ,r � I -- Makfeik.�.+f- I.-� c;� �' kn c�� '• '$�kr9 C r r+�R cry k 7 , 1.. ... '� N ...-a -r ...-.` n 1 ... , i + } l r : j w Markna�B 1 7 Z 1F 1 ..f.....,r* ! + L°r ``;' :,..... �` ._.. f / ........ '� ...I:_. f + VINI�nr'in .... �.. .._ I' — mL� q• j yq. _ t N i _ Pacific Coast H Pacific Coast Hw . inn Z E ;FP3 x k LEGEND Sunset Beach Residential-22.32 Acres Parcels Sunset Beach Tourist-9.16 Acres Right Of Way ® Sunset Beach Parking Facility-13.00 Acres Huntington Beach Boundary Sunset Beach Beach Area-57.74 Acres Sunset Beach Boundary ISM] Sunset Beach Waterways_3.40 Acres J � 4 Inliirmelxn Gsr.x�vl l��arrmxil Exhibit 3. 1 Specific Plan Districts ATTACHMENT . #2 �o65' 14arch 9, 2016 To: City Planning Commission and/or City Council Re: Bassaly Homes 16475 South Pacific Ave. Sunset Beach C2015-004827 16467/16471 South Pacific Ave. Sunset Beach C2015-004828 We are requesting an appeal to the Planning Director decision regarding the foundation type at the Bassaly units in Sunset Beach. When we began this process, The County of Orange had jurisdiction over Sunset Beach. At that time, we did our due diligence and met with Planning Department over the counter to verify requirements of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan. Having done mat slab foundations on South Pacific in Sunset Beach recently, I was well aware that the County Planning Department did not dictate the type of foundation to be built. The County confirmed this information and noted that they relied completely on the FEMA maps which show Sunset Beach to be in Zone X, where no wave action is expected. We also confirmed that the Building Department would look at each project case by case, and rely on the calculations, soil testing report, and recommendations from the soils engineer and structural engineer for each project. On April 8, 2015 we attempted to submit our plans to the County only to be turned away because according to the Planning personnel at the counter, Sunset Beach was going to be taken over by Huntington Beach in the next week or two. We were told to wait until HB had officially taken over. We then submitted to the City of HB on April 16, 2015. Our first step was to get an Approval In Concept (AIC) letter so that we could submit to the Coastal Commission. Staff told us that there was no process designated to handle (AIC) letters since with HB properties the zoning administrator has the authority to approve coastal projects. The City Planning staff was going to have to discuss it with Scott Hess, Director. They asked that we submit the radius map notification, which we did. Weeks went by with no progress. In repeated phone calls to the City, I was told that possibly the project would have to go through the Coastal Development Permit process and be heard by the Zoning Administrator, but that would take approximately 3 months. This was not realistic. I met with Planning staff to explain that typically the Approval In Concept process is efficient and occurs within a week or so. I also explained that to send this to the ZA with the usual CDP application and all of its requirements (including the radius notification) would be redundant, because the Coastal Commission would be doing the same notification for their hearing. Even though I made calls regularly to find out the status, and implore Staff to Item 21. - 10 HB -440- expedite since this delay was costing my Client a lot of money, we did not receive our Approval in Concept Letter until June 29, 2015, more than two months after our submittal. We attempted to submit to the Coastal Commission on June 29, 2015 but realized that the City of HB had not returned the radius map notifications which we would now need for our submittal to Coastal. Tess Nguyen said she never received them from Staff, and they were nowhere to be found. Having misplaced them, the City delayed us another week since we had to request another from our consultant, and my Client paid for the expense yet again. We submitted to Coastal Commission on July 3, 2015. On July 10, 2015 we received the Planning Department corrections completed by Wayne Carvalho. It was at this time that Ricky Ramos contacted me to discuss the foundation since in his evaluation of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan the report by Moffat and Nichols Engineers done in 1985 (over 30 years ago) deemed it necessary to build a foundation of caissons. I explained to him that this was not a requirement of the County, and that I myself had done mat slabs in that area as had other contractors. On August 17, 2015 1 met with Ricky Ramos, Jane James, and Jason Kelley. They indicated that they found many caisson foundations. I explained that this was to be expected since caissons were the predominant technology in the past, and that mat slab is a relatively new technology, but in many cases a much more stable solution, especially where liquefaction was found at deep levels. I also indicated that caissons would add $200,000 in construction cost to each home (a $400,000 burden to my Client). Staff at that meeting asked for addresses of properties so that they could confirm that the homes were approved with a mat slab foundation. I provided several, which Ricky Ramos found to be true in his research. After that meeting, I was under the impression that we had cleared up the discrepancy and could now move forward. Unfortunately, just as soon as we complied with the City's request for addresses, Planning Department decided that this was not enough of a reason to allow our mat slab. They now wanted to hear it directly from County Staff. Ricky emailed Laree Alonso repeatedly for some insight into the County's method of review. But, he seemed to get absolutely nowhere as she did not respond. For the entire month of September and October, we waited while Planning staff unsuccessfully tried to get answers from the County. We were very frustrated, since we were under the impression that just providing the addresses of approved mat slabs would be sufficient. And during this time, it was costing my Client approximately $40,000 per month for mortgages, property taxes, etc. Not to mention that in October, the tenants that were living in the existing cottages on the property were evicted so that we could prepare for construction that month. The month of October we received Coastal Commission approval, and early November we received HB Building Department Approval. Still nothing from Planning. Out of sheer frustration about the lack of progress, I took it upon myself to contact the County to gather answers. I contacted Richard Vuong who had worked at the Planning Counter for years. On HB -441- Item 21. - 11 November 5, 2015 he provided Ricky Ramos with a letter indicating that the County did not dictate foundation type. Unfortunately Planning Staff wanted to hear this from someone in a higher position at County. On November 17, 2015 1 contacted Laree Alonso, head of Planning Department at the County and Hadi Tabatabaee, head of the Building Department. They were both extremely helpful, and provided me with emails that indicated with absolute certainty that the County Planning Department did NOT dictate foundation, and the Building Department did NOT use the 1985 flood study as a requirement, but rather ONLY as a guideline so that each project was looked at on a case by case basis and relied on the soils engineer and structural engineer to provide data. Hadi even went as far as highlighting the report and code for clarification: "`the C1 It23;a riCj COC}�1Geratl� S •aF G�irfiGcil Sl ,f i vI C�?4tG� prGl !`�2 d�v'G S aCv,j�Llt fOir�lt7c 3 E�;ate E lllC{.pfl,ilNitG{ a�Pil iD r7tGESf�± l} OiUt ;r8�(�Ilrcrfni7S for G '!C [Ti etF3.C3fgy; Ec=SpeGi�f;�" des',in;_iticr ar�n stvdlesrar�d,by aual; ,ErU ': T a,sitDa° possll�iy 'I Inc�s rn�I; .:r�Ig;arg�FS, mctl�,aa"clbo`Iss_rfa'y o� a����;j�rF�t� ':; Submitting those emails to Ricky Ramos, I was ecstatic under the impression that we could now move on, because for the past two months that is exactly what Ricky had been trying to get, and we provided. The relief lasted only a day, as on November 18, 2015 1 was copied on an email that Ricky had sent to Laree Alonso asking for the "mechanism that County had used to make this change." Shocked by the turn of events, I emailed Ricky to understand why we were now asking this of County. His response was that "A question came from city staff as to how county staff was able to override what their code requires." Again, each time that the City required something so that we could get our approval, we provided it—and yet as soon as we did, it was somehow not enough. The bar kept getting moved up each time we reached it. My Client was upset, I was frustrated that no matter what I did, Planning Department was not satisfied. There appeared to be an unfortunate adversarial climate with the Planning Department as they continued to find ways to deny the project; rather than a cooperative and collaborative relationship to find solutions. On November 19, 2015 1 was literally shocked to see in the news that Council had met to make some minor changes to its adoption of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan. In essence they had decided that development regulations and standards would be the same under the City's jurisdiction as those of the County. Why were we not told of this meeting?Why was this discrepancy regarding foundation type not brought up at that time to City Council? That was neglectful and incompetent at the very least. And, if the intent is to keep things the same, why was there this HUGE shift to impose caissons? Item 21 . - 12 H13 -442- On November 19, 2015 1 wrote a letter to Planning Staff outlining our frustration, and mentioned the City Council meeting of which we were never informed. Planning Department's response was reiterating the flood report and their interpretation of the Code. Feeling aggravated with this issue, I went to City Hall and was able to meet with Scott Hess and Jane James. Scott reiterated that Staff could not do what County did because they did not have a report or something indicating the mechanism they used, ie. amendment, etc. In that conversation, Jane suggested that perhaps we could get our soils engineer to suggest some flood mitigating measure as a compromise. Scott added that perhaps the soils engineer could also write a letter stating that the mitigating measure was an "equivalent alternative to caissons for flooding." He stressed that those exact words needed to be used. I said that I really did not know of one, but would check with our soils engineer. I discussed the issue with the Soils Engineer, and I was happily surprised when he provided one mitigating measure that would work for flooding. He suggested using a sheet pile that would go into the ground 10' deep at the beachfront. He kindly drafted a letter to the Planning Department indicating this, and put in the exact wording: that the mitigating measure was an "equivalent alternative to caissons for flooding." I submitted that to Planning and staff and sent it directly to Scott Hess. We were not pleased to have to incorporate the sheet pile because it would add approximately $45,000 to each lot but at least we would finally get the approval from Planning. No. Ricky Ramos called me and indicated that Staff now wanted FEMA to look into the issue to see if a sheet pile would be the same as caissons. Again, each time that the City required something so that we could get our approval, we provided it—and yet as soon as we did, it was somehow not enough. The bar kept getting moved up each time we reached it. From December 22, 2015 until February 3, 2016 we waited for Staff to get FEMA answers. Another delay. FEMA's response was that for wave velocity, sheet piles would not work the same way that caissons do since the wave needed to flow under the house. Obviously they were not asked the right question. We had been talking about flooding, not wave velocity—two very different things. Sunset Beach is NOT in an area that FEMA designates as subject to wave impact. (FEMA designates it as Flood Zone X) The sand replenishment program in Sunset Beach also gives the assurance that wave impact is highly unlikely since it maintains a sand buffer of 250 feet. HB -443- Item 21. - 13 We are soon approaching ONE YEAR from our original submittal date. We have listened and provided every request the Planning Department has made. We have done our very best to clarify County's position so that we can move ahead with the project. We strongly disagree with the Planning Director's decision and ask that the mat slab foundation which is recommended by our Soil Engineer after field soil testing be approved. Our appeal boils down to two very precise reasons: 1. This project started in the County under County requirements, and was submitted during the transition period. It is unfair to change the interpretation of requirements at this juncture. 2. County has made it abundantly clear (and documented it in their letters and emails) that the flood report by Moffat and Nichol Engineers was simply a GUIDELINE and that County Planning DID NOT dictate foundation types. 3. The soils engineer, structural engineer, and City Building Department Plan Checker have all reviewed the foundation and approved it since they evaluate each project on a case by case basis focusing on exact soil conditions specific to the project lot. Respectfully submitted, Karen Otis Otis Architecture Inc. Item 21. - 14 HB -444- ATTACHMENT #3 7 . i toBeach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.hunting_tonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 June 24, 2015 NOTICE OF ACTION SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 15-009 / LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 15-002 (BASSALY RESIDENCES) APPLICANT: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 909 Electric Avenue, Studio 207, Seal Beach CA 90740 PROPERTY OWNER: Magdy Bassaly, 7515 Oaktree Avenue, Westminster CA 92683 REQUEST: To "approve in concept" the following: AP: To construct two new three-story (35 ft. high) single family residences (4,107 sq. ft. and 4,657 sq. ft.) and to adjust the lot lines between two existing contiguous parcels of land. LLA: To adjust the lot lines between two existing contiguous parcels of land. LOCATION: 16467 and 16475 S. Pacific Avenue, 92649 (southwest corner of Pacific Avenue and 23rd Street, Sunset Beach) DATE OF ACTION: June 24, 2015 On June 24, 2015, the Planning and Building Department of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your request and APPROVED your request with conditions. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval for your application. Please be advised that the Department of Planning and Building reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to issuance of building permits. 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 project. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Department of Planning and Building is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an interested party. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning and Building Department's action. The notice of HB -445- Item 21. - 15 AP No. 15-009/1-1-A No. 15-002 June 24, 2015 Page 2 of 6 appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. A filing fee of$494 shall also accompany the notice of appeal. The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted application is Monday, July 6, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please contact Tess Nguyen, Associate Planner at (714) 374-1744 or via email at tnguyen(cD-surfcity-hb.orq or the Planning Division Planning and Zoning Information Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building by: ,i Tess Nguyen Associate Planner Attachment: Findings and Conditions of Approval—Administrative Permit No, 15-009 J Lot Line Adjustment No. 15-002 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A.Wilson, City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Jane James, Planning Manager Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Debbie DeBow, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Carnahan, Building Manager California Coastal Commission Sunset Beach LCP Review Board Magdy Bassaly, Property Owner Project File Item 21 . - 16 HB -446- AP No. 15-009/LLA No. 15-002 June 24, 2015 Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 15-009 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 15-002 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Director of Planning and Building finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to sections 15303 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the construction of two single family residences located within an urbanized residential zone and the lot line adjustment does not result in the creation of any new parcel. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 15-009: 1. Administrative Permit No. 15-009 to "approve in concept" the construction of two new three- story single family residences and the adjustment of existing lot lines conforms with the General Plan and the Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan designation of Sunset Beach Residential. The proposed project is consistent with Coastal Element Policy C 1.1.1 to encourage new development to locate within, contiguous to, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it. The proposed construction will occur on a developed site, contiguous to existing residential development. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project complies with all applicable development regulations, including minimum setbacks and on-site parking, and maximum building height. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan. The project will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available, including water, sewer, and roads. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The project will not impede public access, recreation, or views to coastal resources. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 15-002: 1. The "approval in concept" to grant Lot Line Adjustment No. 15-002 for the adjustment of lot lines between two existing contiguous parcels of land will not create any additional parcels or building sites. 2. The resulting parcel alignment will conform to Titles 20-24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). HB -447- Item 21. - 17 AP No. 15-009/LLA No. 15-002 June 24, 2015 Page 4 of 6 3. The lot line adjustment will not sever any existing structure on the resulting parcels. The proposed lot line adjustment will adjust the lot line between two contiguous parcels of land resulting in the transfer of land area from one lot to another. One existing structure on the subject site straddles the common property line of the two existing lots. The existing structures are proposed to be removed as part of the lot line adjustment. 4. The lot line adjustment will not allow a greater number of dwelling units than allowed prior to the adjustment. The lot line adjustment will not affect the number of units allowed. 5. A plat map showing the lot line adjustment has been prepared and approved and will be filed in accord with the provisions of Section 253.24 of the HBZSO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—ADMINSTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 15-009: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 25, 2015 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. An area for storage of the minimum number and size of trash cans per dwelling unit as required by the trash removal service shall be provided at both residences. This area shall be concealed from public view. (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Section 3.3.1.F.5) b. The 18 ft. by 18 ft. parking area in the garage at 16467 S. Pacific Avenue shall be clear with no obstructions (no door swinging inward or tankless water heater). (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Section 3.3.4.1) c. The chimney flue for both proposed residences shall have maximum dimensions of 2 ft. by 2 ft. (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Section 3.3.1.17.7) d. The bar area adjacent to the family room in both proposed residences shall have no garbage disposal and stove/range. (HBZSO 203.06) e. The side setback for the garage adjacent to 23Id Street at 16475 S. Pacific Avenue shall be a minimum of 3 ft. (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Section 3.3.1.F.3.a) 2. Prior to submittal of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit evidence of Coastal Development Permit approval by the California Coastal Commission. b. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire, Planning and Building, 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 utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. 3. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. b. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. Item 21. - 18 HB -448- i AP No. 15-009/LLA No. 15-002 June 24, 2015 Page 5 of 6 d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 4. The structure(s) cannot be occupied and the final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following have been completed: a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department. c. 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. 5. Any conditions of approval, imposed by the Coastal Commission, that are more restrictive than those set forth in this approval shall be adhered to. 6. Administrative Permit No. 15-009 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 15-002 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final Coastal Commission approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning & Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 7. 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. 8. The Development Services Departments and divisions (Building & Safety, 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 Director's action. 9. Incorporating 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?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.buildit-green.org/green-building- guidelines-rating HB -449- Item 21. - 19 AP No. 15-009/LLA No. 15-002 June 24, 2015 Page 6 of 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 15-002: 1. The plat map received on May 26, 2015, and maintained in Planning and Building Department case file LLA No. 15-002 shall be the approved layout. 2. The lot line adjustment form shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for final review and modified as necessary pursuant to the requirements of the Public Works Department prior to recordation. 3. All existing structures on-site shall be demolished prior to recordation of the new lot lines. 4. Any conditions of approval, imposed by the Coastal Commission, that are more restrictive than those set forth in this approval shall be adhered to. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. Administrative Permit No. 15-009 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 15-002 shall not become effective until the ten-calendar day appeal period has elapsed and Coastal Commission has given final approval. (HBZSO Section 241.14 and California Coastal Act) 2. The Planning and Building Department reserves the right to revoke Administrative Permit No. 15-009 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 15-002, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (HBZSO Section 249.06) 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building 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) 4. The development shall comply with the requirements of the Coastal Floodplain Development Study Orange County Coastline (dated January 1985) and the HBZSO Floodplain Overlay District. (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Sections 2.4 and 3.3.8) Item 21. - 20 HB -450- ATTACHMENT #4 • COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY a • COASTAL FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORANGE COUNTY COASTLINE 2Z le o. nGoT-So.roE 'A �aS�Iir v JANUARY, 1985 Prepared by: MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS HB -451- GY r .it Item 21 . - 21 4. STEP 4. