Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Meadowlark Specific Plan - Reference Binder - ADOWLARI( flUNiINGTON BfAC � , [ ALIfORNIA 1 i t 1 i!> 9 i� i 9 �t jt i t 1 (( �, ,1 f }� f 7 E t" f { C3 t 3 T �' ip� t 'r f t 9 I i MEADUNMARK SPECIFIC WAIN REFERENCE BINDER INDEX 1. Matrix of Project Issues& Planning Commission Straw Vote Action 2. Affordable Housing 3. Parks 4. Street Sections/Garage Study/Traffic Study/Fence Design/Park Parking/ Private Open Space 5. Meadowlark Specific Plan(Proposed ZTA 97-4/ZMA 97-1) 6. Meadowlark Specific Plan(Current- 1988) 7. Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan(Current- 1991) r 8. Development Agreement(1989) 9. Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (1998) 10. Public Correspondence 11. Catellus Correspondence 12. Tentative Tract Map & Conditional Use Permit Exhibits (CUP 97-80/TTM 15469) -Current- 13. Planning Commission Report- 6/16/98 14. Planning Commission Report- 7/14/98 15. Planning Commission Report- 8/25/98 16. Planning Commission Report- 9/22/98 17. Planning Commission Report- 11/24/98 & 12/3/98 1. Matrix of Project Issues & Planning Commission Straw Vote Action MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT KEY ISSUES SUMMARY ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 5/13/98 VOTES 6/16/98 I. Affordable Housing Not applicable;however,project Staff recommends: 10%total Concur with staff. (Section 4.4 B.,page 17 fulfills Huntington Beach need units affordable to low and of revised Specific Plan) for"for sale/first time move-up" moderate income(max. 100% housing product. Responds to OCMI). Rental units may be state housing law to provide used to satisfy affordable housing for"all economic housing requirements. segments of the community." (Govt.Code Sections 65580 et seq.) II. Park Dedication(Section Dedication of 2.2-acre Staff recommends(325 SFD): Concurred with staff when staff 4.4 A.,page 17 of revised public neighborhood park Alternative 1 —Dedication of was recommending 2.1 acres Specific Plan) Improvement of.80 acres of 5.57 ac. with in-lieu fees. It was only adjacent unimproved Gibbs Alternative II—Dedicate 3.4 ac proposal before Committee to Park;* developed as active review. They have not In-lieu fees per current neighborhood park, improve 0.8 considered staffs current schedule. ac of undeveloped existing recommendation. Norma Gibbs park,require *Credit for improvement costs dedication fees equal to the only(not for Gibbs acreage). "value of the land prescribed for dedication"as required by City's parkland dedication ordinance III. Street Section Design Concur with staff. (Section 3.3 A.,page 7, Y--� Section 4.2 A.,page 15 and Section 6, Street Provide 42 ft. ROW width Require 44 ft. ROW width Sections of SP) (private streets PA-3 &PA04) (private streets PA-3 &PA-4) with 5 ft.wide sidewalks with 6 ft.wide sidewalks. T a. monolithic sidewalk width (PA-3 &PA-4) Provide 50 ft. ROW width Require 52 ft. ROW width 11 (private streets PA-1 &PA-2) (private streets PA-1 &PA-2) b. parkway width(PA-1 with 4 ft.wide sidewalk and 5 ft. with 4 ft. wide sidewalks and 6 & PA-2) wide parkway. ft. wide parkways. �•-' Provide 52 ft. ROW width with Require 60 ft. ROW width (40 (32 ft.curb to curb)4 ft. ft. curb to curb)with 4 ft. c. Pearce Street sidewalk and 6 ft.wide parkway sidewalks and 6 ft. parkway. extension 0 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 5/13/98 VOTES 6/16/98 IV. Garage Design(Section Comply with HBZSO 18 ft.x 19 Require minimum interior Concur with staff. 4.4 G.,page 18 of revised ft. garage dimension 20 ft.x 20 ft. Specific Plan) V. Fence Design(Section 4.5 Provide wood fences with Require interior and rear yard Concur with staff. A.page 23,27,30,34) galvanized steel posts at interior fences to be masonry and rear yard locations. construction. VI. Park Parking Provide 12-13 parking spaces Require 20 parking spaces Concur with staff. along Spine Road. (minimum)with direct access to public street—for 2.2 acres park- approximately 27 parking spaces for 3.4 acre park. VII. Noise Attenuation Wall Reduce noise attenuation wall Provide buffer between Concur with staff. Commercial/Residential height to maximum extent commercial and residential areas (Section 4.4E.,page 18 of possible by providing noise (PA-4)to limit height of revised Specific Plan) attenuation improvements along required noise attenuation Ralph's loading dock and barriers to 8 ft. (maximum). modifying existing main truck route access. VIII. Rear Yard Setbacks/PA-1 Allow up to 5 ft. (minimum)rear Require 10 feet(minimum) rear N/A and PA-4(Section 4.5 A., yard setback for habitable areas. yard setback. page 22,34) VIIII.100' Buffer(Section 4.4E., In agreement with staff Provide buffer between existing N/A page 18 of revised recommendation development and new Specific Plan) development at greater than 7 du/ac. X. Child Care Facility(Section In agreement with staff Provide child care or similar N/A 4.4 C.,page 17 of revised recommendation community serving facility for �. Specific Plan) Meadowlark Specific Plan area residents. XI. Development Agreement/ Pending response by City Pending response by City Concur with staff. Specific Plan Attorney. Attorney. Legal Issues (g:kim:vardoc:98:KL9859) -o Meadowlark Planning Commission Open Issues Paae Front Yard Setbacks i Rear Setbacks 2 Living Space Above Rear Garages 3 Garage Sizes 4 Pearce Drive Connection to Spine Road(Via Streets I dt IQ 5 Sidewalk Design-PA3&PA4 6 Parkway Width-PAI&PA2 7 Neighborhood Park Dedication 8 Public Parking for Neighborhood Park 9 Spine Road Street Width 10 Affordable Housing 11 Project Edge Conditions 12 Commercial Center Noise Abatement 13 ataa a e e aea caeca I atlta a a a 1 ( c( a l ( l a a ccc ( cc ( ( 1 ( f 1 C C I ( ( t 1.C t ' t l t t l _ ATTA C H EA cal T N0 7�y PRODUCT DESIGN---FRONT YARD SETBACKS DISCUSSIONS -04INU=ERECON IENDATION: Small lot subcommittee discussed 15'front yard setback guideline. - STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Seeks imposition of absolute 15 feet minimum setback. Seeks setbacks which vary from minimum of 10'in All setbacks to be measured frozi bask of tide%aR- limited instances and accomplish much greater r; R-1 standard is 15 feet minimum setback. architectural movement and detail than permitted by bfnimtin (rant paid setback shall be 10':Emphasis application of absolute 15 feet minimum condition. shall be placed upon artictilation and variation of - Approximately one third of homes proposed have some setbacks. Ni 'i i-than two adjacent homes shall element of setback between 10 and 15 feet. Remaining have livin ace setbacks less than 15'. Any home two thirds have all setbacks in excess of IS feet. --..B� _ with a portion of architecture set back less,than 15, Proposed product accomplishes more varied street scene. shall have an avers e`setback of IS'or greater. Creative design and architectural variety are better REINLARKS achieved by application of both average and minimum setback criteria. • With proper execution and variation,some closer setbacks will enrich streetscene and create quainmesslintimacy-witness Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. • Product diversity afforded by elevational movement and rear placement of garages results in average front set backs of: PA I 21.0 feet PA 2 18.1 feet PA 3 16.6 feet PA 4 18.9 feet Ref-- Section 4.5A,page 21,24,28,32 1 PRODUCT DESIGN---REAR SETBACKS DISCUSSIONISl JNLN1IWEE RECOiNDIENDATION: • Small lot subcommittee proposed guidelines of 14'average rear yard depth(half 15'/half 13')and minimum 400 sq. ft.private open space. • Minimum condition per existing R-1 standards is 10'. • Units with living space over rear set garages are addressed separately. STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE • Recommends minimum 10'rear yard setbacks(consistent Staff recommendation is acceptable. jAcceptable as written., with R-1 standard)and detemaination of private open space as dictated by individual plotting and setbacks. • Average rear yard setbacks: RE�L�RKS PAL 17.5 feet PA2: 18.9 feet PA3: 15.8 feet PA4: 14.0 feet • Yard sizes all exceed 400 sq.ft.minimum guideline. Ref Section 4.5A,page 22,34 2 ATTAU�—l ' ei�T ►� . �'�1 ec- PRODUCT DESIGN---LIVING SPACE ABOVE REAR GARAGES DISCUSSIONS .OMSIITTEE RECONMENDATION: • Proposed small lot subcommittee guidelines for rear garages require zero rear setback. • Subcommittee guidelines did not specifically address setbacks for rear garage condition with living space above as exists in one PAL floorplan and two PAS flocrplans. STAFF POSITION - CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTER t.7'IVE LANGUAGE • Seeks minimum 10'setback for reargarages Proposes 5'setback for rear garages regardless of living space above. Proposes - - -- - - The minimum rear yard setback for garages. with living space above. integrated plotting of adjacent structums to accomplish desircd privacy and building - - _ - _. — - ro building separation. with living space above shall be 5[eel and`' shall meet the following criteria: `_F_:::-:' • Maintains that Living space above garage '- negates otherwise allowable 5'rear garage Minimum building to building setbacks are of greater importance than lot line -: (1) Glazing [acing the rear prop' line setbacks. btinimum condition undo proposed site plan is approximately 18 feet, - _shall be above eye level,an-a=:-. setback.effectively eliminating these floorplans. which occurs in only limited instances.This is substantially equivalent to minimum - '-' R-1 condition of 20'(�10'back to back). -(2).Consideration shall be given td the -. • Concerns regarding privacy in back to back - : lacement of habitable stipcfures o_n:_ conditions. This designtradeoff affords arrangement of livingspace functions which results in - _. "lofS adjacent to those with_gaiage5 superior street scene and long drivewaylplay areas. Closei than 10 feet from the ream n..'-=.. property line_:._ -... Plotting of these floorplans occurs in 61 of the proposed 318 units(19%). Privacy issues are addressed by careful placement of glazing above eye-line to allow REMARKS light in while elinunating line of site issues. Second story over rear garage condition is being successfully implemented in other jurisdictions. Proposed design is considered superior to that of Sea Country product in SeaGate which has been accepted by City and the market. Design Principles under General Plan specifically illustratc an example of product with living space designed over rear located garage.(See General Plan Section M LU-34) Approved higher density attached community would yield innumerable instances where second and third story living spaces were spatially closer than setbacks at issue hem. Ref: Section 4.5A,pages 22,34 i ATTACe (A vo V- -t 1 ► '-c PL PRODUCT DESIGN---GARAGE SIZES DISCUSSION/SL jMNUTTEE RECOMMENDATION: • Subcommittee recommendation-20'x 20'interior dimension(400 sq.h.) • City R-1 Standard 2 car garage dimension-18'x 19'interior dimension(342 sq.ft.) • Concerns for adequacy of storage space beyond parking for two automobiles. STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE • Seeks 20'x 20'uniform minimum interior dimension. Proposes Garage Dimensions(versus R-1 standard of 342 sq.ft.)which Garage sizes proposed by Catelltu*are acceptable., • avenges by product type as follows: Garages with less than 375 sq.it shall provide PA 1: >500 sq.R PA 3: 367 sq.R ._ . .7 sq.i PA 2: >450 sq.R PA 4: 380 sq.R loverbead cabinet storagb. All 13 proposed plans exceed R-1 minimum dimensions. 10 of 13 plans REMARKS exceed R-1 minimum garage size by 2 361. Storage/non-parking uses for garages are important and must be accommodated.Niches and raised cabinetry can accommodate additional storage needs with less than absolute 20'x 20'dimension. Spatiallsetback inter-relationship in small lot product results in reduction of living space if absolute 20'x 20'garage dimension is imposed. Users are not supportive of this trade-off—living space and floorplan function takes precedent. Densities achieved with the smaller PA3 and PA4 products are those which make possible the detached alternative for Meadowlark.These densities cannot be achieved with imposition of absolute 20'x 20'garage dimensions Garage dimensions in attached product alternatives are 18'x 19'(342 sq.h.). 20'x 20'or 400 sq.ft.minimums can be achieved with l'variance of proposed driveway and sideyard setbacks. Ref Section 4.4G,page 18 ATTACHMEN '7 q PEARCE DRIVE CONNECTION TO SPINE ROAD(VIA STREETS I&K) DISCUSSION • Following ongoing discussions and direction from Planning Staff,project layout incorporated and assumed a 52'right of way width for Streets I and K in PA2 which connect existing Pearce Drive to the project spine road • In April 1998 Planning Staff indicated an interest in addition of parkways in PAI and PA-)which included these street segments Tentauve agreement to add parkways was reached by assuming a reduction of the proposed 40'street width to 32' , and linuting parking to one side of the street versus both sides • Public Works now seeks to make this segment a public versus a private street and to require street width in this segment of 40 feet versus proposed 32 feet • Combination of 40'street width and inclusion of landscaped parkway precludes viability of site plan which has been encouraged for 15 months STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Proposes 40'wide public street with parking on Seeks private streets with 32'width(with one-sided parking),consistent with other The Pearce Drive connection(via Streets I& both sides streets in PA and PA 2- - - - - - K)shall be private streets with perpetually=-_ Public Works contends Specific Plan(Section F2)expressly evidences concerns for minimizing increased traffic assured public access:Str¢ef conf!6r3tiod'_ - through PearcefRoosevelt Drive neighborhood shall be either. (1)the 40'stint dimension a necessary for (a) - -34 feet street width` public safety primarily emergency vehicle Traffic engineer confirms that wider street proposed by Public Works would encourage - parking on one side --- - - access,and more cut-through traffic-Result is inconsistent with Specific Plan objective- _S feet parkways: booth sides _`--- (2)the fact that the segment connects two Whether public or private,proposed 32'street width exceeds City fire and safety standard- -_= 4 feet sidewalks: both sides public streets compels public versus private This condmon is deemed sufficiently safe elsewhere within the project -'(b)_=_40 feet ownership and maintenance of these street _ __ —parking oit.b4cth sides:"---w- = - _s_: Public Works contention that connection between two public streets most itself be apublic - _--;no parkways Planning Staff does not support waiver of parkway street is not supported by any City ordinance or the Development Agreement - _ condition m the segment of the project to 5 feet sMew'alks::both sides accommodate Public Works request for wider Reduced paving maximizes project aesthetics street REMARKS • If necessary,the expanded 40'street width can be accommodated without adversely reducing lot dimensions by eliminating the parkway element from the section of Streets I &IC Tlus would respect the direction given to and relied upon by applicant for more than 15 months Ref Section 3 3A,page 7 ATTAG ,ic�� �- 6 e& - rq, 1 I IiL( el- SIDEWALK DESIGN---PA3 &PA 4 DISCUSSION • At the direction of Planning Staff,these neighborhoods have been designed with sidewalks(@ 5 foot width)on both sides of the street • Public Works seeks to impose a nunimum 6 foot sidewalk width in PA3 and PA4 • Minimum ADA standard sidewalk width=48" STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE The 6 foot dimension is necessary in order to provide for Proposes 5'sidewalk with flares or swmgouts around Within PA3 and PA4 minimum sidewalk width shall street furniture items be 5 feeL An easement shall be provided to - _ - (1)intrusion of street furniture(e g,street lights,fire '` - - hydrants etc)and This yields a minimum 5 feet usable sidewalk in.ill accommodate swingouts around street furniture conditions which is equivalent to nunimum condition (2)sufficient room for passing of wheelchairs and achieved under the Public Works approach REMARKS strollers Proposed alternative meets all City requirements It reduces hardscape and provides vanation where flares or swingouts occur This condition exists elsewhere in the City See example at Classics neighborhood adjacent to City Hall Driveways and aprons at regular intervals pernut ample opportunity for passing of wheekbaus/strollers Ref Section 4 2A,page 15 7 (o�16P� � � � Lf PARKWAY WIDTH---PA1 &PA2 DISCUSSION • Catellus and Staff are agreed upon desirability of incorporating landscaped parkways between curb and sidewalk in Neighborhoods PA and PA2. • Staff seeks a parkway width of 6 feet and Catellus requests a 5 foot parkway width STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE 6 foot parkway width necessary to accommodate Public Proposes 5 foot parkway width The niintmitm parkway widths in PA1 and PA2 shall Works concerns about parkway tree maintenance be 5 feet_ _ nummims future sidewalk maintenance problems from 5 foot parkway condition exists throughout the City, root damage,etc including Lake Park areas REMARKS 6 foot width is required to meet newly emerging standards Concerns about tree damage to sidewalks can be mitigated sought by staff by use of root barriers and specification of tree varieties Streets and sidewalks within the project are private and maintenance repair responsibility tests with Homeowner's Association(HOA) Additional one foot can be added to[ear yards Ref Section 6,appendix B ATTAUHNICiy + � � 1t4 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DEDICATION DISCUSSION • City park dedication/fee requirement is computed by formula based upon anticipated project population Actual land dedication portion(if any)of computed requirement is determined by reference to the General Plan and existing Specific Plan(HBOC 9961 6-8) Balance of requre-ncrt is satisfied by payment of statutory fees(HBOC 9961 8) • The General Plan,Specific Plan,EIR,and Staff Reports through 1991 indicate that all public open space requirements for the project would he satisfied by a greenbelt/paseo connection(approximately 12 acres)to existing Gibbs Park. • Nonetheless,following extensive discussions with City Staff,Catellus proposes dedication and improvement of a 2 2-acre Neighborhood Park within the project The balance of the project's 5 57 acre dedication/fee requirement will be satisfied via payment of applicable in-lieu fees • General Plan-Recreation Element definitions Neighborhood Park Community Park - Primarily planned for children ages 5 to 14 - Designed to serve multiple neighborhoods - Typical facilities include children's play areas,picnic tables,basketball courts - Youth and adult usage - General service area of one-quarter to one-half mile radius - Include softball diamonds sports courts,etc STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Staff position recently changed to request for Good faith commitment under the Development Agreement should not be lightly set aside Over Park requirements for the project shall be as 3 4 acre park versus previously agreed 22 arching premise of Agreement was to eliminate uncertainty and nsk of"changed circumstances" follows. - - - acres Park layout to include room for - - realization size sports practice fields Overall protect as proposed by Catellus decreases density by approximately half and doubles Land dedication for Netborhood _ proposed dedication of park acreage Staff request is for nearly triple initial acreage Palk '- - - 2.2 acres - Staffadvocates"negouation'of in-lieu fees - C ash Park Improvements and Fees beyond amounts set forth in existing City 2 2 acre park proposed accommodates all realisuc recreational needs as outlined over 18 months in _= as determined by Statutory Fee ordinance for purposes of maximising funds discussions with Community Services and Staff -'_='Table='- -:_.� __-_,33 acres ; available for arks/rccreanon needs ry �="---- _- P _ --a.=-t`_--'+'=" =�'I(FuutvaleutS elsewhere in the City Though beyond the definition of Neighborhood Park,spore practice uses are acceptable with _Total Requirement caveat that Park should be principally designed and available for use by immediately surrounding residents This view is consistent with definitional language in the City's General Plan Existing neighbors express legitimate concerns about conformance with passive uses outlined in the General REMARKSPlan Development Agreement sets exactions(including in-lieu park fees)at 1989 levels and protects from future fee mcreases. Regardless,Subdivision Map Act requires that applicable feu be determined at date of completed application-prospecuve fee increase cannot be bootstrapped by suggested"negotiation" Ref Section 4 4,page 17ATT f ,fir'-IN!EN1T -1 1 PUBLIC PARKING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DISCUSSION • Though hopefully designed principally for the use of residents in the immediate neighborhood,some outside use of the park will occur,mostly related to proposed inclusion of use of the sports practice fields • Provision of parking spaces should balance realistic projected needs against concerns that excessive parking will make the Neighborhood Park more attractive and conducive to use by outsiders and detrimentally effect the surrounding residents - • The park is bordered on one side by an in-tract private street,and on the west by the public spine road STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Public Works contends that parking requirements arc Proposed plan includes 12 total parking spaces on public street plus 6 spaces on parking adjacent to the spine street as follows adjacent private street for the 21 acre park �0,,,-�rpeet sposed by Catellus shall satisfy the 2 2 acre park-20 spaces Neighborhood character of park results ui significant use by immediate neighbors on a rking requirements for the public park 3 4 acre park-27 spaces pedestrian base Proposed conditions require provision of all spaces on Public Works parking assessment is overstated Analysis by independent traffic REINIARKS public property No count or credit is offered for engineer indicates"worst case"projected needs of 13-14 spaces based upon 3 4 acres of spaces which are available in the bordering private active park (Engineer s letter dated 6116/98 provided) street Ignoring available parking on the adjacent private street results in increased overall Potential for future prohibition of non-resident parking project hardscape versus softscape Private street parking is available and should be on adjacent private street is sighted as a primary counted Continued or long-term availability of private street for parking can he reason for requinng all spaces on public property assured by granung of public easement Approximately 8 Public parking spaces which receive very little use are already available on the east side of existing Gibbs Park Residents mimediately surrounding Meadowlark have expressed clear traffic and security concerns about expanded outside usage to the proposed park. No other Neighborhood Parks in the City have or mquue any separately designated parking Ref Section 4 4a,Page 17 g 4 -7 L4 P� SPINE ROAD STREET WIDTH DISCUSSION • Project layout and overall site plan evolved over months of discussion and direction from Staff • Fundamental assumptions included a 60'right of way and a 28'spine road width This was characterized as accommodating all public safety concerns • Perhaps the single most important influence in the proposed 28'spine road width was achievement of traffic calming objectives advocated by the Staff • Public Works and Fire Departments now contend that the proposed 28'spine road width is inadequate—a 32'wide condition has been proposed by Subdivision Committee based upon this recommendation STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE • The 32'versus 28'width is necessary to accommodate Willing,if necessary,to accommodate wider 32'street— Spine Road street shall be @ 28'width.Prod 60'Proposed _ emergency vehicle function and assure traffic circulation but seeks to do so within initial 60'right of way. right of way shall be maintained with additional width - in the event of catastrophic evacuation added to paseo/landscaping - _ 32'dimension seems excessive This is a fu116'beyond • The 32 width is advocated as being in conformance with nunimum City standard There are no homes which directly REbfARKS City standards for a community collector street- load off the spine road,and the adjacent parkway/patio would allow ample room for bypass in catastrophic • Fire Department is amenable to the proposed 28'width conditions with mandated inclusion of fire sprinklers in all homes (It is estimated this would add$2,000 to S3,000 to the No clear standard exists for community collector streets cost of each home) Numerous examples exist elsewhere within the City with streets at or less than 28'in comparable conditions • No evidence exists that 28'width which was previously encouraged will assist in rnrtigating/calrmng traffic Narrower width will deliver proven benefits in the form of slowing and reducing cut-through traffic Traffic calming should be a high planning priority and is of real concern to immediately surrounding neighbors who will be impacted This objective must be carefully balanced against reasonable versus excessive safety concert Ref Section 6,Appendtz B 1 -7' '�1/ ATTAC!ii�f���v 7 � � ��c AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISCUSSION The issue as regards hieadowlark is a contractual one As the City Attorney has opined the City is bound by City pohcier in existence prior to July 24,1999 To the extent the Development Agreement and Specific Plan,which were negotiated in return for closure of the former airport,were intended to preclude imposition of affordable housing costs,this project is exempt The project lies outside the Coastal Zone where affordability requirements are mandated by State law STAFF POSITION CATELLLS POSITION RE UESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE • Seeks condition requiring pricing of 10%of the units in Exemption from Affordable Housing exactions was a part of the The project is exempt from Affordable Housing the project(approximately 32 homes)at prices Development Agreement bargain. regmrements in accordance with the affordable to buyers at or below 100%of County rLgtur i cement, t mcdnan income Direct reference of Affordable Housing conditions is common and uniformly =Development Agreement. - - made in Specific Plan documents Absence of any Affordable Housing • The Development Agreement does not specifically conditions in the Meadowlark Specific Plan is not accidental These costs and Alternatively: Affordable housing prohibit imposition of conditions directed towards fees were deliberately waived by the Cary as a part of the Development requirements shall be-modified to reflect Affordable Housing Agreement bargain median income objeCtiYeS of 120%County_ • The Ci s position on Affordable Housing has been Pro sed homes and pricing will address a significant void in the Ci Median Income(For Sale)and 80 r/o(Rental tY� Pm B Po P 8 >m ry•s stock of consistent dating back to 1989 in that exwuom have new for-sale housing Anticipated buyer profiles include first-time buyers and Housing)ConSistint With conaltiOnS_iIDposed on been recommended by Staff on most projects young families who would otherwise be unable to afford housing in Huntington comparable projects. _-_-_ _=_ Beach Affordable Housing conditions and fees advocated by Staff have been and were REMARKS commonly waived for non-coastal zone projects by Planning Commission and City Council during the relevant period In those few instances where exactions were imposed,subject projects benefited by virtue of Secuon 8 Giants or density bonuses—neither of which are being offered for Meadowlark.To the contrary, the proposed plan as founded upon substantially reduced density Affordability levels sought by staff are well beyond those imposed on any projects considered in relevant Development Agreement time period. Deletion of additional 150-umt density for potential Seniors Housing from Specific Plan provides clear indication of intention to waive affordable exactions Ref Section 4 4B,page 17 1 ATTAChf;A,ENT NO. -7 3 PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN COMPLIANCE--PROJECT EDGE CONDITIONS DISCUSSION • The Specific Plan anticipated the possibility of detached or alternative product versus the approved 600 attached units • Buffeting and setbacks adjacent to existing neighborhoods were required and enumerated in the case of an attached development • The Specific Plan eluninates edge setbacks and buffers for detached homes in consideration of reduced intensity and assumed preferability • Certain neighbors have expressed the desire to apply or impose buffers beyond those required by the Specific Plan STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Specific Plan controls Specific Plan controls lAcceptable as wntten. REbfARKS Ref Section 4 4E,page 18 AT 711q COMMERICAL CENTER NOISE ABATEMENT DISCUSSION • Truck loading which occurs in the rear of the adjacent commercial center creates noise issues which must be mitigated in the immediately adjacent PA4 units • Catellus is working with the commercial center owner and tenants toward written agreements which will restrict hours of operation and truck traffic behind the commercial center • Enhancement of the existing loading dock walls at Ralph's will further nuninuze sound requiring mitigation • Subject to final analysis by sound engineers upon redesign of the Ralph's loading lock area,anticipated mitigation measures will consist of 12'tear wall behind four PA4 homes and an g'penmeter wall along remainder of commercial center edge STAFF POSITION CATELLUS POSITION REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE Reserves right to review and require alternate mitigation Assuming confirmation of full mitigation by sound Staff and applicant i[e directed to pursue imtigation measures,including possible conditioning of 50'setbacks engineers,seeks solution which will not result m loss of solution which(1)meets all City noise requirements, umts and(2)minimizes adverse-impacts;on project costs = and affordability. v- - — REINfARKS Ref Section 4 4E,page 18 1 � � rL4 �'� - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUMMARY - UPDATE - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) A B C D CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) COMMENTS I Affordable 10%of total project(32 units)@ Concur w/staff *Concur with staff No Change Housing 100%of median income If rental, then 50-80%of median income II Park 3 4 acres plus negotiated fees @ 2 2 acre dedication, 80 Gibbs * Concur with PC straw 3 4 acres plus negotiated Dedication $500,000 acre park improvements,plus vote,but seek Council fees at Fair Market Value fees negotiated fees(higher than of land as determined by policy direction on use of current City park fees) fee (Dedication is 2 4 acres qualified real estate w/Map"C") appraiser III-A Sidewalk 6'width(44'R of W) Concur w/staff 5'width with flareouts No Change Design around street furniture ,6 PA3 and PA4 (42'R of W) y * Catellus has indicated willingness to pay Commission-requested fee of$500,000/acre rather than the current fee schedule @$182,000/acre and acquiesce in the staff recommended affordable housing requirement in the context of an overall compromise which results in approval of the 319 unit revised map Tradeoffs indicated as necessary to achieve this result include City support for CRG's requested street sections,setbacks,sidewalk/parkway widths,and garage sizes,which CRG believes will enhance the aesthetics and/or livability of the homes **Staff and applicant are in agreement relative to 100'buffer height,child care/meeting facility and commercial noise attenuation 00981810026 07/14/98 - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUMMARY - UPDATE - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) A B C D CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) COMMENTS III iB Parkway 6'parkway width/4'sidewalk Concur w/staff Minimum parkway width of No Change width (52'R of W) 5' (50'R of W) PA 1 and PA2 III-C Pearce Drive 60'right-of-way including 40'public Support Catellus alternative of Straw vote(52'right-of- No Change Connection to street(6'parkway/4'sidewalk) 52'right-of-way with way)acceptable,however Spine Road elimination of parkways in this prefer 32'street width(with (vie Streets I segment,but 6'sidewalk parking on one side)which and K) would allow for inclusion of (il f parkways(50'R of W—same as remainder of PA I) I IV Garage Size 20'x 20' interior dimension Concur w/staff (Small lot All PA I and 2 garages CRG must provide overall Subcommittee exceed 20'x 20'(400 sq ft) storage area=to recommendation) difference between what is 10 of 13 plans exceed R-1 provided in garages less minimum by 36 sq ft (378 than 20'x 20'and that sq ft or more) provided by 20'x 20' garages(up to additional Garages in PA3 and PA4 464 cu ft) with less than 400 sq ft to include storage cabinets(per exhibits)as standard feature V Fence Design Provide masonry walls between all Concur w/staff Concur with straw vote No Change units - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUMMARY - UPDATE - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) A B C D CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) COMMENTS VI Public Parking 20 public parking spaces required to Deferred subject to further Propose 12 public parking No Change for serve 2 2 acre park discussion re park use spaces along Spine Road Neighborhood adjacent to public park- Park consistent w/worst case recommendation by independent traffic consultant VII Commercial Resolved Resolved Resolved Resolved Center Noise VIII-A Habitable 10'minimum for habitable area Concur w/staff Proposes 5'minimum No Change Space above above garage, 5'for garage setback setback with conditions to Rear Garages No relief for rear-set garages assure privacy and w/habitable space minimum building to building setbacks Plotting of floorplans w/5' rear setbacks occurs in 61 of proposed 319 units(19%), CRG will provide at least 18'between back-to-back structures V111-13 Rear Yard 10'minimum because open space Garages can be 0 ft, I O'minimum No Change Setbacks will be 15'x 15'on each lot 15'minimum for dwellings with 50%of wall can be 13' - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUMMARY - UPDATE - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION IIEARING) A B C D CRG STAFF _ PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) COMMENTS VIII 11 C Front Yard 15'minimum setback, 12'average Concur w/staff 10'minimum,with No Change Setbacks w/min 10'setback where 6' conditions to assure parkways are provided,subject to maximum variation and ? CUP maximum average setbacks 55 of proposed 319 units require some relief from minimum setbacks proposed by staff Minor latitude is requested for addt'l 15 units to accommodate any unforeseen site issues or mix changes MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT KEY ISSUES SUMMARY FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION 6/16/98 STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 I. Affordable Not applicable;however,project Staff recommends- 10%total Concur with staff. Concur with 6/16/98 staff Housing(Section fulfills Huntington Beach need for"for units affordable to low and recommendation. 4.4 B.,page 17 of sale/first time move-up"housing moderate income(max. 100% Vote-(5-1-1) revised Specific product. Responds to state housing law OCMI). Rental units may be Plan) to provide housing for"all economic used to satisfy affordable segments of the community" (Govt. housing requirements Code Sections 65580 et seq) CATELLUS POSITION 7/14/98 CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Concur with staff provided reduced N/A Same as previously indicated. development standards are approved.* Please refer to 6/16/98 staff position statement. Legal opinion from City Attorney indicates that the Development Agreement does not prohibit > City from requiring developer �—{ to provide affordable housing * Catellus is willing to pay $500,000/acre for in-lieu parkland dedication fees and acquiesce to staff recommended affordable housing m requirements. As a trade-off CRG M seeks support for requested street .� sections,setbacks,sidewalk/parkway widths and garage sizes. _C) J V1J -v ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION 6/16/98 STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 11. Park Dedication Dedication of 2 2-acre public Staff recommends(325 SFD). Concurred with staff when staff Require dedication and (Section 4.4 A, neighborhood park Alternative 1 —Dedication of was recommending 2 1 acres improvement of 2 2 ac of page 17 of revised Improvement of 80 acres of 5 57 ac with in-lieu fees It was only parkland,plus development Specific Plan) adjacent unimproved Gibbs Park;* Alternative I1—Dedicate 3.4 ac proposal before Committee to of 0.8 ac of Norma Gibbs • In-lieu fees per current schedule developed as active review They have not Park and payment of neighborhood park, improve 0 8 considered staffs current negotiated in-lieu fees. *Credit for improvement costs only ac of undeveloped existing recommendation Additional in-lieu fees shall (not for Gibbs acreage) Norma Gibbs park,require be directed toward dedication fees equal to the improvements of existing "value of the land prescribed for youth sports facilities dedication"as required by City's Vote- (6-0-1) parkland dedication ordinance CATELLUS POSITION 7/14/98 CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Concur with Planning Commission N/A Same as previously indicated. straw vote,but seek Council policy Please refer to 6/16/98 staff input on amount and use of fee.* position statement Catellus is willing to pay $500,000/acre for in-lieu parkland dedication fees and acquiesce to staff recommended affordable housing TT1 requirements. As a trade-off CRG Z seeks support for requested street sections,setbacks,sidewalk/parkway Zwidths and garage sizes. � -Uv Ertl- 1 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 III. Street Section Design Concur with staff. a. Require 44 ft ROW (Section 3.3 A.,page 7, width(private streets PA-3 Section 4.2 A.,page 15 &PA-4)with 6 ft.wide and Section 6, Street sidewalks. Sections of SP) a. Provide 42 ft ROW width a Require 44 ft ROW width (private streets PA-3 &PA-4) (private streets PA-3 &PA-4) b Require 52 ft ROW a monolithic sidewalk with 5 ft.wide sidewalks with 6 ft wide sidewalks width(private streets PA-1 width(PA-3 &PA-4) &PA-2)with 4 ft wide b. Provide 50 ft ROW width b Require 52 ft ROW width sidewalks and 6 ft wide b parkway width(PA-1 & (private streets PA-1 &PA-2) (private streets PA-1 & PA-2) parkways PA-2) with 4 ft wide sidewalk and 5 ft. with 4 ft wide sidewalks and 6 wide parkway. ft wide parkways c. Provide 52 ft ROW width with(40 ft curb to c Provide 52 ft ROW width c. Require 60 ft ROW width curb)and 6 ft wide c Pearce Street extension with(32 ft curb to curb)4 ft (40 ft curb to curb)with 4 ft monolithic sidewalks sidewalk and 6 ft wide sidewalks and 6 ft parkway parkway. Vote- (4-2-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 a. Provide 5 ft wide sidewalks N/A Same as previously indicated. with flareouts around street Please refer to 6/16/98 staff furniture position statement. b. Provide 5 ft.parkway r Additional 1' is better utilized in rear yards. M Zc. Straw vote(52' right-of-way) acceptable;however prefer 32' °�- street width(with parking on C one side)which would allow for inclusion of parkways S 'fin ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION SMALL-LOT COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 SUBCOMMITTEE VOTE ACTION RECOMMENDATION 6/16 4/28/98 /98 IV. Garage Design(Section Comply with HBZSO 18 ft.x 19 Require minimum interior Minimum interior garage Concur with 6/16/98 staff 4 4 G.,page 18 of revised ft. garage dimension 20 ft x 20 ft dimension 20 ft X 20 ft. recommendation and Specific Plan) subcommittee recommendation Vote- (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 All PA 1 and 2 garages exceed N/A. Same as previously indicated. 20 ft X 20 ft. Garages in PA 3 Please refer to 6/16/98 staff and PA 4 exceed City's RL position statement minimum dimension of 18 ft.X 19 ft. Ten of 13 plans exceed RL minimum garage size by 36 ft. Niches and cabinetry to be included as standard feature in all units with less than absolute 20 ft.X 20 ft.(PA 3 and PA 4) 3=' _.a fT'1 Z 0 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 V Fence Design(Section 4.5 Provide wood fences with Require interior and rear yard Concur with staff. Concur with 6/16/98 staff A.page 23,27,30,34) galvanized steel posts at interior fences to be masonry recommendation and rear yard locations construction Vote (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Same as previously indicated N/A Same as previously indicated. Please refer to 6/16/98 Catellus Please refer to 6/16/98 staff position statement position statement t7 F 1 1 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 VI Park Parking(Public) Provide 12-13 parking spaces Require 20 parking spaces Concur with staff. Defer and seek an updated along Spine Road. (minimum)with direct access to recommendation from PW public street—for 2 2 acres park- Department based on approximately 27 parking spaces revised park size for 3 4 acre park Vote (5-1-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Proposed 12 parking spaces N/A Same as previously indicated surpasses worst case. Need Please refer to 6/16/98 staff evaluation of independent position statement. PW consultant Department has reviewed additional studies and determined min 20 spaces are still necessary to adequately serve the park and minimize parking impacts to the surrounding neighbors r G C' ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 V11. Nose Attenuation Wall Reduce nose attenuation wall Prov►de buffer between Concur w►th staff Concur with 6/16/98 staff Commercial/Residential height to maximum extent commercial and residential areas recommendation (Section 4.4E,page 18 of possible by prov►ding noise (PA-4)to limit height of revised Specific Plan) attenuation improvements along required noise attenuation Ralph's load►ng dock and barriers to 8 ft.