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. Is the structure or protective device located at Sunset Beach? YES - GO TO STEP 5 NO - GO TO STEP 6 STEP 5. SUNSET BEACH (See Appendix D for more information). Sunset Beach -is a special case where ocean-water creates a flooding problem. Flowing water over or through gaps in the artificial dune is the only design consideration. Design guidelines are based on the assumption that the beach will be artificially maintained with a width of at least 150 ft from the ocean-facing private property line. Should the beach retreat to less than that width, the possibility of storm erosion and breaking wave activity at the structures may occur. Then, flood"protection as regulated by these design guides will not provide protection from wave impact forces. Design checks must then be modified to reflect the circumstances. This would probably be under temporary emergency conditions. . 5.1 Specific Design Objectives. Structures in the -FP-3 zone at Sunset Beach must be specifically designed to: a. prevent flooding within the structure and prevent flood damage to components of the structure, and b. convey salt water away from the structure. 5.2 Design Considerations. 5.2.a. Foundations. The structure must be supported on piles or caissons with a minimum pile or caisson length of 20 ft. 5.2.b. Elevation of Underside of Structure. The minimum vertical distance, Eu Eg, as defined in Figure 9, between the ground elevation, Eg, and the underside of the structure, Eu, is dependent 39 Item 21. - 22 HB -452- ARTIFICAL DUNE 18"MIN. W W it q 1 '11 it' D OCVD �) Ed = DUNE CREST ELEVATION EU = ELEVATION OF UNDERSIDE OF RESIDENCE El; Z MAXIMUM ELEVATION, NATURAL GRADE BENEATH RESIDENCE Figure 9. Procedure to calculate distance between ground elevation and underside of residences at Sunset Beach. STEP 5.2.b OBJECTIVE: To establish the distance between the natural ground elevation and the underside of a structure at Sunset Beach. REQUIRED VERTICAL CLEARANCES, SUNSET BEACH' Vertical Clearance Ed in ft (OCVD) Eu -Eg, in inches 15.2 i8 14.2 to 15.2 21 13.2 to 15.1 24 .c13.2 27 'does not apply to decks and garages; natural grade must be similar to that of adjacent property 2natural grade to lowest portion of underside of residence. 40 HB -453- Item 21. - 23 upon the elevation of the beach or artificial dune in front of the structure, Ed, and the ground elevation beneath the structure. The minimum is 18 inches to provide a crawl space and to prevent water damage when water moves from adjacent property. 5.2.c. Sideyard Passages. To provide a flow conduit between residences, the minimum unobstructed sideyard distance between adjacent structures will be 6 feet. If the adjacent lot is undeveloped, the dwelling setback from the lot line is 3 feet. 5.2.d. General Guidelines. (1) Areas under buildings constructed on piles or caissons must be kept clear to allow landward drainage. (2) When slab or garage parking at the landward end of the building is used, the landward end of the building must be closed for fire protection purposes. This reduces the cross-sectional flow area. The passageway between buildings thus becomes the only drainage conduit. Gates in walkways alongside structures should swing landward so they are parallel and away from flow from the ocean. Gates which open toward the ocean may be difficult or impossible to open during a flood event. Flowing water will either pond behind the gates and accentuate the local flood problem, or the gates and/or adjacent fences will be damaged by the water pressure. This does not apply to chain link, wrought iron or other highly porous gate materials. (3) The movement of runup-generated water into neighboring properties should be avoided. The ground should slope toward South Pacific Avenue, not toward adjacent properties. 41 Item 21. - 24 HB -454- (4) Ice plant cover or other sand retaining landscaping on dunes and adjacent areas is encouraged because it helps stabilize the dune, provides resistance to runup-flow- erosion during severe storms, and creates drag which reduces runup flow across the dune. 5.3 DESIGN ACCEPTABILITY. IS DESIGN ACCEPTABLE BASED ON DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS? YES - GO TO STEP 12 NO - REJECT PLAN 6. STEP 6 - TYPE OF STRUCTURE OR PROTECTIVE DEVICE. Is the plan for a structure on piles or caissons? YES - GO TO STEP 7 NO - GO TO STEP 8 STEP 7 - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, STRUCTURE ON PILES OR CAISSONS. 7.1 Geotechnical Considerations. 7.1.a. Foundation conditions. A soils report should be prepared to address the depth to bedrock, and soil and rock properties to 20 feet below maximum scour depth, or to bedrock. Included should be soil weight, vertical and lateral bearing capacities, active and passive pressures, and soil classification. 7.1.b. Recommended Foundation Type. A recommendation must be given by the geotechnical professional regarding the type of foundation support to use, such as driven piles or drilled piles or caissons. 42 IqB -455- Item 21. - 25 + r. L - � Y � y �`' � -�M ■■ ''T���e:~i�u�ruea=._t �'T'��r-�-f�� pL"' � r� �' �,,)� � •�r,�# �' -+p�Y�."� bb IMITIAl _41-A if.1�1 r v, .. ,�� Y :_l . ,• -. .: x.M, �'�P�,�c�r . � ,o r {�f "i�-� 4A Cry �� r � f � � �•"1' Yy an mg �.� s � fr..� �dp moo•-�.p�-. ., ■l .. ;•r��'.�Ti(i, 'f a.�.: kWN k :`_.rl�,P' ■ c _ kk� ��yn. � r ri iF��4 ���. gall 4 *lk- r4 y� db,'We x - , r o - i A � w .74 IL - �MEN IL 6 y +e".Ies' s � rz K .1��;y, � i.., �.., .Cicr.�-'+n�`�s',,.t- u�T�. ■ ATTAC H M E N T #5 P Y� n LM t: PIZ mg - A "" ;. 3 s. i +s-�"a °'� +• gs 6-ow. ?G t4t� .G-.„•> R C VP� Fy,.� `lF'c'a'" �' =�°`�� � � sus,. k�„ p`•��"Y�. .��'� ��- � 5't'���4 e • '�� �` € r .w -l � m-�• a".` ""'.;�,�y� y�¢�i!����� 'gt-C� .� Q �a.� .. tl. Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan 2.4 Shoreline Management, Flooding, and Sea Level Rise Shoreline Management Sunset Beach is part of the Huntington Beach Littoral Cell, which extends 15 miles from the east jetty of Anaheim Bay to the west jetty of Newport Bay. The City of Seal Beach built a groin at the north entrance to Anaheim Bay to combat beach erosion in 1936. In 1944, the Department of the Navy extended the groin to form the upcoast entrance jetty of Anaheim Bay. Erosion of the shoreline in the Sunset Beach area has been relatively continuous since then as ocean current drives sediment generally to the southeast. In the 1940s, 1,422,000 cubic yards of sand replenishment material were placed on the beach in Seal Beach for the purpose of addressing the beach erosion. Due to a local appeal to the U.S. Congress to address the erosion caused by the federal structures and a recommendation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 1962 the U.S. Congress approved House Document 602 that allows for federal appropriation for beach nourishment to occur, although each nourishment project is a separate Congressional appropriation. This action also established a roughly 67%/33% split between the federal government and non-federal entities to pay for the beach nourishment. The non-federal entities are the State of California, County of Orange, City of Huntington Beach, City of Newport Beach, City of Seal Beach and the Surfside Colony Homeowners Association. Since the Congressional action, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is the federal sponsor and manages the contractors for the beach nourishment projects, has completed a sand deposition project(Surfside-Sunset Beach nourishment project) for the area approximately every five to seven years. The draft Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan states that these projects have provided substantial increases in beach width over time for the entire Huntington Beach Littoral Cell. The Plan identifies the Surfside-Sunset Beach location as a "high" need receiver site and notes the benefits associated with periodic sand replenishment. These benefits extend beyond recreational opportunities for the immediate Surfside and Sunset Beach areas. The Plan states that the downcoast benefits for recreation at Huntington City Beach and Huntington State Beach are substantial, and that maintaining a wide beach can reduce storm damage.' The draft Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan recommends continued support for the Surfside-Sunset Beach nourishment project, and Land Use Plan Guidelines 2.2.2.ii and 2.2.2.iii of this Specific Plan echo this support. Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) currently designates all of the developed area of Sunset Beach and a majority of the beach as Flood Zone X, which are areas of 500 year flood and areas of 100 year flood with average depths of less than one foot of flooding and s Draft Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan,April 2012,prepared for U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,County of Orange and California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup. November 2015 Page 24 Item 21 . - 30 HB -460- Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan areas protected by levees from 100 year flood. A small portion of the beach at the ocean edge is designated Flood Zone VE, areas of Coastal flood with velocity hazard. Despite the Flood Zone X designation, flood damage in Sunset Beach can occur at times of abnormally high tides. A January 1983 storm caused severe flooding across the beach that affected homes along South Pacific Avenue as well as flooding onto Pacific Coast Highway and all of the property in between. In response, the County of Orange constructed a berm(also referred to as the artificial dune), which still exists today. The berm was constructed approximately 40 feet from the rear property lines along South Pacific Avenue, which maximizes having a large expanse of uninterrupted beach area while still achieving the objective of flood protection. Since the berm was installed there has been no flooding as a result of storm surge or high tides from the ocean side of the beach. As a follow-up action to the storm the County of Orange completed a Coastal Flood Plain Development Study, in 1985, to analyze safety measures for structures along the coast. Design guidelines for residential development along the coast are established in Chapter Four of the Coastal Flood Plain Development Study. These guidelines are based on the assumption that the beach will be artificially maintained with a width of at least 150 feet from the ocean-facing private property line. The Study concluded that should the beach retreat to less width, the possibility of storm erosion and breaking wave activity at the structures may occur and flood protection as regulated by the design guidelines will not provide protection from wave impact forces. Revised design guidelines must then be modified to reflect the circumstances. The County designated the homes seaward of South Pacific Avenue as being in a —FP3 district, subject to flood hazard. The Coastal Flood Plain Development Study requires that any new structure in this area be raised to a specific height above a point on South Pacific Avenue. In -� addition to providing protection against flood damage, the requirement to build on piling along South Pacific Avenue provides a safety margin should conditions at Sunset Beach return to the way they were in the 1930s when homes were vulnerable to attack by waves. Homes on shallow footings can be rapidly damaged or destroyed if their sand support is lost to erosion. Existing lawful nonconforming residential uses may be severely impacted by the Coastal Flood Plain Development Study and will require special consideration. Although the berm/artificial dune that the County constructed has been very effective, approximately 12 to15 years ago the County of Orange implemented another maintenance activity to construct a temporary, seasonal berm, referred to as the seawardmost berm or the seasonal berm on Sunset Beach. This was in response to flooding that occurred down Anderson Street and onto Pacific Coast Highway and the surrounding area. The flooding resulted from water that came up against a seasonal berm in front of the Surfside Colony development immediately to the north in the City of Seal Beach being funneled into the Sunset Beach community streets. (The Surfside Colony berm has been constructed on a seasonal basis for approximately 30 years.) The Sunset Beach seawardmost berm is a non-structural management tool used on a seasonal basis to help minimize the risk of coastal flooding. Even with the recurring sand replenishment project, there are times when the beach has narrowed due to storm activity and the November 2015 Page 25 HB -461- Item 21. - 31 Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan seawardmost berm reduces the risk of flooding associated with that as well as eliminates the previous reason that the flooding down Anderson Street originally occurred. Under management by the County of Orange, the width of the beach was evaluated before every storm season. If the width of the beach was less than 250 feet, the County constructed the berm. Typically after a beach nourishment project was completed, the seawardmost berm was not needed. Conversely, in an El Nino year, the berm would be reconstructed regardless of the width of the beach. The County's former and the City's current practice is to reconstruct the berm between mid-November and December 1 st and take it down after the storm season in mid- to late March, depending on the storm season and tides. The publicly owned Sunset Channel has been privately bulkheaded and the streets and alleys, where they abut the channel, were bulkheaded by the County. There are a couple of areas that are not bulkheaded, e.g. undeveloped property at terminus of Park Avenue and two properties on Bayview Drive (16862 and 16864 Bayview Drive), that result in flooding of local streets during high tides. With the combination of shoreline management and flood protection maintenance activities, flood threat to the entire Sunset Beach community and Pacific Coast Highway has been significantly minimized. However, inland flooding does occur due to the lack of bulkheads in some areas. Based on the foregoing, the following shoreline management and flooding policies, coupled with those identified in the Land Use Plan section, shall be adhered to: Shoreline Management 2.4.1 The City shall prepare a Shoreline Management (Beach Management) Plan for Sunset Beach, which shall take into consideration beach nourishment, beach erosion, storm season, beach habitat and grunion spawning season and recreational use of the beach. Flooding 2.4.2 New development shall be required to comply with flood plain regulations and the 1985 County study, until such time that it is superseded, as required by Section 3.3.8 of this Specific Plan. Sea Level Rise (SLR) The potential impacts of SLR are within the planning and regulatory responsibilities of the Coastal Commission and the City under the Coastal Act. The City is in the process of completing a comprehensive update to its General Plan. This effort includes the preparation of a citywide SLR Vulnerability Assessment and Coastal Resiliency Plan. The SLR Vulnerability Assessment will guide the strategies (policies and implementation actions) that the City could ultimately adopt. The City is proposing to address SLR citywide by including policies in the Coastal Element and changing the implementing ordinances if necessary, including the citywide floodplain ordinance. This approach will result in a centralized location for SLR policies and regulations, allow a comprehensive approach in addressing SLR, and build upon existing provisions in the City's certified Local Coastal Program. November 2015 Page 26 Item 21 . - 32 HB -462- Draft Sunset Beach Specific Plan 3.3.8 Flood Plain District The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Floodplain Overlay District Regulations and County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study as amended are hereby incorporated into the Sunset Beach Specific Plan and shall be applicable as designated by the floodplain map. Finished floor elevations shall also be in compliance with Section 3.3 Site Development Standards. 4. Administration The methods and procedures for implementation and administration of the Development Standards, as well as the guidelines and other conditions of this Specific Plan are prescribed below. 4.1 Enforcement of the Specific Plan The City's Community Development Director shall administer the provisions of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan in accordance with the State of California Government Code, Subdivision Map Act, the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), the City's General Plan and the City's Local Coastal Program. The Specific Plan development procedures, regulations, standards and specifications shall supersede the relevant provisions of the City's Zoning Code (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance), as they currently exist or may be amended in the future. Any development regulation and building requirement not addressed in the Specific Plan shall be subject to the City's adopted regulations in effect at the time of an individual request. 4.2 Methods and Procedures The methods and procedures for implementation of the Specific Plan shall be on a project-by- project basis. The adoption of the Specific Plan alone will not require any improvements to the Specific Plan area. Physical improvements will only coincide with the approval of development projects. The Specific Plan is a regulatory document and is not intended to be a Development Agreement. Coastal Development Permits Coastal Development Permits shall be processed pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Conditional Use Permits Conditional Use Permits shall be processed pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. November 2015 Page 59 HB -463- Item 21. - 33 ATTACHMENT #6 i;fa,,'A K, SOUTHWEST Inspection & Tcstlnu lnc La 11-bra- CA1H)6`1­,df`-, C714� i;26-8441 FA X i i,62) 1�, December 18, 2015 Scott Hess Director of Planning City of Huntington Beach. Subject: Flood Protection Measure for Beach Front Residential Structures 16467 & 16475 S. Pacific Avenue, Sunset Beach, CA 92649 (APN 178-514-22 & 178-514-23) References: Southwest Inspection&Testing, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Custom Build Homes at TWo Adjacent Lots, 16467 & 16475 S. Pacific Avenue, Sunset Beach, CA 92649, (APN 178-514-22 & 178-514-23), dated July 8, 2015. Dear Mr. Hess: We conducted geotechnical investigation and prepared a geotechnical report, as referenced above, for design and construction of two new three-story above grade residential structures at the above two adjacent beachfront lots. Based on our investigation findings, we recommended for shallow mat foundations for these buildings. Pursuant to Section 3(b) on page 111-8, Section 4 on pages 111-35 and-36, and Section 4 on page IV- 18 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) , the flood requirements indicate that the beachfront structure must be supported on piles or caissons in order to provide flood protection. As a measure for flood protection, we are recommending installation of 10 feet deep sheet piles continuously along the beachfront sides of these residences. Sheet piles will be mechanically anchored to the mat foundation slab. Use of sheet pile will effectively prevent sand undermining and loss of bearing soils underneath the mat slab in the event of flood encroachment to the property. In terms of flood protection, these sheet piles may be considered as an equivalent alternative to the use of traditional piles or caissons for the foundation design. Page I of 2 tsOUTH WEST Item 21. - 34 HB -464- Flood Protection - Beach Front Homes .December 18, 2015 16467 & 16475 S. Pacific Ave, Sunset Beach, CA If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHWEST INSPECTION & TESTING, INC. Zafar Ahmed, PE, GE Geotechnical Engineer Page 2 of 2tOUT14WEST... . HB -465- Item 21. - 35 ATTAC H M E N T #7 Ramos, Ricky From: Ramos,Ricky Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:02 PM To: 'Karen Otis' Cc: Gates, Michael; 'MAGDY BASSALY; 'Mark A_ Ross, Esq.'; Domer, Ken; Hess, Scott; James, Jane; Kelley, Jason Subject: RE: FINAL RESPONSE: Sheet piles for VE zone construction? Karen, The Nov. 2015 Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) is also referred to as the Local Coastal Program for Sunset Beach. In that document there are several regulations pertaining to flooding. As pointed out to you before, Section 2.4 on page 25 has the following language: Asa fiftvwup action toft te 00mlly+ cw*eleda ccestall Mod Ptah Devekpnw t Sty;in 19M to analyze safety t#eastm for sinwhaes a"ft Wit iegn gugkbros for msWwfial dowdopa*1Aft ooW we eslabgsW h Chapter_FW40f i ft beach Wig be,w _ ` ned z4h a width of at Wd 150'feet ft-nt pliv*aPiopetty kw-The h"fW stak to beadt mt"-I kw..-`d p C„ _ adAw to pvvdrq protedmagayW kodm**ement tod on pftWoV SoitA PacftAveme prowT des asd*owgn diouWcarAkm at Sunsd Beachmotto vay OW we in ft 1M u4m tomm ww w to by vavm than dvaillow k Dfts cm 1 " I 8Wd is may be w.-a*nVaded by the - Flood wt,%*oW ` _ This section refers to the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study dated Jan. 1985. That study designates Sunset Beach beachfront properties as being in FP3 (Floodplain Overlay) as shown on maps titled Coastal Flood Plain Sunset Beach, sheets 2 through 4 attached at the end of the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study. FP3 is defined in both the County and City ordinances (see below). County Zoning Ordinance: • Sec. 7-9-113.3.-Application. • (a) Floodplain Districts: These Floodplain District("FP District")regulations apply per section 7-9-48,special flood hazards,those areas of the County which, under present conditions,are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards. (1) The FP-1 is intended to be applied to areas shown as"floodway"on the December 3,2009 or most current federal FIRMs and FBFMs and areas in which the County has determined that a floodway exists. (2) The FP-2 is intended to be applied to areas shown as"A," "Al"through"A30," "AO," "AE," "AH," "A99" and "M" on the December 3,2009 or most current federal and areas in which the County has determined to be a special flood hazard area. 3 ` i Item 21. - 36 HB -466- City Zoning Ordinance Section 222.04: B.Three subdistricts of the FP Overlay District are designated for purposes of flood hazard provisions. 1. -FP 1 Subdistrict shall apply to that area designated as a floodway or right-of-way necessary for implementation of the Santa Ana River Channel Plan by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. 2. -FP2 Subdistrict shall apply to FIRM areas A,AE,AO, and AH and any other area determined by the director to be subject to similar flood hazards. RAM "t That is how the "V" is determined. Section 3.3.8 of the City's SBSP references the following: 3AS Flood *lain___ ' 1 &n Beach Zw*19 OM ' _ . i_ Ana ay MWct Rag*li=,and *d Oranp Coasui PL*DoMq f as voo we tnoxpwaWd Wo Ow SuaW Beach Specific Plan am-1 sW, bo o f as deSonated It should be noted that the County's Coastal Floodplain Development Study (1985) also identifies in Section 5.2.a on page 39 the use of piles or caissons. Sot ]Ded .. me & ate _ .2. * JM#Jt�. a ds r pa" a m , ar 001660 VI-th A laivdxim File a 1*Af; 2 Lastly, here's an excerpt from FEMA's website: The coastal high hazard area is identified as Zone V on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). Special floodplain management requirements apply in V Zones including the requirement that all buildings be elevated on piles or columns. From: Karen Otis [mailto:karen(!3)otisarchitecture.coml Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:34 PM To: Ramos, Ricky Cc: Gates, Michael; 'MAGDY BASSALY; 'Mark A. Ross, Esq.' Subject: RE: FINAL RESPONSE: Sheet piles for VE zone construction? This is discussing intense wave action.....Why are we comparing Sunset Beach to: Coastal High Hazard Areas(Zones V,VE, and V1 -V30)......? 1413 -467- Item 21. - 37 From: Ramos, Ricky [mailto•rramosCa)surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:19 PM To: Karen Otis Cc: Domer, Ken; Gates, Michael; Hess, Scott; James, Jane; Kelley, Jason Subject: FW: FINAL RESPONSE: Sheet piles for VE zone construction? Hi Karen —We received the response below from FEMA. It confirms our conclusion in our last email to you that the proposed sheet pile design in lieu of standard piles would not comply. Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:10 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: FINAL RESPONSE: Sheet piles for VE zone construction? Coastal waves and flooding can exert strong hydrodynamic forces on any building element that is exposed to the waves or flow of water. Therefore,open, deep foundations(e.g., piles and columns)that offer minimal resistance to hydrodynamic loads and resist the effects of scour are required in Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zones V, VE, and V1 430). Solid foundations such as sheet pile walls will generally obstruct flow and be at risk of damage from high- velocity flood forces. In addition, solid foundations and other obstructions may cause wave runup or reflection, or divert floodwaters, into the elevated portion of the building or into adjacent buildings. For more information about free- of-obstruction requirements, please see FEMA NFIP Technical Bulletin 5, Free-of-Obstruction Requirements. For more information about open and solid foundation requirements, please see FEMA's Quick Reference Guide (FEMA, 2012). It illustrates some of the key similarities and differences between foundation types, lowest floor elevations, enclosures below elevated buildings, and utilities requirements contained within the NFIP and I-Codes for most residential and commercial buildings. FEMA Building Science has many publications for homeowners, design professionals, and builders that illustrate important concepts and best practices in accordance with building codes and standards for constructing and retrofitting stronger, safer buildings.The publications are downloadable for free on FEMA's Web site and are organized by hazard: http://www.fema.gov/building-science-publications.The publications relevant to your inquiry are linked below. • The FEMA NFIP Technical Bulletins, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/collections/4, contain relevant information about the NFIP. • FEMA NFIP Technical Bulletin 5, Free-of-Obstruction Requirements(2008), httpsiHwww.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3490, provides guidance on the NFIP regulations concerning obstructions to flood waters below elevated buildings and on building sites in Coastal High Hazard Areas (Zones V,VE, and V1430). • FEMA's Quick Reference Guide(FEMA, 2012) http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=5701, illustrates the similarities and highlights the differences between the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) minimum requirements and the requirements of the International Code Series(I-Codes) and ASCE 24, Flood Resistant Design and Construction (ASCE 24), a standard referenced by the I-Codes. • The FEMA Residential Coastal Construction resource website, http://www.fema.gov/residential-coastal- construction#4,contains links to FEMA coastal construction guidance publications. Free hard copies of FEMA Building Science's current publications may also be ordered by calling the FEMA Publication Warehouse at 1-800-480-2520, Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM(EST), by fax at 1-240-699-0525, or by emailing your request to FEMA-Publications-Warehouse@fema.dhs.gov. Please provide the title, publication number, and quantity of each publication, along with your name, address,zip code, and daytime telephone number. Item 21. - 38 HB -468- If you have additional questions pertaining to our guidance publications, please do not hesitate to contact the Building Science Helpline at FEMA-Buildingsciencehelp(cDfema.dhs.gov. H B -469- Item 21. - 39 ATTACHMENT #8 OfAsET Be Local Coastal Program (LCP) Advisory Board Sunset Beach, City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 746, Sunset Beach, CA 90742 March 8, 2016 Meeting In Attendance: Tim McCormack,Tony Nobles, Gail Brice, Carrol Wolf,Aurea Hoad Beach Front Foundations Developer has requested that Sunset Beach Specific Plan delete the requirement for pilings or caissons. The Sunset Beach LCP Advisory Board recognizes that there have been several technological advances in building materials, processes and techniques since the adoption of the current specific plan drafted and adopted in the mid 1980's.These technologies for pressure grouting and other soil and slab treatments may allow for an equal or better solution to the pilings or caissons currently required under the LCP. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the LCP Advisory Board that it does not object to, nor does it endorse the issuance of a variance for the use of such technology.We recommend that the City of Huntington Beach perform and analysis/review of the technology to be used to determine if the new materials and technologies are substantially equivalent or superior to current pilings and/or caissons required by the current specific plan.The Advisory Board recommends review and requests that the Sunset Beach LCP advisory Board have the opportunity to review the results and comment. Additionally, if such technology or material is dependent on any issues related to the soils or related ground condition in any way, the Sunset Beach LCP Advisory Board recommends that a soils report (to include deep soil exploration borings) and coastal issues in regards to storm surge, wave action, building flotation, lateral movement, liquefaction, etc be addressed on any request for the deletion of deep foundations be required and requests that the Sunset Beach LCP Advisory Board have the opportunity to review and comment. The depth of a soil's report can vary dramatically...not to mention the foundation designs for a specific location. Furthermore for coastal conditions, more in depth engineering should be provided and addressed by the engineer of record and the geotechnical report. As this could be a recurring concern for our committee, it would be helpful if those making the proposal would come to one of our meetings and educate us regarding the alternative that they are proposing. Item 21 . - 40 HB -470- ATTAC H M E N T #9 tat vs.Pile Foundations ra `� MMM �. . . . d $t l �JWE w9NO \ �r \ ON NOW nd fNEf t \ \ ty a ittg Jos � � �a 011 \ • •� • ® w •• Ille �: Y1tS! \thenti� a€ t3€,Xt r}t r tlffien ; uses are 1 t tsn'daiio ana,poa#OpnM Ma rla lon \ Via.€ t3fiVit t # "haM Nlp ni r fy p Yr 10 Awar /�2 \\ \ \ � � 4 .yy r�'` 6`i�\\t• •�� Tip 4'i� 3 \ _ � t HB -471- Item 21. - 41 to//mv whirlwinricteel r.nm/hlno/hirl/307994/Mnt-vc-Pile-Fnnndatinnsf5/11/2016 10 13 20 AMl lat vs.Pile Foundations Mv ` / \ 7-4 Ip \ ewatroK ea smart ; din ptr in urtif attd ppnrtive Z fO* d deeper mt € wnsare s r #ure M /F ' �1rtY.ATI BnL�kXpBftSiY� a ,F / ON, wi Or Off i ,Y� lie t r t 6\V S7tc'i1 1 $> E t f#h a lvtdet—J-4dj7dY t E1l3 ler tt 1# rldltLtr un �' #plrin 'y �\ ` v a y C�@ � teet� X reintpC �# z\ • • • .• in or Off DIES, k?CBlty� �� � �Weaker tr>3Or�A t�>�r€ flt;1 '��� #S xN tt Sc t#ltcftig Y[ i� t, kWYUi pfte any ilE'&tS#:#dt"toadlnQ n$ e1 q� l}�f t rjk a te zVII, ldatirtn Hower Oder tss u& \the � st>rth , #tie p� ust dtsplac s#grr3f ntly This r*ay {b v'4 fpr 60, e Nit 9 E>Xtersars In ea coun#�3� �1s fps�rE3 required which are►ntetcotlt cted by trey to ire or cotnpresston fr cesxrf 4 tE ast \ � �SIt>!BS pf�# Otfttd8f##7ft� / !� rlda#�anei nr ,rnd nortes77 . #ES {?1te Yh 11 a ` \ s pnar i`t:.'pn+pt t3 8 t tllt t0 & �"Tp8 POP', 11 as �11 a1 n# \ #11 41C $ a y aA0, e tluiidtn \ t' v� ba t "nii a 4 \\ ` \\ \ 011 ca asda�s aNVF b �J5prt3 fs1#k{ ry y` ' ` f �r� #dttB�M IT RX!(1 #thttSx rtt777 itt^JtIl 'i I�Ciltttt "> {E�Jt3$ r$1-N8i1� �_ � Lir nd prqlu tr that wilt �& \ \ y A t .•: l - 'rm21, Wf NO u NNDO ' INS �e Ir \ 'law z y Item 21. - 42 HB -472- to//mv whirlwin(kteel rom/hlno/hiri/307994/Mat-v¢-Pile-Fnimdationd5/11/7016 10 11 20 AM] ILE FOUNDATION-NEED AND FUNCTIONS-Civil Engineering Home Wednesday, May 11,2016 Home About Us Contact Us Privacy Policy L ! L HOW TO GUIDE CONCRETE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION GEOTECH El 11he Constructor CivifEnginsaing mome AdChoices ► Pile Foundation ► Foundation Desian ► Soil Tests ► Concrete Soil PILE FOUNDATION - NEED AND FUNCTIONS Pile foundation is required when the soil bearing capacity is not sufficient for the structure to withstand. This is due to the soil condition or the order of bottom layers, type of loads on foundations, conditions at site and operational conditions. Many factors prevent the selection of surface foundation as a Subscribe to Civil Engineering UI suitable foundation such as the nature of soil and intensity of and join 19 797 Civil Engineers. loads, we use the piles when the soil have low bearing HB -473- Item 21. - 43 ttn-Htheconctnwtnr_nrv/uentechnicnIXhiindationc/need-fiinctinnc-of-nile-fnnntlati on/I7R5J5/11/2016 10-20-5R AMI ILE FOUNDATION-NEED AND FUNCTIONS-Civil Engineering Home capacity or in building in water like bridges and dams A pile foundation consists of two components: Pile cap and single or group of piles. Piles transfers the loads from structures to the hard strata, rocks or soil with high bearing III I capacity. These are long and slender members whose length can be more than 15m. Piles can be made from concrete, wood or steel depending on Viz, the requirements. These piles are then driven, drilled or jacked into the ground and connected to pile caps. Pile foundation are classified based on material of pile construction, type of soil, and load transmitting characteristic of piles. AdChoices No. Construction Estimate ► Construction Excavation ► Concrete Foundation Piel The use of pile foundations as load carrying and load transferring systems has been for many years. Timber piles were used in early days, driven in to the ground by hand or holes were dug and filled with sand and stones. The use of steel pile started since 19th century and concrete piles since 20th century. With the change in technology and industrial revolution, many advance systems have been devloped for pile driving from the invention of steam and diesel pile driving machines. The use of pile foundations is increasing day by day due to non-availability of land for construction. Heavy multi-storyed building are being constructed, and load from these structures can not be directly transferred to ground due to low bearing capacity issue and stability issues of building during lateral load application. So, demand for use of pile foundations are Item 21. - 44 xB -474- ttn•//theenmtrnctor.oru/uentee.hnical/fnnndations/need-fnnetinns-of-nile.-fnimrlation/17R5/(5/11/2016 10.20-SR AM] ILE FOUNDATION-NEED AND FUNCTIONS-Civil Engineering Home increasing day by day. Due to this demand for piles, there have been many improvements in piles and pile driving technology and systems. Today there are many advanced techniques of pile installation. --- Building Materials HeavyDuty Sheet �� Building Technology Y Concrete Concrete Cracks Piling Concrete Durability Concrete Properties Low Cost UltraComposite Concrete Types Construction Alternative to PZ27 and PZ22 Steel Sheet Piling Construction Management Construction Project Crack Repai Foundation Engineering Geotechnical Engineerir How To Guide Material Testing Guide Mix Design Guide Non-Destructive Te s Pile Foundation Reinforcement Guide Repair/Protection Guide Special Concrete Structural Analysi Structural Design Structural Engineering Structures Surveying Tests on Concrete Work Proci Function of Pile Foundation: As other types of foundations, the purpose of pile foundations is: - To transmit the buildings loads to the foundations and the ground soil layers whether these loads vertical or inclined xs -475- Item 21. - 45 tin-//thecnnstractor.orn/ventechnical/fnnnclationc/need-fimction�-of-nile-fnimdation/1'7R5/f5/11/201(,10-20.59 AMI ILE FOUNDATION-NEED AND FUNCTIONS-Civil Engineering Home - To install loose cohesion less soil through displacement and vibration. - To control the settlements; which can be accompanied by surface foundations. - To increase the factor of safety for heavy loads buildings The selection of type of pile foundation is based on site investigation report. Site investigation report suggests the need of pile foundation, type of pile foundation to be used, depth of pile foundation to be provided. The cost analysis of various options for use of pile foundation should be carried out before selection of pile foundation types. Unless the ground condition is rocks, for heavy construction and multi-storied buildings, the b2ao inC1 capacity Of soil at shallow depth may not be satisfactory for the loads on the foundation. In such cases, pile foundation has to be provided. The number of piles in a pile groups required is calculate from the .p.il.eca..p.a.c.ity of single pile and the loads on the foundation. Piles are a convenient method of foundation for works over water, such as jetties or bridge piers. Custom Deck Contractor Design,permit,construction Call LA Decks For All Your Needs! Item 21. - 46 xB -476- ttn-//thennnstractor.oru/neotechnical/fnundatinns/need-fimctinns-nf-nile-fnnndntion/17R5/15/11/201 F 1020-SR AM] 'aisson Foundation-Types,Uses,Advantages and Disadvantages FORUMCIVIL ENGINEERS Caisson Foundation I Types, Uses, Advantages and Disadvantages of Caisson Foundation New 2016 Garage Plans Find and customize a Garage Plan perfect for you! 0 Caisson Foundation Caisson foundation is also known as pier foundation. Caisson is a cylinder or hollow box that is sunk into the ground to a specified depth by auguring a deep hole into the strata. The cylinder or box is then back filled with concrete, thus creating the foundation. This type of foundation is most often used when constructing bridge piers and other such foundations that will be beneath bodies of water since the caissons can be floated to the correct locations and then sunk in place using concrete. AdChoices AdChoices ► House Foundation No, Foundation Repair ► Pile Foundation ► Foundation Construction ► Concrete Foundation Pie i ► Slab Foundation i ® i Garage Contractors Enter Your Zip Code & HB -477- Item 21. - 47 rm 86vilenpineercf nim mm/eaicenn-fnnndatinn-tvnes-ncee-advantapes-dicadvantapes/r5/10/?.01(,R-52-4R AMl 'aisson Foundation-Types,Uses,Advantages and Disadvantages Connect To Local Contractors. Free Estimates! Caisson foundation Why To Use a Caisson Foundation This type of foundation will keep the soils underneath the building or structure from moving vertically. Since soil will settle over time, the building or structure on top of the soil will also settle. This can cause major structural damage. Since a caisson foundation is drilled into the earth and large concrete t filled cylinders are placed within the ground rather than on top, the settlement of the soil will not cause many difficulties for the building or structure. Read about shed foundation here. Advantages of Caisson Foundations There are many advantages to using a caisson foundation. Here is a list of the top advantages of a caisson foundations. AdChoices ► House Construction Cost ► Foundation of Building ► Sinking Foundation • It is easily adaptable to varying site conditions. This means that no matter where the structure is being constructed, caissons can be easily put in place. The hardest part of placing them is the drilling of the holes. • High axial and lateral load capacity for these foundations. The weight of the structure can be easily held by the piers and is very sturdy. • They are very economical. The cost to drill and install the caissons is minimal when compared to the cost to lay a traditional foundation. • Piers minimize the need for pile caps. Because the piers are filled with concrete, pile caps are really not necessary. • The caisson foundation will reduce vibrations and has slightly less noise. Since the foundation is based on piers, there are less vibrations that will upset the structure. Item 21. - 48 HB -478- ttn-//civile.nuineersfnmm rnm/caisann-fnnndatinn-ivnec-aces-advantaues-disadvantanes/f5/10/2(11Fi 9•52-49 AMl 'aisson Foundation-Types,Uses,Advantages and Disadvantages Disadvantages of Caisson Foundations While a caisson foundation sounds ideal, there are also many downfalls to using this type of foundation rather than the traditional foundation. Here is a list of the top disadvantages of caisson foundations. • There is a lack of expertise of these types of foundations. Construction managers and crews are not as familiar with the procedures and protocols related to caissons. • Piers cannot be placed on contaminated sites. Due to the amount of drilling required to place the caissons and pour the concrete, they cannot be placed in an area where the soil has been contaminated and risk further contamination throughout the site. • The construction procedures for placing caissons is very sensitive. This is why there are not many construction managers who are willing to work on a job requiring caissons to be placed. • There is a major lack of inspectors who are qualified to inspect the construction of caisson foundations to ensure that they are safe and secure. Types of Caissons • Box caissons are watertight boxes that are constructed of heavy timbers and open at the top. They are generally floated to the appropriate location and then sunk into place with a masonry pier within it. • Excavated caissons are just as the name suggests, caissons that are placed within an excavated site. These are usually cylindrical in shape and then back filled with concrete. • Floating caissons are also known as floating docks and are prefabricated boxes that have cylindrical cavities. • Open caissons are small cofferdams that are placed and then pumped dry and filled with concrete. These are generally used in the formation of a pier. • Pneumatic caissons are large watertight boxes or cylinders that are mainly used for under water construction. ' I Garage Contractors Enter Your Zip Code & Connect To Local Contractors. Free Estimates! HB _479_ Item 21. - 49 Itn-//civile.nuineersfnmm cnm/emissnn-fnnndation-tvnec-ncec-advantauec-dicadvantaues/f5/10/7010 R-57-4R AM] CHAPTER 10 MAT FOUNDATIONS 10-1 INTRODUCTION A mat foundation is a large concrete slab used to interface one column, or more than one col- umn in several lines, with the base soil. It may encompass the entire foundation area or only a portion. A mat may be used to support on-grade storage tanks or several pieces of indus- trial equipment. Mats are commonly used beneath silo clusters, chimneys, and various tower structures. It becomes a matter of definition as to when the dimensions of a spread footing make the transition into being called a mat. Figure 10-1 illustrates several mat configurations as might be used for buildings. Those shown encompass the entire building plan, but this is not a requirement. A mat foundation may be used where the base soil has a low bearing capacity and/or the column loads are so large that more than 50 percent of the area is covered by conventional spread footings. It is common to use mat foundations for deep basements both to spread the column loads to a more uniform pressure distribution and to provide the floor slab for the basement. A particular advantage for basements at or below the GWT is to provide a water barrier. Depending on local costs, and noting that a mat foundation requires both positive and negative reinforcing steel, one may find it more economical to use spread footings—even if the entire area is covered. Spread footings avoid the use of negative reinforcing steel and can be accomplished as in Fig. 10-2 by pouring alternate footings, to avoid formwork, and using fiber spacer boards to separate the footings poured later. Mat foundations may be supported by piles in situations such as high groundwater (to control buoyancy) or where the base soil is susceptible to large settlements. We should note that the mat contact stresses will penetrate the ground to a greater depth or have greater relative intensity at a shallower depth (refer to Figs.5-4 and 5-9). Both factors tend to increase settlements unless there is a stress compensation from excavated soil so that the net increase •� �ressure is controlled. Item 21. - 50 HB -480- 537 538 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A-A B-B C-C A ■ ■ ■ ■ A B W Ai, �� B tr r-1■r--!■r=!■�-�■ �C _ _ _J L ■ ■ ■ ■ �! �i, Ilk, 1�7 l ►.-J'L-J■L-.J■L-J■ (a) (b) �(�) D-D Basement E-E D Ll N un L1 E ■ 4 I 1 ! { 14 Y -^� � � ■ L--.I L.--..J L..-J r -t r -i r---i r- i I 1 1 f l ! 1 f ■ ■ ■ ■ L--d L-�J 4y.._J �..-J Figure 10.1 Common types of mat foundations. (a)Flat plate; (b)plate thickened under columns; (c) waffle- slab;(d)plate with pedestals; (e)basement walls as part of mat. Possible fiberboard spacer boards between spread footings i El ❑ 1 ❑ Col. i Col. , CYaI. Figure 10-2 Mat versus possible use of spread footings to save ❑ � � E � ❑ labor, forming costs, and negative reinforcing steel. 10-2 TYPES OF MAT FOUNDATIONS Figure 10-1 illustrates several possible mat-foundation configurations. Probably the most common mat design consists of a flat concrete slab 0.75 to 2 m thick and with continuous two-way reinforcing top and bottom. This type of foundation tends to be heavily overde- sgned for three major reasons: 1. Additional cost of analysis methods, which are, however, not exact. 2. The extra cost of a reasonable overdesign of this element of the structure will generally be quite small relative to total project cost.. 3. The extra margin of safety provided for the modest additional cost. I1B -481- Item 21. - 51 Kan or 1Y1a1 roumat2onz;I i nc t unstrwrion t,iwn Y--1 f- HOME, DISCLAIMER PRIVACY POLICY 1 u THE CONSTRUCTION CIVIL "The Ultianate Construction Ptartal" f Ruildings AdChoices AdChoices ■ Floor Mat 1 Raft Raft ►_Slab Floor ■ Concrete l f'L.„;��r..aF Fouirld ation Design Raft or Mat Foundations House Foundation t Concrete Slab.-Design Posted in iaawki=t Raft Qr ]Vat Categories Foundations TriLock Articulated Block Bricks In case of soils hawing low hearing capacity-, tfilockblock.corn CJ Caissons heavy structural loads are usually Articulated Concrete Block Matrix Interlocking y 4� Cement supported by providing r�,lft car mat Block Slope Protection I`t Concrete _foundations. Also if the structure is Flooring vulnerable to subsidence on being located Basement Waterproofing - in mining area or due to uncertain - - Foundations behaviour of its sub-soil water condition, Driveway Cost Estimates - ' s Ilow to-DIY raft or mat foundations should be -_ Lime preferred. Raft or Mat Foundations Deign A Deck Masonry provides an economical solution to difficult .� Otherssite conditions,where pile foundationcannot be used advantageously and independent column ! footing becomes impracticable. Pile Foundations Sand Raft or mat foundations consists of thick reinforced concrete slab covering the entire area of Shoring the bottom of the structure like a floor.The slab is reinforced with bars running at right angles like Page In Liked rh snare to each other both near bottom and top face of the slab.Sometimes it is necessary to carry the gulls excessive column load by an arrangement of inverted main beams and secondary beams, cast Stone monolithically with the raft slab. You like this8e the first of your friends to like this Termite Trealment Underpinning .......... n_Ant;__,lf ZfJAV1AI A O,AK,14 A►91 L rc811 ur Mat POUnnP1nUM i 11C LUTISIRR'nfin t-cvn n,arwi e4.x,er.�.rx.,..,fc4pxia! �,� Recent Pc)sts � Concrete Shrinkage—Shrinkage of Concrete 1.f C _ ""° Slump Cone Test and its Advantages— _� Limitations Concrete Bleeding—Bleeding of Concrete Concrete Segregation—Segregation of Conere le rlari. Js+x 1!3- Storage o1 C.'.eme nt Raft Foundation Test for Freshness of Cement Method of C'.onstructiom Hydration of Cement&Evolution of Heat How to Patch Scratches Lr Small Holes in The raft slab generally projects for a distance of 30 cm. to 45cm. on all the sides of the outer Hardwood Flooring walls of the structure as such the area of excavation is slightly more than the area of the Ilow to Remove Stains in Hardwood Floors structure itself.The excavation is made to the required depth and the entire excavated area is How to Clean and Renew Hardwood Floors Cd well consolidated.This surface,when dry,provides the base upon which the raft or mat slab is laid. All the precautions that are necessary to be observed during the reinforced concrete Nr'a th Dakota Cone Test �rcc istr cLi=are strictly adhered to and further construction is started only after the curing of California Bearing Ratio(CBR)Test on Soils the raft has been fully done. Vane Test Procedure—Shear Strength of Soils Unconfined Compression Test of Soils Procedure Tagged As:r aQfinffti, t atildgrion Triaxial Compression Test of Soils Procedure. Related Posts Shear Box Test of Soils—Procedure • Deep Foundations Plastic Limit Test of Soil • Foundation Concrete Liquid Limit Test of Soil • Excavation of Foundation in Water I.ogud Sites Consolidation Test of Sail—Confined • Setting out of Foundations Compression Test • Machine foundation Consistency or Liquidity Index of Soil Shrinkage Limit of Soil Plasticity,-Index of Soil Plastic Limit of Soil Liquid Limit of Soil Plasticitv ofsoils .r Tags 1.aa..fi,,.,.....a1.s���..r.-..•.r:.,..-:..:I f...A n..