(maximum) modifying existing main truck route access CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Proposes to meet all City N/A Same as previously indicated standards without imposition of Please refer to 6/16/98 staff 50 ft.setbacks. Potential I 1 ft. position statement. wall would be limited to 4 units Maximum wall height otherwise will be 8 ft. n rn L 'O ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SMALL-LOT PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION SUBCOMMITTEE COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION VOTE ACTION 4/28/98 6/16/98 Vlll-A Rear Yard Allow up to 5 ft (minimum)rear Require 10 feet(minimum)rear Dwelling: 15 ft.;50%of wall Require 10 feet(minimum) Setbacks/PA-1 and PA-4 yard setback for habitable areas. yard setback can be at 13 ft. Garage can be at rear yard setback for (Section 4.5 A.,page 0 ft. habitable area above 22,34)for detached garage;5 ft setback for garages with habitable garages area above Vote (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Proposes 5 ft.rear yard setback The minimum rear yard setback Same as indicated in 6/16/98 with conditions to assure privacy for garages with living space staff position statement. and minimum building to above shall be 5 ft and shall building setbacks. meet the following criteria Plotting of floor plans occurs (1) Glazing facing the rear with 5 ft.setbacks in 61 of the property line shall be above proposed 318 units(19%) At eye level,and least 18 ft between back to back (2) Consideration shall be given structures. to the placement of habitable structures on lots adjacent to those with garages closer than 10 ft. from the rear property line 0 M O � V�3 s ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION SMALL-LOT COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 SUBCOMMITTEE C VOTE ATION RECOMMENDATION 6/16 Vlll-B. Rear Yard setbacks Concur with staff 10 ft. Dwelling: 15 ft;50%of wall Same as subcommittee (Main dwelling unit-all recommendation. can be at 13 ft. Garage can be at recommendation. planning areas) 0 ft. Vote: (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 loft N/A 10 ft.because open space will be min. 15 ft X 15 ft which will create usable private open space, provide adequate separation between buildings and create rear elevation building offsets. n m A 0 1 � � d ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION 6/16/98 STAFF RECOMMENDATION SMALL-LOT PLANNING 6/16/98 SUBCOMMITTEE COMMISSION STRAW RECOMMENDATION VOTE- 6/16/98 4/28/98 \Vlli-C. Front Yard setbacks Provide 10 ft.(min)setbacks on Dwellings: 15 ft Provide 15 ft front yard No action Concur with approximately 1/3 of homes. Front entry garages: 18 ft setbacks with offsets. revised Specific Plan staff Remaining 2/3 to have setbacks in Side entry garages- 10 ft recommended language. excess of 15 ft. Patios/Entry elements 12 ft 6 All setbacks shall be measured The above front yard setbacks may from back of sidewalk. be reduced to an average of 12 ft with 10 ft min setback,subject to Minimum front yard setbacks shall approval of CUP by the Planning be 10 ft Emphasis shall be placed Commission,where 6 ft parkways upon articulation and variation of are provided. setbacks No more than two adjacent homes shall have living space setbacks less than 15 ft. Any home with a portion of architecture set back less than 15 ft shall have an average setback of 15 ft or greater CATELLUS POSITION 7/14/98 CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING LANGUAGE-7/14/98 RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 10 ft minimum,with conditions to N/A Same as indicated in assure maximum variation and 6/16/98 staff position > maximum average setbacks 10%- statement 20% of proposed 318 units would have some portion of the setback between 10 ft.and 15 ft All other M homes will be setback more than 15 ft. i P iW a1 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 IX.100' Buffer(Section 4.4E., In agreement with staff Provide buffer between existing N/A Provide buffer between page 18 of revised Specific recommendation development and new existing development and Plan) development at greater than 7 new development at greater du/ac. than 7 du/ac Limit building height within buffer area to 25 ft. in accordance with HBOC building height definition and maximum height development requirements. Vote- (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Concurs with 7/14/98 staff N/A Provide buffer between existing recommendation development and new development at greater than 7 du/ac Building height within the 100 ft buffer area shall be limited to 25 ft, in accordance > with HBOC maximum building n height development = requirements and applicable definitions rT-1 ;2, J � r ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 X. Child Care Facility(Section In agreement with staff Provide child care or similar N/A Provide child care or 4.4 C.,page 17 of revised recommendation community serving facility for similar community serving Specific Plan) Meadowlark Specific Plan area facility for Meadowlark residents. Specific Plan area residents,in accordance with 6/16/98 staff recommendation Vote. (6-0-1) CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Concurs with 6/16/98 staff N/A Same as indicated in 6/16/98 recommendation and Planning staff position statement. Commission action. Z 1 ISSUE CATELLUS POSITION STAFF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE PLANNING 6/16/98 RECOMMENDATION ACTION COMMISSION STRAW 6/16/98 5/13/98 VOTE ACTION 6/16/98 XI. Development Agreement/ Pending response by City Pending response by City Concur with staff. No Action Specific Plan Legal Issues Attorney. Attorney CATELLUS POSITION CATELLUS REQUESTED STAFF PLANNING 7/14/98 LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ACTION 7/14/98 7/14/98 7/14/98 Concurs with 7/14/98 staff N/A Incorporate appropriate language recommendation. in the revised Specific Plan text to limit the building height within the 100 ft buffer area to a maximum of 25 ft in accordance the current Meadowlark Specific Plan. rn Z i -tr - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUn ARY— STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) I. Affordable 10%of total project(32 units)@ Concur w/staff. #Concur with staff. No Change. No action. All parties concur. Housing 100%of median income. If rental, $600,000 estimated to be spent. then 50-80%of median income. II Park 3.4 acres plus negotiated fees @ 2.2 acre dedication,.80 Gibbs •Concur with P.C.straw 3.4 acres plus negotiated 2.2 acre dedication,.80 Gibbs park 'Dedication $500,000 acre park improvements,plus vote,but seek Council fees at Fair Market Value improvements,plus negotiated fees negotiated fees(higher than policy direction on use of of land as determined by fees(@ 500,000 per acre). current City park fees). fee. (Dedication is 2.4 acres qualified real estate w/Map"C"). appraiser. Vote: 7-0 III-A Sidewalk 6'width(44'R of W). Concur w/staff. 5'width with flareouts No Change. 5'width with flareouts around Design around street furniture. street furniture. PA3 and PA4 (42'R of W). (42'R of W). Vote: 7-0 • Catellus has indicated willingness to pay Commission-requested fee of$500,000/acre rather than the current fee schedule @$182,000/acre and acquiesce in the staff recommended affordable housing requirement in the context of an overall compromise which results in approval of the 319 urut revised map Tradeoffs indicated as necessary to achieve this result include City support for CRG's requested street sections,setbacks,sidewalk/parkway widths,and garage sizes,which CRG believes will enhance the aesthetics and/or livability of the homes ••Staff and applicant are in agreement relative to 100'buffer height,child care/meeting facility and commercial noise attenuation 07/16/98 0098180026 07/14/98 W ATTACHMENT IJ0• C' -MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUP 1RY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING JMMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) III-B Parkway 6'parkway width/4'sidewalk Concur w/staff. Minimum parkway width of No Change Minimum parkway width of 5'. width (52'R of W). 5'. (50'R of W) (50'R of W). Street trees shall be PA1 and PA2 subject to review and approval by the City Landscdpe Architect. Vote: 7-0 III-C Pearce Drive 60'right-of-way including 40'public Support Catellus alternative of Straw vote(52'right-of- No Change. Pearce Street extension shall be Connection to street(6'parkway/4'sidewalk). _ 52'right-of--way with way)acceptab)e;however designed to "Public!' street Spine Road elimination of parkways in this prefer 32'street width(with standards to the first"T" (via Streets I segment,but 6'sidewalk. parking on one side)which intersection(40 ft.curb to curb) and K) would allow for inclusion of with the remaining portion parkways(50'R of W—same designed to"Private"street as remainder of PA1) standards(32 ft curb to curb,5 ft. parkways and 4 ft.sidewalks, parking on one side) Vote: 6-1 ATTACHMENT NO. �� MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUN- -�RY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING , )MMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) IV Garage Size 20'x 20'interior dimension. Concur w/staff. (Small lot All PA 1 and 2 garages CRG must provide overall PA1 and PA2 comply with min. Subcommittee exceed 20'x 20'(400 sq.ft.) storage area=to 20X20;PA3 and PA4 must recommendation). difference between what is provide overall storage area=to 10 of 13 plans exceed R-1 provided in garages less difference between what is minimum by 36 sq.ft.(378 than 20'x 20'and that provided in garages less than 20'x sq.ft.or more). provided by 20'x 20' 20'and that provided by 20'x 20' garages(up to additional garages(in a comparable size); Garages in PA3 and PA4 464 cu.ft) min.interior dimension shall be 18 with less than,400 sq.ft.to ft.wide by 19 ft.deep. include storage cabinets(per exhibits)as standard feature. Vote:7-0 V. Fence Design. Provide masonry walls between all Concur w/staff Concur with straw vote No Change. All parties concur. Community units Development Department staff shall coordinate effort between developer/adjacent residents to address common fence design issues along the easterly 100 ft. buffer area. Vote: 7-0 Ai CHMENT NQ. 3 - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUN RY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING w. jMMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITIONIREVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) VI Public Parking 20 public parking spaces required to Deferred subject to further Propose 12 public parking No Change Provide 16 parking spaces for for serve 2.2 acre park. discussion re park use. spaces along Spine Road public park use. Neighborhood adjacent to public park- Park consistent w/worst case Vote: 6-1 recommendation by independent traffic consultant. VII Commercial Resolved. - Resolved. Resolved Resolved. Address noise attenuation issue Center Noise between the commercial center and PA4.Provide noise attenuation barrier with a maximum height of 8 ft.for the majority of the parcels abutting commercial uses;limited portions of the wall may be up to 12 ft.in height; enclose truck loading dock areas;This Specific Plan requirement for 8 ft.noise attenuation wall may result in additional residential building setbacks and/or revisions to the tract map,based on the noise study. Vote:6-0-1 (Absent) oa ATTACHMENT NO. I . - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUP kRY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING _JMMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) VIII-A Habitable 10'minimum for habitable area Concur w/staff. Proposes T minimum No Change. 5 ft setback for habitable space Space above above garage; 5'for garage setback. setback with conditions to above garages for a maximum of Rear Garages No relief for rear-set garages assure privacy and 25%of dwellings within each w/habitable space. minimum building to planning;min.'15 ft.between building setbacks. habitable area on adjacent lot to the rear; CC&R's to restrict Plotting of floorplans w/5' window changes and room rear setbacks occurs in 61 of expansions in PA1,3,and 4. proposed 319 units(19%); CRG will provide at least 18'between back-to-back structures Vote:7-0 VIII-B Rear Yard 10'minimum because open space Garages can be 0 ft., 10'minimum No Change. Garages can be 0 ft.; Setbacks will be 15'x 15'on each lot. 15'minimum for dwellings; 15'minimum for dwellings;50% 50%of wall can be 13' of wall can be 13'. Vote: 7-0 I V�l ` �r�i"T�;C�if�ENT NO. c - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SUi ARY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) VIII-C Front Yard 15'minimum setback; 12'average Concur w/staff. 10'minimum,with No Change 15'minimum setback; 12'average Setbacks w/min. 10'setback where 6' conditions to assure w/min. 10'setback where 5' parkways are provided,subject to maximum variation and parkways are provided,subject to CUP. maximum average setbacks CUP. 55 of proposed 319 units require some relief from minimum setbacks proposed Vote: 7-0 by staff. Minor latitude is requested for addt'1 15 units to accommodate any unforeseen site issues or mix changes C1-I'MENT Na. b c� I. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE MATRIX 12/3/98 The following matrix identifies and compares the differences between the proposed Meadowlark TTM/CUP plan and the standards of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. (* denotes potential straw vote item) Specific Plan Requirement Proposed TTM/CUP PC Action (PC Recommendation) (Catellus Proposal/Response) (12/3/98)/ cond. # Planning Area 1 I* a. Parking requirements 0-4 bedrooms(2open/2enclosed) CRG will revise one floor plan (Plan 2) to eliminate characterization of living 5+bedrooms(3 open/3 enclosed) room as potential 5t" bedroom. Redesign of second floor plan(Plan 3) is being studied, but CRG requests of the Planning Commission to make determination that Sec 5 1,pg 41 & HBZSO 23104 the retreat is not a bedroom for purposes of parking based on the following condition: "No exterior stairways accessing either a dwelling, or balcony/deck shall be permitted. Master retreats adjacent to master bedroom with a wall opening of 6' Conditions minimum or accessed through master bath shall not be counted as a separate Addendum bedroom" 1 Cond. #1 k 2 b Building height 30 ft(max) >30 ft CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP and HBZSO Conditions Sec. 4 5,pg 21 & HBZSO 230 70 Addendum I lip Cond #11 c� Specific Plan Requirement Proposed TTM/CUP PC Action (PC Recommendation) (Catellus Proposal/Response) (12/3/98)/ Cond. # Planning Area 2 3* a Front yard setbacks 15ft (dwelling) & 12ft (patios/entry) Average 13.9 ft w/ 10 ft(min) or Average 12 ft w/ 10 ft(min) subject CRG disagrees with staff s opinion (PA-2 does not promote a creative/innovative to CUP and innovative development planning concept and design is in conflict with MSP provisions re: minimizing concepts with improved street scene paving in front yards and locating garages to not dominate street scene). CRG requests consideration of front yard averaging based on provision of parkways and Conditions building elevation design. CRG will pursue issue with CC, if PA—2 concept is Addendum not found to be creative/innovative by PC. I Cond Sec. 4.5, pg. 26 & 27 #1 m 4 b Exterior side yard setbacks Conditions 20% lot frontage (10 ft—Lot 39) 8 ft Addendum 1 Sec 4.5,pg 27 CRG agrees to comply by re-plotting the home on Lot 39. Cond #I.n 5 c Parking equirements 20'(w) X20'(d)—int.-garage 19'(w)X21'(d) dimensions CRG agrees to modify plans to comply with MSP Sec 4 4,pg. 19 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-standard compact and tandem CRG plan submittal includes sub-standard compact(10'X16' and 14'X16') and parking-not permitted. tandem as excess parking Conditions Addendum HBZSO 231.14 CRG agrees to designate additional garage areas as alternate use I Cond. #1 o N .�► S_ .Cz� Specific Plan Requirement Proposed TTM/CUP PC Action (PC Recommendation) (Catellus Proposal/Response) (12/3/98)/ cond. # Planning Area 3 6* a Rear yard setbacks Second story projections vary from 12"to 24". CRG will revise plans to eliminate 15ft(50%min) w/up to 50%at 13 ft projections if requested, but suggests that elimination of projections will diminish P elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: Conditions Sec 4 S,pg 31 "Second story projections no greater than 24"will be allowed to enhance Addendum architectural interest and elevational variation" ---Conformance of Specific Plan I language would be required at City Council. Cond. #1 p 7* b Garage Use/Design PA 3 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim. (75%du) Specific Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's(7-0) straw vote of 7/14/98 as follows: ft. w/add. storage =400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 3 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as du) to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented to the Conditions Planning Commission on 12/3/98.--- Conformance of Specific Plan language to Addendum eliminate reference to 25%cap would be required. 1 Sec. 4.4,pg 19 Cond #1 q 8* c On-street parking Infill development is required to be CRG is unaware of PC recommendation regarding relocation of on-street parking harmonious and compatible with in PA-3. CRG contends proposed plan is most efficient and compatible design surrounding neighborhood. PC and subject recommendation will create HOA enforcement problem. CRG previous recommended placing on- requests straw vote action by PC to clarify issue. CUP street parking away from easterly conditions property line of PA-3. Att.12 pg 11 HBZSO 230.22 Cond#Lf Specific Plan Requirement Proposed TTM/CUP PC Action (PC Recommendation) (Catellus Proposal/Response) (12/3/98)/ cond. # Planning Area 4 9* a Front yard setbacks CRG will revise plans to eliminate projections if requested, but suggests that 15 ft(min) elimination of projections will diminish elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: "Second story projections no greater than 24"will be allowed to enhance Conditions architectural interest and elevational variation" ---Conformance of Specific Plan Addendum Sec 4 5,pg 34 language would be required at City Council. 1 Cond #I.r 10 b. Side yard setbacks Architectural plans comply with MSP, TTM inconsistent with architectural plans, Conditions 4 ft(min) do not comply with MSP. Addendum 2 Sec 4.5,pg 35 CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP. Cond.#14 ff 11* c Garage Use/Design PA 4 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim. (75%du) Specific Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's (7-0) straw vote of 7/14/98 as follows: ft. w/add. storage=400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 4 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as Conditions du) to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented to the Addendum Planning Commission on 12/3/98.--- Conformance of Specific Plan language to I Sec 4 4,pg. 19 eliminate reference to 25%cap would be required. Cond#Ls 12 d. 7TM design Q SW corner of PA-4 MSP advocates high quality site Open space Lot"N" lacks adequate connection/access; design lends itself o Alt 12 planning; promotes project design potential undesirable activities. pg.3 which helps to create safe and Cond#4 pleasant living environment. CRG will revise plan to comply with staff recommendation and MSP. Pg 11 Sec. 3.0,pg. 4 Cond I g Specific Plan Requirement Proposed TTM/CUP PC Action (PC Recommendation) (Catellus Proposal/Response) (12/3/98)/ cond. # Other Project-wide Issues 13 Public Park 2.4 ac Public Park dedication (min) 2.32 ac Public Park dedication. I CUP CRG states CAD based calculation for proposed park site is 2.38 acres. CRG will conditions revise plan to comply with exact 2.4 acre parkland dedication requirement of Att.12 Sec. 3 4,pg 8 MSP, pg 11 Cond#1.a 14 Fences/Walls Masonry fences at interior and rear CRG submittal indicates wood fences at interior and rear residential property lines. residential property lines CUP CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP wall/fence requirement. conditions Att 12 Sec 4.5,pg. 24, 29, 33,36 pg.11 Cond#1 h 'IJ' II. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE MATRIX WITH STAFF RECOMMENDED MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN 12/3/98 The following matrix identifies Meadowlark development issues (TTM/CUP) that do not conform with the staff recommended Specific Plan. PC Approved Staff Recommended Applicant Response Meadowlark Specific Plan Specific Plan Park Issues a park dedication, improvements, in-lieu fees 2.4 ac parkland 3.4 ac parkland dedication; 0.8 ac improvement— Support PC approved MSP dedication/improvement; 0.8 ac Norma Gibbs park; in-lieu fees @ 516,500/acre improvement—Norma Gibbs park; in- lieu fees @$500,000/acre Sec.3 4,pg 8 b Public Park Parking Not specifically addressed, however, PC 20 parking spaces 16 parking spaces supported 16 parking spaces for 2.4 ac parksite c Dwellings adjacent to Public Park Not specifically addressed, however, PC Provide 3.4 acre park with buffer and relocate Maintain dwellings along supported dwellings adjacent to park residences proposed along south side of public south side of public parksite with no additional park buffer. park. c� — �- r PC Approved Staff Recommended Applicant Response Meadowlark Specific Plan Specific Plan Street Sections a Pearce Street Extension 50 ft street section - 60 ft street section— Support PC approved MSP 32 ft curb to curb/5 ft parkways/4ft 40 ft curb to curb/6 ft parkways/4 ft sidewalks/ sidewalks/parking on one-side parking on both sides Sec 3 3, pg 7 b Private Street Section Design Curb to curb width (PA 1 - 4) -32 ft Curb to curb width (PA 1 - 4) - 40 ft Support PC approved MSP Sidewalk width (PA 3 & 4)—5 ft Sidewalk width (PA 3 & 4) -6 ft Parkways (PA 1 & 2)—5 ft Parkways (PA 1 & 2) - 6 ft Sec. 3.3,pg. 8 On-site Parking a Tandem Parking 40 du (PA 1) & 45 du (PA 4) No tandem provisions, per HBZSO Support PC approved MSP Sec 4.4,pg 18 Fences/Walls a Front Yard Fences Open view fences permitted, up to 42" Delete provision or allow fences based on an Support PC approved MSP high,within,front yard setback. approved fence design plan Sec 4 5,pg 24,29,33,37 rM" PC Approved Staff Recommended Applicant Response Meadowlark Specific Plan Specific Plan Day Care Land Use Provisions a. Day Care Limited c& Day Care Large Day Care Large, permitted subject to Permit small-family day care by right and large Support PC approved MSP CUP in Open Space/Activity Center family day care subject to ZA/CUP. area Sec. 4.S,pg. 21 i � . � . 2. Affordable Housing Ile� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON-WCH - TO: Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Development FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: March 31, 1998 SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Requirements for Meadowlark Development Agreement RLS 98-128 INDEX: Meadowlark Development Agreement; Affordable Housing; Development Exactions BACKGROUND In 1989, the City Council adopted Development Agreement No. 88-1 concerning the Meadowlark Airport property. The airport has been closed and new commercial development has been constructed. The Developer is now preparing to develop the residential portion of the Project. ISSUE Does the Development Agreement prohibit the City from requiring the Developer to provide affordable housing units on the site? ANSWER No. DISCUSSION The Development Agreement provides that"the Land Use Regulations applicable to the Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations on the Effective Date of this Agreement, and no Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to Development of the Property." (Section 4.2.) 1 4/s:4-98 Memos:98-128 The Agreement further provides that "Land Use Regulations" means "All ordinances, resolutions, codes,rules,regulations, and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, . . . ." (Section 1.1.7.) "Effective Date" is defined as the "date this Agreement is recorded with the County Recorder." (Section 1.1.8.) The Agreement was recorded on July 24, 1989. Given the above sections, it is clear that the development of the Project is subject to all of the ordinances,resolutions, codes, rules,regulations, and official policies of the City governing the development and use of land in effect on July 24, 1989. The most important official policy document of the City in effect on July 24, 1989, was the General Plan. In the Housing Element thereof, one of the stated goals is to provide "a variety of housing opportunities by type,tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the city." (Huntington Beach General Plan, 1984 Housing Element, Section 8.0 (2).) The City further recognized the need for using its police powers to promote the provision of affordable housing in Section 8.2 of the Housing Element, entitled"Adequate Provision,"which reads as follows: 8.2 ADEQUATE PROVISION Adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community is an issue of the highest priority in Huntington beach. For reasons previously discussed, it appears unlikely that market forces alone will produce enough housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households to meet expected needs. Since decent housing for all is important to the welfare of the entire city, it is particularly important to address this need through the use of those public powers which impact housing. (Huntington Beach General Plan, 1984 Housing Element, Section 8.2.) In order to carry out the goal of providing adequate low and moderate income housing,the City adopted many specific policies, including the following: • Utilize developer agreements and density bonuses where feasible to encourage the production of low and moderate income housing. • Take advantage of existing infrastructure and public improvements to provide additional affordable housing by allowing second units in single family zoning districts. • Encourage a mixed-use projects containing residential and non-residential uses which can take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the costs of land for residential uses. • Promote adoption of development standards which reduce housing costs. 2 4/s:4-98Memos:98-128 6`M C, • Encourage the participation and financial commitment of private entities in attaining housing goals. • Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community,with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. • Ensure that any adverse impacts are minimized when increasing densities or relaxing standards in order to provide for low and moderate income housing. (Huntington Beach General Plan, 1984 Housing Element, Section 8.2.1.) The City also adopted many policies to insure that there would be adequate provision of sites for all types of housing, including affordable housing, as follows: • Utilize the following criteria for identifying and evaluating potential sites for low and moderate cost housing. Sites should be: - located with convenient access to: arterial highways and public transportation schools,parks, and recreational facilities shopping areas employment opportunities - adequately served by public facilities, services, and utilities - minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such hazards cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design of all proposed development. - minimally impacted by noise and blighted conditions - compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses - located outside areas of predominantly lower income concentrations • Plan for residential land uses which accommodate anticipated growth from new employment opportunities. • Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment centers. 3 4/s:4-98Memos:98-128 �1 �6ec, • Promote the rezoning of vacant or recyclable parcels of land to higher densities where compatible with surrounding land uses and available services in order to lower the cost of housing. CONCLUSION The Meadowlark Project is subject to the foregoing provisions of the General Plan. These provisions show that one of the stated goals of the City, contained in its Housing Element,was to use its police powers to ensure that adequate affordable housing would be provided in the City. Whether or not the Project will contain affordable units is a planning policy decision,not a legal one, and is ultimately within the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council. It is clear,however,that the Development Agreement does not prohibit the City from requiring the Developer to provide affordable housing as part of the Project, if the City Council or Planning Commission determines that such a requirement is appropriate for the Project. Jk--'e-01 9�� Gail Hutton City Attorney -- -- - 4 4/s:4-98Memos:98-128 i i i I I a II i i �— 3. Parks 254.08 Parkland Dedication A. General. This section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Subdivision Map Act and the general police power of the City and is for the purpose of providing such additional park and recreational facilities and open space as is appropriate pursuant to the General Plan of the City. The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required by this chapter are in accordance with the policies, principles and standards for park and recreational facilities contained in the General Plan. B. Requirements. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in this chapter. The land dedicated or the fees paid, or both, shall be used for community and neighborhood parks and facilities in such a manner that the locations of such parks and facilities bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision generating such dedication or fees, or both. Dedications for trails shall not be included as part of any requirements for park or recreational dedication. Lands to be dedicated or reserved for park and/or recreational purposes shall be suitable in the opinion of the Director and the Director of Community Services in location, topography, environmental characteristics and development potential as related to the intended use. The primary intent of this chapter shall be construed to provide the land for functional recreation units of local or neighborhood service, including but not limited to: tot lots, play lots, playgrounds, neighborhood parks, playfields, community or district parks, lakes, picnic areas,tree groves or urban forests, and other specialized recreational facilities that may serve the family group and also senior citizen activities. Principal consideration shall be given therefore to lands that offer: 1. A variety of recreational potential for all age groups; 2. Recreational opportunities within walking distance from residents' homes; 3. Possibility for expansion or connection with school grounds; 4. Integration with hiking, riding and bicycle trails, natural stream reserves and other open space; 5. Coordination with all other park systems; 6. Access to at least one existing or proposed public street. C. General Standard. It is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare require that five acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. D. Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the General Plan and is to be located in whole or in part within Chapter 254 254-2 F;-�- , n r �r< NO 10/3/94 the proposed subdivision and is reasonably related to serving the present and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for park and recreation facilities sufficient in size and topography to meet that purpose. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following standards and formula: A=5.0 MY x No. D.U) 1000 I. Definitions of terms: a. A-the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the subdivision. b. D.F. - density factor obtained from Section 254.08(E) as applicable to proposed subdivision. C. 5.0 -number of acres per one thousand persons. d. No. D.U. - number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision. 2. When a proposed subdivision contains dwelling units with different density factors, the formula shall be used for each such density factor and the results shall be totalled. E. Density. The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon residential density, which is determined on the basis of the approved tentative map and the average number of persons per household. The average number of persons per household by unit in a structure shall be obtained from the most recent available federal census or state or City population and housing data. The number of dwelling units in a subdivision shall be the number proposed for construction. When the actual number of units to be constructed is unknown, it shall be assumed for the purposes of this chapter that the maximum number permissible by law will be constructed. The number of bedrooms in each unit of a proposed subdivision shall be determined from the building plans filed, and shall include as bedrooms all rooms, however labeled on the plans, other than living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, and bathrooms, which are suitable for use as or are suitable for conversion to bedrooms. The number of bedrooms attributable to a unit shall include not only those areas so labeled on the plans,but may include as well any area in a dwelling unit which, because of its size, location, facilities, or relationship to other areas of the dwelling unit, is deemed divisible so as to create one or more additional bedrooms. F. Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. I. General Formula. If there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the Chapter 254 254-3 Jjt ! } � !0� ,� 10/3/94 subdivider shall, at the City's discretion, either dedicate land in the amount provided in Section 254.08(D) or pay a fee in lieu of dedication equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 254.08(D) and in an amount determined in accord with the provisions of Section 254.08(H). 2. Fees in Lieu of Land- 50 Parcels or Less. If the proposed subdivision contains 50 parcels or less and has no park or recreational facility, the subdivider shall pay a fee equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision as prescribed in Section 254.08(D) and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 254.08(H). 3. Use of Money. The money collected shall be used, in accordance with the schedule developed pursuant to Section 254.08(K), for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision, including the purchase of necessary land and/or improvement of such land for park or recreational purposes. The money shall be committed to the partial or full completion of necessary purchases or improvements within five years after payment thereof or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the money is not committed, it shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of each lot bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision. G. Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee. If the proposed subdivision contains more than 50 lots, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu of dedication in accordance with the following: I. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the General Plan as the site for a local park or recreational facility, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 254.08(H) shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 254.08(D). 2. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the City and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site, such portion shall be dedicated, and a fee, computed according to Section 254.08(H) shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated according to Section 254.08(D). 3. The fee shall be used for the improvement of the existing park or recreational facility or for the improvement of other neighborhood or community parks and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision. H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for park or recreational purposes. Chapter 254 254-4 X1 T A C\H E_N_F NO, 6,�10/3/94 `�`_ 6�1e pc, Fair market value of the land in such neighborhood park properties in the City shall be determined every two years by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. I. Determination of Land or Fee. Whether the City accepts land dedication, or elects to require the payment of a fee in lieu o� or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: 1. Policies, standards and principles for park and recreation facilities in the General Plan; 2. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication; 3. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication; 4. Feasibility of dedication; 5. Compatibility of dedication with the General Plan; 6. Availability of previously acquired park property. The determination by the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination of both, shall be final and conclusive. J. Credit for Improvements and Private Open Space. If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements " together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this section. Planned developments, real estate developments, stock cooperatives, and condominiums shall receive partial credit, not to exceed 50 percent, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section, for the value of private open space within the development, which is usable for active recreational uses, if the City Council, on the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, finds that it is in the public interest to do so, and that the following standards are met. l. That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required by Titles 20-24 (Zoning) shall not be included in the computation of the private open space; 2. That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance, or restrictions; 3. That the use of the private open space is restricted to park and recreational purposes by recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property, and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City or its successor; Chapter 254 254-5 10/3/94 4. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes,taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location; and 5. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accord with the provisions of the General Plan. K. Procedure. 1. At the time of the recording of the final map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate the land and/or pay the fees as determined by the City. At the discretion of the City Council, fees may be paid prior to issuance of any building permit for any structure in the subdivision. 2. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the City prior to approval of the final map or parcel map and, if approved, shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or parcel map. L. Schedule of Use. At the time of the approval of the final map or parcel map, the City shall make a preliminary determination of how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop or rehabilitate park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. Final scheduling of improvements to these new or rehabilitated parks or recreational facilities shall be made as part of the City's capital improvement program. M. Not Applicable to Certain Subdivisions. The provisions of this section do not apply to: (1) commercial or industrial subdivisions; or(2)to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. r ! fA'C"H LENrT INCO_ C/.'5;0 1:12 FAX i 143 i 416 L- CDD �OXI`ISTRATIO` -, Ia 002 J , .LJ+13Wd0131130 AL1Nf1fNU'�p0 d0 J.N3Nl1-uyd3a 4-1 Im c1TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION L6618 Z Nbr H{,'NTL\GTQV tUChl a TO: 1IELA\TE FALLON, CON MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: GAIL HUTTON, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: NKEADO«'LARK SPECIFIC PLAN DATE: JANUARY 24, 1997 BACKGROUND In 1989, the City and the Nerio Family entered into a Development Agreement concerning the Meadowlark Airport site. The stated purposes of the Agreement are as follows: to establish development rights in the Property;to provide for the cessation of all airport operations on the Property on or before September 1, 1989; to pro,.zde a secure means of financing needed public improvements; to provide additional employment opportunities and housing; and to generate substantial additional revenues to the City to enable it to maintain and improve vital public services for the residents of the City of Huntington Beach. The airport has been closed and new commercial development has been constructed on part of the Property. The NTerios, in conjunction with Catellus Residential Group, are now beginning the entitlement process for the residential portion of the Property, and have proposed a small lot, single famL?y subdivision. This type of housing product is very popular at present, especially among first time homebuyers. Unforunately,the zoning code and the Meadowlzk Specific Plan do not provide any development standards for small lot subdivisions. Further,the Developer contends that the Agreement and the Development Approvals in connection therewith (including the EIR and the Specific PIan)pro-vide that the city cannot require any exaction, including park dedication, that is not specifically authorized by the Agreement and the Approvals. The City contends that it may require a park dedication, and that development standards must be in place before is can analyze the Nerios small lot proposal. ISSTUMS 1. Did the City waive its right to require the Developer to dedicate some of the Property for park purposes by adoption of the Agreement? Answer: No. There is no express waiver of park dedication in the Agreement; the Specific Plan clearly contemplates a-park dedication requirement; and the Existing Land Use regulations, as defined by the Agreement, include HBOC Article_ 996-B, Parks and Recreational Facilities. R!Gl�i'trw C�1 ris 96-909 co)« ` L 12 F.AX 1417416-'' CDD ADMINISTRATIOr Z003 " 7 r 2. Can the proposed small lot subdivision be processed absent development standards? Answer: Yes. Although the preferred method is to have adopted development standards by which to analyze a proposal, it is possible to process one without such standards. In fact,the city has already processed one such subdivision by way of conditional use permit. DISCUSSION A. The language of the Agreement supports the City's right to require a park dedication. The Agreement provides in section 4.1 that Subject to the terms of this Agreement,Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with,and to the extent of, the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use,the maximum height and size of proposed buildings,and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development PIan. (emphasis added) Thus, even in the same paragraph that vests the Developer's rights, dedication of land for public purposes is discussed. .e Agreement defines "Development Plan ' as the"Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to the Development of the Property." "Existing Land Use Regulations" are attached as Exhibit C, and includes the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, as amended th.