«+.r n.....A...r.,.,..r Vf clffl/^VA IA CA C.14 ..1 ATTACHMENT # 10 ® City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Office of the City Clerk /7,1909 r Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Date: June 1, 2016 To: Community Development Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Chair and Planning Commission Public-Works Department Filed by: Councilmember Erik Peterson Re: APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN(SBSP) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: n/a Completed by: Gloria Harper, Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand Item 21 . - 54 HB -484- RE V.F�a To: Scott Hess, Director of Community Develo - I pr'i 3 From: Erik Peterson, City Councilman ;;I T 1' C L Date: Thursday May 26 _`.2016 11 pC I Y o P Subject: DENIAL OF APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SBSP) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's May 24th, 2016 denial of APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SBSP). APPLICANT. Otis Architecture, Karen Otis, 909 Electric Avenue, Suite 207, Seal Beach, CA 90740 PROPERTY OWNER: Magdy Basally, 7515 Oaktree Avenue., Westminster, CA 92863 LOCATION: 16471 and 16475 S. Pacific Ave., 90742 (south side an 23rd St. in Sunset Beach) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: 1. Due to conflicts in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, FEMA Flood Zoning and Sunset Beach LCR Erik Peterson City Councilman Karen Otis Applicant H -485- Item 21. - 55 i ATTACHMENT # 11 '�, o� • �►ol . Liw ��� r 1 7� E• - t!ry� 7t5 . f'�^ PAI, FiCx' NUN)7NmtdN 'C; BL & ' QfQT 1 i � a M 1 Ir f��Y ee �•�.•}'!(1J�� tF( '• I., � yy dI { t. { rd }^, y <r 9ti a ft �7 * •rr.°-''tn 4 .a '-r u, �i.^,}i Trt', .9 ` ,—s`�`"`^' 19ii11 too AYX 5 '"r... $f•, ih° 1ri°U•. ,, r�.• -•{;k r fw .; G •, a`T•. i.`L1:Lka_LJ 3� �C F �T M n Id In r go �,J .'." ' I:r {•�.r ,S Ift. ••i' 1 ! i i d .r ! ° t:'•�` .•1,1�f•.r r.•A'.;rr,yfl•t1. Ir :ti a t'..=i�� dt ;i=h�• , �•E S6rt i,y, 15 1,�. i.! (.:':��}. `Ir � ss;; rr1 ti° '+, �ri;ey�}}a ii'� <:Srw✓a°°R t1"lS•.� r,?i.c r�r .r� qq •{}i�?':r�.,. ..� € 55°7;,�.•d}{ ;kS{�:;•v I a h i:;.,::.,,>,1=r.qq{}{I fi ;,.:<r ro°Y,ti.,.r ti:°f�,.r/i, �t }} �7° � r ,..d. r �� ! e.? f ;hltr. f..9i •'i E: .flr.7.r,r ! '� �!fli.r.. S rl.i f 9 rr ,.�. ( ss 1'� r�{pt� E' r,� �+ f� ��f� � ;��,�}' � 1 i ,��,� +��c;r. a 1 •� }hf�r. ,,1 S r £ !7 1.. :C •A 1 s. ti „ Mir 71 PAGIFI -., .r� -�r r, e •+d` ;r '� W� N P1NercN �r�'a.ct1 + p I FP �, rx.,,i'•+wF+•, 5• W :7...:1+ - .+,=,.r rr.r �-r )d r •'tl, , Y � �w yy. '{ rx^. � � � � �. + ," r�t°;sr t ,i•j tr.`. ° tk k '�,:r7.:C ,ri°�rt,,,� �}��r .4 � - r ,-� 1 r �1h•�} t,1 �{,�l,r{9S3�°Id ,t'1117 1f F i 1�51+.°1 I�ii°l�{'�,i P��'l+,ay�flr� ' ,�, a, 'r, °ii• t,1 ° .r° +,+, �� d,y ;'°r:{�}.:} ,��� •f �. •,'•' f, ti,.'i f3�i'I s,rr.�q r f•,� J7�;71;. .� `s.Er i�f r - tt� :{°i�.,!{ d;yt+d�;�� �ir !]� �� � �a`}s k�j�rs� � J��`ir rr c,.r, iis� .��h i�,• ,i,. �, is .�s' f�;, :9 `�, �• WIN` �- . J�.• r 4 .,: •r - .. ., � _ J �4"Is-'--ii," ai++fa;woY'Ye ppe.Tie1.I fta.;.NwIKR Y►1a1 ins+ .. 5 _ Q�P� ` ( B �g wr ww .._.Y�r. errltker le tlra 9r-i. ewer r■r.k.i..'Arigekl.:bl:41Y+ c,1.!.fin. Slle'rP 1:'llrtr'+'e9rill 1e iet"' �„A Y,�!'LJi.. �..1 �V��T P . .{k► IeafM.t/ PINT .r Yrrs xr+Yik:dw ire.Ysleralgil:fiairr.'..et Cen ii re ► Abs rr•3 Fw•nir ��44��••'''*� �] `/i�R'.- • : I•Au{�A6kir 41 the kpiew4 10-1,114e1114 4WOU'l.rrirl toy kl.as brci trab OtfrJF 1rT1b kweta �_ �Ntlia.4 .i}7 Ar l'1V SBR urr�e4: ®avPf Fia Icl iHdl, =,r Sule4ol 3a t B irt�} mall y o QAI;G"ak Q 61 P r a p ra m +a� ! V07HCOAST PLANN ING UNIT SeT Su11' I Ot vs LOCAL.COASTAL PROGRAM - •. �:ikWn¢IIF+PXF1�►N.NM.fI�IFIxN1.Y':.. -..fYOWyW tiM1Nat+f. ATTACHMENT # 12 Ramos, Ricky From: De Coite, Kim Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:46 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Surf City Pipeline:You have been assigned a new Request#: 26231 Please see the submitted public comment below. Kimberly De Coite Administrative Assistant Department of Community Development 714-536-5276 kdecoite@surfci hb.orq From: Surf City Pipeline [mailto:noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 3:37 PM To: De Coite, Kim Subject: Surf City Pipeline: You have been assigned a new Request #: 26231 Request# 26231 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you. Request type: Continent Request area: Planning Commissioners Citizen name: Mike Ferguson Description: I've taken a casual public interest in item B-1: APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN, and want to copy the Planning Commission the following comment that I submitted to the SBCA: I've taken some interest in the Sunset Beach shoreline defense engineering. Please forward this email to the Sunset Beach, (City of Huntington Beach), Local Coastal Program(LCP) Advisory Board, or others who might be interested. Thank you. Re: Huntington Beach Planning Application No_2016-065,Bassaly Homes, 16475/16467/16471 South Pacific Av, Sunset Beach, C2015-004827, C2015- 004828.en-d Subject: Re: Huntington Beach Planning Application No. 2016-065,Bassaly Homes, 16475/16467/16471 South Pacific Av, Sunset Beach, C2015-004827, C2015-004828 From: Mike Ferguson<mikefergusonQdslextreme.com> Date: 5/22/201611:39 AM To: karen(a,otisarchitecture.com I read some of the staff report. My distant impression is that I care less about the details than the high points. I'm'doubtless wrong on some technical points, but won't let that discourage this comment. HB -487- Item 21. - 57 1 There might be an implicit Congressional obligation to fund timely beach replenishment on the premise that the Anaheim Bay protective jetties created or exacerbated beach erosion. Whether due to forbidding weather or want of political will,that timely replenishment is in doubt. The local public policy compensation is to demand more formidable foundations. The question of entitlement is a legal one. I find your historical arguments about misleading executive enforcement less persuasive than they might be if the detailed description of your compliance efforts were broomed to instead focus on the legal facts supporting entitlement. It's a tactic of making a more compelling legal argument by greater brevity. It's also fair warning of what executive actions might be judicially reviewed That's as much a courtesy to the judiciary as the executive, since overwhelmed courts encourage parties to settle pre-trial, e.g.,to ease the workload. Executive misrepresentations might carry some weight as a matter of fairness, or equity, but I'd prefer to rely on the ex post facto basis of entitlement, because I reckon the court would be justified in ordering an eminent domain proceeding for the taking, and that would, at least, afford an opportunity for compensation, e.g., based on a theory of detrimental reliance. I suspect that the details of misplaced reliance on executive representations would carry more weight in that sort of proceeding. If I imagine myself in the position of a responsible, supervising executive, I have to consider and manage exposure to judicial review, regardless of how development might be permitted. That exposure is present for both restrictive and permissive development policy. Beyond that, I should consider the comparative cost of an alternative solution, particularly if it might be economically superior. At this stage, I lack estimates to justify an alternative public policy approach, e.g., installing a fail-safe barrier of rock under sand replenishment. If credible engineering and estimates support a superior public policy, then I might be more disposed to ease foundation requirements because the coastal defense would be shifted from the housing foundation further offshore, as I suspect would be more sensible,if not more economical, e.g., from a cynical public financing estimate. Mike Ferguson wrote: >After some unfortunate experience, I've taken greater interest in HB city government, so I review some public proceedings. Beyond that, I suppose that my personal history explains my interest in your planning appeal request dated March 9, 2016. This will share some of my thoughts. > If your technical argument for an entitlement is sound, you might consider Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition,LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, 191 Cal. App. 4th 435. While legal leverage is an important consideration, other human factors are perhaps more effective. For example, if you can advance a sufficiently compelling case administratively, the end result might be preferable. > Considering the public policy preference of caissons over mat, the preference presupposes the failure of shoreline defense, i.e., the barrier sand replenishment program. I wonder if commitment to that program is in doubt, or more cynically, if the policy might be calculated to rationalize the financing. It seems to me that caissons are poorly calculated to defend shoreline housing. At best,they might buy a bit more time Item 21. - 58 over mat, before failure by HB -488-nining scouring of wave action. The publicity of 2 spectacular housing failures might induce Congress to appropriate for beach replenishment, but not before housing with lower tax assessments was effectively demolished. >For my money, from the view of a homeowner and taxpayer, I think the better value might hem' a boulder barrier under a sand barrier. The jetties guarding Anaheim Bay seem to require little maintenance investment. I recall the shoreline defense of houses fronting the Banzai Pipeline on the north shore of Oahu, certainly a more challenging case. The coral holds enough sand to raise the bottom and force wave action to break and dissipate before it undermines shoreline housing foundations. Slender elevation stilts mitigate flood damage for simple wood houses. A boulder barrier would mimic the dispersive action of coral, and offer shoreline housing a fail-safe defense if timely beach replenishment fails. I envision a boulder barrier relatively near the housing, ordinarily covered with sand, such that when sand erosion reveals the barrier, it serves to remind authorities that beach replenishment is needed. >Failing public financing, shoreline property owners might be induced to contribute to a public/private initiative, as they generally did for the Bayview Drive island bulkhead replacement. At least; some cost analysis might be interesting. Expected Close )Date: June 1, 2016 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. HB -489- Item 21. - 59 ATTACHMENT # 13 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN . THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND SUNSET BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation.of the State of California ("CITY") and SUNSET BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a California non- profit-public benefit corporation("SBCA"),by and through its officers and directors. . RECITALS This MOU is made with reference to the following facts: 1. Pursuant to action taken by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County ("LAFCO"), unincorporated land within the County of Orange ("COUNTY") north of the CITY limits, known as Sunset Beach, is proposed to be annexed to the CITY (the "Annexation"), pending submission by CITY of an annexation application and LAFCO proceedings taken thereon_ The Annexation area, including its residents, property owners and business owners, shall be known as the "Sunset Beach Community;" and 2. CITY and LAFCO propose to conduct the Annexation pursuant to Government Code §56375.3 (the "island annexation" provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code §§56000 et seq.) without a vote or the right of protest by the citizens of the Sunset Beach Community; and 3. CITY has met with representatives of SBCA to discuss the terms under which the Annexation will take place, including certain terms of a proposed Sunset Beach Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), and to address concerns of the Sunset Beach Community regarding the Annexation; and 4. CITY and SBCA recognize and agree that there are differences between the CITY and the Annexation area, including historic Sunset Beach Community identity and character, and geographical differences which arise from the fact that the Sunset Beach Community has developed and exists on and immediately adjacent to the beach, while the CITY has developed across from and separated by the Pacific Coast Highway, which distinguish the Sunset Beach Community from the CITY, and which should be encouraged and perpetuated; and 5. CITY and SBCA desire to enter into this MOU agreement to clarify the future respective obligations of CITY and SBCA during and following the Annexation process, such that the goals of the parties will be attained. NOW,THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and covenants hereinafter set forth and intending to be legally bound thereby, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 54722 i Item 21. - 60 1413 -490- AGREEMENT I. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES A. CITY Obligations 1. Sunset Beach Identity. CITY shall maintain the identity.of the Sunset Beach Community by using the name "Sunset Beach" on prominently positioned signage at the Sunset Beach entryways,mapping, public documents, the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, and in the Local Coastal Program ("LCP") Land Use Plan for Sunset Beach. Any existing signage will remain substantially as it is at the time of Annexation and shall be maintained by the CITY following the Annexation; and any future monument signage at community entryways will clearly identify the area as Sunset Beach. 2. Addresses and Mail Delivery. Except as set forth below, CITY shall maintain all current street names and addresses in the Sunset Beach Community, and CITY shall actively support the retention of the Sunset Beach zip code and postal delivery and designation for Sunset Beach in place prior to the Annexation. 3. Recognition of Legal Non-Conforming Structures and Uses. CITY shall recognize and approve existing legal non-conforming structures and uses in the Sunset Beach Community, which were permitted and approved by the COUNTY prior to. the Annexation. Such uses may be altered, expanded and reconstructed pursuant to the City of Huntington Beach Sunset Beach Specific Plan. 4. 1990 Local Coastal Proaam ("LCP") Specific Plan Goals, Policies and Standards. Except as set forth below, the CITY shall adopt and maintain the goals, policies and standards of the existing 1990 Sunset Beach Local Coastal Program Specific Plan (the "LCP") for the Sunset Beach Community, as modified with changes discussed and mutually approved in writing by the CITY and the SBCA Transition Committee prior to the submission of CITY's Annexation application to LAFCO. 5. Sunset Beach LCP Sunset Beach Specific Plan and Municipal Code Amendment. CITY agrees, within thirty (30) days following submission of CITY's Annexation application to LAFCO, to initiate the following actions, which shall be completed within.a reasonable time but not later than one hundred and eighty(180)days following completion of the Annexation: a_ LCP Advisory Board. Amendment of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code ("Municipal Code") to retain the Sunset Beach LCP Advisory Board ("Advisory Board"). and associated duties. The Advisory Board shall consist of Sunset Beach business owners, property owners arid/or residents. b. Greenbelt/Parking Area. Amendment of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan and LCP to provide for retention of the public land use designation for the greenbelt/parking area in the configuration and as it exists on the effective date of this MOU, and -2- 54722 � F o� HB -491- Item 21 . - 61 a identification of the area as an open space feature for use consistent with that in effect at the time of Annexation, in the CITY's General Plan Recreation and Community Services Elements, -the Municipal Code and the LCP Land Use Plan designation of green space, tot lots, and walking paths. C. Waterway and Beach Encroachments. Amendment of the . Municipal Code as appropriate to recognize the LCP regulations for encroachments for waterways and the beach. d. Sunset Beach Parking. Amendment .of the Municipal Code to adopt and enforce a parking and parking permit policy for Sunset Beach, in substantially the same form and content as the existing COUNTY regulations, including provisions for signage, permits and regulations for parking in the right of way in front of garages. The parking permit fees shall remain at the same level as they are on the effective date of this MOU, for a period of at least five(5) years. e. Business Regulations. Amendment of the Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment of marijuana dispensary related businesses, methadone related businesses, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation related businesses in Sunset Beach_ f Priority Use of Sunset Beach GreenbeltJLinear Park Facilities. CITY shall adopt regulations which give preference in the use of Sunset Beach Greenbelt/Linear Park facilities to the activities of Established Sunset Beach Non-Profit Groups, including, but not limited to, SBCA, Las Damas and the Sunset Beach Women's Club. Permits for use may be required, but any municipal fees for such use shall be waived for Established Sunset Beach Non- Profit Groups. For purposes of this MOU, "Established Sunset Beach Non-Profit Groups" shall be'limited to those non-profit associations or groups that have, as of the effective date of this MOU, designated Sunset Beach as their principal place of business or organization. g. Beach Hours and Use. CITY agrees to maintain Sunset Beach hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven(7) days a week; restricted use similar to that in effect for Sunset Beach at the time-of Annexation, and parking in the Warner public parking lot hours of 7:00 a-m. to 10:00 p.m., seven(7) days a week. h. Short Term Rentals. CITY shall allow short term rentals in the Sunset Beach Community subject to a conditional use permit and coastal development permit as applicable_ 6. LAFCO Annexation Proceedings and Conditions of Annexation. CITY shall, pursuant to the Annexation Agreement between CITY and.COUNTY, confirm that the Pacific Coast Highway Southern California Edison ("Edison") Rule 20A Underground Utilities funds will remain under COUNTY jurisdiction, and that COUNTY shall fund and implement the engineering study for the Bayview/Park Avenue Underground Utilities Plan. 7. Completion of Road Work Initiated By COUNTY Prior to Annexation. CITY shall, in the Annexation Agreement between CITY and COUNTY, confirm that street and -3- 54722 Item 21. - 62 HB -492- alley repaving projects in the Sunset Beach Community, currently designated and funded by the COUNTY through its Capital'Improvement Program are timely completed by COUNTY. 8. Fire Station No. 3_ -CITY agrees should the Fire Station in the future come under CITY ownership and/or control preference in use of the Fire Station shall be given to Sunset Beach Community groups, activities and residents in according to the rules and regulations recommended by the SBCA for adoption by the CITY. 9: Beach Programs. Recognizing the direct intrusion and invasion of privacy such programs create to the residents of Sunset Beach, CITY agrees not to Permit junior lifeguard, surf camp or similar beach programs on Sunset Beach, and shall not extend or enter into an new agreement for any existing Junior Lifeguard Program on Sunset Beach. 10. Prioritization of Sunset Beach Capital Projects and Improvements. CITY shall, with the assistance of the SBCA, prioritize a listing of Sunset Beach Community capital projects, as part of CITY's Capital Improvement-Program. CITY shall also actively pursue grant funding opportunities for bridge repair and drainage improvements, such as repair of the Broadway Bridge and resolution of flooding problems on Park/PCH, Bayview Drive, 14`h Street and 15"' Street, planting of the medians along the Pacific Coast Highway through Sunset Beach, and other capital improvement needs as determined and recommended by the SBCA_ 11. CITY Committee_ CITY shall formalize and maintain in effect the Sunset Beach Area Council Commission ("SBACC") as a standing committee of the City Council to meet regularly with the SBCA and the Sunset Beach Community to discuss issues affecting Sunset Beach, including,but not limited to,the following: a. Any proposed changes to Sunset Beach Community identity signage, street names,postal designation or addresses; b. Any proposed zone change or amendment to the CITY's General Plan and Municipal Code affecting Sunset Beach, the Sunset Beach Specific Plan or the LCP for Sunset Beach; C. On an annual basis, make recommendations to the City Council for prioritization and fining of capital projects to benefit the Sunset Beach Community, and d. Any proposed change in municipal services to the Sunset Beach Community, including, without limitation, Iocal sewer service, cable service, and solid waste hauling service. The meetings of the SBACC shall be subject to the provisions of the Brown Act (Government Code §§54950 et seq.). 12_ Annexation/Acquisition of Sunset Beach Sanitary District CITY" agrees to recognize the Sunset Beach.Sanitary District as the local sewer provider for the Sunset Beach -4- 54722 ,F HB -493- Item 21 . - 63 Community, and that for a period of at least fifty (50) years CITY shall not initiate annexation and/or acquisition of the Sunset Beach Sanitary District, unless agreed to by the parties. B. SBCA Obligations 1. SBCA shall, through its officers and.directors, offer support to the CITY at any LAFCO proceedings in furtherance of the Annexation. 2. SBCA shall, through its officers and directors, be included in the CITY's negotiations with the COUNTY, the California Coastal Commission and the LAFCO,in support of implementation of the terms of this Agreement. 3. SBCA shall, through its officers and directors, assist CITY with the facilitation of a smooth transition during the Annexation process. 4. To the extent CITY is in compliance with all terms and conditions of this MOU, SBCA will-not initiate, promote, or assist with any litigation against the LAFCO or the CITY challenging the validity of the Annexation. 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Assienment. Neither party shall encumber, assign, or otherwise transfer this MOU, or any right or interest in this MOU, without the express written consent of the other party. A consent by a party to one assignment or transfer to another person shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment or transfer to another person. Any encumbrance, assignment or transfer without the prior written consent of the other party, whether it be voluntary or involuntary,by operation of law or otherwise, is void and shall, at the option of the other party, terminate this MOU. B. Successors and Assigns. All the terms, covenants and conditions of this MOU shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns. The terms, covenants and conditions of this MOU shall be binding on the officers and directors of SBCA in the performance of their corporate duties, and not as individuals. The provisions of this Section shall not be deemed as a waiver of any of the conditions against .assignment hereinbefore set forth. C. Conflict of Interest. SBCA shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY_ employee in the work to be performed pursuant to this MOU. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any.financial interest in this MOU in,violation of any applicable provisions of State Law, including particularly the Political Reform Act.(Government Code §§87000 et seq.; and 2 Cal. Code of Regs. §§18700 et seq.). D. Cumulative_Remedies. The remedies given to the parties in this MOU shall not be exclusive, but shall be cumulative and in addition to all remedies now or hereafter allowed.by law or elsewhere provided in this MOU. -5 54722 Item 21. - 64, 1-lB -494- E. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by one party of any breach by the other party of any of the provisions of this MOU, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not constitute a waiver of such breach or a waiver of any subsequent breach either of the.same or another provision of this MOU. F. Force Maieure — Unavoidable Delay. Should the performance of any act required by this MOU to be performed by either CITY or SBCA be prevented or delayed by reason of an act of God, strike, lockout, labor dispute, inability to secure materials, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or any other cause(except.financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance shall be extended, but not released, for an equivalent term of the unavoidable delay. G. Ability to Perform- Each party represents and warrants to the other party that it has the ability to carry out the obligations assumed and promised hereunder, and is not presently aware of any pending event or legal constraint which would, or could, hamper, hinder, delay or prevent its timely performance of such obligations. H_ Further Acts and Amendments. Each party to this MOU agrees to perform all further acts and execute all further documents necessary to carry out the intent and purposes of this MOU. I. Notice_ Any written notice given under the terms of this MOU shall be either delivered personally or mailed certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party concerned, as follows: CITY: SBCA: City of Huntington Beach Sunset Beach Community Association 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 215 P.O. Box 190 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 ,' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 If a party desires to change the address for notice set forth herein, said party will provide 30 days' advance written notice to the other party of any such change. J. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation to enforce-the terms and provisions of this MOU, each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees, and the prevailing party shall not be entitled to an award of attorneys'fees against the non-prevailing party unless the court determines as a matter of law that the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 or other equitable benefit attorneys'fees provision. K. Controlling Law and Venue. The rights and liabilities of the parties, and the interpretation and construction of this MOU, shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any controversy arising out of or under this MOU, if litigated, shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in Orange County,California. -6- 54722 � � 6 HB -495- Item 21 . - 65 r _ L. Section Headings. The captions, subject, section and paragraph headings in the MOU are included for convenience and reference only. They do not form a part hereof, and do not in any way modify,interpret or reflect the intent of the parties. Said headings shall not be used to construe, limit or interpret any provision of this MOU. M. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all provisions of this MOU in which a definite time for performance is specified, including,but not limited to,the expiration of this MOU. N. Non-Liability of City Officials, Employees and Agents. No elective or appointed CITY or CITY affiliated board,commission or member thereof,or officer,.employee or agent of CITY shall be personally liable to SBCA, its successors and assigns,for any default or breach by CITY under this MOU, or for any amount which may become due to SBCA, its successors and assigns,under this MOU or for any obligation of CITY under this MOU. O. Non-Liability of SBCA Officers or Directors. No officer or director of SBCA shall be personally liable to the CITY,its successors and assigns, for any default or breach by SBCA under this MOU, or for any amount which may become due to CITY, its successors and assigns, under this MOU,or for any obligation of SBCA under this MOU. P. Entire Agreement. This MOU contains and embraces the entire agreement between the parties hereto and neither it nor any part of it maybe changed, altered, modified, limited or extended orally or by any other agreement between the parties unless such agreement be expressed in writing, signed and acknowledged by CITY and SBCA or their successors in interest. Q. Severability. Each provision of this MOU is separate, distinct,and severable from the others. If any provision is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect, unimpaired by the holding, so long as the reasonable expectations of the parties hereto are not materially impaired. R_ Counterparts, This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed one and the same instrument. S. Effective Date_ The effective date of this MOU is the last date upon which it is executed by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this MOU to be executed by and through their authorized representatives,on JS,2010. -7- 54722 Item 21. - 66 E HB -496- r- SUNSET BEACH COMMUNITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ASSOCIATION, a California.nonprofit California municipal corporation public benefit corporation By: By: President Cath Gr n ,Mayor By: Secretary/CFO an L_ F1 nn , i Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: lenni fer Mc Grath ,City ttome INITI TED REVIEWED AND APPROVED: D , City Administrator Fred Wilson The foregoing Instrument is a comsat coW of the minaj on-file in this offb& Attest '�.` y 0111 20_d_ City Clerk and Ex-off icia Cleric of the C" Council of ti?_ City of Huntington B Nm*9 Caid -8- �y poly ,� � � ac HB -497- Item 21. - 67 ATTACHMENT # 14 PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN COUNTY OF ORANGE AND, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THIS PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), is entered into by and among the COUNTY OF ORANGE ("County"), and the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ("City") (collectively referred to as the"Parties" herein). I: RECITALS OF PREMISES,PURPOSE AND INTENT - 1.1 Background 1.1.1 On July 8, 2009, the ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ("LAFCO") approved the update of Huntington Beach's Sphere of Influence to include the unincorporated area of Sunset Beach. The community is substantially surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach to the north, east, and south. It is bordered predominately by the Pacific Ocean to the west_ 1.1.2 On June 29, 2010, the City of Huntington Beach filed an application with LAFCO to annex the unincorporated community of Sunset Beach_The draft application requests i LAFCO to consider annexation of approximately 110 acres of inhabited territory to the'City of Huntington Beach. 1.1.3 On August 2, 2010, the City of Huntington Beach City Council approved the preparation of all the necessary documents required for application to LAFCO for annexation of the unincorporated County of Orange community of Sunset Beach. 1.1.4 The County and the City enter into this Agreement with reference to the proposed annexation by the City of the County of Orange community of Sunset Beach which is within City's sphere of influence. 1.1.5 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 provides that prior to the effective date of any jurisdictional change, the allected agencies of such change shall negotiate the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged. 1.1.6 The City and County have met and negotiated both a property tax exchange and other consideration upon recordation of the annexation. 1.1.7 The County has adopted, and the California Coastal Commission has approved or certified, the Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program(LCP), Land Use Plan (LUP)and other documents goveming development in Sunset Beach which is subject to the Coastal Act ("Coastal Zone Afea"). Under the circumstances present in this case, it is appropriate for the County to retain, for an interim period, jurisdiction to issue coastal development permits for the Coastal Zone Area subsequent to City's annexation of the Sunset Beach cosnrnunity, unless the Coastal.Commission asserts independent permitting authority. -1- I Item 21 . - 68 HB -498- I 1.L8 In order to maintain continuity of services anti avoid public confusion while the City seeks approval for adding the Sunset Beach area to the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP), following annexation,the City and County shall set forth a reasonable, equitable and fair arrangement for the application of Land Use Regulations in the area annexed and for the continued processing of projects. The City has requested to contract planning services with the County until the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) has approved adding Sunset Beach into the City's LCP_ 1.1.9 The City and County are public entities possessing the common power to review and approve applications for administrative and ministerial permits for development, including subdivision maps, conditional-use permits, grading permits and building permits, and other approvals related to the development of real property. The City and County also have the common power to accept dedications, impose exactions, and to develop and maintain recreational and public facilities pursuant to provisions of State and/or local law. Government Code Sections 51300, et seq., authorize a county to contract for the performance of municipal functions common to both agencies by county officers and employees_ This Agreement fully complies with all State statutory and constitutional provisions related to the transfer of municipal functions from a city to a county. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to provide more efficient provision of municipal services to Sunset Beach. The parties have determined that annexation of Sunset Beach would benefit both the City and Sunset Beach. Policies of the LAFCO favor the annexation of unincorporated areas so as to encourage the orderly and efficient provision of municipal services_ The City has the capacity to provide all required municipal services to Sunset Beach. The annexation of Sunset Beach to the City will also be of an economic benefit to the City, including increased property and sales tax revenues. 1.3 Envirorunental Review The City slmall act as lead agency for the Sunset Beach reorganization (Orange County I.AFCO Application IA 10-05 and shall be responsible for preparation of all environmental docurnentation required under CEQA thereto. 2. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires: 2.1 "City"means the City of Huntington Beach,California. 2.2 "Code"means the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 2.3 "Conummity" means the approximately 134 acres of Sunset Beach. The legal descyiptiori of Sunset Beach is set forth in Exhibit A, and a depiction of Sunset Beach is set forth in Exhibit B: i -2- HB -499- Item 21. - 69 2.4 "Council"or"City Council"means the City Council of the Huntington Beaclt_ 2.5 "County"means the County of Orange. 2.6 "Director"means the Director of Planning of the City. 2.7 "Effective Date" shall be the date of recordation of the LAFCO Resolution approving the Annexation. 2.8 "Interim Period" is defined as the period between the effective date of annexation and approval by the California Coastal Commission of the transfer of Local Coastal Plan authority to the City of Huntington Beach_ 2 9 "LAFCO"means the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2.10 "Land Use Authority- means the power and authority to accept applications for, process, review, approve conditionally approve, modify, amend and/or disapprove any and all land use entitlements, building permits and development approvals. "Land Use Authority" also includes the authority and right to inspect any construction work and improvement as normally conducted by a city to determine compliance with any development approval, and to issue a final clearance or certificate of occupancy. 2_I1 "Land Use Regulations" includes all applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations and official policies governing or related to the permitted uses of land,the density or intensity of use, the needed parking, patio/open space and year requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the conversion of apartments to condominiums, the subdivision requirements, all of the adopted Building Codes, the inclusion of affordable housing units, reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, exactions, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the County's Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Plan. 2.12 "Local Coastal Plan` means the County's Sunset Beach Specific PlarVLocal Coastal Plan. 2.13 "Proceeding" means any threatened, pending,or compiled claim, cause of action, civil liability, action, suit, arbitration, alternate dispute resolution process, investigation, administrative hearing, appeal or any other proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, investigative.or any other type whatsoever 2.14 "Zoning Ordinance' means the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on the Effective Date. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 3.1 Terms &Conditions. Based on the foregoing and in consideration of the parties' mutual agreements and promises hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties agree as follows -3- l I Item 21. - 70 HB -500- 3.1.1 Property Tax Exchange. Upon completion of the annexation of Sunset Beach by the City, the City and County agree to the following exchange of property tax revenue: 3.1.1.1. The property taxes generated from the annexation area will be exchanged in the same proportions as set out in Master Tax Agreement 80-2093 between the City and the County dated October 28, 1980; to wit: the City will receive 55.9617 percent and the-County will receive 44.0383 percent;and 3.1.1.2. The City will receive one hundred percent()00%) of the Structural Fire Fund and Library Fund generated from the annexation area. 3"1.2 Ocean Lifeguard Services. Upon completion of the annexation of Sunset Beach by City, County shall assign and City shall accept County's Ocean Lifeguard Services contract. After such assignment, the County shall have no further duties or obligations under the Ocean Lifeguard Services contract County shall provide City funding of the Ocean Lifeguard Services contract for a period of two (2)years. City shall be responsible to administer the Ocean Lifeguard Services contract for Sunset Beach. The assignment of the Ocean Lifeguard Services contract shall be implemented through the attached Assignment, Novation and Consent Agreement in Exhibit C. 3"1.2.1 County shall provide funding to the City in an amount equal to two(2) years of funding for tine Contract. Upon execution of this Agreement, City sliall submit an invoice to County for the two (2) years of funding and County shall pay said invoice �vitlrin ninety (90)days of submittal. 3.1.1 Beach Sanitizer_ Upon tine effective date of the annexation of Sunset Beach by the City, the County shall transfer ownership of County's Beach Sanitizer Unit 9155 (Fixed Asset No"70461)to City at no cost to City. 3.1.4 Utility Undeggrounding Projects. The County has agreed to continue its work on two(2)utility undergrounding projects. 3.1.4.1 Rule 20A. The County agrees to continue to coordinate with Southern California Edison on their project to convert overhead utilities to underground facilities on Pacific Coast llighway through construction completion. 3.1.4.2 Underground Assessment District Project. The County agrees toprovide.up-front funding to this project,in the forth of a loan, for the cost of the Engineering Report and will be reimbursed with interest in the amount provided by taw, by homeowner assessment fees, when approved by the residents without regard to whether such approval occurs before or after the date of annexation. Upon annexation, the City shalt take over responsibility of the formation of the Assessment District and completion of the undergrounding project. if the formation of an Assessment District, has not been completed on the date of -4- HB -501- Item 21. - 71 annexation the City and County will enter into an agreement which will provide for transfer of the Assessment District process without regard to the status of the process on that date to the City as of the date of annexation.The agreement will provide for reimbursement of,any funds the County may advance toward this project as well as interest on such sums in the amount provided by law, in the event that the residents approve the assessment. 3.1.5 Resurfacing Project. The County agrees to complete a pavement resurfacing or slurry project of specified streets and alleys in Sunset Beach subject to the completion of the Rule 20A Utility Undergrounding Project. If necessary, the City and County will enter into an agreement to address the completion of the project if it is not complete on the date of the recordation of the annexation. The specified streets are included as Exhibit D of the Agreement_ 3.1.6 Broadway Bridge Repair. The County agrees to complete a spall repair project of the bridge, once necessary permits have been obtained. Should one be required, the City shall provide the County with any pennit(s), at no fee or cost, for the project. A summary of the project is included in Exhibit D. 3.1.7 Land Use Authority_ The City agrees to contract with the County, for an interim period, for planning services until the Coastal Commission approves City LCP authority for Sunset Beach. i 3.1.7.1 The Parties, through this Agreement intend that the County have and exercise after annexation the same power, right and control over the administration, approval and implementation of land use, over the Sunset Beach community that the County exercised before annexation. The Parties also intend that the County shall exercise land use and other authority in substantial conformance with the Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. I 3.1.7.2 By this Agreement, the City transfers to the County, for the Interim Period, the power and authority to j review, approve, conditionatly approve, modify, amend and/or disapprove Development Approvals and Land Use I Regulations with respect to the Sunset Beach conununity as set forth in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program (Land Use Authority). This Land Use Authority includes routine code enforcement,the review and approval of all plans and specifications for development, the issuance of all grading and building permits, all inspections of structures and improvements, and the enforcement of ordinances relating to construction,grading, erosion control and site cleanup and occupancy. -5- Item 21. - 72 HB -502- i 3.1.7.3 During the Interim Period, the County shalt exercise Land Use Authority in substantial compliance-with the provisions of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program, conditions imposed by any State or local agency; and legally enforceable restrictions and limitations on development.of the Property. 3.1.7:4 If, at any time after the recordation of the certificate of completion of the annexation of the Sunset Beach community, the City of Huntington Beach elects to assume coastal management responsibility for the Annexed Area, the city may begin preparation of a local coastal program for that area. The City of Huntington Beach may adopt provisions of the County of Orange's certified focal coastal program that apply to the Annexed Area. 3.1.7.5 If the City of Huntington Beach obtains certification of a local coastal program for the Annexed Area, tine city shall, upon the eliective elate of that certification, exercise all of the authority granted to a local gover nient-with a certified local coastal program, and the provisions of paragraph(3.1.7.4)shall become inoperative. 3.1.7.6 City agrees that County shall be entitled to charge, receive and retain all fees charged pursuant to the retention of Land Use Authority.County shall be entitled to charge, receive and retain all customary fees including planning application, building permit fees, grading fees, and inspection fees. The fees charged by the County shall be the County's sole consideration for all services performed and the exercise of' all authority transferred pursuant to this Agreement. 'Fite fees charged by the County shall also be the County's sole consideration for the transfer of records as specified in this Agreement. 3.1.8 Records, The County and City shall use their best eilor€s to transfer property documents promptly so as to minimize delays in development of'projects_Records shall be transferred electronically to the greatest extent possible. 3.1.9 County Officers. The County Executive Officer("CEO") shall designate th6 County officers, employees and contractors that are to perforill the services contemplated by, and exercise the authority contracted pursuant to, this Agreement. The Parties agree that the -6- HB -5031- Item 21. - 73 CEO will designate the same officers, employees and contractors that have,prior to the effective date of this Agreement, been performing services or exercising powers related to Land Use Authority. 3-1.10 Transfer of Permits and Deeds. The County shall transfer and the City shall accept all valid landside and waterway encroachment permits, as well as quitclaim deeds for the Sunset Beach area (see Exhibit E), which will-be subject to the City's ordinances. The City's acceptance is contingent upon the completion of the annexation and will be completed no later than sixty(60)days from the date that the annexation becomes final. The City,County and LAFCO make no representation in regard to the position, if any, of the Coastal Cotnrnission in relation to these pemuts. 3.1.11 Coordination of lire Code Plan Review and Dire Code Inspections- Upon effective date of annexation, the City shall coordinate with the Orange County Fire Authority as to which entity will be responsible for Fire Code plan review and Fire Code Inspections of County-approved perrints during(lie interim period. 3.1.12 Ambulance Service Area, The Count),will work with the City in all effort to place Sunset Beach into the City's Exclusive Operating Area for ambulance services. 3.1.13 'Transfer of Facilities. The County will transfer facilities in Sunset Beach to the City upon annexation including, but not limited to: streets, lights, traffic signals, signs, etc. A listing is included as Exhibit F. 3.2 Terrns&Conditions(Specific to Sunset Beach) 32.1 The City of l luntington Beach and the County of Orange will use their best efforts to maintain the identity of Sunset Beach 32.2 The City of Huntington Beach will not change any current Sunset Beach street narnes and addresses except as necessary for public safety purposes_ 3.2.3 "Fite Huntington Beach City Council will form a committee comprised of three City Council members who will nice( regularly with the Sunset Beach community to discuss and address issues distinct to Sunset Beach. 3.2.4 The City of Huntington Beach will maintain the greenbelt generally located west of Pacific Coast Highway between North Pacific and South Pacific Avenues as a comuturuty park including all existing parkirig spaces and infrastructure. 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.1 Cooperation and Implementation .4.1.I Implementation. City represents that it will cooperate with the community of Sunset Beach and the County of Orange to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to -7- Item 21. - 74 HB -504- implement this Agreement. The County shall, in a timely mariner, provide City with all documents,plans and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder. 4.1.2 Cooperation. In addition to any other requirements of this Agreement, the City agrees to make its best efforts to undertake the actions set forth ill this Section 4_1,provided such actions shall not result in any cost or expense to the City (other than overhead and employee staff time). 4.2 Cooperation in Legal Action. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party (not a party to this Agreement) or any governmental entity or official (other than the City or an official of the City or the County or an official of the County), challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, or any discretionary action relating to this Agreement or the annexation, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending said action;provided, however,and shall each indemnify and hold the other harmless, as more specifically provided in Section 4.10 of this Agreement, from all damages and litigation expenses,including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of any legal action instituted by such third party (not a party to this Agreement), or other govenmental entity or official, including, but not limited to, any action brought by the Sunset Beach Conimunity Association relating to the provision of services to Sunset Beach, in connection with such action. City or County shall promptly notify the other and LAf CO of any such action and shall cooperate in the defense thereof." 