*ough the date of this Agreement. Thus,the Agreement acknowledges that the Property is subject to the city's zoning and subdivision regulations embodied in the then existing Ordinance Code,which included Article 996-B, entitled Parks and Recreational Facilities. Article 996-B contains the City's requirements for park land dedication or park and recreational in-li:a fees. Given the fact that the Agreement itself expressly allows the Property to be.subject to the city's park dedication requirements, it is difficult to conclude that the City somehow waived its right to a park dedication by adopting the Agrecment. B. The language of the Specific Plan supports the ciry's right to require a park dedication. The Specific Plan provides the following in Section O: O. PARK DEDICATION Park dedication for the proposed project could be used for a greenbelt that would provide access through the development to Gibbs Parks and/or as-aa area on the %vestem edge of the Park that would be set aside for park parking,providing it does not change the character of the Park Any proposed augmerltatibn of Gibbs Park will be Subject to Community Services approval, E, , q 2 2 Z004 This section of the Specific Plan clearly shows that that a park dedication was contemplated. It even provides for some alternative uses of the park dedication- as greenbelt areas, as automobile parking for Gibbs Park, or as augmentation of Gibbs Park. Given this express language in the Specific Plan, it is difficult to accept the notion that the city somehow waived its right to a park dedication by adopting the Agreement. C. The Existing Land Use Regulations include the park dedication requirement. The Agreement defines the Existing Land Use Regulations (the ELL-R) in Exhibit"C"to the Agreement as: 1. The General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach as amended through the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, as amended through the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, as of the Effective Date of the Agreement, included Article 996-B entitled "Parks and Recreational Facilities," which provides the City's regulations concerning park dedication or payment of fees in lieu of park dedication. Thus the."ar dedication is required as a part of the SLUR, and is an allowable exaction under the Agreement. ft is imtaorta.--it to note that an exaction may be required as a condition of development even though it may not be identified as a mitigation measure for an environmental impact. D. The project can be processed by CUP without legislated development standards. The second issue is whether the proposed project can be processed without adopted development standards. The project is comprised of a new type of housing unit called"small lot" development. The concept is to build single family residences on individual lots that are smaller than the city's normal standard of 6000 square feet per lot. This allows for more lots per acre, but at more affordable prices. The problem is that no development standards (like height of buildings, yard setbacks, street widths, etc.) for small lot units are found in the ELLTK We believe the project can be legally processed without specific development standards; and the city has recently done so -4 ith the Greystone project. This is not to say that it is the best practice to do so; if every project was processed absent specific development standards,the community would look even more haphazard than it does now. However,there is no leealimperjiment to processin.e the project by conditional use permit, so lQug_as the Specific-Plan and the 1989 Ordinance Code are followed as appuca_ble. We caution that this approach may lead to problems in the future, and recommend tuna development standards be adopted as soon as possible. G_4IL HUTTON ;ity Attorney a:dµ•irf:aa 1 i 3 S �i'',:.:i�i� 4�f�� $°t�: — -,.,�.;,_.,:�.: rh 96-909 Ott` QC. PROPOSED MEADOWLARK AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPM'ENT R,E * .P.AR.K DEDICATION HISTORY • 1988 E[R • 1995 DEVELOPMENT OF G1BBS PARK • 1998 CURRENT C[TY-WIDE PARK CONCEPT • CLOSED SCHOOLS - LOSS OF OPEN SPACE • YOUTH SPORTS GROWTH • UPDATED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONCEPT • PROPOSED PARK LOCATION IONS PARK DEDICATIONOPT a, LAND IN LIEU FEE_ LAND VALUE (APPRdXI PARK IMPR VEMENTS* TOTAL.PARK TOTAL VALUE IMPROVEMENT VALUE* 5„ 1. 5157AC $0 $500,000 PER ACRE $0 $0 $2,875 MILLION 2.3.40 AC $1,085,000 $500,000 PER ACRE ONSITE = 4.2AC.** $630.000 $2.875 MILLION (5,57.3 4 X$500,000) OFFSfTE= $685,000 $685,000 3. 2.20 AC $163.000 $181,900 PER ACRE .3,OAC**' $450,000 $1.713 MILLION 4. NO LAND $2,785,000 $500,000 PER ACRE $0 $o $2.875 MILLION (PER ORD.-$500,000 PER AC) 5. NO LAND $1:140,000 $181,900 PER ACRE $0 $tl $1.14 MILLION (PER FEE RESO.) z "BAM)ON $150,000 PER ACRE DEVELOPMENT WST '* 4.2 ACRES - 3.4 AC DEDICATION PLUS 0.8 AC GIBBS PARK 10 ACRES=2.2 AC DEDICATION PLUS 0.8AC GIBES PARK : .4. To Community Services Commission From Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services Date May 29, 1998 Subject Meadowlark Airport Residential Development Project Cattelus C.U.P. and Tentative Tract Map for 325 Units STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Should the City Council require land dedication only or a combination of developed park and in lieu fees as one of the conditions of approval for the Meadowlark Airport residential development project? RECOMMENDATION: Consider the attached information and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council to either: 1. Require Cattelus Development to dedicate 5.57 acres of undeveloped parkland to satisfy requirements pursuant to the city's park dedication ordinance for their development project; or 2. Require 3.4 acres be dedicated and developed as active, neighborhood park; improve 0.8 acres of undeveloped existing parkland in Norma Gibbs Park; require dedication fees equal to the "value of the land prescribed for dedication" as required pursuant to the city's parkland dedication ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council an alternative park dedication scenario to satisfy the park dedication requirements for this proposed development project. ANALYSIS: The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 1988. It included an evaluation by the Community Services Department that Norma Brandel Gibbs Park would serve the residences of Meadowlark Airport area. The park was undeveloped and consisted of an open area and a degenerated eucalyptus grove that was diseased, infested with the Australian bore beetle and included a large burned section. Approximately 100 of the original 500 trees remained. A decade has lapsed since the original EIR and park recommendation. The situation has changed for a number of reasons necessitating the development of a traditional neighborhood park as part of the Cattelus project. 1 G ,� b Q�- 1. On July 8, 1995, Gibbs Park, Phase I, was dedicated with seventy to eighty percent of the 5.0 acres developed as an urban forest, recapturing and rehabilitating the eucalyptus grove. Over 300 trees were planted along with an irrigation system to keep the trees out of a stressed condition, infected trees were removed, sidewalk and security lights added, and a forty-foot diameter tile butterfly mosaic with interpretive information was constructed. 2. The city has updated its philosophy regarding neighborhood parks to add backstops and soccer/football fields to create recreational and practice areas (not competitive fields) for neighborhood children due to the loss of recreation open space at closed schools and the growth in youth sports citywide. Attached is the proposed Cattelus Development site plan for the former Meadowlark Airport property, which shows development of 325 single-family residential units. According to the city's park dedication ordinance, this project is required to dedicate 5.57 acres of parkland. According to the ordinance, the city has the choice of accepting land or in lieu fees, or a combination to satisfy this requirement. Park in lieu fees are based upon the market value of land. The city is requiring an in lieu fee equivalent of a greater park dedication fee based on the "value of the land prescribed for dedication" per Section 254,08(D) of the city's parkland dedication ordinance instead of requiring the 5.57 acres dedication. That is the Intent of Recommendation #2. Community Services and Planning staff have had numerous meetings with developers regarding this project and how best to mitigate the impact this residential project would have on the current park and recreation system. Although the demographics will vary over the life spand of this neighborhood, staff believes that there will be a significant number of children and young adults living in this neighborhood at any one time. Consequently, there will be at least two significant areas of impact that need to be addressed in the parkland requirement; 1) youth and adult sports facilities, and 2) active neighborhood park uses. In analyzing the park and recreation requirements staff considered the* parkland dedication ordinance and the Youth Sports Needs Assessment Study. The parkland dedication ordinance requires a variety of recreational potential for all age groups. The 325 homes in this proposal will generate a need for group picnics (birthday parties, scout groups, family functions, etc); and a need for active play (youth sports practice area, neighborhood pickup games, open turf games, etc.). The neighborhood park should be within walking distance from residents' homes but also provide the required amount of adjacent parking for loading and unloading of recreation equipment, kids and supplies. 3 -T A V _�� = Although the neighborhood park will provide practice sports areas, there will also be a need to improve sports facilities within this section of the community to handle the impact that the project's estimated thousand residents will have on the existing sports facilities at Harbor View, Meadow View, and Marina High School. The issue for staff and the commission is whether to recommend that the developer be required to dedicate parkland (5.57 acres), or to recommend that a combination of parkland dedication and park dedication fees be accepted that could then be used to develop the neighborhood park and provide off-site improvements to sports facilities at the time these proposed homes are completed and ready for occupancy. The advantage of requiring a strict land dedication is that 5.57 acres of this approximately 50 acre site will be preserved as open space. However, the city has no funds to develop this space for neighborhood park uses, and the site may go undeveloped for many years such as Irby Park, Barlett Park, Ellis/Goldenwest Park, etc. This would create a situation whereby over 325 homes would be occupied without developed neighborhood park, thus placing a great impact on surrounding neighborhood parks such as Chris Carr Park and Harbor View Park. An alternative is to accept less land dedication and allow the developer to pay a negotiated park fee based on land value. These fees then could be used to develop the dedicated land and a portion of the adjacent Gibbs Park for neighborhood park purposes. They could also be used to make improvements to off site sports facilities to mitigate the sports impacts. Staff would recommend reconstruction of the Harbor View Tennis courts, reconstruction of the fields at Meadow View School, and sports field lighting at Marina High School. If a combination of land dedication and negotiated park fees for improvements is recommended, the minimum neighborhood park dedication to provide the above stated activities is 3.4 acres; this would be added to the 0.8 acres of Gibbs Park for a total of 4.2 acres. Staff has had two park consultants look at this site and the park configuration for neighborhood uses. While a 3.0 acre park can accommodate picnic facilities and open turf areas for practice sports uses and pick up games; a minimum of 4.2 acres is needed to provide a safe buffer- between the various uses and the proposed and existing residential development. However, the two areas should be adjacent to provide for access and to give children a place to play instead of playing in the tree grove. Cattelus Development is proposing to dedicate 2.2 acres of parkland, develop both this space and 0.8 acres of Gibbs Park into a centrally located neighborhood park adjacent to Gibbs Park, and to pay in lieu fees of$3,100 per single family residence for the remaining parkland requirement. While staff �a agrees with this concept, staff believes the minimum size of the neighborhood NU park should be 3.4 acres of Cattelus dedication to add to the existing 0.8 acres of Gibbs Park. The developer's proposal does contain additional private recreational facilities controlled by the homeowners associations. These include a swimming pool, tot lot, and meeting room. These amenities do not count, however, toward the parkland dedication requirement. Since this is a tentative tract map, the total number of units may change. The 5.57 acre requirement is based on a development of 325 homes. If the total number of homes changes then the amount of dedication would also change. In summary, staff is seeking a Community Services Commission recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether to require strict land dedication of 5.57 acres or to require a negotiated combination of developed neighborhood park space of 3.4 acres; plus 0.8 acres developed of Gibbs Park; and park dedication fees based on current land value (approximately $500,000 an acre) to pay for off-site sports facilities improvements. �`Ib fG 7r E T�. ��C�Ct2 g� �'`S� ?i Q4 ;pis i :It I (� 9i '�� s ►`� ii 5 T`ct o Z tL- {Il ! �� ir E - t- i :•it e� { C i•x 9 !si •..__•.. •j �^ tti Q pp!` 'II I Ii pO r� 't4.• y:-....-_ -Al �I,Ee � CA� Co 0 0[ 1��tigp I ; ,1 I i h :j g': ! ¢ ¢,— LL f-3 ` fi tit!fl 1 "ii fi' a E-� `a ! W p _J�! !�D-ya :tt3; �l��;ttslelet .I. ¢�E �!Ipt i.p.,cgs iSz�1 >s'-.."'tlEiii• it �i16 r ! — !. O Urn !il .,�•�— gg+ it tE p_yita't!i i6itl.;�;8�;11e'-'r`�;���g�� 'g�t 1' g �! I•;� is �iiiyYFey EEC !! (� z¢r O t'1 - 51 g 1!t =r 4 !s-� �Sifftialt r<Iittt9:_.t Z¢ r lfi l��r.�p�;I`s� it flg��!! t;s$ � E! ;!i 5s>i: 1 Q ' z f— .w Il.„! ;rid!�P l3 as] :!i!' ■ t�4 111111011111 y y Z ! :. •gs lfii if. sE g, Q f— �7 !gls 3E T.e tylltN6«�i E g i 116 E �:ii fill =° 1 Ili: 5as 3ls !Q a—'.>0~ ES =e• 3 S Q cr o 7- 11 CC a K ro TT T —IH <- I ' S:i I •?;I � ' ef¢r, i' > I) ui -■ � F-.• _� z•► c ter('\Jee.ai �? �+ .........+...:..:...:.:...::...:...a..:r,<.a,.aa,.:i:::::...a:a_..::::.:.:.:::.aii.a:...:.s....:,:::::r.:a..:...:..,:::::::a.::.a:::i:aa..........a:i::<.•..:::., O ll�iil3!litlilA!!Itill!!!3AAt!iAiii!!lSASlAAl611A!!'{tilE3Alt3t6tiSlAtiAitlSttA!ltttil,i!!!i!i!;A3i!3!!!_!ai!S'Aii!!!!liiiSSS3S!6':!3!SA3ASi.iS!!!!!!i!!i!liiiiiitili!!i ¢Z ».,.•.n,..+.+.,.»:>s»>+u».•>++n.»»+.+a+».+.n+»....a►»nt»a»a»i:++<»:..f»»+++rt►+.....t.a>e...+:+.:::».ae:t+a>:++....t.t.t.► f-- �7iy!{tyeirsleeree;;l3{2!{ytti::}F!-z;ty{,itt!{lts�tti2lefeiEEiES!1_2'_.!i21lE1si1ii1iti22t;E{;;[i {!{{Iit _i51ES2lStilltt!!!iliit2itEtiltlt{Eltliii{{E'sF34!{i56 D r�>...r.............s...s......::.iz..i:........ai.f.....:.a..a:...r...a.:..,.........f.a.:..a...ss.s.........::,:,..i..•...s.i..s..ta.a•i.............:....:... w LL 0 r�iliSiliili!!3!liliil3lii!!AS!!ittiiittiii!!=_Si!!!!`_izi':iiiliii3!;333S2.iSli-`.l!illiliiililia!Al3::IIilSi!!3!!it?l:l:ill!!!i!!liAl:lIAHA!!3lSSi:AiiilinlnAAAAii!!3i �p t�+►+►l.+»»►Y■•S.+i►►l,►►,+.»>►!•f,!!.:►!•»Il>»!f►■>.►•►!►■Y»>.►►►f>•.>!»f.»:».>,..•.>a>►•:.»•.>t.»».»»e!>a»ik>+.►.att>Sit>..L:.+>i>SSY>►>a>t>•t+:.:• �_ _....._..•_a_z.,:,,fsr_ier_ea.s.a,u..,+:sair,:,,.:.aa.aiaf+:na•r•+<er_zeeeee•................ ^-.fie i7whlYi�`� •w F•� U e-WIS.1 a IS _ � f m _� 1.• ■ • ■ . f •a — F-' U II �� t�l II a` ; , •d '': 1 ! ! ! i 1 1 i ! t ! i t t t-1- 1 i. ` ... _ ._. - , is II ''• ' •. ■ al .`; . 1 � .t '�=:----•--- --� --. t 'I • � 1 y t I .•s � 1—� y '�-. 't I� ` a' ' , ■ a ■ ■ \ xa a !n ! 1, t. �f.. 'a !�� :-2 _ �= ,w■ . — il it, ■1r>aelsrrs 1 i � i I g! •' � ! a RA !_ .r a -1 ! ! 6� a'. • • s ■ ■ e • e z z a i a t t : i V* llq STALLION 66 1 . I TA 88 WA 10/35-38 z is 76 77 is 71 to M',= r EATM DUAM 6 SNIXE FAMLY .... .. '�­.> ........... 64 T. 91 69 so as 7 T t I I M I St 16, &NE"31 REET i 77t LNE I Eft 3 70 92 L Irs2 Miiffi OFTACK) 71 209 110 211 21 213 S FAMY T.t A Tit Be �3 y �p� - O�_ /~~ 20 :16 tIs 211 O� !s � ..O W 10 1 35 36 105 21S RUNG MIA013) too ;16 Mn-RMLY(�o i : 74 106 101 ca) ilk 217 320 L.� PEARCE 9 D lif its o 319 Ill 311(aD OT 32 239 ;19 Its Its III Ito ;40 w QED CED CED (ED CED 120 too lie ISP 198 190 200 2 1 lot 203 204 20S 22' 1 (ED (ED (2D (—F) CaD (Z�e CED cS> 238 Q. (ED 25 237 222(Z) (ED (:T> QD 7 308 304 Z35 286 291 (ED (ZD 303 2-35 224 121 �� l9s , 1e1 1„1 nod ," 'O O O ( O O -K '! '6 \ x]I 185 225 293 1!4 302 As 2i 9 283 214 2116 26 (2) (E> (:E> Q�V 282 2;7 177 44 1 fj I I'ccc 7 cp TM DI A 190 189 ' "' I VALLY(flyD E Q-130 140 141 117 �14.3! 2;pI 272 1 2 1. 4po CE4 d m d p p 7risf p p "• o p'. © �p © p p 4� "' „/] ........... TIM W260 tAtio f)Rivr lilt. Of IN 200 133-36 Q) 6430 MEADOWLARK MM M3 41-40 PLANNING AREAS 1-4 EZIM kf 1.1 FANY(114) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 -QwlfEg APPLICANT k DEVELOPER + MDS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATELLUS SHEET 3 OF 3 61 WHO DITA00 SNU-FAMLY --- ----- ------ L2. ,T-- 2 6 25 26 27 e- i (ED 29` v A 7 4 00 31 'A' CUCH - 32 22 46 47 48 0 33 CED 36 45 44 I.3 (ED 10 41 42 .1 .. 0Ai . Is 17 To ....... Is E." A> . I I (M> if ICED ...... go 52 5 57 So 55 /* T" r an-p'—STREET— GMS PA Xi,/ -t> W (4.5 AW a& LOT 2- a? as .. ......... San) lt.i � ....... (ID 176 (ED 3 "A to 9 Be 66 (aD gas 04 1' isV 69 MA CH STREET' 03) jfI 10 71. 22 93 94 95 95 EXISTNO DETA0113) 71 209 211 212 1. F- SMLE FARY Q!j, 32 4 72 7 323 1 MEADOWLARK 241 246 244 "I., !t.. PLANNING AREAS 1-4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 APPU AHT k I)EVELOPERMos .:£P�6Y,Time MOW&L.A TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 154up CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATELLUS SHEET 2 OF 3 A !Ri (;r Y oF ut wmiToN EmAm ST 99"CH MI ER-DEPARTMENT C0MMUNICAMON TO: Amy Wolf, Assistant Planner, Community Development FROM: Jim B. Engle, Director, Community Services DATE: June 2, 1998 7 SUBJECT: MEADOWLARK AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RE: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPACT ON EUCALYTUS GROVE As you know, the plan is to expand Gibbs Park which is 5.8 acres by at least 2.1 acres of flat usable parkland. The 2.1 acres will be added to .9 acres of open flat area that currently does not have eucalyptus trees to create the active area within the park to serve the proposed neighborhood. The question has arisen as to the possible impact on the eucalyptus grove and monarch butterfly habitat. If the park were not expanded to provide the traditional "neighborhood park" type Frycilities, then the surrounding residents would utilize the grove as park area for active J passive activities. If a separate neighborhood park were developed within the airport area, but not adjacent to Gibbs Park, Gibbs Park would still be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood and therefore would still be impacted by adjacent residents. By providing an expanded section of the park that can be used for active activities, there will be a place for children to play other than within the eu(3alyptus grove. There is no scenario that will eliminate children playing within the eucalyptus grove as long as it is an open public park. If we'were to fence the grove, it would slow the children, but not totally deter children from getting into the park site. Locking up a park is not a realistic alternative. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the best alternative is to expand Gibbs Park to provide traditional neighborhood park facilities that can be- utilized by the children while still providing the eucalyptus grove for the neighborhood and community. From a maintenance standpoint, having two separate parks would be less efficient and effective. It would result in additional maintenance costs due to travel time including loading and unloading of equipment. it should be noted that the eucalyptus grove within Gibbs Park is a habitat for the Monarch butterflies. School groups as well as individuals and families currently travel to the grove, especially during the months of December through March, to view the CITY OF HUNTINOTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION WNTINGTON BEACH TO: Amy Wolf, Assistant Planner, Community Development FROM: Jim B. Engle, ty Director, Community Services DATE: June 11, 1998 SUBJECT: MEADOWLARK AIRPORT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RE: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPACT ON EUCALYTUS GROVE As you know, the plan is to expand Gibbs Park which is 5.0 acres by at least 2.2 acres of flat usable parkland. The 2.2 acres will be added to 0.8 acres of open flat area that currently does not have eucalyptus trees to create the active area within the park to serve the proposed neighborhood. The question has arisen as to the possible impact on the eucalyptus grove and monarch butterfly habitat. If the park were not expanded to provide the traditional "neighborhood park" type facilities, then the surrounding residents would utilize the grove as park area for active and passive activities. If a separate neighborhood park were developed within the airport area, but not adjacent to Gibbs Park, Gibbs Park would still be accessible to the surrounding neighborhood and therefore would still be impacted by adjacent residents. By providing an expanded section of the park that can be used for active activities, there will be a place for children to play other than within the eucalyptus grove. There is no scenario that will eliminate children playing within the eucalyptus grove as long as it is an open public park. If we were to fence the grove, it would slow the children, but not totally deter children from getting into the park site. Locking up a park is not a realistic alternative. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the best alternative is to exIband Gibbs Park to provide traditional neighborhood park facilities that can be utilized by the children while still providing the eucalyptus grove for the neighborhood and community. From a maintenance standpoint, having two separate parks would be less efficient and effective. It would result in additional maintenance costs due to travel time including loading and unloading of equipment. It should be noted that the eucalyptus grove within Gibbs Park is a habitat for the - Monarch butterflies. School groups as well as individuals and families currently travel to the grove, especially during the months of December through March, to view the IC) _10.� June 11, 1998 Page two butterflies. The natural environment is enjoyed by the general public year-round. But again, as noted above, even fencing it off will not totally protect the grove. The addition of the new homes will increase the impact on the park. It is better to provide "neighborhood park" facilities adjacent to the park to lessen the impact on the natural area by giving children an alternative site, other than the grove, to play. JBE:as xc: Ron Hagan A T TACHIt TENT NO, 60,I n CATELLUS June 16, 1998 Chairman Tom Livengood and Members of Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Re: Request for City Attorney Review of Remaining Park Dedication Legal Issues Dear Chairman Livengood: As the Catellus Residential Group ("CRG") entitlement applications have been reviewed by City staff, Subdivision Committee, Community Services Commission and Planning Commission, several issues have arisen regarding park dedication/in-lieu fee requirements for the Meadowlark Specific Plan. While the City Attorney's office has provided two opinions (January 24, 1997 and June 12, 1998), advising that park dedications are an allowable and contemplated exaction under the Meadowlark Development Agreement and Specific Plan, we believe additional legal guidance on the requirements of State law and the City's own ordinances are necessary. We would, therefore, respectfully ask that the Commission request that the City Attorney provide further guidance on the following legal issues related to the appropriate scope of these Meadowlark park exactions. Our specific questions relative to the legality of Meadowlark park exactions are as follows: (1) Must the City adhere to the requirements of Government Code Section 66477(d) which requires that park and recreational facilities (within a subdivision) be in accordance with adopted General Plan policies and standards? If so, is a 3.4 acre active park requirement in excess of the General Plan designation for the - Meadowlark site? (2) May the Commission impose new requirements for larger, active sports fields within a Specific Plan or subdivision based on a" . . . change in the City's philosophy regarding neighborhood parks . . . " (June 16, 1998 Community Development Staff Report-ZTA No. 97-4/ZMA No. 97-1: Page 13) or does the Development Agreement and State Planning law require the park dedication to be consistent with the General Plan (Open Space and Recreation Element) in existence prior to July 24, 1989? (3) Does Government Code Section 66474.2 require the City to apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards (including exactions) in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code? ATTACHNAllrN T y0, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 400, IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 251-6100 FAX (949) 231-8837 ?� I L1 /"L Chairman Tom Livengood and Members of Planning Commission Page 2 (4) Does HBOC Section 9961.6 and 9961.8 require that Catellus must pay only (pursuant to the formula described therein), fees in lieu of land dedication, since there is no park or recreational facility designated in the City's Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan for the Meadowlark project area? (5) May the City impose or require a higher"negotiated"park fee from Catellus in the absence of the "fair market value" appraisal of"all R-1 zoned neighborhood public parks within the City," as specified in HBOC 9961.8? Catellus would respectfully request that the Planning Commission ask the City Attorney to provide a response to these questions one week prior to the July 14, 1998 date the Commission has indicated it will continue the referenced Meadowlark entitlement applications. We appreciate the attention the entire Commission and City Staff have given to the Meadowlark project. We will be available at Tuesday's hearing to address Commission questions with respect to these and other project issues. Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP Bruce T. Lehman Executive Vice President BTL/lmf cc: City Administrator Ray Silver Acting City Attorney Paul D'Allessandro Community Development Director Melanie Fallon � j �Lt P� PROPERTY AUG 1 0 1998 APPRAISAL JMGMW OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND BETWEEN WARNER/HEIL/BOLSA/GR.AHAM (FORMER MEADOWLARK AIRPORT LAND) FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i DATED: August 10, 1998 DATE OF VALUE: August 10, 1998 i Mark W. Linnes, MAI 9919 Solejar Drive Whittier, California 90603 5621691-6455 Meadowlark T.T. Map 15469 City of Huntington Beach SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS LOCATION: Between Warner/Heil/Bolsa Chica/Graham(Former Meadowlark Airport) APN NO.: Portions of APN 146-211/212; APN 146-491 USE: Vacant land ZONING: Meadowlark Specific Plan (Residential) LAND AREA: 48.4 acres PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL: Current Market Value As-Is HIGHEST, BEST & MOST PROBABLE USE: Single Family Residential as proposed. DATE OF REPORT: August 10, 1998 DATE OF VALUE: August 10, 1998 i TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE: $25,000,000 ($11.85 psf or$516,500/acre) i ALLOCATED VALUES: Land: $25,000,000 Improvements: -0- r .; -IN T N(3. � CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Amy Wolfe, Community Development Department From Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services ,, Date October 21, 1998 (/�" Subject Parkland Dedication Requirement for the Meadowlark Residential Development Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Require Cattelus Development to dedicate a total of 5.37 acres of parkland to satisfy the Quimby Act requirements for their development project (313 units X 3.43 persons per unit X 5 acres/ 1000= 5.36795)by: 1. Accepting 3.4 acres of parkland dedication and; 2. Giving credit for the difference in parkland dedication requirement from 5.37 to 3.4 by excepting in lieu fees equal to the current value of the property which is$516,500 per acre and; 3. Giving credit according to the following formula for the development of the 3.4 acres with an additional .8 acres developed of the adjacent Norma Gibbs Park; 5.37AC—3AAC= 1.97AC X $516,500=$1,017,505 - (4.2 X $150,000)= $387,505 in remaining in-lieu fees, and by; 4. Using the remaining $387,505 in lieu fees to make sports facilities improvements to existing courts and fields within the surrounding neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Accept Cattelus's offer of 2.4 acres of parkland dedication instead of 3.4 acres with the remaining dedication requirement under the same formula as above: 5.37AC— 2AAC=2.97AC X $516,500=$1,534,005 —(3.2 AC X $150,000)= $1,054,005 in in- lieu fees for sports facilities improvements. ANALYSIS: The currently proposed site plan for the former Meadowlark Airport property shows development of 313 single-family residential units. According to the Quimby Act and the city's park dedication ordinance, this project is required to dedicate 5.37 acres of parkland project (313 units X 3.43 persons per unit X 5 acres/ 1000=5.36795). According to the ordinance,the city has the choice of accepting land or in lieu fees or a combination to satisfy this requirement. i1 y e4, Staff has had numerous meetings with the developers regarding this project and how best to mitigate the impact this residential project would have on the current park and recreation system. Under the city's current park ordinance, the in lieu park fee is $3,100 per unit. If the city were to accept all in lieu fees, the dedication requirement per the current fee resolution would be$1,007,500. The current land value within this area of the city is $516,500 per acre,thus, strict land dedication of 5.37 would have a real value of $2,773,605. If the city were to accept raw land as the park dedication requirement, it would then have to appropriate funds to develop the 5.37 acres for neighborhood park uses. Current park development costs are approximately$150,000 an acre. Thus, the city would need to fund $805,500 to develop the park site. In the past,the city has accepted land dedication and to date has not been able to develop neighborhood park facilities (Bartlett,Irby, etc.). It is staff's opinion that 313 small lot, single family homes will have a substantial impact on at least two significant areas of the city's park& recreation system: 1) youth and adult sports facilities, and 2) active neighborhood park uses. In analyzing the park requirements for this development project, staff reviewed the youth sports needs assessment study and the condition of surrounding parks and school facilities that could meet the above stated needs. Since the proposed project includes a community swimming pool, meeting space, and tot lot, staff felt these recreational needs would be met within the planned development. However, such needs as tennisibasketball courts,practice fields for soccer/softball, group picnic area, and active turf space for neighborhood use, such as open recreational play and drop in sports also need to be met. The developer's proposal is to dedicate and develop 2.4 acres of neighborhood parkland plus develop .8 acre of Norma Gibbs Park for a total of 3.2 acres of active Neighborhood Park adjacent to the passive Norma Gibbs Park. This would make a total of 8 acres of both active and passive uses to serve this development project. This, in addition to the community pool, meeting space, and tot lots,would, in the developers opinion, meet the minimum requirements for neighborhood recreational uses within the proposed development. However, it is staffs opinion that 2.4 acres, along with the.8 acres of Norma Gibes Park developed for active neighborhood park will not meet the active neighborhood park demand. Staff does not recommend putting an active turf area for a combination soccer/softball field on a 3.2 acre neighborhood park site. On a 3.2 acre site there is insufficient land to provide for a minimum setback between the adjacent homes and the practice field. There is also insufficient land to buffer the active neighborhood park uses from the passive uses of Gibbs Park. Without this buffer zone between the residents and the practice field there will be future conflicts between the sports users and the local residents. Staff is recommending that the parkland dedication be 3.4 acres to allow for the active neighborhood park with a buffer zone between the practice field area and the adjacent homeowners. Because the staff recommended 4.2 acre developed neighborhood park will only meet the practice and family drop in use need of this development,the proposed development will have a significant impact on surrounding youth and adult sports facilities. Consequently, staff is recommending that the remaining in lieu park fees, after EST-1 31 01 giving credit for neighborhood park development, be used to reconstruct the tennis courts at Harbour View School and for lighting the athletic fields at Marina High School. If these off site improvements are made, staff feels that the impact on youth and adult sports facilities created by this development project would be mitigated. The staff recommended 4.2 acres of neighborhood park(3.4 dedicated by the developer and .8 of Gibbs Park)will provide space for active turf uses, picnic facilities, and a buffer between the more active neighborhood uses and the passive Gibbs Park area. The 4.2 acres of developed neighborhood park must be flat and dry to accommodate these uses. Staff considered the advantages of requiring a strict land dedication of 5.37 acres of this approximate 50 acre site. This alternative would preserve open space. The disadvantage of strict land dedication is that the city has no development funds and it may be years before a usable neighborhood park can be developed to serve this planned community. The advantage of accepting a combination of developed park site with in lieu fees to do sports facility improvements is that these amenities will be provided at the time that the homes are sold and occupied and will,therefore,not impact on the current park and recreation system. The disadvantage is that less open space will be retained within this development project. While staff firmly believes in retaining as much open space as possible, the reality of families moving into these homes without neighborhood park facilities and sports facilities makes the staff recommendation to accept 3.4 acres of developed, active neighborhood park, .8 acres developed of Gibbs Park, and in lieu fees of$ 387,505 to do off site sports facilities improvements as the park dedication requirement for this project. ATIAL 4 1 � 1�IZN P� To:Connie Brockway From:Chuck Beauregard Mon 15 Jun 1958 15:06:26 Page: 1 0 5942 Edinger Ave.•Suite 113-307• Huntington Beach,Ca 92649 •714-895-1008 "Dedicated to the 60,000 youth of Hztntin-ton Beach" Board Members: June 15, 1998 Chuck Beauregard Chairman- Aquatics Booster Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Bruce Bricks,Treasurer President 1000 Main Street So. Coast Soccer Club Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Alan Armstrong Secretary, Commission Members, Save Our Kids- Teri lindenberger Past-President Save Our Kids encourages the Commission to establish a Iona overdue So.H.B. Girls Softball precedent within this city, that children should come first not last. For too many years this City, the Council and the Plannina Commission have Pach�es Wakeman en eman ignored the needs of the children of this City. Please don't continue that H.B.Girls Softball process. Robin Ntia Instead of allowing a developer to plan a development and satisfy their Past-President open space /park requirement with the otherwise unusable land, require Ocean View Little League the park space for the children come FIRST. Mike Shanley Aquatics Booster 1. The park land should be planned and developed before a single home is sold. Mike Green 2. Park land should accommodate active uses, such as soccer, baseball, Soccer&Baseball Parent softball, basketball and volleyball. 3. Park land should accommodate the needs of the local area, not just the development. Committee Members: In a Memo dated April 7, 1998 to the City Council Sub-Committee on Other City Youth Sports Sport Facilities, copy attached, Save Our Kids made the following Commissioners.Presidents, Board Ylembers and recommendation in regards to Meadowlark property (page 7): concerned Parents. 5. The city should force the Shea Homes and Meadowlark property Sports Represented: owners to work together to address the necessary active sports facility needs required by the development of those projects. The most efficient scenario would be to have a Youth Baseball, smaller neighborhood park in the Shea parcel and a larger 6 acre type community park softball.swimming,soccer, roller hockey, with two soccer fields on two baseball/softball fields in the Meadowlark parcel with basketball and football. easy access off of Warner Avenue. This will keep traffic to the community park outside of residential areas yet still allow a gated residential project beyond the park. This kind of pro-active community park based thinking is what the study claims needs to be done. The city asks for tough conditions of developers every day or at least since the previous give-away that occurred with Holly Seacliff and the original Meadowlark development agreement. To:Connie Brockway From:Chuck eeauregard Mon 15 Jun 1998 15:07:14 Page: 1 1 .4W OW Y '6 � 5942 Edinger Ave. •Suite 113-307•Huntington Beach,Ca 92649 •714-895-1008 `Dedicated to the 60,000 youth of Huntington Beach" MEMO Board Members: Chuck Beauregard DATE: April 7, 1998 Chairman- Agzurtics Booster TO: City Council Sub-Committee on Bruce Bricks,Treasurer Sports Facilities President So. Coast Soccer Club FROM:Save Our Kids Alan Armstrong RE: Review of Youth Sports Needs Assessment Study(STUDY) Secretary. Save Our bids The Youth Sport Needs Assessment Study was in our mind to accomplish exactly what the name implies,report on the"needs of Youth Sports"in the city. It was to: Teri Undenberger Past-President •objectively assess the relationship of publicly owned open space in relation to So.H.B. Girls Softball the needs of Youth Sports-currently,and in the future,as it relates to Michaela Wakeman population growth in the City. Past-President H.B.Girls Softball •provide a clear assessment of facility needs/surpluses within the city,and Robin Mix •determine specifically how the city and school districts must proceed in Past-President planning open space land assets in Huntington Beach. Ocean View Little League The established criteria used to measure this relationship was to include Mike Shanley Aquatics Booster 1.the geographic relationship of population to existing open space, Mike Green 2,the location and use of the existing open space for youth sports and Soccer&Baseball Parent 3.the types of organizations using each facility,as well as projected growth of use. Committee Members: 4. the general plan requirement of 5 acres of park land to 1,000 residents in the Other City Youth Sports overall City,and Commissioners,Presidents, Board Members and 5.the relationship of this General plan requirement to 30 geographic sections concerned Parents. within the City of approximately one square mile in size. Sports Represented: Youth Baseball, It is our belief that the STUDY as it currently stands does not answer the questions it softball,swirnming, was commissioned to do. In fact,the report does little more that regurgitate things. soccer, roller hockey, Save Our Kids will attempt to bring some clarity to where the report is lacking and/or to basketball and football. where the City Council should direct staff to augment and upgrade the STUDY before it is placed into its final form. To:Connie Brockway From:Chuck Beauregard Mon 15 Jun 1998 15:07:14 Page: 3 Save Otir Kids Page 3 April 7, 1998 The STUDY acknowledges the importance of reasonably convenient access to park open space by dividing the city into 30 sections of about 1 square mile.Since most of the large open space areas in the city are concentrated along the beach,in Central Park and at the Meadowlark Golf Course,the rest of the city is left wanting with 22 of the 30 sections deficient in open space. Even with the inclusion of school yards in the open space calculation, 18 out of 30 sections are still deficient. This becomes the single most important observation in the report. STUDY solution: Add beaches,golf courses and school yards to the park/green space matrix to so the overall City meets the minimum general plan requirements. SOK Comment: We haven't noticed any soccer,baseball,football,swimming,basketball or hockey facilities at the beaches or golf courses recently. In fact,adding beach acreage to the open space calculation is a breach of trust with the citizens of Huntington Beach. It may make the deficiencies less obvious but it does not address the problem. 4. The STUDY identifies our most urbanized lower income areas as deficient in green space even with school yards included,and that available land for recreational green space is decreasing3. The sections that are most deficient in open space are generally the most densely populated and urbanized in relation to commercial development,traffic and/or are bounded by arterial highways and freeways. These are also generally less affluent sections of town,"ghettos"in the making. Clearly,these are the areas most in need of viable recreational open space.Unfortunately,several of these sections have school sites which are proposed for development. This is a clearly poor land use and sociological decision. Unfortunately,the report makes no specific recommendation for mitigation of the development of school sites, even though the necessary information is at hand. STUDY Solution: Sell or lease Rancho View and Crest View High schools for urban development.No mitigation recommended. SOh Comment: If we are aspiring to be like Santa Ana,this is the way to do it. 5. STUDY states that the city does not meet the General Plan Requirement for a 2 1/2 mile maximum radius to community park areas.4 The report somehow includes Langenbeck Park(an Edison power line easement park),Bluff Top Park(also known as the future Bolsa Chica Linear Park),Bartlett Park and Greer Park as community parks. Bluff Top and Bartlett Park are undeveloped and have no definite time line for completion while calling Greer Park a Community Park is areal reach. STUDY Solution: Rename already developed neighborhood parks and schools as"community parks."Take the passive Bluff Top Park and Bartlett Park which is being considered for a senior center and golf course and call theses community parks also. SOh Comment: A septic tank by any other name would still be a septic tank. Simply reclassifying parks does not address the needs. An honest effort should be made to quantify the needs and develop a comprehensive plan to meet those needs. If that means more passive parks fine,if it means converting passive parks to active area,fine too. We must not forget that there are 190,000+ PEOPLE living in Huntington Beach. They desire to have their needs addressed,until we find a way to get**birds-and bees" to pay taxes,their needs should be secondary. 3 Page 3 Summary Table; 1990 U.S. Census 4 Page 4,paragraph 1;Page 5, Community Park map; Page 3, footnote 5 To:Connie Brockway From:Chuck Beauregard Mon 15 Jun 1998 15:07:14 Page 5 Save Our Kids Page 5 April 7, 1998 The STUDY should clearly identify the target acreage and facilities for remaining developed parcels, not more ambiguous and contradictory recommendations with no specifics. 9. STUDY recommends the sale or lease of Crest View and Rancho View to development.10 This,of course,contradicts previous findings that these are located in sections that are already deficient of open space and are highly populated and urbanized. The STUDY gives no justification for the development of these sites and how this will benefit the community or where the money should be spent. STL7DY Solution: Decide whether mitigation is even necessary for these sites. Gives no specifics. SOK Comment: The STUDY is not an economic development plan. It is confusing as to why this recommendation would even be in this report. To compound the problem by not requiring specific mitigation indicates that the report is being used to further the development goals of the city and the school district with no commitment to youth in our community or the long range problems of increased urbanization.It is very reasonable to project the area around Crest View and Ranch View turning into an expansion of the Oak View area. Is this what City Council really wants? 10. STUDY estimates that$16 to S24 million is needed to implement the capital improvement recommendations in the report.t 1 The individual projects listed have no specifics about what is received for the estimated costs. Several properties listed such as the Meadowlark Airport property and Shea Homes property abutting Bolsa Chica and Bolsa Chica Mesa must be the responsibility of those developing these properties. The report suggests spending$750,000 on Harbour View School and Park to make this into a community facility. Harbour View is fully developed now and cannot accommodate any more use. Renovation funding of$100,000 would be a much better expenditure of public money. Intelligent public/private partnerships can greatly reduce the needed funding. No hierarchy or phasing is provided for the implementation of the STUDY recommendations. STUDY Solution: Estimate the maximum costs for non-specific improvements of facilities creating an unreasonably huge price tag for kids facilities effectively stopping the consideration of these improvements. SOK Comment: Lets not make the problem so big that nothing gets done. This city needs to have a"can do" attitude,not the old,tired "we have more will than wallet" refrain we have heard for,years. If Huntington Beach can spend$6 million on the Pier Plaza alone and generate millions of dollars of lease and sales tax revenue from the development of school sites,then we can certainly spend some of this money on the correction of our poor youth sports facility reputation. to page 4. Recommendation No.3 t t Page 6. Recommendation No. 1 & 3. To:Connie Brockway From:Chuck Beauregard Mon 15 Jun 1998 15:07:14 Page: 7 Save Our Kids Page 7 April 7, 1998 5. The city should force the Shea Homes and Meadowlark property owners to work together to address the necessary active sports facility needs required by the development of those projects. The most efficient scenario would be to have a smaller neighborhood park in the Shea parcel and a larger 6 acre type community park with two soccer fields on two baseball/softball fields in the Meadowlark parcel with easy access off of Warner Avenue. This will keep traffic to the community park outside of residential areas yet still allow a gated residential project beyond the park. This kind of pro- active community park based thinking is what the study claims needs to be done. The city asks for tough conditions of developers every day or at least since the previous give-away that occurred with Holly Seacliff and the original Meadowlark development agreement. 6. Build at least TWO full size 3 court gymnasium on school district property,one in the north and one in the southeastern areas of the city. These facilities can be self-supporting or even generate extra revenue just as adult softball leagues and roller hockey rinks do. A portion of the Rancho View site,Park View,Gisler School,Bartlett and Central Park are all very workable sites. Revenue from school site development can help pay the costs of development. 7. Construct several roller hockey practice/play areas throughout the city by converting tennis courts that are little used. 8. Provide a special matching fund grant to private fundraising efforts to fund items like the rebuild the Huntington Beach High School pool. This will give the incentive for the private fundraising to obtain the necessary funds. Limit the matching funds to$100,000 per year. 9. Develop a credible plan for the conversion of Murdy Park and Edison to youth sports centers based on community and sports group input and a city-wide youth sport facilities plan, not consultant and staff determination as is currently occurring with Central Park and Lake View School. Save Our Kids -- Conclusion The key is to develop a long range credible master plan of sports facility improvements with phasing that takes into account initial cost issues. The city and schools can have the above items completed for far less than the$16 to$24 million currently estimated. With the right attitude and the development of private-public partnerships/foundations we can arrange and expend funds without the bureaucratic red tape and high cost of public works administration. This is the easy part. The hard part seems to be focusing staff,school boards and the city council on the problem at hand and the simple solutions,instead of business as usual and their grandiose,expensive plans that go nowhere. Save Our Kids would be happy to work with the Subcommittee developing a workable plan for this public private partnership foundation that can effectively and economically forfil the needs of the active citizens,young and old alike,of Huntington Beach. Consider this,over 35,000 people voted to"assess"themselves$24 per year for 10 years in November 1996. The City has done nothing to give these individuals an opportunity to do it voluntarily. We need proactive leadership on this issue. With it we can solve the problem for many years to come. We look forward to your help in accomplishing the tasks at hand. i o.uroup r-rorfl:l nucK teauregarc r,1 I---Jul lbba 14.24.dd r'aac, 1 5942 Edinger Ave.•Suite 113-307•Huntington Beach,Ca 92649 •714-895-1008 "Dedicated to the 60,000 youth of Huntington Beach" Board Members: July 8, 1998 Chuck Beauregard Chairman- Aquatics Booster Mayor Shirley Dettloff City of Huntington Beach President Brace Bricks,Treasurer 2000 Main Street So.Coast Soccer Club Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Alan Armstrong Secretary, Dear Mayor, Save Our Kids Teri Lindeuberger Past-President The Planning Commission will be voting on the Meadowlark So.H.B.Girls Softball Development master plan modification soon. In those plans are some parkland issues which will affect the children in the area, therefore Save Michaela Wakeman Our Kids has spent time reviewing the options. Past-President H.B.Girls Softball In a perfect world Cattelus Residential Group (CRG) and Shea Marilyn Koeller Development would combine resources and needs to solve the parkland Educator_. _ need for the area. This appears to be unrealistic from what we,have been Robin MiC told. Therefore we are faced with 3 plans, as were outlined and presented Past-President at the last Planning Commission meeting. Ocean View Little League Alternative 1: 5.57 acres of undeveloped land set aside for future tiltke Shanley development. Aquatics Booster Mike Green Alternative 2: 3.4 acres of parkland adjacent to Gibbs Park and$1 million Soccer&Baseball Parent for development and the park fund. Estimated development cost of parkland according to developer, $455,000. Committee Members: Alternative 3: 2.2 acres of parkland adjacent to Gibbs Park and$613,083 for parkland development. Estimate $490,000 available for park Other City Youth Sports development after development of 0.8 acres of buffer between park and Commissioners.Presidents. Gibbs park. Board Members and concerned Parents. The Planning Commission took a straw vote and agreed on Alternative 3 Sports Represented: with the proviso CRG increase their cash to closer to$1,700,000. Youth Baseball, Save Our Kids position: softball,swimmiing. Soccer,roller hockey. A 5.57-acre park could qualify as a Community Park within the City of basketball and football. Huntington Beach. A Community Park is meant to service the needs of individuals within a 2-mile radius of the facility. This is an area that is in need of Community Park. According to the Youth Sport Needs Assessment this area has excess parkland if you count the golf course. Save Our Kids doesn't feel the golf course satisfies local open space needs for the neighborhood and should not be counted in these equations. Therefore the area is deficient in parkland by 1654 acres. This is counting all of the open school land. 4. Street Sections/ Garage Study/ Traffic Study/ Fence Design/ Private Open Space MEADOWLARK PROPOSED STREET SECTIONS R/W R/W 42' 32' 2' PUE I 5' 16' 16' 5' I 2' PUE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ;:: 2% 2% 42 STREET SECTION (PRIVATE) P.A. 3 AND 4 R/W R/W 52' 10' 32' 10' 4' 6 16' 16' 6' 4' IDEW PARKWAY PARKWAY SIDEWALK PEARCE STREET EXTENSION (PUBLIC) P.A. 1 R/W C R/W 1 50' g' 31 g 4' 5' 16' 16' 5' 4' IS IDEW PARKWAY PARKWAY [DEW j�: i�j;l�i��.: <l::/:- .'�v� <:`'�/�J!1,.y�\ �`c�'j''i rt✓ :11 � i . �.:^.i:tt''',2>>::i..:✓i<%11;"l�.<�;=:i�,1\;;...r.^,rr r\.. .:.r%>��"�:..,-i%�� z::.r�:`` 50' STREET SECTION (PRIVATEI P.A. 1 AND P.A. 2 MDSMDS •CONSUL T/NQ mom DoIm 1 scHulrz I7320 R."Awp4,Slit.750 (714)231-862t SCALE: 1"—1 01 Wi-G 92514 FAX 251-0516 PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING L•\35106\PRELJAI\SPECMSECf-I-K.DK 5-20-98 ., ._.._ ^:;-•: -.= -; ��'� Ito P•C CAI-e u-vS ?Q-o?• 1'10y ti 70 1L-U'J r.VL/V4 MEADOWLARK PA-3 AND PA-4 PRIMATE SIDEWALK PLAN I I I _ I , 236 • I , r 7' o +' . . I 235 _ . I I MAY 01 '90 1G-.20 714 251 051E ?AGE.02 R/W R/W 44' 32' 6• 16' 16' 6' SDEWALK SDEw u u n 44' STREET (PRIVATE) (N.T.S.) R/w I R/W 52' 10, 32' 10' 4' 6' 16' t 16' 6' 4' PARKWAY PARKWAY PMM 2% 2% 52' STREET (PRIVATE) (N.T.S.) R/W R/W 52' I 40' 6• 20' t 20' 1 6' SDEWALK SI)EWAIlC 2z 2z 52' STREET (PUBLIC) (PEARCE DRIVE EXTENSION) (N.T.S.) R/W R/W 60' 30' t 30' 14' 16' 16' 14' 4' 6' 4' MEANDERIN SIDEWALK 4' 6' 4' 2% 7% SPINE ROAD (PUBLIC) (N.T.S.) MEADOWLARK SPICIf IC PLAN STREET SfC110NS CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH BIKES MAY BE HUNG FROM CEILING ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE I I I ----,-- i GAR E SHELVES I t;& 2 ` ° o I I i 1� SHELVES HUNG NEXT TO BEAM I I I i o SHELVES YARD TOOLS, SKIS, ETC. HANG ON WALLS I I i I I i GARAGE STORAGE STUDIES MEADOWLARK PLAN ONES P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 3 BRJ 2S BA. CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1,939 S.F. � I \ / 1 I X i l awl I 1 BIKES MAY BE HUNG FROM CEILING ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE —1 —{ —————— r-- I o i GA AGE � SHELVES 0 18 20 I , I ----- -- ------ -- SHELVES HUNG NEXT TO BEAM o r o � ! o � i I YARD TOOLS, SKIS, ETC. HANG ON WALLS I SHELVES U I I 1 GARAGE STORAGE STUDIES MEADOWLARK " PLAN TWO A.L A N N I N G A R E A 3 4 BRJ 25 BA CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2,173 S.F. p�cn 2L —— Z—\i UP I BIKES MAY BE HUNG FROM CEILING ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE r I � I GA' A �E ,SHELVES 0 18 X 1 9 o I i L , ----- - -_--- --- I SHELVES HUNG NEXT TO BEAM I ---- ----- — --- ——— { F o I I , o I 1 i � I YARD TOOLS, SKIS, ETC. HANG ON WALLS I i I ISHELVES -------------------- I , u I , I I I I GARAGE STORAGE STUDIES MEADOWLARKPLAN T H R E E � P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 4 BRJ 2. BA CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2,21oS.F. w Dsc STORAGE BI IGg STORAGE A� �T (WALL) t`Llr 1 G E 0 0 I 8 x 2 - �- I z dl 1 z� -r-r 1 ------------- 1 4- I QO l Kt 1 � I I 1 I 1 , I i I L SCALE V8"=1'-0" GARAGE STORAGE STUDY BASSENIAN �-+ �-+L T T T c ■ MEADOWLARK ■ STORAGE I STORAGE t1 I BIKES i 1 . I � I G E ' 1 co ' 18 x � © 4tU I I 9C I tu Jul I1 IZ dI I J�I I � `'I I 11 I ! ! i II � I - It I � I � SCALE 3�8"=l'-w GARAGE STORAGE STUDY BASSErJM 11' � TT� T ■ MEADOWLARK ■ Q 1'EL-LV 1 .07. 97 LAGON STORAGE W 51 KE5 t l AST 3 1 G E IS x 2 0 it I as I I IV - I i 4 I �l I I Q)1- - I I Z ID I Jo I I Kt II II II II , 11 11 _ II 11 11 SCALE 31r=1'-0" ly GARAGE STORAGE STUDY BASSENM T T ■ MEADOWLARK ■ -- - - 1 cSTORAGE5T0A6E J I STORAGE 1 1 ' PLAT 1' i 1 � X I � I to I Q i I oc ' I 1 z qj i Qo J � I Q I K--T ' i f- . I II II 1 1 � II 11 II SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" GARAGE STORAGE STUDY BASSEr1lAN Il ■ T T T ■ MEADOWLARK CA E L. L V:S _ 1 .07 . 97 LAGCM 'J, � ITY O-F HUNTING - ON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Bob Righetti, Public Works FROM: Mario A. Sanchez, Public Works SUBJECT: Parking Requirements for the Public Park for the Meadowlark Development CC: Dave Webb, Public Works Terri Elliott, Public Works DATE: 4/7/98 Per your request, I have determined how many parking spaces would be needed at the 2.2 acre public park in the Meadowlark development. Based on the trip generation rate from-the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, 1991, page 586, Land Use Code 411 (City Park), the average vehicle trip rate per acre of park is 5.90 trips for a typical Sunday. So, if you multiply 2.2 acres by the 5.90 trip rate you obtain approximately 13 trips generated. In addition, there will be two practice soccer fields that would generate additional vehicle trips above the national ITE trip rate for parks. Based on field observations of similar park sites in Huntington Beach we anticipate that an additional seven (7) parking spaces would be necessary to accommodate demand for the practice fields. Therefore, as a worst- case scenario, twenty parking spaces are required for this park. If you have any questions, or need more clarification, please give me a call at X1628. HMEN 0031829.01 4" �l(o(c, uo.ui/ao 14:su FAY 714 460 0113 WYA TR-IFFIC LING. a 02 iW. �' Q ® IPif ® : WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TP.AFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM DATE: .Tune 1,1998 TO: Bruce D'EUseu FROM: Steve Sasaki 1,d SUBJECT: Review of City Parking Requirement Jar Park Site As requested,we have reviewed the City's calculation of the parking needs for the planned parking facility presented in their April 7, 1998 interdepartmental memorandum(attached). In addition it is our understanding that the prepared facility will need to be a"passive" type park, due to its"Neighborhood"General Plan designation. This designation is indicated to prohibit organized ball games/fields. It is anticipated that the use of the park could be somewhat controlled, through the placement of play equipment, benches and/or other"passive"type park equipment. Given the city memorandum and the information you provided,we offer the following comments. The City referenced a daily trip generation rate(5.90)to determine the"worst case"parking (5.90 X 2.2 acres= 13 trips= 13 parking spaces). It should be noted, however,that the 13 trip ends includes both"inbound" and"outbound"movements-which translates to only 6 - 7 vehicles. Based on the City's methodology, the required parking should be only 6 to 7 spaces for this aspect of the analyses. It can be noted,however, that the total acti,,c park area will actually be about three (3) acres,which would result in 9 spaces needed, based on the City's procedures. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (714) 460-0110 • FAX: (714) 460-0113 6116 PL 06/01i98 14:30 FAX 714 460 0113 WPA TRAFFIC ENG. Z 03 ♦ The analyses above is correctly noted as`worst case", since the referenced trip rate is"daily" traffic(vehicles throughout the day). It is therefore,crlikcly tha all ve!Lcles would be at the site at the same time. The parking needs are more likely to bo distributed over different parts of the day. ♦ It is assumed that the park design will serve to prohibit organized ball field use. The City analysis, however, does consider ball game practices to address a "worst case" condition. The City assumption of two practice fields, however, appears overly conservative. It is our understanding that soccer fields are approximately 1.0 to 1.25 acres, so unless the park were specifically designed for ball fields-a maximum of one field would be assumed in the analysis. Based on the City's calculations, one practice field would translate to 3 - 4 added spaces. Overall, based on the City's methodology and information related to ( General Plan ) requirements for the park;approximately 12 to 13 spaces would be provided under the City's `worst case" scenario. If the daily trips are assumed to be only slightly distributed throughout the day, the requirement would be reduced to the 7 to 9 space range. We trust that this review will be of assistance to you and the City of Huntington Beach. SSS:ka #961191.mem WPA Tmff c Ensweerin;,1-a Review of City Parking Requirements f�961191.nnsrn p y For Park Ske/) ��I6 P� FOB 7ITY OF HUNTING - ON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Planning Commission FROM: avid Webb, Deputy City Engineer RECEIVED SUBJECT: Meadowlark, TR 15469 O 7 ,1998 Request for Revised Traffic Study JUL DATE: July 6, 1998 OrPT.OF COMM.DEVEL PLANNING DPMION Staff has reviewed the request to have Catellus Development provide the City with a revised Traffic Study for the Meadowlark Development. Staff feels that the existing traffic study for the project does not have to be revised to reflect the current reduction of the number of homes being proposed and to include analysis from impacts associated with future development in the surrounding areas due to the following reasons. The original number of homes to be built in the first analysis, six hundred (600), is greater than what is being proposed at this time, three hundred twenty-five (325). Thus the number of trips generated with the current proposal will be substantially less than the original analysis, (7200 average daily trips to 3900 average daily trips, respectively). In regards to the second request, the recent General Plan Update considered the future surrounding developments in the circulation element and traffic model. The intersections and roadway links were analyzed per the zoning as shown in the General Plan. The intersections and roadway links that were found to be deficient were not in the vicinity of the Meadowlark development. It is staff's belief and in accordance with AB 1600, there would need to be a defined "Nexus"to request Catellus Development to revise the traffic study with respect to the two items discussed above. There does not appear to be any benefit to the City or to the Developer to have another traffic study performed. cc: Robert E. Eichblatt, City Engineer Tom Brohard, Acting Traffic Engineer Amy Wolfe, Assistant Planner Terri Elliott, Associate Engineer File ATTA ►►� c I Y Z 3=03.01 7114 PL liH'r 1,' 'yJU 13=36 FR CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL 714 251 1933 TO 3741540 F .05i©5 EXHIBIT B 45ECTION i 1 x4 CEDAR TRIM, FARSIDE 2 xh CEDAR CAP C,4 2 x4 CEDAR RAIL I x 6 CEDAR BOARDS, I ! BUTT EDGES TIGHT i I x 6 CEDAR TRIM, BOTH SIDES, ATTACH TO 51DES OF 2 x 4 5TUD5 2 x 4 RO5. CEDAR I STUDS (2), ATTACH TO STEEL POST w 3i6' 0 x roll MACHINE 5OLT5 W/WASP-IERS I I (3 PER POST) I x4 CEDAR TRIM, FARSIDE 2 x 4 CEDAR RAIL FINISH GRADE ivI I fI !- --_. 5CHED. 40 GALY. STEEL POSTS 6 8 o.c. MAXIMUM 12" ,P CONCRETE COLLAR Li NOTE: 12"0 I_ REFER TO WOOD NOTES, BELOIU. 2. ALL WOOD: ROB, OR AS NOTED. 3. STAIN PER DEVELOPERS OPTION. WOOD FENCE 1 3ia'= 1,-0" (TEMPORARY) d 51DEYARDS �A ** TOTAL PAGE.05 ** ' 55' MIN 55' 55' 28' (1110 SF) o �N ,(7;5 SF),� 33'/ SF) 28'/ z 10' 00 Ln Un (673 SF) 00 (705 SF) zUn cp3 5 5, �x& 1 13' 14' ° . MIN Eo 00 . c j • •••i ... d .. '. ', .. O O STREET 'A' � : ra MEADOWLARK O PLANNING AREA 1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT JUN � (v 1 �I ND8 CON9OL T/NE • TYPICAL PLOTTING � � �, 1"=20' MDS lmo ft"I--%ft 3w 251-ft L: .. ., '• w.•,a rw rW m-ce .• •. runurraurt uovrnw fs 50' MIN 50' 50' r FT (875 SF) a (900 SF) r' (875 SF) N ,00 5' 5' V (.1l 5' 5' cn 5' cn A. • • .. 00 . 00 •d Z ! • i O Z i!•y O v d �50 Id, d. CV { STREET 'A' MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREA 2 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT Y D 8 CON 8 V L T/N O TYPICAL PLOTTING mom �l �n f - 43' (MIN 43' — 43' r' z ? " (650 SF) (880 SF) - 71 (670 SF'yz� N / 10, I w w w ® w 8' 5, MIN. '3 5' 3' 3' (MIN) (MIN) M N.) 0o co 00 z � 43' oO 43' 43' 'J Lr N c0 STREETZo N 74 pa J 4 4' ♦ • • MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREA 3 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE EXHBIT r o b c o N a u c r i N o MCMMDS . sookn TYPICAL PLOTTING i►mft..A.-r.l-3" M4►351-•W YMM CAVU14 /M MI-mu 1"=20' f� 45'-4" 35'-8" 45'-4' _. (640 SF) (325 SF) (640 SF) co /315 SF) 2071111, 1i 4' (MIN) 4' MIN 4' MIN d' L(h'Iti 1 N z (535 SF) 3 • 525 SF) 2 ,20 4' 8 4' (MIN) 18' 4' MIN 4' (MIN) 4' (MIN) 4' (MIN) 00 a Z ao * • •: ' • d'. ;• • r- CV STREET 'A' MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREA 4 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE EXHBIT TYPICAL PLOTTING MDS mom„v8 .COMd UL T/NB 1 =20' h*%ck 114 rw so m.) 51 als .,..a mi. nw ni-aeu } NOTE: MINIMUM GARAGE SETBACK ON SIDES WITH SIDEWALK IS 18' �� oM � i i .� ; . 5. Meadowlark Specific Plan (The Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan has been attached to RCA 99-4 as Attachment 1, Exhibit "A") 1 o � , 0 (' I 6. Meadowlark Specific Plan (Current- 1988) v Z Meadowlark Specific Plan O O O _O C _O O =O 0 ® 00 000 00 � O MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN Adopted March ?, 1988 MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PURPOSE B. SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT D. APPLICATION PROCEDURE 1. Conditional Use Permit 2. Conceptual Master Plan 3. Statement Required 4. Phasing Plan for Development E. SEWER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY F. CIRCULATION 1. Perimeter Streets 2. Internal Circulation G. TRAFFIC CONTROL H. TRANSIT FACILITIES I. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES J. GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMICITY K. ARCHAEOLOGY L. PERIMETER BUFFERS M. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AREAS N. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS O. HOMEOWNERS OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P. APPROVAL PERIOD APPENDIX MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN A. PURPOSE - On February 1, 1988 the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted an*amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This amendment designated approximately 6.5 acres of land located approx- imately 600 ft. north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue as a Planned Community. The General Plan Document, Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C, states that the Planned Community designation is to be imple- mented through adoption of a Specific Plan. The following policies were adopted by the City Council to provide direction for preparation of a Specific Plan: 1. The 15 acre retail center shall be located on Warner Avenue extending between Roosevelt Street and the residential project to the east. 2. The total number of residential units, including any proposed affordable units, to be constructed on the 50 acre portion of the property due north of the commercial portion, shall. not exceed 600 units and shall be distributed among several product types. 3. A buffer shall be provided between the existing single family homes and any attached residential units which are developed at greater than 7 units per acre. 4. An internal traffic circulation plan shall be provided that will: a. Provide street connections between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue that would not encourage non-project related through traffic. b. Limit the amount of traffic on Pearce Street to a total of 2500 average daily trips. c. Locate vehicular access points to Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue so as to minimize traffic conflicts. 5. Provide a phased development plan which coincides with the available capacity in the sewer and water systems. Meadowlark Specific Plan -1- (0631 D) 6. Within 60 days of City approval of the first entitlement for development, the airport operation will cease. 7. This Specific Plan enacted through Zone Change No. 87-13 will be in effect until a subsequent zone change is adopted. The Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of the Specific Plan until such time as a master plan is approved for the site. The Meadowlark Specific Plan is designed to meet the planning requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is intended to serve as a general set of conditions and regulations that will promote the orderly development of the pro- perty and provide direction for preparing a plan for development while providing sufficient flexibility to permit design creativity. B. SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES - The Meadowlark Specific Plan encompasses that area as delineated on the Exhibit 1. 2. Legal Description - The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes the real property described as follows: Parcel 1 in the City of Huntington Beach as per map filed in Book 146, Page 21 of Parcel Maps; in the office of the County Recorder of said County; and Parcels 24, 25 and 26 in the City of Huntington Beach, as per map filed in Book 146, Page 24 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT See Environmental Impact Report 87-2 D. APPLICATION PROCEDURE - Any request for a development proposal shall be accompanied by an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. Such applications shall include preliminary site plans, grading plans, floor and elevation plans and a statement of statistics. All plans shall be submitted con- currently and shall meet the following requirements. Meadowlark Specific Plan -2- (0631D) I c � WARSWKI kAr Lj i } C.I Ev-E Olt 1 W ri00�ECC« 50 LANDSCAPE { � •` r SETBACK----� � � • V : BUFFER III IY /� RESIDENTIAL ZONE ;- ! --_- - 50 A C i I COMMERCIAL =. •: = L ! i 15 AC . I 20' SETBACK r —� J pssi •VTE'O S '"����7�t_'' � WARNER 50' LANDSCAPE I1 1 i SETBACK E. 0GN400 Oft RAG 4 i MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN huntington beach planning division FYUTLkTT 1 1. Conditional Use Permit — Any proposed development within the specific plan area shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Article 984 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Conceptual Master Plan — A conceptual master plan for the overall project shall be submitted at the time of the first Conditional Use Permit, the conceptual master plan shall include the following: a_ Perimeter buffer alignment b. Location of pedestrian walkways; c. Circulation pattern of vehicular traffic; d. Use of common open space areas; e. Layout showing proposed sewage and water facilities. 3. Statement Required — A detailed statement shall also be included containing the following information: a. Distance from the property to any known geological hazard; b. Existence of known contamination from hazardous materials on—site; c. Phase I results and Phase II proposals for the Archeological Assessment of the Meadowlark Airport; d. Gross area of product type within the total project area boundary. e. Number and type of units and number of bedrooms; f. Total number of units and number of units and bedrooms per gross acre; g. Schedule and sequence of development if proposed in phases. 4. Phasing Plan for Develop A plan identifying phased development of the residential and commercial area shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the conceptual master plan and any conditional use permits. Meadowlark Specific Plan —4— (0631D) E. SEWER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY Prior to issuance of building permits within any of the area designated as a separate phase of development on the phasing plan, clearance shall be obtained from the Orange County Sanitation District and City Water Department stating that such development will not adversely impact the sewer and water systems. Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. F. CIRCULATION The conceptual master plan shall establish a plan concurrent with the issuance of the first entitlement. This conceptual master plan will establish the general alignment of Pearce Street if it connects into the new development, the connector street alignment and the internal circulation pattern of the development. Standards for streets and drives shall be as follows: 1. Perimeter Streets - The street right-of-way for Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue, and Pearce Street shall be dedicated as public streets and fully improved to city standards. The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane (approximately 500 linear feet south of Pearce Street) shall be fully dedicated and fully improved to City standards, if needed. 2. Internal Circulation - Circulation within the Specific Plan Area shall be such that a connection between Heil Avenue with Warner Avenue shall be provided. Project access points shall generally be at Warner Avenue/Leslie Lane and Heil Avenue/ Del Mar Lane. Any access to Pearce Street shall be such that traffic on Pearce Street does not exceed 2500 average daily trips. Roosevelt Lane shall not be a through street to Warner Avenue. The points of intersection with Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue, Pearce Street and Roosevelt Street shall generally conform to or accomplish the objectives identified in Exhibit "I". Specific locations shall be determined through the Conditional Use Permit process. Meadowlark Specific Plan -5- (0631 D) G. TRAFFIC CONTROL - The Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Department of Public Works, shall determine the need for traffic control devices (i.e., traffic signals). Such determination shall include the appropriate time of installation. The developer shall pay the entire cost of installing traffic signals at Heil Avenue/Del Mar Lane, and Warner Avenue/Leslie Lane, at the entrances to the development. If the proposed project requires access to Bolsa Chica Street from Pearce Street then the developer shall pay one-fourth of the cost of a traffic signal at BoIsa Chica and Pearce. The developer shall provide for the future installation of any such improvements prior to issuance of building permits. H. TRANSIT FACILITIES - Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at locations designated by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit District. The design of such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit District. I. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Ridesharing The Orange County Transit District has a rideshare program, called "Commuter Network," which matches origins and destinations of commuters by computer. The developer shall design a program for the site prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Pedestrian Access The project shall include pedestrian accessways from the interior of the site to the existing bus stops on the area streets and to the shopping center. The accessways shall be paved, lighted and handicapped accessible. 3. Child Care Facilities The provision of neighborhood child care facilities are encouraged in the project in order to reduce the frequency and length of trips related to child care responsibilities. Meadowlark Specific Plan -6- (0631 D) J. GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMICITY - The following geology, soils and seismicity measures shall be employed prior to the issuance of building permits: 1. Submittal of a structural engineering study evaluating proposed foundation designs with respect to ground shaking and liquification hazards on the property. The study shall be subject to the review and approval of the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. Foundations and structural components of the buildings shall be designed according to recom- mendations contained within the structural engineering study. 2. Submittal of a soils study detailing grading and site preparation recom- mendations. This study shall be subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. Grading and site preparation shall be accomplished in accordance with recommendations presented in the soils study. 3. Submittal of a soils analysis identifying the absence or presence of methane gas and/or contamination by hazardous materials. If contamination is found, all affected areas must be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the City and other appropriate agencies. If methane gas is present, a mitigation plan must be submitted to and approved by the City and other appropriate agencies. K. ARCHAELOGY Prior to the issuance of entitlements, an archaeological analysis of three areas on the Meadowlark Airport, identified in the existing archaeological assessment (see Exhibit 2) shall be conducted. The analysis will include some excavations to determine the existence of historical 19th century habitation and American Indian habitation, pre-19th century. Meadowlark Specific Plan -7- (0631 D) 0 200 test z 0 50 meters / r i I AREA X 1 AREA / AAPP!ANE PAPK:NG 3 / ARcA 2 /� _ t AREA 1 -420 meter grid . ¢ �0 WARNER AVENUE MEADOWLARK: AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERN EXHIBIT 2 L. PERIMETER BUFFERS A landscaped perimeter buffer shall be provided between existing off-site single family units and any development related multi family units pursuant to section N, Development Standards, see number 3 for specific standards. M. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AREAS The configuration of the property for which this Specific Plan is prepared is such that there are two (2) district areas. These areas are delineated on the Specific Plan Map shown on Exhibit 1. A description of Development standards for these areas are included in the following section. N. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall comply with the following standards: 1. Uses Permitted and Related Densities - The following uses are permitted within the specific plan area: a. Area A - Commercial This area must comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excluding hotels and motels). b. Area B - Residential The conceptual master plan and cumulative conditional use permits shall use the following scenario as a guide in describing the type and distribution of residential product types. Three product types not exceeding 600 units shall be provided: Acres Type of Unit Density Minimum Detached of 18 Single Family 7/acre Maximum Multi Family 12/acre of 20 Medium Density Maximum Multi Family 20/acre of 12 Medium-high density Total 50 acres Meadowlark Specific Plan -9- (0631 D) Density bonuses within individual product types may be granted, however the total number of units for the entire project shall not exceed 600. Bedrooms/Unit The maximum number of bedrooms (see Section 9080.18 of the City Code for the definition of a bedroom) per acre will be established by standards set forth in Article 915, Planned Residential Developments, Section 9150.4 of the City Code: 9150.4 Maximum density. Maximum density shall be as shown in the following chart. For the purpose of calculating density, acreage shall include area to the centerline of abutting street right-of-way, but not to exceed 7.5 percent of the net area. Maximum Units Maximum Bedrooms District per acre _ per acre Single Family 7 20 Detached Multi Family 12 30 Medium Density Multi Family 20 40 Medium-High Density 2. Parkins Within the development, parking will be allotted according to Article 915 of the City Code, Planned Residential Developments Parking standards (9150.17). These conditions will include tandum parking for single family residences. Also, any residential unit that has four or more bedrooms will require .5 parking spaces per bedroom in excess of three bedrooms. Off-street and driveway parking may count towards additional parking requirement. Meadowlark Specific Plan -10- (0631 D) 3. Perimeter Buffers a. Adjacent to existing off-site single family development a minimum one hundred (100) foot wide landscaped perimeter buffer will be required, of which 50 percent of that width may be driveway or drive aisle (excluding open or enclosed parking), or 75 percent of which may include attached low density residential units, or 100 percent of which may include detached single family residential units. In all cases, the landscaped area shall be the outer portion of the buffer area. If structures are proposed within the buffer area no structure may exceed a height of 25 feet. 4. Setbacks a. If attached structures are proposed along Heil Avenue, a 50 foot land- scaped setback shall be provided. Single family detached units shall only be subject to the normal setbacks established by the City Ordinance Code. b. Commercial uses must be set back from residential areas in order to minimize light and noise impacts. Commercial setbacks shall be conditioned according to Article 922, Commercial District C-4 standards with the exception of the eastern perimeter of the proposed commercial center (between the existing Fernhill residential development and the subject site) where building heights shall not exceed 30 feet within 70 feet of the property, and no buildings or service drives shall be constructed within 20 feet of the property line. This 20 foot setback area shall be limited exclusively to landscaping. c. A 20 foot landscape setback on either side of the collector street shall also be required for the section of the street bi-secting the commercial center. Meadowlark Specific Plan -11- (0631D) d. The front setback line for the proposed project shall be 50 feet from Warner Avenue consistent with the setbacks depicted in the City's District Maps. 5. Landscaping — The purpose of this is to insure a more pleasant living environment through the use of plants and decorative design elements. a. All setback areas fronting on or visible from an adjacent public street, and all recreation, leisure and open areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. b. All landscaped buffer areas shall be landscaped in accordance with an approved landscape plan. The preliminary landscape plan implementing this requirement shall be submitted along with the application for a Conditional Use Permit(s) and/or Tentative Tract Map(s). The final landscape plan shall plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. c. Intensified landscaping may be required adjacent to the commercial portions of the proposed project. 