4.3 Enforceability 4.3.1 Default. Subject to Section 4.3.2, failure by any party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement required to be performed by such party shall constitute an event of default ("Event of Default"). For purposes of this Agreement, a party claiming another party is in default shall be referred to as the"Complaining Party,"and the party alleged to be in default shall be referred to as the"Party in Default" A Complaining Party shall not exercise any of its remedies as the result of such Event of Default unless such Complaining Party first gives notice to the Party in Default as provided in Section 4.32, and the-Party in Default fails to cure such Event of Default within the applicable cure period. 4.3.2 Procedure Regarding Defaults. 4.3.2.1 Notice Required. The Complaining Party shall give written notice of default to the Party in Default, specifying the default complained of by the Complaining Party. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor shall it change the time of default. 4.3.2.2 Rig ht to Cure. The Party in Default shall diligently endeavor to cure, correct or remedy the matter complained of, provided such cure, correction or remedy shall be completed within the applicable time period set forth herein after receipt of written notice (or such additional time as may be deemed by the Complaining Party to be reasonably necessary to correct the matter). -8- I I i xB -50>- Item 21. - 75 4.3.2.3 Delay not a Waiver. Any failures or delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any Event of Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Event of Default or of any such rights or remedies. Delays by a Complaining Patty in asserting any of its rights and remedies shall not deprive the Complaining Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect,assert,or enforce any such rights or remedies. 4.3.2.4 Time to Cure. If an Event of Default occurs, prior to exercising any remedies, the Complaining Party shall give the Party in Default written notice of such Event of Default in accordance with Section 4.4 below. If the Default is reasonably capable of being cured within thirty(30)days of the Parry in Default's receipt of such written notice,the Party in Default shall have such' period to effect a cure prior to exercise of remedies by the Complaining Party. if the nature of the alleged Default is such that it cannot practicably be cured within such 30 day period, the cure shall be deemed to have occurred within such 30 day period if(1)the cure is commenced at the earliest practicable date following receipt of the notice;(ii)the cure is diligently prosecuted to completion at all times thereafter, (iii) at the earliest practicable date(in no event later than 30 days after the curing party-s receipt of the notice),the curing party provides written notice to the other party that the cure cannot practicably be completed within such 30 day period; and (iv) the cure is completed at the earliest practicable dale_ In no event shall the Complaining Party be precluded from exercising remedies if a Default is not cured within one hundred eighty(180)days after the first notice ofdefault is given. 432.5 `I`eiinination of Agreement. Subject-to the foregoing, if a Party in Default fails to cure an Event bf Default in accordance with the foregoing, the Complaining Party, at its option,may terminate this Agreement, and/or institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement. 4.3.3 Institution of Legal Action. Subject to notice of default and opportunity to cure under Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, in addition to any other rights or remedies, any party to this Agreement may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with this Agreement. 4.4 Notices All notices or other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be. personally delivered (including by means of professional messenger service), or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, or by electronic facsimile trarisnussion followed by delivery of a"hard"copy, and shall be deemed received on the date of receipt thereof. Unless otherwise indicated in writing, such notice shalt be sent addressed as follows: 4 Item 21. - 76 xB -506- 1f to the City City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California 92648 With a copy to: City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street l luntington Beach,California 92648 if to the County of Orange: County of Orange County Executive Office 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. -Santa Ana,CA 92701 Attn: Steve Dunivent,Deputy County Executive Officer With a copy to: County Executive Office 333 W_ Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana,CA 92701 Attn: Jay Wong,Administrative Manager 4-5 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns_ No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 4.6 'rime of Essence Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 4.7 Modification Amendment or Extension Subject to any notice and hearing requirements imposed by law, this Agreement may be modified, amended and/or extended from time to time by mutual written consent of the City and County. -10- 11B -507- Item 21. - 77 4.8 Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after this Agreement has been entered into prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement (a) the party prevented from performance shall provide the other party with written notice of such state or federal restriction and a statement of the conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and (b) County and the City staff shall, within thirty (30)days,meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such federal or state taw or regulation. Thereafter, regardless of whether the parties reach an agreement on the effect of such law or regulation upon this Agreement, the matter shall be scheduled for hearing before the City Council. 'fen(10) days' written notice of such hearing shall be given, pursuant to Government Code Section 65854.5. The City Council, at such hearing, shall determine the exact modification or suspension which shall be necessitated by such federal or state law or regulation. County,at the hearing, shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony. Any modification or suspension shall be taken by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the authorized voting members of the City Council and shall be subject to the concurrence of County. C9 Cooperation in Securing Permits_ The City shall cooperate with the County in the securing of any permits which may he required as a result of such modifications or suspensions. 4.10 Indemnity 4.10.1 Definition. As used in this Section 4.10, "Proceeding' tneans any threatened, pending, or compiled claim, cause of action, civil liability, action, suit, arbitration, alternate dispute resolution process, investigation, administrative hearing, appeal or any other proceeding,whether civil,criminal,administrative, investigative or any other type whatsoever. 4.10.2 By the City of the County_ The City shall indemnify and defend the County, its officers, employees and agents (County Indentnitees), against and hold the County Indemnitees harmless from all claims, dcrnands, liabilities, damages,losses, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements,arising from or related to this agreement. 4.10.3 By_tlte Cogilty_of the City. The County shalt indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees and agents (City Indemnitees), against and hold the City Indemnitees harmless from all claims,demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements,arising from or related to this agreement. 4.10.4 Application to Damages. This indemnification and hold-harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the activities and development referred to in this Agreement,regardless of whether or not the City or County prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications, or both. A party's obligation to indemnify the other party pursuant to this Section 4_I0 applies to all proceedings, damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by the other party by reason of the activities of the indemnifying party referred to in this Agreement, regardless of whether or not the City or County prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications, or both, for such activities, inchrding, but not limited to, damages caused by -11- Item 21. - 78 HB -508- concurrent active or passive negligence, active negligence; and willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, employees and agents. However, the indemnifying party shall have no obligation to -indemnify the other party for damages caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the other party;or its officers, employees, and agents. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable_ The policy limits do not act as limitation upon the amount of hidenwification to be provided. 4.10.5 Defense.The party providing the indemnity will conduct all defense at its sole cost and expense and the indemnified party shall approve selection of counsel,provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.11 Waiver No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing acid signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of :uiy occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event. 4.12 Successors and Assigns Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, the burdens and obligations of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to,all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement and all successors in interest to Sunset Beach or any portion thereof or any interest therein, and shall be covenants cunning with the land. 4.13 Governing State Late This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 4.14 Constructive Notice and Acceptance Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of Sunset Beach is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein,whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in Sunset Beach. 4.15 Covenant of Good Faith and pair Dealing No party shall do anything which shall have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other party to receive the benefits of this Agreement. I 4.16 Covenant of Cooperation The County and the City shall cooperate with and assist each other in tlfe performance of the provisions of this Agreement, including assistance in obtaining pennim for the development -12- I I HB -509- Item 21. - 79 of Sunset Beach which may be required from public agencies other than the City. The County and the City reserve the right to challenge any ordinance, measure, moratorium or other limitation in a court of law if it becomes necessary to protect the rights vested in Sunset Beach. 4.17 Further Actions and Instruments The parties to-this Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other parties to the extent contemplated in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of the Agreement. 4.18 Section Headings All Article and Section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement- 4.19 Enforced Delay(Force Maieure) 4.19.1 Force Majcure Defined- In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any party hereunder shall not be-.deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes,walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations (but only if the patty claiming delay complies at all times with the provisions of this Agreement pertaining to such conflicting laws), litigation brought by any third party(not a party to this Agreement),or - similar bases for excused performance due to causes beyond the control of and without the fault of the party claiming an extension of time to perform. 4.19.2 Notice Reguircmctit- An extension of time for any such cause (a "Force Majeure Delay") shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the cotmmencemew of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other parties within thirty (30) days of knowledge of the commencement of the cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of the foregoing events shall constitute a Force Majeure Delay unless and until the party claiming such delay and interference delivers to the other party written notice describing the event, its cause, when and how such party obtained knowledge,-the date the event commenced, and the estimated delay resulting therefrom. Any party claiming a Force Majcure Delay shall deliver such written notice within thirty (30) days after it obtains actual knowledge of the event- Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the City. 4.19.3 Exception. Notwithstanding the first sentence of Section 4.19.2, the following shall apply: (i) The County shall be entitled to a Force Majeure Delay for a period longer than the period of enforced delay if the City Council determines that such longer period is reasonably required; and (ii) The County shall be entitled to a Force Majeure Delay notwithstanding the fact that the County may not have given timely notice to the City, if the City Council determines that such Force Majeure Delay is reasonably required. / III -13- Item 21 . - 80 xB -510- 4.20 Severability Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or of the application thereof to any person,.by-judgment'or court.order, shall.in-no -way affect any of-the'other provisions hereof yr the application thereof to any other person orcircumstance, and tine saute shall.remain in fall-force wA.ellect, urstess enforcement of this 1�g rrteint, as so invalidated, would he ninreasonable or i iequitable-under all the circumstances or would:frustrate the proposes of this Agreement and/or the rights and obligations of the.parties hereto_ 4.21 Intemretation The language in all parts-of this;Agreement shall in all cases be construed simply, as a. w xn hole and in accordance with its Lair- eaining and not strictly for or against-any party_ The parties hereto acknowledge and�agee-&at,Ahis Agreement-has been prepared jointly by the parties and has been the subject of ann's*length and careful negotiation over a considerable period of time, that eacb party has independently reviewed this Agreement with legal c0unset, 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 eve-tit of an ambiguity in or dispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed against the party preparing it,and instead other rules of interpretation and construction shall be utilized. 4.22 Counterparts This Agreement tuay be executed in duplicate counterpart originals, each o,f which is deemed to be an original.and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instntzuent- -14- HB -511- Item 21. - 81 4.23 Entire Agreement This Agreement consists of fourteen (15) pages and exhibits (designated "A--' through "F"), which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. —IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each executed this Agreement on/dov 16 2010. COUNTY OF ORANGE,a municipal CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, corporation of the State of California a municipal corporation of the State of California Chair,Board of Supervisors Mayor yor ATTEST: City erk Clerk of the Board of SupervIS®rs------.' ;APgPE&AS TO FORM- APPROVED AS TO FOPUM: COUT4 Counsel ity Attor-ney INITIATED DAP ROVED: FACSIMILE SIGNATURE AUTHOR12ED PER CCSEC- 2510:3. RESO 79-1535 Deputy City Admiflils"irator SIGNEO AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD REV kND APPROVED: ATT T- inistrator DARLENE J.BLOOM CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR ORANGE COUNTY.CALIFORNJA Item 21 . - 82 NB -512- ATTACHMENT # 15 Ramos, Ricky From: De Coite, Kim Sent: Monday, May 23., 2016 5:35 PM To: Bren.den, Patrick; Crowe, Bill; D'Alessandro, Paul; De Coite, Kim; Hess, Scott; Hoskinson, Michael; James, Jane; Kalmick, Dan; Mandic, Connie; Pinchiff, Edward; Semeta, Lyn; Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: County FP3 Standards Please see below. Kimberly De Coite Administrative Assistant Department of Community Development 714-536-5276 kdecoite@surfci -hb.org From: Ramos, Ricky Sent:,Monday, May 23, 2016 4:59 PM To: Kalmick, Dan Cc. Hess, Scott; James, Jane; Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: County FP3 Standards The County FP3 standards are located at the link below. The County ordinance refers to the study in the excerpt below in addition to the pilings or columns. https://www.municode.com/library/ca/orange county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT7LAUSBURE DI V9PL ART2THCOZOCO S7-9-113.6USPESUSIDEPE See. 7-9-113.6 -Uses permitted subject to a site development permit. (b) FP-3. All structures and uses permitted under subsection (a) above which meet the following additional standards: (1) a#t j1 deli n enter a© e - —i Rom:•- i3evelo�� t� f.. : (2) All new residential and non-residential construction and substantial improvements to existing structures and buildings that are elevated nd ue uo aeld`�ilns oz eiuniis and pg wru . securely anchored to such pilings or columns so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood level. The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting.simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading values used shall be those required by applicable state or local building standards. (Informational Note: Flood insurance may still be required of the property owner by the lender if the building pad or foundation is at or below the base flood elevation.) HB -s 1 Item 21. - 83 ATTACHMENT # 16 Ramos, Ricky From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:42 AM To: De Coite, Kim; Brenden, Patrick; Crowe, Bill; D'Alessandro, Paul; Hess, Scott; Ho'skinson, Michael; James, Jane; Kalmick, Dan; Mandic, Connie; Pinchiff, Edward; Semeta, Lyn; Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Newport Beach and Seal Beach Flood Requirements Seal Beach and Newport Beach do not have any private property that is in—FP3 where pilings or caissons are required. Seal Beach beachfront properties are currently designated zone X which does not require any special construction standards. Newport Beach beachfront properties require elevating the lowest floor above the base flood elevation. Item 21. - 84 HB -514- ATTACHMENT # 17 �'� Ramos, Ricky From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 3:30 PM To: 'Alonso, Laree' Cc: Cataldi, Colby; Tabatabaee, Hadi; Karen Otis (karen@otisarchitecture.com) Subject: RE: Sunset beach building foundation Attachments: 20151104131653531.pdf Laree— Since the flood requirements were incorporated in the County's Sunset Beach Specific Plan, what was the mechanism that County staff used to not have to enforce those provisions? Did you process variances, a code amendment, policy memo? Thanks. From: Alonso, Laree [mailto:laree.alonso(a)ocpw.ocgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 1:11 PM To: Karen Otis (karen(a�otisarchitecture.com) Cc: Ramos, Ricky; Cataldi, Colby; Tabatabaee, Hadi Subject: FW: Sunset beach building foundation Ka re n, Yes I concur with Hadi, County does not follow the 1985 flood study because that is very outdated, but instead adheres to the 2009 FEMA map. Planning would defer to Engineering(Building/Safety) as well as project design engineers to ensure that projects were compliant with FEMA and building codes. Thanks for your patience getting this answer. Laree Laree Alonso (Brommer) I OC Public Works/ OC Development Services 4 Planning I Office 714.667.9649 1 Cell 714.277.8071 1 Fax 714.667.7560 1 Email laree.alonso(abocpw.ocgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Karen Otis [mailto:karen@otisarchitecture.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 5:21 PM To: Alonso, Laree Subject: Sunset beach building foundation Laree I just spoke to Hady from the building department. He clarified that the county does not follow the 1985 flood study because that is very outdated, but instead adheres to the 2009 FEMA map. He advised me to contact you to confirm this to be the case for Planning department as well. Your confirmation that this is true for the planning department is all that we need to move forward with Huntington Beach. Sincerely Karen Otis Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message---- , HB -5515- Item 21. - 85 From: Karen Otis [mailto:karen@otisarchitecture.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:19 AM To: Alonso, Laree Cc: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Sunset beach foundation type Hi Laree, Thank you so much for your voicemail. I sincerely appreciate you bringing this matter to the manager meeting this afternoon. Per your request I am summarizing the issue below: The city of Huntington Beach was hoping to adopt the sunset beach specific plan exactly as the county was enforcing it prior to the annexation. In their study of this plan,they discovered that in 1985 an independent flood study was done because the county had wanted to take a more strict approach in regards to flooding in Sunset Beach even though FEMA does not. (Sunset Beach is considered zone x by FEMA) That 1985 flood study recommended that all foundations in Sunset Beach should be piles or caissons. I don't know if it was never implemented or if at some point it was no longer pertinent, but for all the years I have been working in sunset beach the planning department has never dictated the type of building foundation for a structure on the sand in sunset beach. It has always left that to the calculations, testing and recommendations by professional soil and structural engineers and reviewed bythe building department. Though I am not aware of all the construction completed in that area, I know for a fact of two projects that were approved and built recently that utilize a mat slab foundation. Those addresses are: 17089 South Pacific and 16665 S.Pacific. Given new technology which indicates mat slabs are more stable than other foundation types, many engineers are recommending Mat slabs instead of caissons due to possible liquefaction at deeper levels. Huntington Beach is uncertain if they should be adhering to this 1985 flood study or not. They are looking for some indication from the county if this was ever adopted and enforced or if so when did that stop. I have two Sunset Beach projects that have been approved by the coastal commission, but since the soil and structural engineers recommended mat slabs,these projects have been at a complete stand still waiting for HB to determine its stance on this issue. Please indicate in an email or letter whether the study was implemented or from what point forward did planning department not dictate building foundation for zone x properties. The residents of Sunset Beach are concerned that even though FEMA does not deem them to be in a flood area,they will bear an undue hardship.To build with caissons instead of a mat slab foundation is approximately a$200,000 increase in construction cost and possibly undermines the structure's most stable building options. Best Regards, Karen Otis 2 Item 21. - 86 xB -516- i i City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 10.9J rn STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH ����� � V' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 909 Electric Avenue, #207, Seal Beach, CA 90740 PROPERTY OWNER: Magdy Bassaly, 7515 Oaktree Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 16471 and 16475 S. Pacific Ave., 90742 (south side at 23rd Street in Sunset Beach) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ This item represents an appeal filed by Karen Otis, pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) and Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), which specify the appeal process for any decision, requirement or determination made by the City in the administration of the zoning code or specific plan. The appeal is regarding the foundation requirements specified in Section 2.4 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP). ♦ Section 2.4 of the SBSP requires development proposed within the -FP3 floodplain designation, which includes beachfront properties, to be supported on foundations constructed with piles or caissons. ♦ The appeal letter cites the following reasons for the appeal: - "This project' started in the County under County requirements, and was submitted during the transition period. It is unfair to change the interpretation of requirements at this juncture." - "County has made it abundantly clear(and documented it in their letters and emails) that the flood report by Moffat and Nichol Engineers was simply a guideline and that County Planning did not dictate foundation types." - "The soils engineer, structural engineer, and City Building Department Plan Checker have all reviewed the foundation and approved it since they evaluate each project on a case by case basis focusing on exact soil conditions specific to the project' lot." ♦ This appeal is only to determine the requirements of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan and their applicability to the appellant's project. ' The appeal was filed as a result of the City's review of a specific development project to construct two single family homes located at 16471 and 16475 S.Pacific Avenue. However, the appeal is of a code requirement that is applicable to the entire—FP3 (beachfront)area of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan. HB -517- Item 21. - 87 • Staff Recommendation: The project site is located in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan on beachfront property with a -FP3 floodplain overlay designation. Beachfront properties within the -FP3 overlay are required to be supported on foundations constructed with piles or caissons pursuant to Section 2.4 of the SBSP. The adopted SBSP, as currently written, does not specifically permit other foundation types. Deviation from the prescribed foundation requirements could be permitted through an amendment to the SBSP, which is a policy decision subject to City Council direction. If the Planning Commission believes other foundation types should be permitted for development of beachfront properties in the SBSP, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council directing staff to amend the SBSP accordingly. As currently adopted, there is no discretionary authority for the Planning Commission to approve other foundation types in the SBSP. As such, the appropriate action for the Planning Commission to take on the appeal would be to deny the appeal based on the following: - The City Council adopted SBSP requires the use of piles or caissons in the -FP3 designation for beachfront structures; - The adopted SBSP, as currently written, does not specifically permit other foundation types; and - The appellant's project site is beachfront property within the -FP3 floodplain area and subject to the foundation requirements specified in the SBSP. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny the appeal and find that the City's adopted SBSP requires development proposed within the -FP3 floodplain designation, which includes beachfront properties, to be supported on piles or caissons pursuant to Section 2.4 of the SBSP." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S); The Planning Commission may take an alternative action such as: A. "Deny the appeal and approve a recommendation to the City Council to direct staff to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment to the SBSP to remove the -FP3 (Floodplain Overlay) designation on all Sunset Beach beachfront properties and the requirement to comply with the 1985 County of Orange Coastal Flood Plain Development Study." B. "Continue the appeal and direct staff accordingly." Item 21. - 88 port—05/24/16 HB -51 g_ 16sr13 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision) Q y 4 AM1X+ PR _ +�--itK OJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Planning Application No.2016-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision Regarding Foundation Type for Beachfront Properties in Sunset Beach) PC Staff Report-05/24/16 HB -519- 16sr13 PA 16-065(Appeal of Depamn Item 21. - 89 PROJECT PROPOSAL: Planning Application No. 2016-065 is an appeal filed by Karen Otis,pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP) and Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), which specify the appeal process for any decision, requirement or determination made by the City in the administration of the zoning code or specific plan. The appeal is regarding the foundation requirements specified in Section 2.4 of the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (SBSP). Section 4.2 of the SBSP and Section 248.24 of the HBZSO provide that any person may appeal any decision, requirement or determination made by the City in the administration of the zoning code or specific plan. Although the appeal was filed as a result of the City's review of a proposed project to develop two single-family beachfront homes, action on a specific development project is not a part of the requested action. Study Session: The Planning Commission requested the following information at the study session on April 26, 2016. 1. Information about permits that have been issued for new beachfront construction - Staff found the following 15 permits for new beachfront homes on S. Pacific Ave.: 16531 S. Pacific Ave. 6/5/06 Caissons 16577 S. Pacific Ave. 12/20/12 Caissons 16591 S. Pacific Ave. 11/9/13 Caissons 16617 S. Pacific Ave. 11/9/99 No plans 16651 S. Pacific Ave. 2/9/12 Caissons 16665 S. Pacific Ave. 7/l/14 Mat slab 16685 S. Pacific Ave. 7/19/96 No plans 16733 S. Pacific Ave. 12/28/06 No plans 16791 S. Pacific Ave. 9/13/04 Piles 16851 S. Pacific Ave. 4/11/01 No plans 16931 S. Pacific Ave. 4/19/06 Caissons 17005 S. Pacific Ave. 2/20/07 No plans 17027 S. Pacific Ave. 10/25/05 Caissons 17089 S. Pacific Ave. 4/5/13 Mat slab 17090 S. Pacific Ave. 9/15/11 Mat slab 2. Information about pilings, caissons, and mat slab foundations - See Attachment 9 for additional information. 3. Foundation type for surrounding properties and the possible flood impacts to surrounding properties — Permit records indicate that the house at 16461 S. Pacific Ave. located to the west of the project site has a slab on grade foundation. However, staff has not been able to determine the foundation type for the property at 16501-16503 S. Pacific Ave. located to the east of the project site. FEMA has indicated that open, deep foundations such as piles and columns that offer minimal resistance to hydrodynamic loads are required in —FP3 (Attachment 7). Solid foundations like a mat slab foundation will generally obstruct flow and be at risk of damage from high velocity flood forces. In addition, solid foundations and other obstructions may cause wave runup or reflection, or divert floodwaters into the elevated portion of the building or into adjacent buildings. Item 21. - 90%port—05/24/16 HB -520- l6srl3 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision) 4. Are the flood design criteria requirements or guidelines? See Analysis section below. Background: In October 2010, the City Council approved the entitlements for the annexation and the establishment of General Plan and zoning designations for Sunset Beach. In August 2011, Sunset Beach was officially annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. Since then the City has been working with the Coastal Commission to achieve certification of the Coastal Element amendment and the Sunset Beach Specific Plan. After official annexation in 2011, the County of Orange continued to conduct land use and development review in Sunset Beach on behalf of the City pursuant to a pre-annexation agreement. Land use and development review included planning and zoning issues, entitlements, code enforcement, business licenses, building permits, and utility and right-of-way issues typically under Public Works' purview. Projects that required Coastal Development Permits were submitted to and processed by the California Coastal Commission. In April 2015, the City and County agreed that the City would commence land use and development review in Sunset Beach. Because the City's draft Specific Plan is still not certified by the California Coastal Commission, the City reviews land use and development proposals (Conditional Use Permits, Variances, etc.) for "approval in concept" with the Coastal Element and the Sunset Beach Specific Plan adopted by the City Council. After the City's review, applicants then apply for Coastal Development Permits through the Coastal Commission and return to the City for building permits. On June 24, 2015 Administrative Permit No. 15-009 (Attachment 3) was approved, which granted an "approval in concept" to construct two new three-story single family residences at the project site subject to final Coastal Development Permit approval by the Coastal Commission. While arguably redundant because it is already required by the code, the approval included a code requirement that the development shall comply with the requirements of the Coastal Floodplain Development Study Orange County Coastline (dated January 1985) and the HBZSO Floodplain Overlay District (Sunset Beach Specific Plan Sections 2.4 and 3.3.8). Appeal: On March 22, 2016, the appellant filed an appeal of the foundation requirements in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan (Attachment 2). The appeal is further described and discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Code Enforcement History: Not applicable. ISSUES: Zoning Compliance: All projects within Sunset Beach are required to comply with applicable provisions of the SBSP. The code requirement for structures on beachfront properties designated with the —FP3 floodplain overlay to be supported on foundations constructed with piles or caissons is applicable because as stated, the project is located in Sunset Beach on beachfront property within the — FP3 floodplain overlay. There is no discretionary authority for the Planning Commission to grant relief for projects like this to deviate from the foundation requirements of the SBSP. Such a deviation would require the City Council to first amend the SBSP. PC Staff Report—05/24/16 NB -521- 16sr13 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Departm Item 21. '- 91 Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: The review of the appeal by the Planning Commission is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Coastal Status: The property is within the coastal zone. However, the appeal does not require a coastal development permit. The appellant is in the process of obtaining coastal development permit approval from the Coastal Commission for the construction of the new homes. If the City Council directs staff to amend the foundation requirements of the SBSP, a local coastal program amendment would be required to be certified by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective. Sunset Beach LCP Review Board: The Sunset Beach LCP Review Board is the official citizen's review group in Sunset Beach. The SBSP states that any proposed amendments shall be forwarded to the Board prior to action by the Planning Commission. On March 8, 2016, the Board reviewed the requirement for pilings or caissons and provided comments (Attachment 8). Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: Not applicable. Public Notification: The appellant and property owner were notified of the appeal hearing date on April 20, 2016. Because the appeal does not involve a project (e.g. — development of a property, subdivision map, code amendment), no further notification to the surrounding property owners and occupants was done. Application Processing-Dates: Not applicable. ANALYSIS: The following analysis includes a review of the text of the City's adopted SBSP to demonstrate the non-discretionary requirement for the use of pilings or caissons in the development of beachfront properties in Sunset Beach; a review of the three main issues raised in the appeal letter; and potential options the Planning Commission can take as action on this appeal. Sunset Beach Specific Plan The City Council adopted SBSP requirement for foundations supported on piles or caissons for projects in the—FP3 (beachfront) designation(Attachment No. 5) is as follows: 1. Section 2.4 Shoreline Management, Flooding, and Sea Level Rise on page 25 Item 21. - 92;port—05/24/16 HB -522- 16sr13 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision) As a follow-up action to the storm, the Coun!y of Oran com&ted a Coastal Flood Plain Development Study, in 1985, to analyze safety .. measures for structures along the coast Design guidelines for residential development along the coast are established in Chapter Four of the Coastal Flood Plain Development Study. These guidelines are based on the assumption that The County designated the homes seaward of South Pacific Avenue as being in a—FP3 district, subiect to flood hazard. The Coastal Flood Plain Development Study requires that any new structure in this area be raised to a specific height above a point on South Pacific Avenue, In addition to,providing erotection against flood damage.. the requirement to build on j2ilinR alon2 South Pacific Avenue provides a safety margin should conditions at Sunset Beach return to the way they were in the 1930s when homes were vulnerable to attack by waves. Homes on shallow footiE!9s can be rapidly damaged or destroyed if their sand support is lost to erosion- 2. Section 2.4.2 Flooding on page 26 New develo2ment.,shall be required to comply With flood plain Mulations and the 1985 Coun!y study, until such time that it is superseded, as required by Section 3.3.8 of this aecific Plan. 3. Section 3.3.8 Flood Plain District on page 59 The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Floodplain Overlay District ReElulations and Cou2ty,of gran Coastal Flood Plain Develoement Study as amended are hereby incorporated into the Sunset Beach Specific Plan and shall be-applicable as designated b the floodelain map. Finished floor elevations shall also be in compliance with Section 3-3 Site Develooent Standards, The text of SBSP Section 2.4 above summarizes the design requirements recommended in the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study (see excerpt below). SBSP Section 2.4.2 requires that all new development comply with the study. Additionally, SBSP Section 3.3.8 incorporates by reference the-1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study and Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) of the HBZSO (see excerpt below) and states that their provisions shall be applicable in designated areas. The use of the words requirement, required, applicable and shall in these sections is to denote that these are mandatory provisions and not voluntary guidelines. Further, there is no discretionary authority to provide relief from these requirements (such as a variance). County Flood Plain Development Study The design requirements of the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study (Attachment No. 4) referenced in Section 2.4.2 of the SBSP specify that beachfront properties (between South Pacific Avenue and the sandy beach area) in Sunset Beach which are designated as FP-3 (Floodplain Overlay) in the accompanying maps must be supported on piles or caissons with a minimum length of 20 ft. (page 39 of Attachment No. 4). PC Staff Report—05/24/16 HB -523- 16srl3 PA16-065 (Appeal of Departm Item 21. - 93 Sections 5.1 and 5.2 on page 39 of the Study state: 5.1 Specific Design Objectives. Structures in tine 'FP-3 zone at Sunset Beach must be specifically designed to: a. prevent flooding within the structure and prevent flood damage to components of the structuresland b. convey salt water away from the structure. 5.2 Desip Considerations. 5.2.a. Fcnmdations. The structure gust be supported on .piles or caissons with a minimum pile or caisson length of 20 ft. The 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Study was prepared for the County to establish technical criteria and standards as a basis for review of structures and protective devices where ocean wave forces and flooding by ocean water must be considered on private coastal property in five areas of coastal Orange County, including Sunset Beach. It was intended to provide technical design criteria as a supplement to zoning, land use, specific plans and Local Coastal Programs. In some instances, the recommendations of the study are referred to as guidelines. However, the City's adopted SBSP incorporates the study by reference and clearly states in Section 2.4.2 that compliance with the study criteria is required. HBZSO Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) is the citywide floodplain ordinance and is incorporated into the SBSP. It is based on FEMA's requirements. Section 222.14.0 (-FP3 Standards of Construction) requires the use of pilings in -FP3 as shown below: Elevation and Structural Support. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated on adequately anchored pilings or columns so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal portion of the structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated at or above the base flood level. The pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and Nvater loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading values used shall comply with standards adopted by the City. Fill shall not be used for structural support of buildings. In summary, it is clear that the text of the City Council adopted SBSP (including the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Study and HBZSO incorporated by reference) requires the use of pilings or caissons in the -FP3 designation adopted for beachfront properties in Sunset Beach. Item 21. - 94-port—05/24/16 HB -524- 16srl3 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision) Appeal Letter Issues The appeal letter cites three main reasons for the appeal: 1. "This project started in the County under County requirements, and was submitted during the transition period. It is unfair to change the interpretation of requirements at this juncture." 2. "County has made it abundantly clear (and documented it in their letters and emails) that the flood report by Moffat and Nichol Engineers was simply a guideline and that County Planning did not dictate foundation types." 3. "The soils engineer, structural engineer, and City Building Department Plan Checker have all reviewed the foundation and approved it since they evaluate each project on a case by case basis focusing on exact soil conditions specific to the project lot." As discussed in the Background section of this report, the appeal was filed as a result of the City's comments during the administrative review of a proposal by the appellant to construct two single- family homes on beachfront properties in Sunset Beach. The appellant's letter is specific to the processing of her project and is essentially a request for approval of an alternative foundation type for the project. The letter states, "We strongly disagree...and ask that the mat slab foundation...be approved." The issues raised in the appeal refer to the County's implementation of the SBSP requirements and review process when it still retained land use authority in Sunset Beach. The appellant states that the County did not apply the same foundation requirements. However, it was the County's specific plan that adopted the —FP3 designation along beachfront properties and incorporated the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development study criteria. During the annexation process, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sunset Beach Community Association, which required the City to retain the requirements that were in the County's SBSP. Once the City took over land use and development review from the County, the City's adopted SBSP, which includes clear language that the use of piles or caissons for development on beachfront properties is required, applied to all proj ects. Finally the appellant contends that the proposed foundation system is based on site specific soil conditions of the project site and that the project's engineers and City's plan check engineers approved the foundation type. Notwithstanding that design recommendations based on a geotechnical report and soil testing generally would not provide for consideration of design wave forces and ocean wave flooding, the SBSP does not contain provisions to allow for alternative foundations. Therefore, information such as additional soil testing, letter from a geotechnical engineer proposing the installation of sheet piles as an equivalent flood protection alternative to piles or caissons (Attachment 6), etc., are superfluous in this hearing. While an analysis of the various foundation types and their suitability for use in development along beachfront properties in Sunset Beach may be warranted in the context of an updated technical study (if such a study is directed by the City Council), it would not change the requirements or allow the City to deviate from the provisions of the adopted SBSP. PC Staff Report—05/24/16 HB -525- 16sr13 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Departm Item 21. - 95 Planning Commission Options The SBSP states that minor modifications that are simple amendments to the exhibits and/or text that are intended to clarify and not change the meaning or intent of the Specific Plan may be accomplished administratively by the Director. However, major modifications to the exhibits and/or text that are intended to change the meaning or intent of the Specific Plan such as changing the flood requirements and allowing alternative foundation types, would require an amendment to the SBSP. In its action on this appeal, the Planning Commission could approve a recommendation to the City Council to pursue such an amendment to the SBSP. This would require a zoning text amendment to the SBSP, a local coastal program amendment, environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a technical study to replace or supplement the 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development study and provide new or additional design recommendations as well as supporting documentation to remove the—FP3 designation from the beachfront properties. ATTACHMENTS: �—Appeal letter-, eee�� t afEkk 22, 244 3-�tiee e f AEtie 4-q- -it 0. 15 009 4. Exeerpt ffam Gotinty of Ofange Coastal Flood Plain Development Sttidy (jaatiafy 1995) ,lt depa-lm. -I,fn/ 1anilill-/ /sleis,r+crx�-�c�cr�'7iaii=r- fkt�cls _�.rcrt n , r, County Geas l;,,e ,,,ate 5. Exeer-pt ffom Gity of Huntington Beach- Sunset Beaeh Speeifie Plan (Neveffiber-241-5� (911ti-e�'Ram hleZa 7. Response fFaffl FEMA Regar-ding Proposed Use of Sheet Piles 8. C`tins,t Beaeb, r (`D Review Be ,..7 (`.,,.,.v ent- 9.144mation abotltpilings, et`lis ens, and ffia4 slab feiinda4iens. Item 21. - 96°port-05/24/16 HB -526- 16sr13 PA 16-065 (Appeal of Department's Decision) City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Office of the City Clerk t Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Date: June 1, 2016 To: Community Development Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Chair and Planning Commission Public Works Department Filed by: Councilmember Erik Peterson Re: APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SBSP) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: n/a Completed by: Gloria Harper, Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand R ETC E� }'f To: Scott Hess, Director of Community Dever -, PN 53 From: Erik Peterson, City Councilman Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016 Subject: DENIAL OF APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SBSP) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's May 24th, 2016 denial of APPEAL OF FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSET BEACH SPECIFIC PLAN (SBSP). APPLICANT. Otis Architecture, Karen Otis, 909 Electric Avenue, Suite 207, Seal Beach, CA 90740 PROPERTY OWNER: Magdy Basally, 7515 Oaktree Avenue., Westminster, CA 92863 LOCATION: 16471 and 16475 S. Pacific Ave., 90742 (south side an 23rd St. in Sunset Beach) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: 1. Due to conflicts in the Sunset Beach Specific Plan, FEMA Flood Zoning and Sunset Beach LCP. Erik Peterson City Councilman i, i f n Otis licant Y 4 � � t Re at , -0- n � qu � '. en b_ �et , B -4h S ea co; p c c a ri VI x (+T f Y 1VRGetIT!!g agenda e r -.c. v� 1 �� .' }a Y ci7#o*- S`•,ff',� $ t. P n 4.d'sSr- y� r r I i S W r.- a, k' tT wF4 j ni t l eren t�s is appeal, the four de n i ' W . men t specified in Section 2.4 of- the un 1ySpe,cific Plan (SBSP). ,¢6 1 Section 2■4 of the SBSP requires development on beachfront properties (designated as —FP3) to be constructed on pilings or caissons. ■ Councilmember Peterson appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's appeal. i 1 evE7, �` k ,a Ps, VAIsgwg etc. r rood I n } a � f p I1c �ns �thnapply fai� CPs tl ro u9 h` thC7,-11 ou t ' nmi si n and return to the City for buildin 9 p errs its F a .June 2015 - Administrative Permit No. 15-009 was a roved to construct two new three-star beachfront.. approved Y single family residences at the project site subject to final approval by the Coastal Commission. ■ The approval included a code requirement to comply with the requirements of the County Coastal Floodplain Development Study (Jan. 1985) and the HBZSo Floodplain Overlay district (SBSP Sections 2.4 and 3.3.8). ■ March 22, 2016 - An appeal of SBSP requirement for pilings or caissons was filed . - y.q's ' 1 l l cs fiW 15 .s s t%; 't s ` =" aq• y -r. i,- f if 'L_S"1 'Rf x i ' F ; d Situd 4 re ' rd :fort r x 4 rat ri for five coastal areas -includin Sun-- , eF I-A ute rn e ei 1 Sunet each be supported on minimum 0 foot long ., ppP w ., . .or caissons. County zoned beachfront properties —FP3 which also requires pilings/caissons. ■ City adopted the same requirements in the SBSP. ■ HBZSO Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) also requires pilings in —FP3. x'x °s r3 k`�F{4 Phi 1 > W` 30,�. ! :!f 4 >'.' yt .