6. All requirements set forth in this Specific Plan shall apply. When a conflict exists between this Specific Plan and the requirements of Division 9, the most restrictive requirement shall apply. O. PARK DEDICATION Park dedication for the proposed project could be used for a greenbelt that would provide access through the development to Gibbs Parks and/or as an area on the western edge of the Park that would be set aside for park parking, providing it does not change the character of the Park. Any proposed augmentation of Gibbs Park will be subject to Community Services approval. Meadowlark Specific Plan —12— (0631D) P. HOMEOWNER'S OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION - Approval of all development proposals shall be subject to submission of a legal instrument or instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recre- ational areas, and community facilities. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Director of Community Development as to suitability for the proposed use of the open space areas. If the common open spaces are to be conveyed to a homeowners' association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. 1. The homeowners' association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. 2. Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. 3. The open space restrictions shall be permanent. 4. Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for each project. 5. If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps, reciprocal covenants, conditions, and restrictions and reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowners' association with common areas for the total development. Q. APPROVAL PERIOD - Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 984, Conditional Use Permits, each Conditional Use Permit authorized under this Article shall become null and void within two (2) years unless a final tract map has been recorded with the County Recorders office on any portion of the approved plans within such two (2) year period. Extensions of time may be granted pursuant to the provisions for extending approval of the tentative tract map. Meadowlark Specific Plan -13- (0631 D) APPENDIX I ORDINANCE NO. 2929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 24 TO INCORPORATE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500 , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing on Meadowlark Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No . 87-2 on February 1, 1988 which was continued to - , and concluded on March 7, 1988 and Adoption of Meadowlark Specific Plan, covering sixty-five acres, more or less, located approximately 600 feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is the most desirable method of providing regulated development of the area i included within said specific plan in accord with the objectives i set out in such specific plan; and On February 1, 1980 , after notice duly given , hearing was held before this Council on Meadowlark Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 , and the Council finds that such specific plan is necessary for the orderly, regulated development of the real property included within Meadowlark Specific Plan, and finds that the policies and procedures set out in such specific plan are satisfactory and in agreement with the general concept as set out in the city 's General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : 1 . District Map 24 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended to incorporate Meadowlark Specific Plan . 2 . Meadowlark Specific Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved, and copies of such specific plan shall be maintained for inspection in the office of the city Clerk and the Department of Community Development . 1 . 2929 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of March , 1988 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM City Clerk - ---City At orney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVI�D: 1 / City Administrator a for of Comm nity De opment 2827L:bc 2 . 2929 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-II ADOPTED APR" .•1950 NOTE PLAMN"COMMISSION RESOLUTION , o....r...... ..a Rw /1T CITY COUNCIL' URUINANCE NO.756 IS wr[.LOP,o'[.1...•,o l...L arwrl- . �. V lJ w.a.P ada uM U+o+n wwLo tow mla .91 P, av<w.w.r nr .•. 1 `, .,n..P ,o. rn U•tno, r OR a •-. .o of Ir. U ao-n 'l Imxll r« LLCENO 1 l I�r 1'1 I�( �'1'( ) BEACH �1(al-� ] rw a-n�+�n• ra] (orb orW[ L.r,xr.w ,•.a ]W s]. . f a .vmr. a»a (ri,l rR.n l,.wl i I » wro �a,m la..n r. a!u] Irt]clrni.nr .,nwna (► H A N G E C U N T Y (: A 1,I F O It N I A �-:" •11 R.] .,.. wt-, M,a.a ... 1 a .wllry a*-c.cua aErs<, • -.. as v 1). r] .r-, tVW ,a r K N K (Rsi wn,rll f-K,M..I[x[ All rcn «.r,..[w.".,nsl... n-K oa. •]-K ar-., L9] oJBPR^u.ssa,qV P lK ..• 1. ��Ory.,�,�...•.tnir tt 1�r .♦ ry .-.I N Nr �].• �, .(.;MAT+.v:a YLM S.•Cf i .y-w •..tar. r. "w I CdNMP C2 --I— --_ RI RI RI RI RI + RI RI RI P N -`— - RI XENRN:KSEN CASTLEOR /] .y4_Rt r _ z R I j - --Rn I = R I V R I L MANCRUM RI iRI RI RI, CF-E RI RIEAoIRI W ]: 1 G XE RTL OR N Q 1 J b� RI ; u o RI Or RI J vl SISSON R I R 1 R1 - R ,RIB - 1 CF-E r -� ., ••, -- RI RI1 RI Mf AOOWI,ANk I 4'A DA " J .J `R1 _ P.R CH VENTtAl DR v M H IRI RI RI RI Ri RI RI 'o RI 1 RIF R 1 �' RI a] O R I MARSNALL j OR. u rLWc 'ua,EN.r : o o $ s RI RI C2 CAL"TE DR WOOL OFF OA W =� M H R I R I R I -� I RIr?r�C2 1 L-_�_- - _�L- RI RI 7 -_ RI � RI 1-FP2 Tr .r<• _- NEIL, lcal T�.I —-- 111 R R2 t�o�R2� RI 0 RI-FP2 i..i, i 'aC. RI R I R3 i FP2 � z`� Ik r cR 'Al s-Po. a RI-FP2 {� ` 'C2 .IR2 � R2 i MH i RI-FP2 1 `. 1 a.vt( R_I RI ROS ^ sn1LK.1 _,�• _-1� C F- R a R I-FP2 l 1 {� RI I I RI / -.-'Lt°-_---- _�_ DQNLTN__,Q� �Rl RI 5 ( R t-FP2 R1 J RI "'R�" ) I FRANMAR_E! R I-FP2 i N (0)M H IRF IROS•OI//"' ;R(! s RI-FP2 .c rL• , R.! I ••w~1 •• •: - - 1 > CI_LORrO CR. , WR2% �J r-_. I Iccu R I-FP 2. -e I RI-F L' TR'OPXY P2 e` C2 ROS-FP2 OR ; - - y M;�:•x R 4 RI-FP2 ` in lw C4 x vlEw cR . C4-FP2 Y I a r OP `� i FP2/ c - -- - —-- �--- --1- - i t. WARNFR 2929 RESOLUTION No. 5843 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO 87-2c TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to update and refine the General Plan in keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and A public hearing on adoption of Land Use Element Amendment No. 8.7-2c to the General Plan was held by the Planning Commission on November 17 , 1987 , and approved for recommendation to the City Council ; and Therefore, the City Council , after giving notice as pre- scribed by Government Code sections 65355 and 65090 , held at least i one public hearing to consider Land Use Element No . 87-2c; and At said hearing before the City Council all persons desiring to be heard on said amendment were heard, NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to provisions of Title 7 , Chapter 3, Article 6 of California Government Code , commencing with section 65350, that Land Use Element Amendment No . 87-2c is hereby amended as follows : Area 2 . 1 , as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto, shall be amended from Low Density Residential to Planned Community to achieve consistency with the General Plan, and existing zoning . 1 • 5843 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of February , 1988. Mayor C ATTEST: A ED AS TO FORM: 01 City Clerk � /f-LJ' City Attorne r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: L City Administrator Dzre or of Community Devepopment 2853[,:ps 2 . 58-4 3 Res. No. 5843 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the lst day of February 1968 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Kelly, Erskine, Mays, Bannister. NOES: Councilmen: (.green, Finley, Winchell ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I 584 ' I '' � '1 i�l f i I I � . i I � 3 i I , I a i 7. Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan (Current- 1991) I - 7 RECEIVED JA N 2 91991 DEPARTMENT. OF, aO.MMUNITY, DEVELOP_MENJ RLANNING DIVISION Mea a T E R P L A N C 0 N C E P UA Meadowlark Property Conceptual Masterplan January 28, 1991 Prepared for: Bolsa Realty 9340 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, California 92683 and Pacific Development Group One Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, California 92658 Prepared by: Morse Consulting Group, Inc. 4 Venture, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92718 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LANDUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 OPENSPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 PUBLIC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Geology; Soils/Seismic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B. Potential Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 APPENDICES LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page I-VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II-CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III-COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV-PHASING PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 V-STREET SECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 & 13 VI-EDGE TREATMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 & 17 VII-PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ii INTRODUCTION The Meadowlark Property consists of approximately 65 acres located within the City of Huntington Beach. The property is situated approximately 600 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street, between Warner Avenue on the south and Heil Avenue on the north. Please refer to Exhibit I--Vicinity Map. The property was previously used as the site of the Meadowlark Airport. The City of Huntington Beach has previously adopted an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to designate the Meadowlark Property as a Planned Community. This Planned Community designation is to be implemented through the policies, guidelines and standards outlined in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The Meadowlark Specific Plan allows for the development of a 15 acre commercial site and several residential densities, not to exceed 600 total dwelling units. The Specific Plan also establishes policies to provide buffers between the Meadowlark Property and existing adjacent development and to outline the internal circulation patterns of the proposed development. The Specific Plan policies also require a phased development program to coincide with sewer and water capacities. To this end, the Specific Plan requires that all development proposals be accompanied by an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Tentative Tract Map. Concurrently with the first CUP application, a Conceptual Masterplan for the overall Meadowlark Property is to be submitted. Although there are no formal submittal requirements for this Conceptual Masterplan,the Meadowlark Specific Plan outlines that it should consist of a Masterplan Exhibit and Narrative Text. The content of the Masterplan Exhibit and Text are outlined on page 4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. In order to facilitate the City's review and to organize the issues into a logical order, the Masterplan Text has been divided into the following categories: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Public Services, and Environmental Considerations. I W Z Q J Q J W HEIL AVENUE o 1 1 1 ■. _ J 1 1 �- W W MEADOWLARK wPROJECT GOLF COURSE Q SITE Q 1 = U _ .! _ •, rU 0 J 1 , 0 m r. _ 1 1 WARNER AVENUE g VICINITY Mi-_ MeadowIaik`P operty NOT TO SCALE C0NCEPTUA'CMVVASTERPLAN �MORSE CONSULTING GROUP PUNNING • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE The Conceptual Masterplan for the Meadowlark Property proposes a 15± acre neighborhood shopping center and several residential uses on the remaining 50± acres. The residential uses include single family detached homes, medium density single family attached residences and medium-high density attached condominiums. Please refer to Exhibit II- Conceptual Masterplan. The Land Use Element of the Conceptual Masterplan proposes a land use configuration which works within the framework of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. A neighborhood shopping center is proposed along Warner Avenue at the southern boundary of the Meadowlark Property. The project spine road divides the shopping center into two parcels and provides access through the residential portion of the masterplan. The proposed residential land uses are divided into three major components; Single Family Detached, Medium Density and Medium-High Density per the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The Commercial component is the most well defined component of the Conceptual Masterplan. It consists of a neighborhood shopping center which is anchored by major retail supermarket and drugstore tenants. Additional shops and retail uses totalling 46,500± sq ft are proposed by the Commercial Site Plan. Please refer to Exhibit III-Commercial Site Plan. More detailed information regarding the Commercial Site Plan is provided by the CUP submittal. The residential components of the Conceptual Masterplan have not been formalized at a Site Plan level. They will be further defined when .subsequent CUP applications are submitted for each residential development proposal. The Single Family Detached component is located adjacent to Heil Avenue along the northern most portion of the Meadowlark Property. This component consists of a minimum of 18 acres and is bisected by the proposed project spine road. The major portion of the Single 3 mm ............. ............ ......... ............... SECTION A-A COMMERCIAL ENTRY/PROJECT SPINE ROAD CHURCH ? (R 1 'PINGLE FAMIEY ) J­ MOBILE HOME PARK (MH) • SECTION PROJECT SPINE ROAD/PEARCE DRIVE 27 77 SECTION C-C ROOSEVELT LANE(SOUTH) NATURAL PARK _u.-T= I L PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SECTION 0-0 ROOSEVELT LANE(NORTH) INGLE FAMILY. -D DETA6tiED. 7.0LQ-U-/AC.AffAX- SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILYJ/ e l DETACHED DETACHED (R 1) (Rl) PEARCE[ _J MEDIUM DENS iTy lI 20.0 AC. LB 7 a .240 UNITS 0'BUFFER 61DU/Ar-MAX— 12 D.U./AC.MAX. RESIDENTIAL— (R2) MEDIUM HibKbENSIT,* 240UNITS t 20 D.0/AC:*MAX.-' _7 SINGLE FAMILY 'DETACHED (R 1) F PROPOSED FUTURE DAY CARE FACILITY c C • L_ FERNHILL RESIDENTIAL (R4) COMMERCIAL 1.5.0 AC. VACANT (OP) NO LEFT TURN EXIT A A COM CIAL SECTION E-E RESIDENTIAL ENTRY SECTION F-F PRIVATE DRIVE CONCEPTUA, Nteado i ertv MASTERPLAN NOT TO SCALE -ly-lowl ger. CONCEPTUAL ]' TERPLAN Pw&NMORSE CONSULTING GROUP PfAlVlV11VG a ENGllVEERjlVG * SuRsTrING EXHIBIT 11 z FUTURE RESIDENTIAL � -- _ MEADOWLARK,-— PLAZA " I x x.uone.r� . .. .. .. .. .. .:.:5:..�.r - I ,� ',I .I r Y YI I YI Y '� Y •� I• 'I •'I I. .I. •• « --r I I �I OVERLAND DRIVE •`. VICINITY MAP I III I I« j"I MAooe zi s I * DRUG STORE ' 27,462 Sf I— R�.� e SHOPS 2 SHOPS 1 /• / r 31: S S•DO Sf 000 Sr. / '•ram '.�.I( J I I I '�r' 1f Irl f ••-I- ' t / / R.i i VACANT '-I car n. Mll rvr uer meal cn cuew uer mnu / I RESIDENTIAL rD W' Summary 586,285s( land area SHOPS '1' r%\./a•%�/n• /n• r a• v /a• /n' s�11• u' %n• / It I u.s..,.. z $I I t 4•� / n�.��///� / S // / / i 47 I 122,665s1 gross bldg area !is t IT 6.00 sr t 3.8/1 lond-to-bldg ratio ��,,�/ ;��',� / /y {�• i.naKi' / i 13 65A stalls rsq'd la• orntt •�;-i,:f'��c�c)y''L'"'r'}jyi / 1o,.r t ''L-"'t'� / 1= 659 stalls proV'd i000 St tft• O� �' �✓ i // — 71s e•:'f/r Rolo / �i //�yy/ 1� sol-s•.rr. u ss......r r N / , f ro•V lnq r.9Vlre..nu.nail e• eeleuloJ•e el leilwt: 1 1 d loe.76slt-cen.ra ref.11 a 5/fooas.4 jl ZD00.1-0111°e O 1/0=100 i lo.000 It-aell. (e.0 a ..elt)0 1/l00=100 ° IQ I I I I II I II II I uaoff a°,.no 1.a 1/1000=7 UIIII.� t1'•11' U ' 1 n•_ Ty trw— ! f °• SHOPS/PADZ I El SHOM SrPAQT.-.. T n.a nm..� _r- O/ z-- _,- !I I I D 1 NOTES 1. ON1tRTO .....epm' III;��I i I I I 1' I I I I gyp• RIWlAl10N5 IM IrA IOa 1(MAMI LEASES '')`•� \ / \ :, lA.nf°Arr,c II I t. SI,IvY1b�i fraVl AGREEMENTOMtR iB eCLORD k[CIPpOCAL PARK Iiw 1• O W LI N•Ketl.rrll «I I �.-.•c1n111...tro- ...-_.r I,a RI 1 -•-••-L•----- I [ N PARCEL RI k PApCEI 11 O / •�..-..-..-..-•.-.�..-• Ie^ al 1 _ _ - ru a o:fw nr.rs - - f - - - • 'r ••-•L ucflu.uo-lw�t.r_�` 1 .L .. . Juno.-- —-—-—- — — — —'—'— / \ -—-— — _ o m r v ,nt,• J - 1` WARNER AVENUE �~ �—uo,.uno nnnauo- II'm a I a x� m x O W u K M WQ ZQ le A SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT FOR: ��n D BOLSA REALTY A 9340 BOLSA AVENUE Ir+10 WESTMINSTER CA 92683 (714y 893-6521 rt� m m M E A D 0 W L A R K P L A Z A MCC W A R N E R A V E N U E = 9'1 H U N T I N G T 0 N B E A C H , C A L I F 0 R N I A architects T �V PROJECT ADVISOR. PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 1 CORPORATE PLAZA NFWPORI REACH, CA 92660 rnlnr l��• ".H,v�o� Family Detached component is located to the west of the spine road adjacent to the existing mobile home park and existing single family homes. A smaller portion of this component is located east of the spine road just south of Heil Avenue. The Single Family Detached component is proposed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) with 120 single family homes. The density of this component shall not exceed 7.0 du/acre. The Medium Density Residential component is proposed to the east of the project spine road. Two products are proposed to address development standards identified in the Meadowlark Specific Plan and to ensure compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. The majority of this residential component is proposed as Medium Density attached development. The 100 ft edge along the eastern boundary adjacent to existing single family detached homes is proposed as single family detached or attached residential at a density not to exceed 6 5 du/ac. The total dwelling units of the Medium Density Residential component shall not exceed 240 dwelling units. The Medium-High Density Residential component is proposed to the west of the project spine road and directly north of the proposed neighborhood shopping center. Attached condominiums are proposed within this residential component The maximum total of 240 dwelling units shall be allowed per the Meadowlark Specific Plan requirements Please refer to Table II for detailed summary of the proposed land uses Since the precise configuration of the three residential development components have not formalized at this time, the proposed bedroom count and dwelling unit distribution has been estimated The total residential units shall not exceed 600 dwelling units within the Meadowlark Specific Plan boundary. The estimated bedroom summary by product is indicated in Table I below. TABLE I TOTAL ESTIMATED TOTAL LAND VS'E UNITS BEDROOMS ACRES Single Family Detached 120 360 18 Medium Density Residential 1 240 600 1 20 Medium-High Density Residential 240 480 12 TOTAL 600 1440 50 6 TABLE H PROJECT SUMMARY LAND USE UNITS ACRES DENSrff Single Family Detached 120 18.0 7.0 (Medium Density) (240) (20.0) (12.0) Subtotal) (Medium-High Density (240) (12.0) (20.0) Residential RESIDENTIAL 600 50.0 12.0 TOTAL COMMERCIAL -- 15.0 -- PROJECT TOTAL 600 T 65.0 9.2 7 A total of 1440 bedrooms per 600 dwelling units are estimated for the residential component. Based on 50 acres of development within the residential component this equals 28.8 bedrooms/acre. The Meadowlark Specific Plan encourages the provision of a neighborhood child care facility on the Meadowlark Property. This facility has been conceptually located within the Medium Density Residential component along the Project Spine Road, adjacent to the Commercial component. The precise configuration of this facility will be formalized at the time of the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Medium Density Residential component. The Phasing Plan for the Meadowlark Property proposes to develop the property generally from south to north. The first development phase consists of the neighborhood shopping center proposing two commercial parcels divided by the project spine road. A Conditional Use Permit for the commercial parcels is submitted concurrently with this Conceptual Masterplan. Please refer to Exhibit IV-Phasing Plan for development phasing sequence. 8 ...-....... .....HEIL AVE.- JK iCHURCH SINGLE FAMILY (R1) DETACHED MOBILE HOME PAR PHASE 4 NATURAL PARK (CF-R) • .r.•�:w.:...:v....s..,,m..n.. ...: ! q'c' H;'.C��i+.:iC;U P•ARK. t PHASE 4�. SINGLE FAMILY e 3 DETACHED 18.0 AC. r— ,; '120 UNITS ,••� .• s a 7.0 D.U,{AC.MAX. SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY K i DETACHED DETACHED j ( {R1) R1) GEAR( UR.. --' rt-$�--- -•• i E MEDIUM DENSITY - - •• _ <••_-.._ H 12 D.U.%AC_MAX. ) RESIDENTIAL ' ` PHASE 3_. x z MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY U C 12.0 AC. 240 UNITS 20 D.U.;AC.MAX_ PHASE 2 e- SINGLE FAP.IILY > DETACHED .............. _�.w . i_ FERNHILL RESIDENTIAL :i (Ra) ' COMMERCIAL . •-� 15.0 AC. , ' PHASE 1 x VACANT ' (OP) i A; A COMB .RCIAL :WARNER AVE t t PHASING PLAN Meador perty K NOT TO SCALE CONCEPTUAL .: STERPLAN �MORSECONSULTINGGROUP _ PLANNING • ENGINEERING • St/RYEYING EXHIBIT IV CIRCULATION The Circulation Element of the Conceptual Masterplan proposes both vehicular and pedestrian travelways which are consistent with the intent of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The project spine road provides the main access to the Meadowlark Property from Warner Avenue at Green Tree Lane. This spine road meanders through the neighborhood shopping center and northward through the entire property separating the Medium and Medium-High Density Residential components and continuing through the Single Family Detached PRD component. The northern terminus of the project spine road at Heil Avenue aligns with Del Mar Lane. Local access to the two attached residential components is provided directly from the spine road. The Single Family Detached component at the western edge of the Meadowlark Property is accessed from the project spine road and from the Pearce Drive extension. The Pearce Street extension has been carefully planned to minimize traffic impacts onto the existing Pearce Street. This extension maintains a secondary access the existing single family development located to the west of the Meadowlark Property as required by the fire department. Secondary access to the neighborhood shopping center and to the Medium-High Density Residential component is provided at Roosevelt Lane (south) and Leslie Lane. No access from the Medium-High Density Residential component is proposed from Roosevelt Lane (north). Improvement of Roosevelt Lane (north) will be required concurrent with the development of that residential component. The proposed project spine road, which provides the major access to the overall master planned community, is an important element to the project not only from a circulation standpoint, but as a thematic design element as well. The street section for this roadway transitions as it flows through the project. From the south at Warner, it begins as a 68 ft paved cross section with a landscaped center median and transitions to a modified 54 ft right-of-way cross section through the neighborhood shopping center. This modified cross section eliminates the sidewalk adjacent to the curb. The pedestrian walkway is proposed along the west side of the project spine road in order to allow for an increased landscaped greenway along this street. This provides for a widened streetscene experience through the commercial portion of the proposed Conceptual Masterplan and establishes the landscape 10 treatment which will be continued for design of the spine road as it flows through the residential components of the Meadowlark Property. The project spine road transitions to a standard 54 ft right-of-way cross section with sidewalks on both sides of the curb through the residential portions of the Meadowlark Property and intersects with Heil Avenue at Del Mar. The right-of-way for Heil Avenue will be designed to allow for left turn lanes at Del Mar and permit on-street parking to remain on the north side of Heil Avenue. Pedestrian circulation within the project area is also considered by the Conceptual Masterplan. Following the standards established by the City of Huntington Beach,all street cross sections include a pedestrian sidewalk on both sides of the curb except within the neighborhood shopping center as previously mentioned. The proposed sidewalk location and widths are shown on Exhibit V-Street Sections. In addition,the Conceptual Masterplan provides a pedestrian walkway system connecting the existing residential development to the west and the natural park along the eastern boundary of the Meadowlark Property. This connecting walkway system is shown conceptually at this time. The precise configuration will be addressed along with subsequent Conditional Use Permits for the residential portion of the Meadowlark Property. 11 78' R/W 3' UTILITY ESM'T __ —__u_36 5' _ _t 36 5' 3' UTILITY ESM'T 1 5' 27'--- _ 14' 27' 5' WALK MIN 1 MW SECTION A-A COMMERCIAL ENTRY/PROJECT SPINE ROAD 54' R/W 4 2' P.0 E 27' 27' 2' P,U E 20' 20' 7'y 6' WALK —] T. 40' I 6' WALK 0 17' � C� =nFti>tiF=7it �111ta111m► nm gJ SECTION B-B PROJECT SPINE ROAD/PEARCE DRIVE 60' R/W 30' 30' 8' 22 22' 8' 44' 0.17' WALK _ 20% 2'0� r"i WALK SECTION C-C ROOSEVELT LANE (SOUTH) - STREET SECTIOI..j Mead0Ny 7 0Perty NOT TO SCALE CONCEPTUAL M AST ERPLAN ftm,F CONSULTINGGROUP •-ENGINEERING 0 SlIRYEYING EXHIBIT V a 52' R/W 2' P.UE. -- 2'PUE 26' 6 26'� ,— 20 `--- 20 - 6' WALK i 40 ' ALK 0 17' tt-r"-itii�in'i1��IF�igAlfl=ttit�'m�ttlEstm li u• SECTION D-D ROOSEVELT LANE (NORTH) 5' DRAINAGE __ _ 50' MIN R/W 5' DRAINAGE & & UTILITY ESM'T. 1 _ 20' _ -1 10' MIN. 20 `� UTILITY ESM'T. (MEDIAN WIDTH I i VARIES) 1 C _ r�- SECTION E-E RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 24' '2=----�-- '2 --- -- 2 - - 2% SECTION F-F PRIVATE DRIVE STREET SECTIONS 1VleadovI petty M- NOT TO SCALE CONCEPTUAL fvIPnERPLAN ft��JaE CONSULTINGGROUP -. ENGINEERING •-Sl/RYEY'!NG EXHIBIT V b OPEN SPACE The Open Space Element of the Conceptual Masterplan for the Meadowlark Property is consistent with the development standards of the Meadowlark Specific Plan addressing the perimeter buffers. In the western portion of the property, the perimeter area adjacent to existing single family development, is proposed as Single Family Detached homes. This will ensure compatibility with the existing single family development. In the eastern perimeter buffer area, located within the Medium Density Residential component, the Conceptual Masterplan proposes attached or detached single family residential development with a maximum density of 6.5 du/ac. This development will provide a transition between the existing single family homes and the remaining proposed Medium Density Residential component. The open space treatment of edge which divides the rear of the neighborhood shopping center and perimeter of the Medium-High Residential Component is an important planning and design consideration of the Conceptual Masterplan. Although it is recognized as an important issue, since the Medium-High Density Residential Component has not been finalized at this time, it is only possible to address this at a conceptual level. The issue centers around the compatibility of land use concerns between commercial and residential development. This concern is addressed at the planning level by situating the highest density residential component adjacent to the Commercial component. This - provides a transition of residential development intensity to the lesser dense residential uses proposed to the north by the Conceptual Masterplan. At the design level, this issue can be addressed by providing an adequate building setback and appropriate landscape treatment. At the Conceptual Masterplan stage, in order not to pre-constrain any future medium-high residential site plan, we propose several cross sections to illustrate the potential edge treatments which will be acceptable in the future design of that residential component. Please refer to Exhibit VI-Edge Treatments. These sections convey building setbacks and landscaped areas along this transitional edge between the commercial and residential component. 14 The common open space areas within the three residential components will include both active and passive recreational areas. Although the actual amenity program has not been formalized at this time, it is likely that the attached residential component areas will include community pools, spas, restroom facilities, BBQ, and picnic areas. The PRD residential component will likely include a more passive park-like open space area since each detached dwelling unit will have individual private open space within the rear yard of each lot. Since the development of each residential component will require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the City will have the opportunity to review and approve the actual proposal for common open space areas at that time. 15 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING 15' MIN. SETBACK COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TO MAIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING GARAGE OR CARPORT DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING NO MIN. SETBACK L� { COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EDGE TREATMEM Meadowla Pz:dperty NOT TO SCALE C0NCEPTUACz MASTERPLAN ONNMORSE CONSULTING GROUP WwPLANNIN(i • ENGINEERING • SuRvE)"/NG EXHIBIT VI a 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING OPEN PARKING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING (OR .DRIVEWAY) �Y �w Jii } COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL EDGE TREATMENT FOR OPEN PARKING/DRIVEWAY EDGE TREATMENTS Meadovvlarft .perty NOT TO SCALE CONCEPTUA''L" ►v1ASTERPLAN �MORS£ CONSULTING GROUP PUNNING • ENGINEERING . suRvErllvG EXHIBIT VI b PUBLIC FACILITIES The proposed sewer and water facilities serving the Meadowlark Property have been addressed by the Conceptual Masterplan per the requirement outlined in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. In addition, the Public Facilities Element of the Conceptual Masterplan identifies storm drain facilities proposed in conjunction with the development of the Meadowlark Property. Please refer to Exhibit VII-Public Facilities Plan for the location of proposed sewer, water and storm drain facilities. The backbone sewer facilities consist of two separate systems. The Commercial component sewers toward the south and connects to an existing 21 in. sewer main in Warner Avenue. The residential components are proposed to sewer northward to Heil Avenue connecting to a 15 in. existing main running in that street. The alignment follows the proposed project spine road. The backbone water facilities consist of a proposed 12 in. line which follows the alignment of the project spine road connecting to a 16 in. line in Warner Avenue and a 12 in. line in Heil Avenue. An 8 in. loop system aligned generally around the perimeter of the proposed neighborhood shopping center and within the proposed right-of-way of Roosevelt Lane - (south) connects the backbone water system to the 16 in. line in Warner Avenue. The backbone storm drain facilities consists of both onsite and offsite improvements. A 36"RCP is proposed to extend from approximately the northern access point to the Medium Density Residential component north to the project entry at Heil Avenue. Offsite, this storm drain will be increased to a 54" RCP in Heil Avenue and continue in a westerly direction for approximately 1800 linear ft to Bolsa Chica where it will connect to an existing 72" storm drain. An additional offsite storm drain improvement is proposed in Warner Avenue to the east of the Meadowlark Property. A 30" RCP is proposed-from approximately the intersection of Red Rock Creek easterly for approximately 700 linear ft and will connect to an existing 39" storm drain in Graham Avenue. 18 54"RCP EXISTING 12" 1800' - -........_ .._._._..... . ._. CONNECT TO EXISTING 72" RCP IN BOLSA CHICA 15" V.C.P. EXIST. - CHURCH • R1 LEGEND ,SINGLE FAMILY ( } DETACHED ° ,� 12" — SEWER LINE 8" V.C.P. WATER LINE -- ./ ••••••••• STORM DRAIN ••: � • I NA PARK NATURAL • J. • j. SINGLE FAMILY ' •' c = DETACHED F 18.0 AC, •i r—� K '120 UNITS • g 7.0 D.U.:AC.MAX. •r�- :,.` 8"V.Ci P. f SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY _ B �� 'F�' I DETACHED DETACHED K • > = --� •�B I (R 1) 5 k 3 12" ' MEDIUM DENSITY 240 UNITS — l 12 D.U.'AC.MAX. RESIDENTIAL (R2) c. r` MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY $" V.C.P. 240 UNITS 20 D.U.!AC,MAX. 8" V.C.P. �„ J F` J SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ( ) a rU.v I I I _ . : c; I I I ' 1 l_ �_ COMMERCIAL ,'> W .... I__8" V.d' Ac. 12" '. = " SEWER U VACANT ..1 6"__,,, .._I _ Q a 6"t �'It V;G,P L 1 -.: �RY:G.P. W 30"RCP �-�•�� EXISTING 21" V.0 P... .,;�_.,.�.-:--, _ � .._:.,_ 'CONNECT TO EXISTING L" 39" RCP IN GRAHAM AVE Z: J :v PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN z NfeadoNylAd qF 'ope>i t : Ys �s , ✓ NOT TO SCALE CONCEPTUAL MIASTERPLAN 400WMORSE CONSULTING GROUP PwPLANNING • F.NGINEF.RING • SI/RLEYING EXHIBIT VII ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The Meadowlark Specific Plan identifies three environmental considerations relative to the Meadowlark Property - Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Potential Hazardous Materials, and Archeology. The Conceptual Masterplan addresses these issues consistent with the criteria outlined in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. A. GEOLOGY: SOILS/SEISMIC The Meadowlark Property is located on the Bolsa Mesa which is an alluvial terrace-a bench- like formation of land carved in alluvium by a stream. Soils encountered throughout the site during a preliminary soils investigation conducted by H.V. Lawmaster& Co., prepared as part of the Environmental Review process, included alluvial deposits of silty clays,silty sands, clayey/sandy silts and, to a minor extent, relatively "clean" sand. Organic soils or peat deposits were not encountered, nor was ground water in any of the borings conducted for this report. The information obtained from the soils investigation indicates that the property can be made suitable for development for low rise commercial and residential structures using conventional grading procedures. The surface soils are expansive and this characteristic will require consideration in design and construction of footings and slabs on a grade. _ Meadowlark Airport is located approximately 5,000 ft northeast of the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone for the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The distance from the Special Studies Zone removes the site from any specific Zone related considerations. The Bolsa- Fairview Fault is approximately 2,000 ft southwest of the airport. Although this fault is closer to the airport than the Newport-Inglewood, it is assumed to be less of a threat to that area. A recent fault analysis(1986)prepared by Richard Lung,of Leighton and Associates, stated that the Bolsa-Fairview Fault has not been active in geologic historic times (within the last 10,000 years) and is not considered a threat or measurable risk to people and/or buildings in the area. The State Division of Mines and Geology has concurred with this assessment. 20 Additional measures as outlined in the Meadowlark Specific Plan will be employed prior to the issuance of building permits. B. POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS An onsite inspection and field tests were conducted on the Meadowlark Property by the County of Orange Environmental Health Division to determine the presence of any soil contamination. This investigation, which was conducted on April 5, 1990, did determine that gasoline contaminated soils did exist onsite. A letter from the Environmental Health Division dated June 20, 1990, is included as Appendix A. This letter outlines the investigative measures required by that agency in order to get clearance to commence grading operations. These investigative and remediation measures will be carried out to the satisfaction of that agency and verification of clearance will be provided to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of building permits. C. ARCHAEOLOGY The Meadowlark Property is in an area termed "archaeologically sensitive" by the Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, the regional archaeology clearinghouse. The airport is on the Bolsa Chica Mesa where several prehistoric native American sites have been identified. Studies indicate that the sites were shellfish processing camps (shell middens). A site located at the southeast corner of the airport (referred to as ORA-368) was recently investigated by Scientific Resource Survey (SRS). The investigation was in conjunction with the Warner Avenue Road Widening Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. Preliminary results of the investigation were inconclusive as to the existence of a shell midden on that site. During Phase I of an archaeological assessment conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS), five areas were found on the Meadowlark Property that contained ground surface shell materials. Based on their surface investigation, SRS recommended a subsurface program to "investigate the nature and content of the shell deposits" in those areas. Phase II archaeological investigations as proposed in the SRS report were conducted during the months of July and August 1990. The results of these investigations are summarized in a letter from SRS dated August 31, 1990. This letter is included as Appendix B. 21 APPENDICES TOM DRAM DIRECTOR L. REX EHLINr O. X N"i`Y Ca F HEALTH( !ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OIVIRION ROBERT E.1AERRYMAN,REHS MPH DEPUTY DIRECTOR 5 3 RAN C E MAILING ADDRESS;P.O.BOX 3s5 SANTA ANA,CA 92702 HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION June 20, 1990 2009 E. EDINGER AVENUE SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92705 (714) 667-3700 Art Nario 9430 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Subject: Soil Contamination Located at Meadowlark Airport, 5141 Warner, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 O.C.H.C.A. Site #90UT110 Dear Mr. Nario: Based on inspections and field tests conducted on April 5, 1990 it has been de- termined that gasoline contaminated soil is present at the subject location. This Agency is authorized to enforce the State Hazardous Waste and Underground Storage Tank Laws and Regulations and, under contract with the State Water Resource Control Board, is responsible for oversight of cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination resulting from unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks. By this letter, you are directed to conduct an investigation to assess the extent and significance of contamination at the site specified in the subject above. The objective of this site investigation is to provide sufficient information to evaluate 1) the sensitivity of the site, 2) the potential threat of exposure to humans , 3) remedial actions and/or alternative mitigation strategies. At minimum this investigation should include: 1 . A clear delineation of the nature and extent of soil and groundwater con- tamination. • 2. A hydrogeological characterization including depth to groundwater and, if groundwater is contaminated, site specific determination of groundwater gradient. 3. The proximity to wells and surrounding land uses; and future use of the site itself. 4. The potential impacts of contamination to public health and the environ- ment, including the potential for contaminant vapor migration and human exposure by inhalation. Please note that clearance of site investigation, remediation or other mitigation activities by any other agency does not constitute clearance from the Orange County Health Care Agency. The California Health and Safety Code, Section 25298 (c) (4) Art Nario -2- June 20, 1990 requires that a person closing an underground storage tank demonstrate to the Orange County Health Care Agency that the site has been investigated to determine if there are any present, or were past, releases, and if so, that appropriate corrective or remedial actions have been taken. The investigation must include a risk assessment of vapor exposure for all projects involving a change in land use. The risk assessment must include a determination of the excess lifetime cancer risk due to inhalation of vapors from volatile con- taminants, both inside and outside buildings. The risk assessment must be submitted for review and approval by this Agency. Additionally, the project site must be properly secured to eliminate safety hazards and prevent public contact with contaminants present at the site. Any site activity which involves the excavation, disruption, collection, treatment, or removal of contaminated soil or groundwater must be conducted in a manner that precludes public exposure to chemical vapors above background levels. The California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Subchapter 16, Section 2652 requires that the following information be reported to the local agency every three (3) months until cleanup is complete: 1. The results of all investigations completed at that time to determine the extent of soil and groundwater or surface water contamination due to the release. 