•>*v rti �v r'" W2t rt.y�,t T t�t��x Jwj�f v�T�+L Su3 ,S�`•.3`.x s + ' ' T'�'A?PP•� ,��ti""'a°�!��.y q Tit 4�-:� END ,� S r.••5!,°W �f '�• i.ty�-�7 � 6.i -.`.'� ' - r:v � u �. d... �c '_ �s�s t ;: _ 4 G P�� Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:36 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 26804 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Mike Ferguson Description: At a recent CCC hearing, I noticed an extended discussion of how to manage budget deficits arising from late federal reimbursements. On the heels of a PBS program describing budget shortfalls of the Indian Health Service, I apprehend an emerging pattern of federal fiscal crisis. The City might anticipate a failure of timely beach replenishment, e.g., as evinced by http://documents.coastal.ca.t4ov/reports/1996/7/Th14c-7-1996.pdf. I didn't notice that an artificial reef is mentioned as one the options studied by Moffatt &Nichol. Like the boulder revetment, since a stop-gap artificial reef could ordinarily be buried by sand, I suspect the CCC would approve that erosion mitigation. Expected Close Date: July 16, 2016 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. SUPPLEIVIENTAL COMMUNICATION �ietin Date:. _,fl �. Amendda Item No. t i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:05 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#26805 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Mike Ferguson Description: Attached please find 9-14 Letter_SBCA_Transition_Committee.pdf, that addresses various issues, but ends with an attorney's account relevant to the defense of coastal housing. By "terrific pounding", I infer reference to a beachfront home subjected to both destructive tide and surf, e.g., due to lack of timely beach replenishment. Expected Close Date: July 16, 2016 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. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION iVtryeting Date:. /( Agenda Item No. 1 Citizen's Association of Sunset Beach www.SaveSunsetBeach.org September 1 , 2010 Sunset Beach Community Association Transition Committee Members We at_ended the meeting held at the Community Lot in Sunset Beach, yes' rday, September 13, 2):_`1 0. We have reviewed the four very limited terms and conditions that the LAFCO currently intends to impose on the Huntington Beach annexation of Sunset Beach. We believe that those conditions are wholly inadequate, and have requested that the LAFCO revisit this issue. We also wish for the Sunset Beach Community Association Transition Committee to consider their role in representing the community of Sunset Beach, and advocate more strongly on their behalf. The Sunset Beach Community Association proposed 20 issues that should be included as part of the annexation agreement. Those 20 issues are important to the residents of Sunset Beach and include such issues as continuance of the encroachment program for beach and waterways. LAFCO has taken the position that due to LAFCO s inability to regulate land use and other restrictions, their draft terms and conditions only address a few items. In fact, Government Code section 56375(a)(6) provides that ul LAFCO "shall not impose any conditions that would directly regulate land use density or intensity, property development, or subdivision requirements," This does not restrict their authority in all matters of land use. Some of the issues that the Sunset Beach Community Association asked to be a part of the annexation agreement, such as continuance of Orange County encroachment programs for beaches and waterways, are vital to our community, and we ask that you not agree to allow the LAFCO to leave such important issues unresolved in the annexation process. The LAFCO says they will require the City of Huntington Beach to continue tlne use of the Green belt area as public park. The Draft Negative Declaration says t:at Huntington Beach will provide beach maintenance and maintain the Greenbelt area. However, there is not a specific level of service that is indicated. There is no correlation between the corm-nitment and the City of Huntington Beach current budget. Also, you will not find a line item in the budget for Sunset Bea:..: beach maintenance. It will simply be done? Please rake a formal protest? This lack-of accounting cannot be acceptable. It will result in dis-se:°ice to Sunset Beach residents. There is another concern which to our knowledge has not been addressed before. County of Orange has allowed a number of new beach cities (such as Dana Point) to incorporate and not require them to take over beach ownership or maintenance At present: the county pays for seven public beaches including the CITIZEN'S ASSOCIATION GE St�INSET BEACH 15931 C-i�_EMICAL LANE #A, HUNT/NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 926^9 P 2 Laguna Cove Beach, Capistrano Beach, etc. Is the beach in Sunset Beach going to be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach if annexation occurs? Is it not a County beach, maintained and operated by the County for all county residents? VV'hat about the permitted encroachments on the beach? Can the County legally require Huntington Beach to maintain pre-existing permits? if not, this issue should be resolved before annexation can be approved. Is the issue of who owns the beach ever really been resolved? Investigation reveals that in 1975 a Grvand Jury recommended that the County take action to resolve the increasing problem of private encroachments on County-owned property. A copy of a letter is attached, dated January 31, 1978. You will see from the letter, it is questioned whether the County has obtained the beach legally. The County Board of Supervisors did not accept the dedication of easement for more than 39 years. The letter clarifies that this was a violatio of 1'3 , ender the California Code of Civil procedure, at the time of the taking. In response to the Grant! Jury's recommendation, encroachment permits were issued, at no charge. This appears to have eliminated the pressing issue of ownership then. Is the issue resolved now? The Citizen's Association also notes that the LAFCO does not include a term and condition related to inn position of special Huntington Beach taxes- such as the Huntington Beach utility tax. Government Code section 57330 provides that "as an effect of annexation, any territory being annexed to a city or a district shall be subject to levying or fixing in collection of any previously authorized taxes of the city or the district. Huntington Beach must f erefore impose all of its ,taxes on: Sunset Beach. But, Proposition 218 requires that Huntington Beach first allow the.. residents of Sunset Beach to vote on whether to accept such taxes before imposing then. The small island annexation provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg legislation does not alter either of these legal provisions. The LAFICO should address this issue in its terms and conditions of annexation and not force the burden of resolving this issue on the residents of Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach. Huntington Beach has indicated that they may not impose the utility tax on Sunset Beach residents. 'vVhile this may sound good to some Sunset Beach residents, we know that this exemption would violate Government Code section 57330, and that it would likely be the subject of a lawsuit by Huntington Beach residems. We have learned that there is a group of Huntington Beach residents who will in fact file such a lawsuit, if necessary. Sunset =uaoh residents will then have to defend their rights under Proposition 218. We h=ve raised this issue with the LAFCO. bui aooarently it is their intention to duck the Issue entirely and let others litigate the issue after the LAFCO has approved the annexation. The Citizen's Association strongly believes that it is the LAFCO's obligation to impose as a term and condition of annexation that Huntington Beach first obtain a favorable Proposition 218 vote by the residents of Sunset Beach to accept the existing Huntington Beach special taxes. Why is LAFCCt moving forward to approve annexation to city that is already extending limited services to its own residents, in Huntington Beaus` 'HHuntington Beach ICI T LZEN'S ASSOCIATION OF SUNSET F ON 15931 CHEMICAL LANE #A, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 P 3 is facing a $3,0000.000,00 budget shortfall. This is the third consecutive year where services to its residents have been cut to make up for the shortfalls. According to the newspaper repos, police officer positions will be cut and lifeguard service for certain beaches will be further reduced. Requests by the city s police; fire, and marine safety chiefs, to replace equipment which is becoming obsolete or is beyond the manufacturer's pro iected service life, will add another $3.000;000.00 - 5,000,000.00 in budget cutbacks. Services provided to Sunset Beach will be at the expense of Huntington Beach residents or to the detriment of both community groups. Is this consistent with LAF CO s mission? Is this really what the City Council of Huntington Beach proposed? We need accountability to be required by LAFCO to the level of service that will be afforded the residents of Sunset Beach. If the LAFCO cannot provide this, you should require Huntington Beach to. Their budget should make provision and their Draft Negative Declaration should be amended to correlate to the budget changes. The Draft Negative Declaration circulated by Huntington, Beach does not use the actual policing activity of the Sheriff's Department which currently services Sunset Beach. Instead; dat-- is inserted that was used in the Seal Bach City Council annexation report in 2009. This may be the data that was originally provided by the LAFCO for the sphere of influence report. The data does not account for the hours spent in the field doing preventative police work and dealing with lesser crimes. `deep in mind; Sunset Beach is not a community of 1200 people requiring police serrvices. It is a beach community with over 200,000 visitors a year. The population swells o-_er the weekends, holidays and summer months, the same as it does in Huntington leach. Huntington Beach city services cannot simply be re-positioned to senvice Sunset Beach during peak demands. There is no expense identified in the city's current budget documents for Sunset Beach services. What level of service is the LAFCO requiring Huntington Beach to provide? If LAFCO cannot require Huntington Beach to guarantee a level of service, perhaps Huntington Beach can provide assurance and budget for the services and amend their Draft Negative Declaration. If not, the annexation should be pretested. The annexation of Sunset Beach will have a very negative impact on its residents if Huntington Beach and the LAFCO fail to address the important issues noted above as part of the terms and conditions of annexation. We strongly urge the SB A Transition Committee to get more aggressively involved in this annexation process and represent the interests of Sunset Beach residents. By imposing only four miter terms and conditions on annexation, the LAFCO ignores the rights and needs of the Sunset Beach residents in this process_ The small island annexation process already deprif:es Sunset Beach residents of a vote on annexation; the situation will be worse by leaving Sunset Beach residents wit, no specific commjt nt on,so many important issues � 4tfully, Re arkovitz, Pr�giden Citizen's ,� ciatidn of Sunset leach Cf,,IZE V'S ASSOCIATION OF SUNSET BEACH 15931 Ci--IE— IC.YL LANE#A; HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 MUSICK FEE_EF: & GAPnET r r 0 A r I, n T _A% 9MI. • N.°.,.°ln,�R.r.,aRP 'OQ E W i L S T :: BC [-v—_ .ca .+.NGr-Lcs :n�1�ARM ..DOCK' .w•°[•wn.. u.. .m� wtf t"d[LV+I .MRb f a T[LCf•rOnl IT Jf p2D•pUU Y°°� a.RNC[9 1, J9+t.n w 9HN� Janua•y 3], 1978 nR,T 1 mna p111 213J629--,66^ Mi. R G. Osborne, DiracLoi Environncntal `4anagement Agency County of Orange 811 North $roadway Santa Ana, California ,)ear Mr Osborne: I have reviewed your communication ddlcLl December 15, 1977, ^uo]ecL "Private Encroachim nts Onto County Beach " I have also reviewed the July 26, 1977 orange County Board of Supervisors purported action whicn you earlesed_ T have reviewed the map which you describe as "The enclosed map shows tnese encroachmentr, as they relate to your property " I have also reviewed the enclosed rev- oc,able encroachment Pernit to cover my bulkhead and reLaining wall I have re sewed your threat, " if you fail to return the signed permit within 90 days, this matter will bP brought before the board 'or referral to County Counsel " T have reviewed your declaration that the Soard ha. determined LhaL ". the rear twenty feet (20') of rublir beach i; not current], neared for public use" and that I have been given an oprortunity to aonly for a revocable encroach- ment Permit_ I now invite you to re,-iew the followinq_ 1 My bulkhead and rota-ninq w311 does not urLend bevond your twenty-foot reference MUSICK PEE-ER 6 GARRETT Mr H. G 4soorne, Director January 31, 1978 Page Two 2 If you wish to issue an unconditional oer-nit to me 7 have no ob3ections 3 I well not sign the form of Per,ntL sent to me becat•se _t is totally illegal and asks me to agree, by contract in the terms of the Permit, that the County has certain oroperLy LnteLestS wr»ch it obviously does not have 4 The original Subdivi-,.on Map of Sanset Reach, dated' Sep- tember 6, 1904 contatned an offer of dedication of Ocean Avenue which lies within the area of the twenty feet to which you -efer (Copy of Subdivision Map enclosed for _voar convenience ) 5 The Board of Supervisors of Orange County purported to accept this offer of dedication on December 29, 1943, or some 39 years, 3 months and 3 days after the original offer (Please see copy attached.) 6. This was in clear violation of California Code of Civil procedure; Section 748 5 which provides a conclusive presumpt:Qn acainst acceptance of dedication by the piblic agency if the otter of dedication was not accepted for 25 years To quote the section in part: 11 there is a conclusive plesumrLior that the ` propos-d dedication was not accepted " =n 26 Cal Jur, 3d Cdrtier, r39, it :s stated "Acceptance of an otfer of common-law dodica- Llon mast be within a reasonable time " 8 In the case of Crt, of Santa Clara v ivancovich, 47 Cal App_ 2d 502, the Court dec aref d at 711r 'ASsum:nq that the actions of respondents and Lhetr predecessors in interest may have given some color to the claim of ratification, the formal acceptance by the Beard made respectively forty-.even, twenty-four, thtrty-einht and forty vears after the filing of the reap, cannot be said to have to}err place within a reasonable time art-er the f2.lin7 OE sach map There was never an acceptance of the disputed strip- r I MUSICK -EF_LER S GARRE-T Mr H. G. Osborne, Director January 31, 1978 , Page Three 9 The constructior of my bulkhead and retaining wall to protect my property from nigh tides ;whack, by the way, was used again very recently) occurred more than 25 years ago, and I have fully ripened right of prescription against the original dedication to continue to maintain my bulkhead and retaining wall 10 The property in question does not, as the title of yo-ur letter so declares, constitute "Count} Beach " Therefore, I have no construction on County Beach, and i will not agree to sign an} Permit which declares that I am encroaching or County Beach To reiterate, if you wish to issue me an unconditional permit, I will not quarrel about the matter further if, hnwe-ex, you ap- proach my bulkhead and retaining wall and in any way seek to modify or remove it or touc'i it, I shall sue you p,r;,onally for treble damages, and I will include as a defendant in such action such other county officials as is necessary By this let-er I am requestirg if %ou ,ontempiate anv reco.-nmen dation to the Board o` Superviscrs`rto in any way touch my culkhean and retaining wall that you advise them of ny request that i want a two weeks' notice in order to get my s.u.t fcled in advance Mr Osborne, I .cant you to k,Io4 there is consideraple irony in this whole sub]ect. You, of ccurse, are a new comer to the scene .and have no knowledge of past events Before the bulkhead was con- structed, my house was taking a ter-ific poundinq I pleaded with the then Supervisor Warner, with the Board of Superv,i,3ors a^d with the County Road Department for help and assistance Ths most I was given at any time was sand bags tnat I could personally fill myself, and I was told at that time that the County had no property interest of its own to protect and therefore they could do nothing to alleviate the storm damage So or one side of the picture is when the storms are coming and the sand is being washed a%�ay and the real threat of tie destruction caused by wave activity is imperative, the County does nothing The individual property owner then huilds a bulkhead to de- fend his property, and then a subsequent bureaucrat tH C nsbrrne) says in effect -- sign a contract with us that will permit us to take your bulkhead down in the future Very truly '�nurs, Ger ld G hell% GGK!sb cc Mr. Laurence J Schmit, Supervisor Znd Dista_ct Mr Adrian Xuvper, County Counsel Mr M Storm, Assistant Director, EMA Recrulation 22 1 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 26826 Entered on: 07/17/2016 1:08 PM Customer Information Name:Tony sellas Phone:(562) 477-7661 Address: Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:tony.sellas@gmail.com 92649 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Concerning Agenda 21 For the Monday, July 18, 2016 City Council Meeting. Please review and add to the public hearing. Reason Closed Date Expect Closed: 07/27/2016 Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: ".."-a/'/a�..,m.e. http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php9curld=2783453&type=0 7/18/2016 Concerning Agenda_21 For the Monday,July 18, 2016 City Council Meeting. Hello, just want to give my view concerning the problem with the FP3 line location is Sunset Beach and provide a solution based on the MoU between Sunset Beach and the City of HB. The problem is the FP3 line location is not clearly defined in the current Sunset Beach Specific Plan or the COASTAL FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT STUDY (January 1985). 1) On slide is #2 is a map the Planning Department made up. This maps is not found in any of the revised Sunset Beach Specific Plans. This maps should not be used as evidence of the FP3 line location. 2) The COASTAL FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT STUDY (January 1985 is confusing because: 1) On slide 3 and 4, are maps that don't clearly show the FP3 line. The only dashed line found on the maps is on the seaward side of the houses. 2) Slide 5 says the houses MUST be specifically designed with pile or caissons if in the flood, plan(FP), 3) Slide 6 says "structures on caissons or piles are recommended for Sunset Beach. The solution. 1) Slide 47 is the MoU. Item #4 of the MoU states "the City shall adopt....... of the existing 1990 Sunset Beach Local Coastal Program Specific Plan" 2) Slide 8 is the original map from the 1990 Sunset Beach LCP. 1) It clearly show where the FP line is located. 2) Council should direct the Planning Department to add this to the current Sunset Beach LCP and deny the request to change the foundation requirements for Sunset Beach. This map can't be found in the any of the revised Sunset Beach Specific Plans. It was never carried forward. Since is not in the Sunset Beach LCP it can not be used as a official document. This map show clearly where the FP3 line is located Prk Coast P3CI�C C033I _ " NN 71,710, TV ti yL' CM LM Light dashed line on up, The Ocean protective line is tho seaward litit beyond which protective ' Device Strtag y P devices nay not be conatroi:ted, The seaward edge of the crest of w...,j e protective device may not extend osauard of the OPOS line. I�11 is OCEAN. 7 �'.., .i . . 1 � ', i 1 ' fIIr'�A.ti� ,`• i ���.: 1 .mot ')� b1• 4,� J 1 - OPDS line OPDS- Once you know the definition of the OPDS line you can figure it has to Plus the OPDS lines follows the crest be on the seaward side of the protective device (sand dunes). of a protective devices (sand dunes) Quote- and allow opening at the street the seaward edge of the crest of a protective device may not extend location seaward of the OPDS line' Picture from 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development PDF page# 163 — I 0?DS DINE o Light dashed line on sap, Ile Ocean protective Zoomed in view Device Stringline is the seaward limit beyond which protective devices may not be conotrutted, The seaward edge of the crest of e protective device gay not extend aailvard of the OPOS line► � r ■ � � , ,1`J' r .," , 0 . 0)1.y} ��� ,, , r ita�l. r � I I f�r41` '+'.ri•;J�'{'Ny(��'j1� r ri N�' �, Hy�, �il r r I.i OPDS I! OPDS- Once you know the definition of the OPDS line you can figure it has to Plus the OPDS lines follows the crest be on the seaward side of the protective device (sand dunes). Quote- of a protective devices (sand dunes) "the seaward edge of the crest of a protective device may not extend and allow opening at the street seaward of the OPDS line" location Picture from 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development 5.1 Specific Design Objectives. Structures in the FP-3 zone at Sunset Beach must be specifically designed to: a. prevent flooding within the structure and prevent flood damage to components of the structure, and b. convey malt water away from the structure. 5.2 Design Considerations. 5.2.a. Foundations. The structure mmst be supported on piles or caissons with a minim pile or caisson length of 20 ft, 5.2.b. Elevation of Underside of Structure. The minimum vertical distance, Eu Eg, as defined in Figure 9, between the ground elevation, E9. and the underside of the structure, Eu, is dependent Page 39 The 1985 Coastal Floor Plain Development only recommends caissons and piles for Sunset Beach In many cases it will be impossible to completely eliminate overtopping because of limits placed on the elevation of the artificial dune . Acceptable overtopping values are then dependent upon the elevation and grade on which the structure is founded , and upon the characteristics of the structure . For this reason , structures on caissons or piles are recommended for Sunset Beach. Structures on piles or caissons allow a partial or completely uninhibited landward flow of sea water. When some overtopping must be accommodated , adequate drainage is mandatory. Flood problems caused by the accumulation of water at the structure usually occur because of inadequate landward drainage at such a rate that the water surface elevation is everywhere maintained below the underside of the structure. J 1985 Coastal Flood Plain Development Page 136 MoU info City shall adopt 4. 1990 Local Coastal_ Progam_("LCP") Specific Plan Goals, Policies and Standards. Except as set forth below, the CITY shall adopt and maintain the goals, policies and standards of the existing 1990 Sunset Beach Local Coastal Program Specific Plan (the "LCP") for the Sunset Beach Community, as modified with changes discussed and mutually approved in writing by the CITY and the SBCA Transition Committee prior to the submission of CITY's Annexation application to LAFCO. • • 0 SBSP COAUT AjEk rITITIM _ � - ��f, ;. --e14 � ern l ur n+ Ia -:r l� .■ AilL..�7',tea ?r�. si ',t' 'I":•. i:t;{:':u; I - -FcS. :,• - .-, �lg;_ fuY_:R'S�t�� F133 Line is landward side of beachfront properties t memo ,� � • f f •Ie~ � f Mlli , . —. ffy�E y-. i:E t� ��0 ;�r.l �l � (irv.!4�'!•. 5 1`;:7.i'!s rf .l{in:�'; r,�J 1i.1�ri! 11.}- � i r �u .1h . n : 7y. : ..� �- _ '•�'�Sig. �+iu`?,K..ticrL:�r ':iF. .k_ �y��:_�.�i:.t:�:.'rl-:LS L�l,'t�,:�LYtsiGsa`ti - 1:a.7}1"J<"i,:.?L,i�r'�:' ���'�....F ice �`' Oil LAND - R1=-43LJLA-r1C3N MAP SUNSET BEAC" "'