2. Method of cleanup implemented to date, proposed cleanup actions, and ap- proximate cost of actions taken to date. 3. Method and location of disposal of the released hazardous substance and any contaminated soils or groundwater or surface water (indicate whether a hazardous waste manifest(s) is utilized) . Violation of these requirements are subject to a civil penalty of up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per day. Guidelines providing further information relating to site assessment and the site investigation objectives are available upon request. Although not required, an initial workplan or study design may be submitted to this Agency for review and comment. Please note that for sites with possible or confirmed groundwater con- tamination, copies of all correspondence, work plans, and reports should be rou- tinely courtesy copied to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 667-3719. Very truly yours, Peter Peuron Hazardous Waste Specialist Hazardous Materials Management Section Environmental Health Division PP:gmj cc: Huntington Beach Fire Department Steve Overman, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. ARCHAEOLOGY—PALEONTOLOGY—H ISTORY—G EOSCIENCES 5232 Bolsa Avenue,Suite 5,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Phone:714/898-7877 Fax: 714/891-7458 August 31, 1990 Mr. Robert Franklin Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re: Archaeological Site Ora-368 Meadowlark Village Shopping Center Dear Mr. Franklin: Pursuant to a request by Pacific Development Group, Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) conducted archaeological investiga- tions on the above-referenced property. The project area was thought to include a small portion of archaeological site Ora- 368. The purpose of the present investigations was to verify or negate the presence of an archaeological deposit on the subject property, and if such a deposit existed, to extract an adequate sample of the site to constitute final mitigation measures for archaeology so that development could proceed. During the months of July and August, 1990, test excavations, including auger drilling and backhoe trenching, were conducted. These investigations resulted in the knowledge that the sub- stantial deposit adjacent to Warner Avenue, which had been previously sampled by SRS, did not extend further north onto the subject property. A thin deposit of archaeological midden was apparent within the southeast corner of the property. The - - deposit was located and sampled by augering; exposed by backhoe and the stratigraphy analyzed and mapped; and sampled by hand- excavation. Four column samples were taken, processed through 1/16th inch screen mesh, sorted, and analyzed. A sparse amount of sea shell remains (Clam, Scallop, Oyster, Slipper Shell and Moon Snail, ten pieces of small mammal bone, one projectile point base, one Olivella shell cylinder bead, a worked clam drill, one hammer/grinder, and three stone flakes constituted the finds of the excavations. Due to the sparse nature of the finds, mitigation measures were designed in order to add some knowledge to the infomation base regarding this site and its use through time. r Ora-368/pg.2 The site has been the subject of very few radiocarbon dates. Since the nature of the deposit precluded adding new informa- tion, through hand excavation, regarding the subsistence pattern of the inhabitants or use of the area through the recovery of tools, a series of radiocarbon samples (18) were taken and submitted to Beta Analytic, Coral Gables, Florida, for dating. These dates, when received, will be a definite addition to - the information currently known about Ora-368. When the dates are recieved <approximately two months) a final report will be prepared on Ora-368 which incorporates all known information about the site. The substantial investment in radiocarbon dating constitutes final mitigation of the sparse deposit which exists on the Meadowlark Village Center property. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Nancy A itney-Desaute , Ph.D. Preside �� I i I i 8. Development Agreement (1989) 89--389939 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OFORANGECOUNTY CALIFORNIA • 3:30 J U L 2 4 1989 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND P.M. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: 42 RECORDER City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: City Clerk EXEMP C14 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND DICK YUKIO NERIO, ART MASAO NERIO, TOYO NERIO, y LILLY YURIKO NERIO, HISAKO NERIO IMAMURA, SUMIYE NERIO LEONARD AND TOM KOICHI NERIO 9�zSis document is solely For the official business of the City Of Huntington Eeach, as contem— plated under Government Code See. 6103 and abould be recorded tree of chprge. I �, ;, %-.JIAMFNT NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section Title No. 1 . DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . 1 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 . 2 Exhibits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 . GENERAL PROVISIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . 1 Binding Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . 2 Interest of Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . 3 Term of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . 4 Termination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 . 5 Closure of Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 . 6 Assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2 . 7 Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 . 8 Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 . CONFLICTS OF LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 . 1 Conflict with State or Federal Laws . . . . . 15 3 . 2 Notice and Copies . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 . 3 Modification Conferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 . 4 City Council Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 . 5 Cooperation in Securing Permits or Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3 . 6 Challenge of New Law or Regulation. . . . . . 17 4 . DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 . 1 Rights to Develop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 . 2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 . 3 Timing of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 . 4 Phasing Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4 . 5 Initiatives and Moratoria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4 . 6 Environmental Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4 . 7 Changes and Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4 . 8 Application of Subsequently Revised Construction Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . 24 4 . 9 Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 . 10 Public Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 . 11 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 26 4 . 12 Cooperation in Security Approvals . . . . . . . 27 4 . 13 Development Exactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 i � � � 10 Section Title No . 9 . 16 Tentative Tract Map Extension. . . . . . . . . . . 40 9 . 17 Integrated Project . 40 9 . 18 Recordation of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Exhibit "A" - Legal Description of the Property Exhibit "B" - Existing Development Approvals Exhibit "C" - Existing Land Use Regulations Exhibit "D" - Meadowlark Airport Closure Plan 108- ( 4-5a) "" �� e ��` W-jWyJY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND DICK YUKIO NERIO, ART MASAO NERIO, TOYO NERIO, LILLY YURIKO NERIO, HISAKO NERIO IMAMURA, SUMIYE NERIO LEONARD AND TOM KOICHI NERIO This development agreement ( "Agreement" ) is made and Uf� entered into this / day of 1989 , by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, •a* municipal corporation ( the "City" ) and DICK YUKIO NERIO, ART MASAO NERIO, TOYO NERIO, LILLY YURIKO NERIO, HISAKO NERIO IMAMURA, SUMIYE NERIO LEONARD AND TOM KOICHI NERIO ( collectively the "Developer" ) . RECITALS A. City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864 , et seq of the Government Code. B . Pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code, City has adopted City Council Resolution No . 5390 estab- lishing rules, regulations and procedures for the consideration of development agreements . C. Developer is the legal owner of certain unin- habited real property comprising approximately 65 acres generally located approximately 600 feet east and north of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue . It is more particularly -1- described in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference ( the "Property" ) . D. City and Developer desire to enter into this Agreement in order to establish development rights in the Property; to provide for the cessation of all airport operations on the Property on or before September 1, 1989; to provide a secure means of financing needed public improvements; to provide additional employment opportunities and housing; and to generate substantial additional revenues to the City to enable it to maintain and improve vital public services for the residents of the City of Huntington Beach. E. On December 15, 1987, the City Planning Commission by motion recommended approval of Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C to the General Plan (the "Meadowlark Specific Plan" ) and recommended certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2. F. On March 7, 1988, by Ordinance No. 2929, the City Council approved the Meadowlark Specific Plan (enacted through Zone Change No. 87-13) and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2. G. On September 20, 1988, the City Planning Commission, the advisory agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Section 65867 of the Government Code, held a duly noticed public hearing regarding an Agreement t and, at the conclusion of the hearing, and after considering the M -2- I 89-3899- evidence and argument submitted by City staff, the Developer, and all interested parties, adopted its Resolution No. 1404 recommending that the City Council approve the Agreement . H. On October 24, 1988, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing regarding an Agreement and, at the .conclusion of the hearing, and after considering the recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission, the evidence and argument sub- mitted by City staff, the Developer and all interested parties, adopted Ordinance No. 2970 approving an Agreement . I . On June 5, 1989, the City Council held an additional and further duly noticed public hearing regarding the final form of this Agreement and, at the conclusion of the hearing, and after considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the evidence and argument submitted by City staff , the Developer, and all interested parties, introduced Ordinance No. 3001 approving this Agreement in final form. J. The City hereby finds that this Agreement , the Meadowlark Specific Plan and Zone Change No. 87-13 are consistent with the City General Plan. Development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Meadowlark Specific Plan, will provide balanced land uses , promote an economically sound community, and is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the City, i its residents and the public. -3- K. The City further finds that this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and secure the orderly develop- ment of the Property; assure progressive installation of neces- sary public improvements; provide for public services appropriate to each phase of development of the Property; ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City; generate substantial needed revenues for the City to main- tain and expand vital public services for the benefit of all residents of the City; and otherwise achieve the important public goals and purposes for which the development agreement legislation was enacted . L. In_ consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by Developer pursuant to this Agreement and the Meadowlark Specific Plan and Zone Change No. 87-13 and in order to strengthen the public planning process , reduce the economic costs of development, and satisfy a broad range of economic housing needs, the City intends to give Developer definite assurances that Developer can complete the development of the Property and finance the public improvements which are a part of such development in accordance with the terms of this Agreement . Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement requires substantial capital expenditures and investments with respect to the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities, both on-site and off-site, public and private; payment of substantial developer fees ; dedi- -4- 89-38993%( cations of land for public benefit and purposes; and cessation c airport operations . Developer and City will be unable to make and realize the benefits of such commitments and resources without the vested rights and assurances for development of the Property provided by this Agreement . City recognizes and has determined that the granting of such vested rights and assurances are necessary to enable Developer to undertake the development of the Property and thereby achieve the public purposes and benefits of such development . But for said commitments on the part of City, Developer would not enter into this Agreement . Developer ' s compliance with and agreement to finance public improvements, dedicate land for public purposes, pay developer fees , and cease airport operations constitute the consideration for this Agree- ment . The cessation of airport operations on or before September 1, 1989, is a major consideration for the City entering into this agreement . MATTERS OF AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in further consideration of the above recitals, all of which are expressly incorporated into this Agreement , and the mutual promises and covenants of the parties herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged , the parties agree as follows : -5- 1 , DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. _ 1 . 1 Definitions. As used in this development agreement , the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: 1 . 1 . 1 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement . 1 . 1 . 2 "DEVELOPER" means DICK YUKIO NERIO, ART MASAO NERIO, TOYO NERIO, LILLY YURIKO NERIO, HISAKO NERIO IMAMURA, SUMIYE NERIO LEONARD AND TOM 'KOICHI NERIO, and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. 1 . 1 . 3 "City" means the City of, Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 1 . 1 . 4 "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping . "Development" does not include the maintenance, repair , reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof. 1 . 1 . 5 "Development Approvals" means all enactments , permits, and other entitlements for use subject to -6- r _ 89-38�939 enactment, approval or issuance by CITY in connection with Development of the Property, including, but not limited to: (a) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (b) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps, including vesting tentative maps and vesting final maps ; - (c) Conditional use permits; (d) Zoning; (e) Grading and building permits . 1. 1 . 6 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities , or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.1 . 7 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to Development of the Property. 1 .1 . 8 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is recorded with the County Recorder . 1 . 1 . 9 "Existing Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date . Existing Development Approvals includes the -7- � - tom . 1 � r : 89-389939 Approvals incorporated herein as Exhibit "B" and all other Approvals which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date. 1 . 1 . 10 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances , resolutions , codes, rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation: the permitted uses of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision requirements ; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; Development Exactions including provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development of the Property; and regulations regarding the rate, time or sequence of Development . "Land Use Regulations" includes any regulation adopted by initiative or referendum. 1. 1 . 11 "Mortgage" means a mortgage, a deed of trust, or any other security device securing financing with respect the the Property or any part thereof.- 1 . 1 . 12 "Mortgagee" means the holder of the beneficial interest under any Mortgage and its successors and , assigns. 1. 1 . 13 "Party or Parties" . The City and Developer are referred to individually as a "Party" and collec- tively_ as "Parties" . Following a sale, assignment or transfer of the Property, or a part thereof, as provided by Section 2 . 6 of -8- - - 8°-3899: this Agreement, any purchaser, assignee or transferee shall als, be a "Party" . 1 . 1 . 14 "Project" means the Development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 1 . 1 . 15 "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit "A. " 1 . 1 .16 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with Development of the Property . 1 . 1 . 17 "Subsequent Land Use Regulations" means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement . 1. 2 Exhibits . The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement : Exhibit "A" - Legal Description of the Property. Exhibit "B" - Existing Development Approvals . Exhibit "C" - Existing Land Use Regulations . Exhibit "D" - Meadowla-rk Airport Closure Plan -9- i X0 89-389939 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2 . 1 Binding Covenants. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property shall be* subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement . The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agree- ment inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. 2 . 2 Interest of Developer . Developer represents that it is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property. 2 . 3 Term of Agreement. 2 . 3 . 1 Stated Term. The term of this Agree- ment shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of ten years thereafter unless -this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement . 2 . 3 . 2 Extension of Term. The term provided for herein is intended to provide sufficient time for completion of the Project in accordance with the Development Plan. In the event that the Parties determine that a longer period is neces- sary to achieve the foregoing purpose, the term of this Agreement may be extended by the further written Agreement of the Parties in accordance with Section 2.7 hereof . 2 . 3 . 3 Referendum on Enacting Ordinance . In the event a referendum petition protesting adoption of the ordi- -10- 89--389939 nance approving this Agreement is presented to the City Council - prior to the effective date of such ordinance and the City Council repeals such ordinance, or the City Council in lieu of repealing such ordinance submits the ordinance to voters and a majority of the voters vote against the ordinance, this Agreement shall be null and void as of the date the City Council repeals such ordinance, or as of the date of the final declaration by the City Council of the disapproval of such ordinance by the refer- endum election, whichever the case may be. 2 . 4 Termination. 2 . 4 . 1 Events of Termination. This Agreement shall be terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events : (a) Expiration of the stated term hereof pursuant to Section 2 .3 .1; (b) Completion of the Project in accordance with the Development Plan and the issuance by City of all required occupancy permits or final inspection approvals , and acceptance of all dedications required under the Development Plan and this Agreement; (c) Entry after- all appeals have been exhausted of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directing City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate City approval of this Agreement; or • -11- W-3W939 (d) The effective date of a successful referendum protesting the ordinance approving this Agreement . Termination of this Agreement shall not result in the termination of any Development Approvals applicable to the Property. 2 . 4 . 2 Termination upon Sale of Individual Parcels. Notwithstanding any provision hereof to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot or unit which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk" ) leased ( for a period greater than one (1) year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof , and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instru= ment, such lot or unit shall be released from and no longer be subject to, or burdened by, the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits hereof shall continue to run as to any such lot or unit until completion of the construction i permitted under the Development Plan. i 2 . 5 Closure of Airport. Developer agrees and covenants that the Meadowlark Airport shall cease to operate as an airport no later than September 1, 1989 . All airport operations shall terminate on or before September 1 , 1989, and the runway shall be demolished and removed no later than September 8, 1989 . Cessation of operation as an airport as provided in this Agreement shall -12- r . . : �y--JbYY3, constitute an abandonment of the existing nonconforming use of the Property, and after September 1, 1989, City may utilize any remedies provided by law to enforce such abandonment . Closure of the airport shall be completed in accordance with the closure plan and phasing schedule set forth in Exhibit "D" to this Agreement . 2 . 6 Assignment. Developer shall have the right to sell, assign or transfer the Property in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement , provided that any such sale, assignment or transfer shall include the pro rata assignment of those rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement which are applicable to the Property or part thereof being assigned, transferred or sold. The express written assump- tion of any or all of the obligations of Developer under this Agreement by such assignee, transferee or purchaser shall, with- out any act or concurrence by City, relieve Developer of its legal duty to perform said obligations under this Agreement . The City shall not impose any conditions on or otherwise have any rights of approval over any such sale, assignment or transfer . Any purchaser, assignee or transferee of Developer shall have all of the rights, duties and obligations of Developer under this Agreement insofar as such rights , duties and obligations are applicable to the Property or part thereof purchased, assigned or transferred. -13- -� � � • Ay It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the Property may be further subdivided after the Effective Date of this Agreement. one or more of such subdivided parcels may be sold, assigned or transferred to persons or entities for develop- ment by them in accordance with the provisions of this Agree- ment . Effective upon such sale, assignment or transfer , the obligations of Developer shall become several and not joint . Noncompliance by any such persons or entities with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or with applicable City rules and regulations shall not be deemed to be a default hereunder or grounds for termination hereof, or constitute cause for the City to initiate enforcement action against, other persons or entities then owning the Property or a portion thereof and not themselves in default hereunder . Upon completion of Development of any phase or tract of the Project as determined by City, City shall release that completed phase or tract from any further obliga- tions under this Agreement. 2 .7 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by the mutual written consent of the Parties and in accordance with the procedures provided in California Government Code I Sections 65867, 65867 . 5 and 65868, including the requirements for notice and public hearing . 2 .8 Notices . As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes all notices, statements , demands, and other communications -14- required or permitted hereunder . All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing, shall be delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and shall be effective on the date delivered in person, or the date when the postal authorities indicate that the mailing was delivered to the address of the receiving party. All notices shall be addressed as follows : Notice to City: Director of Community Development Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Notice to Developer : Dick Nerio 9340 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, California 92683 With a Copy to: Drummy Garrett King & Harrison 3200 Park Center Drive Costa Mesa, California 92660 Attn: Kenneth M. Kaplan, Esq. Any Party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, or to a different address, or both. Notices effective prior to actual receipt of any such notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change . 3 . CONFLICTS OF LAW. 3 . 1 Conflict with State or Federal Laws . In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement , prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions -15- r of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however , that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 3 . 2 Notice and Copies. Any Party which determines that it cannot perform any act authorized or required by this Agreement due to a conflict described in Section 3 .1 shall, within fifteen ( 15) days of making such determination, provide all other Parties with written notice of such State or Federal law or regulation and a statement of the conflict with the provisions of this Agreement . 3 . 3 Modification Conferences . The Parties shall, within thirty ( 30) days after notice as provided in Section 3 . 2 hereof, meet and confer fin good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such law or regulation. 3 . 4 City Council Hearing. Within a reasonable time 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. Notice of such hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090 of the Govern- ment Code . The City Council, at such hearing, shall determine -16- I the exact modification or suspension which shall be necessitated by such law or regulation. Developer shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony . at the hearing . No modification or suspension of this Agreement shall be effective unless approved by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the authorized voting members of the City Council and by Developer . 3 . 5 Cooperation in Securing Permits or Approvals . City shall cooperate with Developer in the timely securing of any permits or approvals which may be required as a result of such modifications to, or suspensions of, all or any part of this Agreement . 3 . 6 Challenge of New Law or Regulation. Developer or City shall have the right to challenge by appropriate judicial proceedings any such new law or � regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agree- ment . - ment . In the event that such challenge is successful , this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, except that the term shall be extended for a period of time equal to the period such law or regulation prevented or precluded compliance with the provisions of this Agreement . 4 . DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 4 . 1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Property in -17_ i I _ accordance with, and to the extent of, the Development Plan. - Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. In exercising its discretion on such Subsequent Development Approvals, City shall act reasonably and in accordance with the Development Plan. In acting on any application for a Subsequent Development Approval within the residential part of the Project which complies with the development standards of Section N of the Meadowlark Specific I ! Plan, and is otherwise consistent with that Specific Plan, the i provisions of Sections 65589 .5 of the Government Code shall apply and City shall not disapprove the application or approve it on condition that it be developed at a lower density unless the City ' s decision is based upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both the following conditions exist : (a) The proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the housing development is disapproved or approved upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density; and, -18- b -: bYY (b) There is no feasible method .to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to (a) above, other than the disapproval of the housing development or its approval upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. The provisions of Section 65589 . 6 of the Government Code shall apply in any action to challenge any such City decision to disapprove a housing development application or approve it on the condition it be developed at a lower density. 4 . 2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations . Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, the Land Use Regulations applicable to Development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations on the Effective Date of this Agreement, and no Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall be applicable to Development of the Property. 4 . 3 Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Developer such as market orientation and demand, interest rates , absorption, compe- tition and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo ( 1984 ) 37 Cal . 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initia- -19- E- 17 � 30' r tive restricting the timing of development to prevail over such - parties ' agreement, it is the Parties ' intent to cure that defi- ciency by acknowledging and providing - that Developer shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exer- cise of its subjective business judgment, subject only to any phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan and its Phasing Plan as specified in Section 4 . 4 . 4 . 4 Phasing Plan. Development of the Property shall be subject to the phasing requirements established by the Development Plan. f City agrees that the "Phasing Plan for Development" , required by Section D. 4 . of the Meadowlark Specific Plan ( the "Phasing Plan" ) shall be limited solely to providing assurances to City that Development of the Property will include timely installation of necessary on-site and off-site improvements as required by the Existing Land Use Regulations and that the Project will not exceed the available capacity of either the sewer system or the water system. With respect to the provision of water service to the Project, City agrees that the Phasing Plan shall provide for the granting of firm commitments for the provision of water service by the City concurrent with the approval of the condi- tional use permit or tentative tract map for each phase of Development. With respect to the provision of sewer service to the Property, the Parties acknowledge that the provision of sewer service is not within the control of City in that the Property is -20- I 89-389939 within the service area of the Orange County Sanitation District . City, however , agrees to use its best efforts to assist and support Developer in securing firm commitments for sewer service from the Orange County Sanitation District at the earliest feasible time, and agrees that the Phasing Plan will not restrict Development of any phase of the Project with respect to sewer service except for requiring clearance from the Orange County Sanitation District . Upon City approval of the Phasing Plan, as required by Section D. 4 . the Meadowlark Specific Plan, the Project shall not be subject to any futther limitations with regard to time, rate or sequence of Development. 4 . 5 Initiatives and Moratoria. In the event any Subsequent Land Use Regulation is enacted (whether by action of the City Council, by initiative, by referendum, or otherwise) which relates to the rate, timing or sequencing of development of property within the City, City agrees that such Subsequent Land Use Regulation shall not apply to the Project. In addition to and not in limitation of the foregoing, City agrees that no moratorium and other limitation affecting subdivision maps, building permits or other entitlements for use within the City or any part of the City, shall apply to the Project to the extent it is in conflict with this Agreement . Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event any such ordinance, measure, moratorium or other limitation is determined by a court to invalidate or prevail over all or any part of this Agreement, Developer shall have no recourse against -21- . r -- City pursuant to this Agreement , but Developer shall retain all other rights , claims, and causes of action which Developer may otherwise have at law or in equity including, without limitation, the right to appeal any such determination. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City agrees to use its best efforts to prevent any such ordinance, measure, moratorium or other limitation from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and City agrees to cooperate in all reasonable ways to keep this Agreement in full force and effect . City shall not take any action which would violate the intent of this Section. Developer reserves the right to challenge any such ordinance, measure, moratorium or other limitation in a court of law in order to protect the development rights vested in the Property pursuant to this Agreement . 4. 6 Environmental Review. City certifies that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-2 ( the "EIR" ) , prepared in conjunction with the Meadowlark Specific Plan, is a complete and accurate document which satis- fies all the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ' ( "CEQA" , Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. ) and the State E ' d to e C QA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq. ) with respect to this Agreement and the Project . City agrees that no mitigation measures arising out of environ- mental concerns that are not expressly identified in the EIR shall be imposed on Development of the Property except as other- wise provided below. City agrees that Section 65457 of the -22- 89-389939 Government Code shall apply to all Subsequent Development Approvals for residential Development of the Property, and City further agrees that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required for any Subsequent Development Approval, whether residential or commercial, unless one of the events specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs . 4 .7 Changes and Amendments . The Parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals . In the event Developer finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, Developer shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement . If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to Exhibit "H" , and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Unless otherwise required by law, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not : (a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or, -23- � �� Iq r (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or, (c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or, (d) Delete a requirement for the reserva- tion or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or , (e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. 4 . 8 Application of Subsequently Revised Construction Codes Improvement standards and specifications set forth in the City building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire and grading codes that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement provided that: (a) such standards and specifi- cations apply to all development within the City; (b) their application to the Property is prospective only, applying only to applications for building and other development permits or approvals •f tentative subdivision maps not yet accepted for processing; and (c) any future amendment to the grading code which materially reduces the amount of land within the Property which can be utilized for structures and improvements or which materially increases the amount of open space within the Project shall not be applicable to the Project . -24- 89-389939 4 .9 Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party to it and shall be controlling for the purposes of the vested land use entitlements for the Property, notwithstanding any Subsequent Land Use Regulation adopted by the City which might otherwise be applicable to the Property. In the event of an emergency, declared by the City Council, creating a danger to health and safety which would prevent or preclude compliance with any provisions of this Agreement, such provisions may be modified or suspended during the period of such emergency. However, if such modification or suspension substantially deprives any of the Parties of the bargained-for-benefits of this Agreement, such Party may termin- ate this Agreement because of that frustration of purpose. Any termination by Developer or an assignee of Developer pursuant to this Section 4 . 9 shall be effective only as to the obligations of �I the terminating Party and shall not effect a termination of this Agreement as to all remaining Parties. Any Party terminating this Agreement pursuant to this Section 4 .9 shall provide written k notice of such termination to all other Parties . 4 . 10 Public Benefits . The City, by entering into this Agreement , will receive the benefit of land dedications, developer fee payments , the construction and installation of various public infrastruc- ture facilities, and cessation of airport operations in accor- dance with this Development Agreement . -Developer ' s obligation tc -25- '- � 7 ' 6 89--38991 dedicate land, pay fees, provide such facilities , and cease airport operations is in consideration of and subject to receipt by Developer of the benefits of this Agreement . 4 . 11 Applications. City agrees to accept for processing and expe- ditious review all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan and this Agreement and to promptly commence and diligently proceed to com- plete the review of all such applications. City shall inform Developer, upon request, of the necessary submission requirements for each application for a Subsequent Development Approval and the time necessary for review of such application by the appro- priate authority. Subject to (a) Developer ' s compliance with this Agreement; and (b) payment of the usual and customary pro- cessing and plan check fees and charges for such applications, permits and certificates, City shall issue to Developer, upon application therefor all necessary building permits, occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for , including connection to all utility systems under the City' s jurisdiction. No application once lawfully approved by the City shall be subject to subsequent disapproval, and no plan or document shall be disapproved for reasons which are inconsistent with the terms of a previous plan or document approval . Any disapproval by the City shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval . -26- �'- i7 • 3 � 89-389939 4 . 12 Cooperation in Securing Approvals . The City agrees to fully cooperate with Devel- oper in securing all permits, licenses, approvals or consents which may be required by City or other agencies having jurisdic- tion over Development of the Property. City further agrees that no additional conditions or Development Exactions , whether or not authorized by this Agreement, shall be imposed on any part of the Project for which building permits have been issued. 4 . 13 Development 'Exactions . Except as expressly set forth in this Agree- ment, no Development Exaction shall be required by City of Developer in connection with the Development of the Property except as authorized by the Development Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation, Development of the Property shall be subject to a Subsequent Land Use Regulation imposing a fee for .the mitigation of traffic impacts. The Parties acknowledge that City is presently preparing a traffic impact mitigation fee ordinance. 5 . RESTRICTION ON SPECIAL DISTRICTS. City and Developer agree that during the term of this Development Agreement, no special tax or assessment district within the Property, other than as exists prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, will be created by the City or any agency or instrumentality of the City, unless Developer expressly then grants such authority and concurs in the creation of said -27- - ! 7 + , r district and the terms and conditions of assessments or special taxes to be levied thereunder. 6 . REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. 6. 1 Periodic Review. The Director of Community Development shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compli- ance by Developer with the terms of the Agreement. Developer ' shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Director of Community Development within 30 days after written notice from the Director of Community Development . The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the costs of review and administration of the Agreement. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set by the City but shall not exceed the reasonable costs incurred by City in review and administration of the Agreement . 6 . 2 Procedure. (a) Upon completion of a periodic review, the Planning Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement and his recommended finding on that issue. (b) If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Developer has complied in good faith -28- �'- 17 . 3q r 89-389939 with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded. (c) If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement , the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 6 . 3 and Section 6 . 4 . Notice of default as provided under Section 7 . 3 of this Agreement may be given to Developer prior to or concurrent with, proceedings under Section 6 . 3 and Section 6 . 4 . 6 . 3 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a preliminary finding under Section 6 . 2, City determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to Developer of such intention. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to the scheduled Hearing and shall contain : (a) The time and place of the hearing; (b) A statement as to whether City proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement and the nature of any proposed modifications; and, (c) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding. 6 . 4 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, Developer shall be given an opportu- nity to present oral and written testimony. If the City Council finds , based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has not -29- W—JW J9 complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Agreement , the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement . The decision of the City Council shall be final , subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094 . 5 of the Code of Civil procedure or as otherwise provided by law. 6 . 5 Certificate of Agreement Compliance . If at the conclusion of a Periodic Review, Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement , City shall, upon request by Developer , issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance ( "Certificate" ) to Developer stating that after the most recent Periodic Review and based upon the infor- mation known or made known to the Director of Community Develop- ment and City Council that ( 1) this Agreement remains in effect and ( 2) Developer is not in default . The Certificate shall be in recordable form and shall contain information necessary to commu- nicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance. Developer may record the Certificate with the County Recorder . 7 . DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 7 . 1 Cumulative Remedies. Each of the Parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement . Any Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agree- ment herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement, including suits for declaratory relief , speci- -30- 89-389939 fic performance and relief in the nature of mandamus . All of the remedies described above shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of the remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 7 . 2 Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge . In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party, including any other governmental entity or of- ficial, challenging the validity of this Agreement or any Devel- opment Approval granted pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to cooperate fully with each other in defending such action; provided, however, that each Party shall bear its own costs and legal expenses in defending such action. 7 . 3 Termination of Agreement for Default of Developer . City may terminate this Agreement for any failure of Developer to perform any material duty or obligation of Developer under this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default" ) ; provided, however, City may terminate this Agreement only after providing written notice to Developer of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Developer to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, Developer has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective date of such notice or , in the event that such default cannot be cured within such 60 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has -31- failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty ( 60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 7 . 4 Termination of Agreement for Default of City. Developer may terminate this Agreement in the event of a default by City in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to City of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by City to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, City has failed to take such actions and cure such default within 60 days after the effective date of such notice or , in the event that such default cannot be -cured within such 60 day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such 60 day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 7 . 5 No Cross-Defaults. In the event of a default by Developer which default adversely impacts the Development of that part of the Property owned by non-defaulting Parties, such default shall not constitute a default hereunder by such non-defaulting Parties as to such part of the Property. 7 . 6 Attorneys ' Fees . In any action or proceeding brought by any Part n provision y to enforce any p on of this Agreement, or otherwise arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be -32- '® t � • y3 89-3899 39 entitled to reasonable attorneys ' fees and all costs, expenses and disbursements in connection with such action or proceeding, including the costs of reasonable investigation, preparation and professional or expert consultation, which sums may be included in any judgment or decree entered in such action in favor of the prevailing party. 8 . ENCUMBRANCES OF THE PROPERTY. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer , in any manner, at Developer ' s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property, or any part thereof or any improvement thereon, by any Mortgage. City acknowledges that Mortgagees may require certain Agreement interpeetations and' modifications and agrees upon request from time to time, to meet r with Developer and representatives of such Mortgagees to nego- tiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modi- fication. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges : (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. ( b) Any Mortgagee which has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving -33- s �� qq notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by Developer in the performance of Developer ' s obligations under this Agreement. (c) - If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10 ) days of sending the notice of default to Developer . The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement . (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the - Mortgage, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agree- ment. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an. obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Developer ' s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such. performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City' s performance hereunder . -34- � ��� YJ 9 . MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 9 . 1 Authority to Execute. 9 .1.1 City. By the execution hereof, City confirms and acknowledges that City, acting through its City Council and the City Planning Commission have complied in full with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Government Code for public hearing and the giving of notice of intention to consider adoption of this Agreement, and that this Agreement has been approved by ordinance as required by Section 65867 . 5 of the Government Code. City warrants and represents that the City has given all notices, held all hearings and complied with all other procedures required to make this a valid agreement. 9 .1. 2 Developer . The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and represent that they have the authority to bind Developer to the performance of its obligations hereunder . 9 . 2 Consent .. Where the consent or approval of a Party is required or necessary under this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 9 . 3 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising here- under shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common -35- meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties - hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambigui- ties are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof . This Agreement is intended to bind future members of the City Council . The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall it be construed to consti- tute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of the City. 9 . 4 Construction. As used in this Agreement, the masculine, femi- nine or neuter gender and the singular or plural numbers shall each be deemed to include the other whenever the context so indi- cates . All section readings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or inter- pretation of this Agreement. 9 . 5 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Neither 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; each Party shall refrain from doing anything which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible; and each Party shall do every- thing which this Agreement contemplates that such Party shall do to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement . -36- 9 . 6 Enforced Delay and Extension of Times of Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where the failure or delay in performance is due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, shortages of necessary building materials, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, Acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, judicial actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions) , or other causes beyond the Party' s control . If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either Party of any of its obligations hereunder shall be extended for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five ( 5) years . 9 .7 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants ; undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations , understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of- any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement . -37- 89-389939 9 . 8 Further Actions and Instruments .Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonable required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement . 9 . 9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element . 9 .10 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 in this Agreement. 9 . 11 No Waiver. No delay or omission ,by either Party in exer- cising any right or power accruing upon noncompliance or failure to perform by the other Party under the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to -38- E -- 1 ) �- 4g be a waiver thereof . A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall not be construed as a waiver of any future breach or nonper- formance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 9 . 12 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Project is a private develop- ment, that neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder , and that each Party is an independent con- tracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and condi- tions contained in this Agreement . No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement . The only relationship between the City and Developer is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such private property. 9 . 13 Releases. City hereby covenants and agrees that upon completion of the Project as required under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any part thereof, City shall execute and deliver to the Orange County Recorder an appropriate release of further obligations under this Agreement. 9 . 14 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void, or unen- forceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered -39- impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. In the event that all of any portion of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable, this Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable shall be deemed to be a statement of intention by the Parties; and the .Parties further agree that in such event they shall take all steps necessary to comply with such public hearings and/or notice requirements as may be necessary in order to make valid this Agreement or that portion which is found to be unenforceable. 9 . 15 Successors and Assigns . The burdens of this -Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to, all successors in interest and assigns of the Parties to this Agreement. 9 . 16 Tentative Tract Map Extension. In accordance with Section 66452 . 6 of the Government Code, tentative tract maps and tentative parcel maps processed for Development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement may be extended for any period of time not extending beyond the term of this Agreement . City shall not add any new conditions of approval to a tentative tract map extension or tentative parcel map extension. 9 . 17 Integrated Project . City acknowledges, by imposing the phasing plan for dedications of land and completion of the public infra- structure and utility improvements as provided for , and executing this Agreement for the Project as a whole, that the Project is -40- - 17 ISO/ 89-38993c and shall be considered a single, integrated development project and that each component of the Project is dependent upon the completion and occupancy of each other component, and that the viability of each component of the Project is and shall be dependent upon the completion and occupancy of each other component and the full performance of this Agreement . 9 . 18 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancel- lation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868 . 5 of the Government Code . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly signed this Agreement as of the date first written above. "CITY" ATTEST: CITY OF HUN INGTON B a municipa corpo ' on By: :-fir-�r c-e- e) By: 4 ,c.✓ Its : City Clerk Its : Mayor "DEVELOPER" STA Tr: OFCALIFORNIA ) ss. 85 3899N COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On c�2u 19 , before me, a Notary Public of the State of California, personally appeared Wes YAnnister, known to me to be the Mayor, and Connie Brockway, known to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and known to me to be the persons who executed the with instrument on behalf of said public agency and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation -rcrutcd the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 8f1�L ' I � Lb Cm c Erma 1es $ 1M l Z� 0 -17 LI L KO NERI c HI AKO NERIO �IM��URA���� SUMIYE NE&ri"O LEONARD t t T2 OM�KOCHI NERIO APPROVED AS TO FORM: .,�t9rney - REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City dministrator STATE OF CALIFORNIA 55. 89-38993 COUNTY OF Orange On this 8 th day of JUne in the year 19 f before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State. personally appe< DiCk Ytildo Nerio . Art Mag3n Nprio s TO Pr Lilly Ytiriko N ice , Hj sako N rio Imamtira . St1miye Nero L onard . Tom Koichi chi ,$drrS&lly known t( OrFKALSI„1 poacptovKMoccae(DoYJ)e)bx)s)oksa%tn(toc�mmit=Oe) to be the persons whose nan MARY BUNKER are subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that 1' pTAAv M"LIC•�V041"A executed it. _r nrwcwrt OfFKX IM 3 Onw•aE Coo,"r yr Com^IrL •E,r.De.11•11fi WITNESS my hand and ollicial seal, Notary Public in and for said State. S. NI I1M.414S L-6N1--WOltOlt6 l id,.233CA—ite, 5E2 . "10*NCOtIs.INC iD'¢6 clns62) F. �� . 5'3 89-389939 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of the Property PARCEL 1 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 146, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; AND PARCELS - 24 , 25 and 26 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 146, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. -43- � � � � rq EXHIBIT "B" Existing Development Approvals 1. The' Meadowlark Specific Plan as adopted by Ordinance No. 2929 ( Zone Change No. 87-13) . -44- C od—,��yy;;c� EXHIBIT "C" Existing Land Use Regulations 1. The General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach as amended through the Effective Date of this Agreement . 2 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, as amended through the Effective Date of this Agreement . Copies of the Existing Land Use Regulations listed above are on file in the City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development and are incorporated herein by reference . -45- UJ .JVJ.lJ� EXHIBIT "D" = " Meadowlark Airport Closure Plan The Meadowlark Airport shall be closed in accordance with the schedule set forth in this Closure Plan. ( 1) on' or before September 1, 1989 , Developer shall take all of the following actions: (a) Terminate all airport operations , including , but not limited to, all takeoffs , landings , and flight school operations; (b) Remove all signs which identify the Property as an airport; (c) Remove all airport wind socks, airport lights and other pilot aids; (d) Paint out all runway markings and mark the runway with X' s; ( e) Give all notices and take all other actions required by the Orange County Airport Commission, the California Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration in order to terminate airport operations; ( f) Give all notices and take all other actions necessary to remove all aircraft from the Property. In the event any aircraft is not voluntarily removed by its owner, Developer shall diligently take all steps allowed by law to remove such aircraft . ( 2) As soon as possible after September 1, 1989 , and in no event later than September 8 , 1989 , Developer shall demolish and remove the airport runway . ( 3) Developer, shall commence by April 30 , 1990 , and complete by May 31 , 1990, removal or *demolition of all buildings on the Property except the existing building located north of the northwest corner of the Fernhill residential development ( the "Fernhill Building" ) . The Fernhill Building may be used for purposes ancillary to Development of the Property such as construction offices , material storage or equipment storage, but the Fernhill Building shall not be used for any airport-related purpose after September 1, 1989 . The Fernhill Building shall be removed or demolished upon Development of that part of the Property -46- _ 574) ATTACHMENT 3 I I I i I 'I I r 9. Environmental Assessment/ Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (1998) I • 7M �., 06 SENVIRONMENTA 0HE�KLIST' �1 O-CTQF�HTNTNN$$BEACH� �� ��, , � . � ENVIROIVMENTAL �SSESSMEN O 9 � N ».try,a X5 1. PROJECT TITLE: Meadowlark Specific Plan Concurrent Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 Zone Text Amendment No. 97-4 Zone Map Amendment No. 97-1 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Amy Wolfe Phone: (714) 375-5075 -- 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately six hundred (600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Refer to Attachment 1 Project Vicinity Map. . 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Catellus Residential Group 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 Contact: Bruce DEliscu Phone: (714) 251-6100 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Mixed Use- Specific Plan Proposed: Mixed Use - Specific Plan ZONING: Existing: Meadowlark Specific Plan Proposed: Meadowlark Specific Plan 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proiect Background On February 1, 1988, the City Council of Huntington Beach adopted an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C) and designated approximately sixty-five (65) acres of land, known as the Meadowlark property, as a planned community. The subject amendment required implementation of the planned community designation via adoption of a Specific Plan. The following policies were adopted by the City Council to provide direction for preparation of the Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 1 04/24/98 GAWOLFEI MADOWLAEA.DOC F CtF �e{ ` • The 15-acre retail center shall be located on Warner Avenue, extending between Roosevelt Street and the residential project to the east. The total number of residential units, including any proposed affordable units, to be constructed on the fifty (50)-acre portion of the property due north of the commercial portion, shall not exceed six-hundred (600) units and shall be distributed among several product types. • A buffer shall be provided between the existing single-family homes and any attached residential units which are developed at greater than seven.units per acre. • An internal traffic circulation plan shall be provided that will: - Provide street connections between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue that would encourage non-project related through traffic; - Limit the amount of traffic on Pearce Street to a total of 2,500 average daily trips; - Locate vehicular access points to Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue so as to minimize traffic conflicts. • Provide a phased development plan, which coincides with the available capacity in the sewer and water systems. • Within 60 days of City approval of the first entitlement for development, the airport operation will cease. On March 7, 1988, a Specific Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 2929 and Environmental Impact Report 87-2 (EIR 87-2), which addressed Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C, was certified. On January 28, 1991, a Meadowlark Conceptual Master Plan was submitted to the City of Huntington Beach in conjunction with the first CUP application for development of the 15-acre commercial site. Due to market conditions, the remaining 50t-acre residential portion of the Specific Plan was not developed. EIR 87-2 analyzed six alternative land use concepts for the project site, which are identified below: Alternative 1 — the existing airport. Alternative 2 — 10 acres as Mobile home resulting in 90 units, and 55 acres of Low Density Residential. Alternative 3 — 30 acres of Low Density Residential, 20 acres of Medium Density Residential and 10 acres of General Commercial. Alternative 4 — 55 acres of Medium Density Residential and 10 acres of General Commercial Alternative 5 — 30 acres of Medium Density Residential, 15 acres of Medium High Density Residential. Alternative 6 — 9.2 acres of Low Density Residential, 28.6 acres of Medium Density Residential, 15 acres of Medium High Density Residential, 2.9 acres of Senior Residential and 12.2 acres of General Commercial. EIR 87-2 addressed the following . issues: Land . Use Compatibility; Housing, Economic Considerations, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Air Quality, Geology, Archaeology, and Environmental Hazards. The Public Services and Utilities section covered the following topics: Sewer, Water, Storm Drains, Police, Fire, Parks, Schools, Gas and Electrical Utilities, Solid Waste Disposal, and Senior Services. Findings of the EIR are summarized in Attachment No. 3. Based on a comparison of EIR 87-2 findings and the proposed project (described in further detail below), it has been determined that the project as proposed is substantially different than what was analyzed in the prior EIR and in fact, is a different "project". Based on the analysis provided herein, ;.t has been concluded that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) referencing Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 2 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEA.DOC Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines (incorporation by reference the prior certified EIR) is the appropriate environmental review process for the proposed project. fwo conditions must be met in order for this type of environmental documentation (i.e., Initial Study/MND incorporating by reference EIR 87-2) to be adequate. First, the project or proposals submitted by the applicant prior to public review of the proposed MND must be revised to avoid potentially significant effects or the effects must be mitigated down .to a point where the effects are clearly insignificant. Second, there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect. The public will be given an opportunity to review the project to determine whether the changes and/or proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to eliminate the significance of the effects. Proposed Project The project site is located about six hundred (600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. The proposed project consists of a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA), Zone Map Amendment (ZMA), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM). The proposed amendments to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ZTA/ZMA) will affect approximately 48.4 acres of the 65 acre specific plan area. The same 48.4 acres comprise the project area for the CUP/TTM. The following further describes the specific actions proposed by the applicant: Zone Text Amendment No. 97-4/Zone Map Amendment No:-97-1 The applicant is requesting a Zone Text Amendment and Zone Map Amendment to the original Meadowlark Specific Plan. The current Specific. Plan identifies development standards for commercial, detached single-family residential and multi-family medium high density residential development. The Specific Plan Amendment outlines new design standards and criteria to primarily address small-lot residential product type development. The amended Meadowlark Specific Plan provides an overall Development Plan to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan within the 48.4 acre residential segment of the project area. The Development Plan consists of the following seven major components: 1) Land Use; 2) Circulation; 3) Open Space/Recreation; 4) Landscape Concept; 5) Public Facilities; 6) Grading; and 7) Phasing. The following briefly summarizes the components of the plan: Land Use The 48.4-acres of undeveloped land within the Meadowlark Specific Plan are proposed to be divided into four (4) Planning Areas. The Land Use section of the Specific Plan provides the applicable specific development and density standards for each of the four proposed Planning Areas Attachment No. 2). The following provides a summary of each Planning Area: • Planning Area 1 consists of 10.0 acres (21 percent of the overall site). This Planning Area proposes ultimate development of 70 single-family detached residential units. • Planning Area 2 consists of 8.5 acres (17.5 percent of the overall site). This Planning Area proposes ultimate development of 60 single-family detached residential units. • Planning Area 3 consists of 13.6 acres (28 percent of the overall site). This Planning Area proposes ultimate development of 122 single-family detached residential units. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 3 04/24/98 GAWOUBMEADOWLATA.DOC • Planning Area 4 consists of 9.7 acres (20 percent of the overall site). This Planning Area proposes ultimate development of either 97 single-family detached residential units, or 194 multi-family attached units. In addition, the amended Specific Plan also proposes 0.9 acres of private park area, 2.2 acres of public park, and interior roadways and adjacent public streets. Although Planning Area 4 proposes either 97 single-family dwelling units or 194 multi-family dwelling units, in order to address a "worst-case" scenario associated with implementation of the amended Specific Plan, this Initial Study analyzes development of the multi-family units. The amended Specific Plan as analyzed in this document will allow for 252 single-family dwelling units and 194 multi-family dwelling units for a total of 446 dwelling units with an overall project site density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre. Circulation Plan The Circulation Plan illustrates the general alignment, classification, and location of the proposed public "Spine Road" within the project site. The "Spine Road" provides the main access to the project site from Warner Avenue at Plaza Lane. Warner Avenue, a major arterial highway, feeds the site via Plaza Lane, a local collector road, which currently terminates at the site's southerly boundary. The "Spine Road" is proposed to meander north-south through the neighborhood, separating Planning Areas 3 -and 4, Planning Areas 1 and 3, and dividing Planning Area 2. The northern terminus of the Spine Road would be at Heil Avenue, aligning with Del Mar Lane. Pearce Drive located west of the project site is to be extended through Planning Area 1. Open Space/Recreation Open space and recreational areas for the Meadowlark project would be provided by a combination of public park, private parks (2) and private yard area. The proposed public recreational park consists of 2.2 acres. This park would be an extension of the existing 5-acre Norma Gibb's Park, located east of the project site. The private parks are intended to serve the residents of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. The proposed recreational amenities within the private park adjacent to the Spine Road may include a tot lot, swimming pool/spa and community meeting area/clubhouse. The private park located within Planning Area 3, along the eastern boundary of the project site, would be landscaped. Landscape Concept The proposed landscape concept is integral to the character of the Meadowlark community. It includes a combination of landscape and hardscape features adjacent to and visible from project roadways, which combine to form a major element of the community structure. Major features of the landscape concept include entry treatments, community edge treatments, streetscape treatments and proposed plant palette. Public Facilities The public facilities plans identify existing and proposed infrastructure, storm drain, sewer and water facility improvements to serve development within the Specific Plan area. The developer would be responsible for the construction of the public facilities/ improvements within the Specific Plan area concurrent with individual project development. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 4 04/24/98 GAWOLMWADOWLATA.DOC ## }} {{ Grading Trading is proposed to balance onsite. The entire site would be rough graded to improve the site for development and create proper drainage. The developer would be required to construct streets, infrastructure, park sites, and residential development pads. Phasing Plan The Specific Plan would be developed over several phases. Development of the four Planning Areas is intended to occur simultaneously. In order to accommodate the anticipated development of each Planning Area, major circulation, infrastructure and community improvements within the project site would be completed prior to or concurrently with the initial Planning Area phases. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Tentative Tract Map to develop 325 single-family detached dwelling units, one 2.2 acre public park, two private parks and associated infrastructure on 48.4 acres as described in the ZTA/ZMA section. As described above, the proposed project consists of a ZTA/ZMA and a CUP/TTM request. The two requests could potentially result in varied environmental effects since ultimate buildout of each request would be different (i.e., development of 325 units with CUP/TTM versus 446 units with ZTA/ZMA —if the more intense multi-family residential product development alternative for Planning Area 4 is implemented.) Therefore where necessary, potential environmental effects resulting from each request have been described separately. �'. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): NPDES € permit needed from Regional Water Quality Control Board and clearance from the Orange County Sanitation District is required to ensure that implementation of the project will not adversely affect the sewer and water systems. ENT NO. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 5 04/24/98 GAWOLF6lM OWLATA.DOC ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 'he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. OLand Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to 0 the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but that at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" ❑ or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be a§&esseX. o April 24, 1998 /Sigfiature Date y Wolfe Project Planner Printed Name Title Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 6 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLA\EA.DOC _ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: '. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other sources used or individuals_contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Conditions of Approval - The City imposes conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides or Mudflows?(Sources: 1, 6) O O O Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 7 04/24/98 GAWOLMMEADOWLAEAMOC .� . .entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal; a) Conflict with general plan designation or ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ zoning? (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental ❑ ❑ R ❑ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source: 3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ the vicinity? (Sources: 1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Source: 3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3) Discussion: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay. The property is zoned as Meadowlark Specific Plan. The current Specific Plan allows for up to twenty (20) dwelling units per gross acre or up to six-hundred (600) residential dwelling units. The proposed land uses, infrastructure improvements, and public improvements as described and/or conditioned by the City will be consistent with the policies of the General Plan and density range. Approval of the ZTA/ZMA to the Specific Plan will allow for the addition of development standards to address small lot single-family detached residential development within the project area and would limit development within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan to a maximum of 446 dwelling units. No amendments are proposed for the commercial segment of the subject Specific Plan. The 16.6 acre commercial area within the southerly portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan has been developed and would be subject to previously adopted conditions of project approval. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential (RL) to the north; RL, the existing Norma Gibb's Park (OS-PR) and a church to the east; commercial (CG) and attached single- family residential (RMH) to the south, and RL and attached single family residential (RM) and mobile home park (RMP) to the west. The proposed project may result in land use compatibility impacts within the project, with existing adjacent residential development along the project's boundaries and with the commercial center which is located south of Planning Area 4 due to lot configuration/orientation, product design and/or intensity of the proposed development. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 8 04/24/98 GAWOLFEVv EADOWLMEAMOCA. "i _entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Implementation of City conditions of project approval requiring potential site and/or product redesign in conjunction with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2, 11 and 12 are anticipated to reduce project impacts to a level less than significant. According to CEQA Guidelines and the State Department of Conservation, a project will have a significant effect on the environment if it will convert at least 80-acres of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. The proposed project will not result in the elimination of land currently farmed. Previous uses on the site consisted of the Meadowlark Airport. The proposed project will not affect the productivity of other agricultural land in the vicinity. The project does not propose any elements that would significantly disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community. The project will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies of the City of Huntington Beach. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 local population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ Z ❑ either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources: 3, 5) c) Displace existing housing, especially ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 affordable housing? (Source: 5) Discussion: The proposed project is expected to have a negligible effect on the projected population of the City and would not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. For over 10 years, the City of Huntington Beach has designated the project site for residential development. Development of the site would induce additional growth in the area, although growth beyond the scope of development specified in the General Plan is not anticipated. This project is not expected to significantly influence population growth or housing availability. The project site is currently vacant and therefore the proposed project will not displace existing housing. The proposed project (CUP/TTM) may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing (i.e., conflict with the City's Affordable Housing Policy). The applicant does not propose any affordable housing in conjunction with the implementation of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce effects related to affordable housing to a level less than significant. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 9 04/24/98 G:\WO[.FEIMEADOWLA\EA.DOC f,� TI ..:: !:'J'L.! V ! 110 l/� entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact `SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Source: 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ p ❑ liquefaction? (Sources: 6, 7,8) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 3, 6, 8) e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Source: 3, 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ fl Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 6,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 3, 6, 8) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 (Sources: 6, 8) Discussion: The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone; therefore, no significant impacts due to ground rupture are anticipated. Structures built in California are required to comply with standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code to minimize the structural risks from ground shaking. No significant seismic effects are anticipated with implementation of standard City conditions. In the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area, the site may be subject to ground shaking. Additionally, according to the City of Huntington Beach Technical Background Report, the project site is situated in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction during earthquakes. Earth shaking could cause unequal settlement and movement in this area, which could lead to structural damage or collapse. Development will be subject to standard City conditions related to ground shaking hazards. The project site is not located in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards nor landslides or mudflows according to the General Plan. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 10 _ 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLA\EA.DOC P,7 �;(^.�;R �NF `!O 0 . __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact -SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Approval of the CUP/TTM and ZTA/ZMA will allow for construction of residential structures; however, the project does not propose any significant change in grade. The project site is generally flat. There is a 15-foot grade differential from the site's high point to its lowest elevation. The southwest portion of the site maintains a high point elevation of 30t feet, while the lowest elevation is 15t feet, adjacent to Heil Avenue. Grading and site preparation may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts. Development will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of a grading plan and dust control measures. With implementation of standard City conditions, no significant impacts from grading are anticipated. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Figure EH-9, the project site is not situated in an area with subsidence potential. According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Figure EH-12, the project site is located within an area of low (7% or less) expansive soils. The project does not include any activities that will impact earth . stability of geologic substructures. The site is primarily flat, and does not contain any unique physical or geologic features. IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ related hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in ❑ ❑ ❑ Z any water body? (Sources: 1,6) e) Changes in currents, or the course or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 direction of water movement? (Sources: 1,6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 11 04/24/98 GAWOLFE N EADOWLAEA.DOC __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, ❑ ❑ ❑ p either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources: 3,6) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ p groundwater? (Sources: 6, 8) Discussion: New impervious surfaces as well as construction related/grading activities resulting from development of the project site will increase the amount of storm water runoff and will result in changes in drainage patterns and currents, or the course or direction of water movement. Additionally, the existing storm drainage systems may not be adequate to handle flows. The City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Flood Control District are the agencies responsible for the flood control system in the project vicinity. Regional flood control channels exit along Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. The County's.Sunset Channel(C07), which is an open channel, is located approximately 2,500 feet west from the project site. The City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works has indicated that based on the proposed buildout associated with the requested CUP/TTM (i.e., 325 dwelling units) and ZTA/ZMA (446 dwelling units), none of the project's storm runoff can be accommodated by the Sunset Channel. The applicant's engineers have recently prepared a Drainage/Hydrology Study, which is currently under City review. This study is intended to address the effects that the proposed project would have on the existing storm drainage system. Based on storm water runoff numbers estimated for the proposed project and the fact that CT07 would be unable to accommodate the project's estimated flows, the applicant proposes to mitigate the potential drainage impacts by utilizing the proposed 2.2-acre park as a detention basin. The submitted plan proposes to convey the increased storm drainage flows resulting from the proposed project to the C07 channel. The Pubic Works Department has indicated that additional information and corrections to the study would be necessary prior to deeming it adequate. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 will ensure that impacts related to storm drainage capacity and conveyance due to buildout associated with the requested CUP/TTM are reduced to a level less than significant. Implementation of the proposed CUP/TTM (i.e., 325 dwelling units) will ultimately increase the amount of storm water runoff and will result in changes in drainage patterns and currents, or the course or direction of water movement. Buildout associated with the requested ZTA/ZMA (i.e., 446 dwelling units) would result in similar impacts to the C07 channel due to the fact that it would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces even with the construction of 121 additional units. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 will ensure that impacts related to storm drainage capacity and conveyance due to buildout associated with the requested CUP/TTM are reduced to a level less than significant. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 12 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC T, _.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact 'SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact The proposed project (i.e., ZTA/ZMA and CUP/TTM) will not result .in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality .(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). The project is subject to National Pollution Elimination Discharge Standards regarding discharge into storm drains and this issue is covered by the City's standard conditions. With implementation of City standard conditions, no significant impacts "are anticipated. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) which depict flood hazard areas. The federal program enables property owners to purchase flood insurance based on identified flood hazards in the area. The FIRM map for the area shows that the project site is located within the A99 Flood Zone (Protected by Federal Project under Construction). This A99 Flood Zone is the result of a revision to the previous zone AO. This revision was made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on April 30, 1996. The Zone A99 designation is used to identify areas that are protected by a Federal flood protection system under construction from a flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) with no base flood elevations (BFEs) determined. The revision to the zone is based on construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem flood control project, which includes two critical features -- channel and bridge widening and channelization of the Lower Santa Ana River Channel Reaches 1 through 4, and construction of the Seven Oaks Dam. Due to the location of the project site within the A99 zone, which is not subject to NFIP . ievelopment standards and with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3, significant flooding impacts to the project are not anticipated. The project in and of itself does not propose any excavation or other activities that could impact groundwater quality. The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 10, 15) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ R (Source: 1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 temperature? (Source: 2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Discussion: Short-term: Construction of the residential uses and parks would result in an increase in dust and construction equipment emissions. However, with implementation of standard City conditions, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 13 04/24/98 GAW0LFfi1MEAD0WLA\EA.D0C � '''•1 Z 1 4 ; ij 's:rr c � iL turentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact 'SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Long-term: Buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM would generate approximately 3,120 vehicle trips per day (based on an estimated 9.6 trips per .dwelling unit). Buildout associated with the proposed ZTA/ZMA would generate approximately 3,699 vehicle trips per day (based on an estimated 9.6 trips per single-family dwelling unit and 6.6 trips per multi- family dwelling unit). The park uses will not result in substantial vehicular trips and are therefore not included in the modeling. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the vehicle trips. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) identifies emissions thresholds of significance for each pollutant. Project emissions per day have been estimated utilizing the Urbemis 5 air quality emissions model. The SCAQMD thresholds and results of the analysis are as follows: SCAQMD thresholds CUP/TTM Project ZTA/ZMA Project Emissions Emissions Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 328.03 388.97 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 55 36.20 42.93 Particulates (PM 10) 150 4.24 5.03 Reactive Organic Compounds 55 46 55 As shown above, the buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM and ZTA/ZMA would not result in long term air quality emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. No long term impacts are anticipated. Development of residential and park uses would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, nor would it alter air movement, moisture, or temperature. The project would not create objectionable odors. VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 2, 11, 16,17) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate ❑ ❑ ❑ p access to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2, 16,17) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 14 5 l.� 04/24/98 .D GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEAOC �-4 j f�� i ,% g-"( l —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact rSSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ p ❑ site? (Sources: 2, 16,17) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ p ❑ bicyclists? (Sources: 2, 16,17) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ p alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Source: 1) Discussion: The project would generate additional vehicular movement on the surrounding street system. A traffic analysis was prepared with the original Specific Plan. According to the Public Works Department/Traffic Division, traffic/circulation conditions in the surrounding area are not expected to be much different than what was analyzed in the previous traffic report; therefore, preparation of an updated traffic analysis has not been required. Based on an estimated 9.6 trips per single-family dwelling unit and 6.6 trips per multi- family dwelling unit, buildout associated with the proposed ZTA/ZMA is anticipated to generate approximately 3,699 daily trips on the surrounding street system; the -buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM is anticipated to generate approximately 3,120 daily trips on the surrounding street system. The additional vehicle trips would not significantly change the surrounding circulation system's (i.e., Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue) capacity. Existing traffic volumes on Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street are approximately 30,000 and 18,000 ADT, respectively. Capacities of Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street are 56,300 and 37,500 ADT, respectively. Estimated 2020 buildout for Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue from Bolsa Chica Street to Graham Street is 34,600 and 23,200 ADT, respectively, which would not significantly affect the roadways' capacities (Source: Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program EIR 551). Development would be subject to standard City conditions related to traffic/circulation. Incorporation of City conditions would ensure that traffic/circulation impacts related to the proposed CUP/TTM are less than significant. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 15 ---� �j 04/24/98 GAWOLMN EADOWLATA.DOC ?. 7 f A�H _1 E 1'`l^l _.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact The proposed CUP/TTM may result in significant effects related to the provision of parking. According to the HBZSO Section 231.01 Schedule A, each single-family detached unit with zero to four bedrooms is required to provide two enclosed parking spaces and two open parking spaces. Each single-family detached unit with five or more bedrooms is required to provide three enclosed and three open parking spaces. Guest spaces are also to be provided at a rate of 0.5 space per unit. The proposed CUP/TTM is not in compliance with HBZSO Section 231.01 Schedule A. In addition the proposed development plan does not provide for convienient and uniform distribution of guest parking at certain locations. Implementation of City conditions of project approval for compliance with HBZSO parking standards and subdivision design modifications will reduce parking impacts resulting from buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM to a level of less than significant. The proposed ZTA/ZMA may result in significant effects related to the provision of adequate parking. Implementation of City conditions will reduce parking impacts resulting from buildout associated with the proposed ZTA/ZMA to a level less than significant. The proposed project (with the incorporation of City conditions of approval) would not result in hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses, insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site, hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation or rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. Standard conditions of approval will ensure that design features associated with project ingress/egress is adequate. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or ❑ ❑ ❑ p their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source: 5) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ p trees)? (Source: 5) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ p oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source: 5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ❑ ❑ ❑ p vernal pool)? (Source: 5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Source: 5) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 16 04/24/98 GAWOLFEVMEADOWLA\EA.DOC Ll� "S r�3 J h 2 6".1: r" �4 T [r*N j = /J` { �Rai —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Discussion: There are no known endangered, threatened or rare plant or animal species on the site. The project site was previously.the Meadowlark Airport. Three trees currently located within the southeasterly portion of Planning Area 3 are proposed to be removed to accommodate development . A significant number of trees will be planted on site in conjunction with the implementation of the CUP/TTM proposal. No significant effects are anticipated. The proposed project site does not support unique or endangered animal species. No significant adverse environmental impacts are associated. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ p plans? (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ p and inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 6) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ Z mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Sources: 3, 6) Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will result in increased fuel and energy consumption within the City. However, the anticipated energy demands created by the project are within parameters of overall projected demand, which is planned to be met for the area. In addition, the project will be subject to a standard condition of approval, which requires implementation of Title 24 Conservation measures for construction. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated with the implementation of Standard City conditions. The development of the site will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 2, 6, 18) b) Possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 2, 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 17 _ 04/24/98 GAWOLFEVVMADOWLATA.DOC ...Lentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact 'SSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ p hazards? (Source: 2, 18) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ p brush, grass, or trees? (Sources: 2, 6) Discussion: The proposed project may result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by Petra Environmental, Inc. According to the assessment, no evidence was found that would suggest the presence of any underground storage tanks onsite. Underground storage tanks were present on the old airport property (south of the residential portion of the project site) and these tanks leaked. However, the assessment indicated that the impact to the soil and groundwater resulting from the leaking tanks did not extend to the project site. According to the assessment, Mid-Central Oil Co. Well 20-4178 is located in the south- central portion of the project site. This oil well was originally drilled in 1955 and may need to be re-abandoned. Although the records on file at the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources did not indicate the presence of'a sump pit associated with the abandoned well, it is possible that a sump pit is present. Since it is unknown where a sump pit would have been located and the abandoned oil well may need to be re-abandoned, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5 will ensure impacts due to the potential for an oil well sump pit onsite and compliance with California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) are reduced to a level less than significant. The assessment also identified potentially asbestos-containing materials onsite as follows: the interior sheetrock walls in the former hangar building, the interior sheetrock walls identified within, and the broken fragments of asphalt composition roofing identified on the ground around, the southernmost shed located on the east side of the former hangar, and the remaining portions of the exterior stucco walls located east of the former hangar. Based on the estimated age of the site structures, it is possible that any painted surfaces in the buildings onsite may contain lead-based paint. Although no known or potential or confirmed hazardous waste sites were identified on available Federal, State, and local listings, miscellaneous debris, including trash, furniture, wood, concrete, and automotive tires scattered throughout the site may contain petroleum based products, agricultural products, and some unidentified materials, which could be considered hazardous. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6 through 8 will ensure impacts due to the removal of potentially hazardous materials are reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed development is not anticipated to result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans, and is not located in an area of flammable brush, grass or trees. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 18 f 04/24/98 GAWOUBNEADOWLATA.DOC i ,.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: ❑ [a ❑ ❑ 2,6,12, 19) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ Z ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1,2,12,19) Discussion: The proposed project has the potential to increase noise levels in the surrounding area due to construction activities and increased traffic on surrounding roadways. In order to assess potential effects on existing noise levels resulting from the proposed project, a Noise Assessment was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. The following provides a summary of the Noise Assessment: Construction Noise: Residential uses near the project may experience audible noise levels from construction of the proposed project. The types of construction activities (rough grading, paving, building construction, and landscaping installation) associated .with the proposed project are not anticipated to generate high levels of noise and will be short term in nature. Traffic noise from adjacent arterials is expected to assist in masking some of the construction noise. Construction activities also will be subject to compliance with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance which limits the hours of construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and will help to further minimize the potential construction noise impacts. With existing ambient traffic noise levels, compliance with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding decibel levels, hours of construction to minimize noise impacts to adjacent properties and implementation of mitigation measure 9, no significant construction noise impacts are anticipated. Traffic Noise: The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). This model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code, computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 19 ( t 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLA\EA.DOC . __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact According to the noise study, Warner Avenue is not anticipated to generate problematic noise levels on the project site because it is over 600 feet away from the project's boundary, however, observers located in the outdoor living areas closest to Heil Avenue would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL (actual noise levels will be 69 CNEL): Mitigation will be required for all lots within the project site that are directly adjacent to Heil Avenue in order to reduce noise to acceptable levels, in accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 10 will reduce impacts related to noise levels from Heil Avenue on the project site to a level less than significant. Due to the project site's adjacency to the existing commercial area located south of the site, noise impacts to the project site may result due to truck deliveries being made to the commercial area. In order to estimate noise levels resulting from commercial loading areas, noise measurements were taken at a comparable loading dock site. Truck noise was measured for approximately 40 trucks as they entered and left the site, and a maximum noise level was noted for each arrival and departure. Noise measurements were also made of the loading and unloading operations and the fork lifts. These measurements confirmed that the truck arrival and departures were in fact the noise source of most concern. That is, the noise levels associated with truck acceleration or deceleration or truck braking during arrival and departure are the loudest. The measurement data indicated that the majority of truck pass-bys have a maximum sound level in the range of 65 to 75 dBA (at 70 feet). The loudest truck measured was approximately 82 dBA at 70 feet. The average of the data was 69 dBA at 70 feet with a standard deviation of 5.3. The proposed project specifies the placement of residences directly to the north of the existing shopping center. It is this area that will most likely be impacted by activities . associated with the shopping center. The primary source of noise generated by the shopping center will be that associated with delivery trucks. One cross-section was analyzed to determine the potential noise exposure at the worst case receptor location adjacent to the project site. This receptor was used to determine the noise generated due to delivery trucks. The receptor location selected for analysis is shown in Exhibit 2 the noise report. The potential truck noise levels at this receptor location are estimated to be 76.5 dBA at a distance of 40 feet. Worst case maximum noise levels in the rear yard areas due to truck noise will reach approximately 86 dBA. Daytime exterior noise ordinance limits are 75 dBA and nighttime exterior noise ordinance limits are 70 dBA. Based on the above information, it is apparent that noise levels due to delivery operations exceed daytime and nighttime exterior noise ordinance limits. The noise study indicates that a 12 ft high wall could adequately mitigate noise impacts. The subject mitigation measure, although it addresses noise impacts, generates land use compatibility concerns due to the proximity of the residences along the southerly boundary of Planning Area 4 to the proposed wall. The applicant is currently in the process of exploring alternative noise mitigation solutions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 11 will reduce noise impacts on the project site to levels less than significant. Worst case noise levels at a second floor building face are anticipated to be approximately 85 dBA. The City's interior noise ordinance specifies that interior Lmax noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA during the daytime and 45 dBA at nighttime. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 12 shall reduce noise effects to proposed home interiors to a level less than significant. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 20 Q 04/24/98 G:\WOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC At"Y`° "'; 1� . � � r.,centially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered, government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Source: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ p ❑ Fire Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Source: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ p ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Source: School Districts) ❑ ❑ z ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ z ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Source: City of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Huntington Beach) Discussion: The proposed project has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, Fire and Police, for compliance with all applicable.City codes. With the implementation of City conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications, no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ distribution facilities? (Sources: 5, 6) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,6) ❑ ❑ z ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ fl Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ O ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 21 04/24/98 GAWOLFE'A EADOWLA\EAMOC w A I _ _.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Discussion: The. proposed project .has been reviewed by the various City Departments, including Public Works, .and the Water Division,. for compliance with all applicable City codes. This project will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards for discharge into storm drains. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications, no significant adverse impacts to systems or supplies for natural gas, electricity, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supplies are anticipated. The proposed project may result in significant effects related to adequate storm water drainage. Please refer to Section IV of this Environmental Assessment for discussion of this issue. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 1,3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ Z ❑ effect? (Sources: 1,2) c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The project will result in a change in the appearance of the site. The project applicant proposes development of residential and park uses. Areas adjacent to the site are predominately developed with residential uses. The design of the residential dwelling units attempts to be compatible with the general character of the surrounding area. Implementation of City conditions requiring the submittal of landscape plans and the replacement of trees to be removed, as well as Mitigation Measure 2 as required for potential land use compatibility impacts, shall ensure that the project's effects related to aesthetics are less than significant. The site is not located in the vicinity of any scenic vista. The project will introduce increased light sources on the project site. The project proposes street lighting and other exterior security lighting for the residential areas and parks. Although the project will result in an increase in light in the area, due to the existing light sources in the area, the project's contribution to ambient lighting in the area is considered negligible. The proposed project provides a six foot wall at the property line which will assist in minimizing light spillage to neighboring areas. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which require that lighting be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 22 `.__ ' -` A 0 04/24/98 G:IWOLFEU�IEADOW[A\EA.DOC . l> - f i ENT E� .: 2-t2� —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source: ❑ ❑ ❑ p 14) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source: ❑ ❑ ❑ p 14) c) Affect historical resources? (Source: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ p d) Have the potential to cause a physical change ❑ ❑ ❑ p which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source: 5) e) Restrict . existing religious or sacred uses ❑ ❑ ❑ p within the potential impact area? (Source: 5) Discussion: According to Figure HCR-1, the project site does not contain any historical resources identified by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for the City of Huntington Beach. The site is not located within the vicinity of any identified archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or cultural resources. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1) Discussion: Buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM will result in the construction of 325 single-family dwelling units. This residential development would increase the demand for parks thereby affecting existing recreational opportunities. Demand for recreational facilities are typically generated by introduction of additional users associated with residential development, or due to loss of recreational facilities or recreation designated property. Buildout associated with the proposed CUP/TTM would generate a maximum of 1,115 residents based on 3.43 persons per household. The City's General Plan acreage-to- population standard prescribes five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. To meet the City's parkland requirement, the project would need to provide 5.57 acres of parkland/open space for the new residents. According to the City Community Services Department, City ordinances allow negotiation on how the 5.57-acre park dedication may be met. Because the proposed project is over 50 units, the City has the option of accepting undeveloped land, developed park land, off-site recreational amenity mitigation, or a combination of all of these. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 23 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLATAMOC .entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact The applicant proposes provision of approximately 2.2 acres of public park (intended to serve as an extension of the existing Norma Gibb's Park), improvement of 0.8 acres of unimproved park land contiguous to Norma Gibb's Park, provision of two private parks (to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association) totaling 0.9 acres and payment to the City of$ 380,000 in in-lieu fees. The Community Services Department has determined that the developer applicant should dedicate and improve a minimum of 2.1 acres of park land and should improve 0.8 acres of Gibbs Park per City standards. The cost of dedication and development shall be credited against the total park acquisition fees due per the number of units in the project. The public parkland should be flat with three acres of dry, usable park space. No water well should be installed which detracts from the usable park acreage. The developer should provide perimeter parking to serve the park facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13, will reduce impacts to a level less than significant. Buildout associated with the proposed ZTA/ZMA would generate residents based, on 3.43 persons per single-family household, as well as anywhere from 1.17 to 2.78 persons per household for multi-family homes. Because only 3.1 acres of park land are proposed as part of the project, implementation of Mitigation Measure 13 and 14 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 2, 6) Discussion: There are no significant wildlife or biological resources on the site, and the project will therefore not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ❑ p short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (Sources: 3) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 24 _ 04/24/98 G:\WOLFEWEADOWLA\EA DOC �-� TAC H A A E N'T f��V. �• �� .,centrally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Discussion: The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively ❑ ❑ p ❑ considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3) Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above. After implementation of standard city policies and conditions and proposed mitigation, the project will not have impacts that could be cumulatively considerable. d) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 2) Discussion: See discussion of items No. I-XV above. The project does not have environmental impacts which will cause adverse impacts to human beings. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 25 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC ///, XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: 1 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment #1 2 Project Plans City of Huntington Beach Community Development Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter, 3rd Floor 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach " 3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan 4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision " Ordinance 5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact " Report for General Plan Update 3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Technical " Background Report for General Plan Update 7 City of Huntington Beach Historic District " Location Map, Historic and Cultural Resources Element 8 Geotechnical Inputs " for City of Huntington Beach 9 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (April, 1996) " 10 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality " Management District 11 Trip Generation, 4th Edition " Institute of Transportation Engineers 12 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk Office, 2nd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 26 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLAIEA.DOC AT TACH Mr N0. A /f�� 13 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedures Handbook Community Development Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter, 3rd Floor 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach 14 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity Map 15 Land Use Element Amendment 87-2C/EIR 87-2 16 Meadowlark Specific Plan - Amended 17 Meadowlark Brochure 18 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 19 Air Quality - Emissions 20 Mestre Greve Noise Assessment Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 27 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLAEA.DOC Z ^� Attachment No. 1 Project Vicinity Map . EDINGER AVE_ :. .. . - •- •• � � DEL. MAR . � - ... . :. :: . - ,;: _•- - .. � _ _ .: s� LANE - ... •HEIL AVE ti o � ¢_ _ o.. . . -_ _ PEARCE - O Ld Q' O.� PROJECTck: -- CL " � �7+:7 PLAZA SfTE ;,•: LMANE WARNER AVE • SLATER AVE �IlCi ! �p Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 28 04/24/98 GAWOLF&MEADO WLATAMOC �; I L!H Erv�� NCB,: Attachment No. 2 Proposed Conceptual Master Plan • =�•rs�, ,� ��t-•-mac 'I I LAND US SFR 1 I ACRES:�10.0 GROSS DENSITY: 7.0 DWA a wit ` . .etas.A�,�y�•SJ � - rF_ !•-a LEGEND PLANNING AREA. BOUNDARY PROJECT.BOUNDARY 9 • � ee ee u ea a c - - i t 77:F7%i-�T SCALE: 1"=30u' �r r 1;1 L{ JJ. i.;l ��'•� 1`' �1i i '.1,1 T Tj t_Ij Ljil etcciUl;1J;` iUij Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 29 04/24/98 GWOLFEUvEADOWLMEADOC .4 �� Attachment No.3 EIR 87-2/FINDINGS Land Use Compatibility - According to the EIR, the existing airport alternative (Alternative 1) is the only alternative that would result in land use compatibility impacts. No mitigation provided. Housing - No impacts. No mitigation provided. Economic Considerations - Indicated Alternative 5 (applicant's request) generates the most revenue and the largest estimated net revenue. No mitigation provided. Public Services and Utilities - (see individual topics below) Sewer - Staff recommended that the applicant phase his development to coincide with the completion of the Coast Trunk line. Water - Development of Alternatives 2 - 6 would require that a 12-inch water main be installed bisecting the site from north to south. Storm Drains - Development of Alternatives 1 - 6 would require that a storm drain of approximately 42 inches in diameter be installed in Heil Avenue from the site west to Bolsa Chica Street. Police - Alternative 5 (applicant's request) would result in the need for 1.35 police officers. Alternative 6 (City's recommendation) would result in the need'for 1.32 police officers. Fire - According to the EIR, none of the alternatives would result in the need for additional manpower or equipment. Gas and Electric - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Solid Waste Disposal - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Senior Services - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Traffic and Circulation - Mitigation measures were provided. See Attachment 3. Noise - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Air Quality - Mitigation measures for air quality impacts were provided for Alternatives 2 - 6. See Attachment 3. Geology: Soils/Seismic - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Archaeology - Potential impacts associated with Alternatives 2 - 6. Recommendation made for the preparation of a subsurface program to "investigate the nature and content of the shell deposits" Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 30 04/24/98 GAWOLMMEADOWLATA.DOC _ { n Environmental Hazards - (see individual topics below) Hazardous Materials - Underground storage tank found. Recommendation made for the performance of a soils analysis on the entire site to assure that no contamination from hazardous substances has occurred from other causes. Flood - No impacts associated with all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. No mitigation provided. Parks - Alternative 5 (applicant's request) would result in the need for 1.70 acres of additional neighborhood park. Alternative 6 (City's recommendation) would result in the need for 1.73 acres of additional neighborhood park. When developed, Gibbs Park, at five acres, will provide sufficient parkland for all alternatives analyzed in the EIR. Schools - According to the EIR, existing schools could adequately accommodate students generated by Alternatives 2 - 6. No mitigation provided. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 31 04/24/98 GAW0LFE\N EADOW.A\EA.D0C Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s) the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring 10 percent of proposed units to be affordable by entering into an Affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City of Huntington Beach City Council. 2. The applicant shall provide a land use compatibility study in conjunction with the request for processing of a Conditional Use Permit for development of any portion of the residential segment of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area, identifying proposed design standards that will ensure compatibility of existing and proposed land uses. This study shall be prepared consistent with Section 230.22 Residential Infill Lot Developments of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and shall be subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Prior to Planning Commission hearing on the subject proposal, an acceptable conceptual drainage/hydrology plan shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department and Community Services Department. Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the applicant shall submit the final drainage/hydrology plan demonstrating that any effects to the City and County existing drainage systems resulting from buildout of the Meadowlark Specific Plan and CUP/TTM are reduced to a level less than significant. The subject plan shall be subject to the approval by the Public Works Department. 4. During grading/construction, if a sump pit is encountered, drilling mud present must be sampled and tested to ensure that the material is non-hazardous, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. S. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall show proof that the abandoned oil well located on the site has been re-abandoned in accordance with current California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) standards, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that during demolition of existing structures or the removal of potentially asbestos-containing materials, these materials shall be tested for the presence of asbestos. If it is determined that the materials are asbestos- containing, the materials shall be removed from the site and disposed of by licensed contractors in accordance with current regulatory standards, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department . 7. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that during demolition of existing structures or the removal of potentially lead-containing materials, existing building debris (i.e., paint) shall be handled in accordance with current regulatory standards, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that during demolition of existing structures or the removal of potentially hazardous chemical-containing materials, these materials shall be handled by licensed contractors in accordance with current regulatory standards, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 32 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOW LMEAMOC 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant shall submit a construction plan demonstrating that all construction staging areas are located as far as possible from residential areas in order to minimize noise impacts. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that lots proposed directly adjacent to Heil Avenue are properly attenuated from noise levels through implementation of six-foot noise barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with location recommended in the Noise Assessment. Noise barriers shall consist of a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall not have openings or cracks. The noise barriers for rear yard areas may be a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. The sound wall or any patio barrier that might be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for proposed noise barriers shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 11. Prior to Planning Commission hearing on the subject proposal the project shall be redesigned to mitigate noise impacts from the commercial center to Planning Area 4. Noise mitigation shall be such that limits the height of the noise attenuation wall to a maximum of eight feet. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure implementation of the noise mitigation measures approved by the City to reduce exterior noise impacts on affected areas to levels of less than significant and in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Plans for proposed noise barriers shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an interior noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, which identifies building upgrades that will attenuate interior noise levels by at least 30 dBA in order to achieve consistency with the City's interior noise ordinance. These upgrades could include upgraded windows and mechanical ventilation so that the windows could remain closed. This noise study shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 13. The project shall comply with City parkland dedication requirements. The applicant shall dedicate and improve a minimum of 2.1 acres of park land and shall improve 0.8 acres of Gibbs Park per City standards. The cost of dedication and development shall be credited against the total park acquisition fees due per the number of units in the project. The public park land shall be flat with three acres of dry, usable park space. No water well may be installed which detracts from the usable park acreage. Developer shall provide perimeter parking 14. In the event that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and/or Tentative Tract Map (TTM)is requested to be considered for approval of a multiple-family attached residential project within Planning Area 4, the applicant shall comply with City parkland requirements applicable at the time of the CUP/TTM request. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 33 04/24/98 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLA\EA.DOC 1 i 1 I i ,, i 10. Public Correspondence 1 Nlark aitd Cheryle I3rowming 16771 Roo:;evelt L.alie -; a IIuntington Beach, Ca. 92649 FEB 0. 91998 . TO:, I11tuitirigton Leach Planning Debt. RE: Current Meadowlark Speci`;c Plan Proposal DATE: February 9,1998 We have liacl a cursory view of flit.tanuary, 1998 version of the original Meadowlark Specific flan with the current proposed changes. We convtiend the department planners, the developer, mitt file awNtectural Finn for the attempt to produce an integrates] and cohesive neighborhood product design on the property. There has been noticeable thought given to the former objections by the surroundiiig property owners in regards to density anti product tyre. We thank you for that. There are, however, a few objections to what we ]lave seen in the preliniinar_y drawbigs. 1) The phasing in the original sp&-irk plan is gii.ite clear. Please I was the commercial portion, and plt:lse IT was the westerli portion. next to Roosevelt Laiie. 'Phis should be upheld. This at es represents a certain product type - which is smaller in home a<id lot size that will. be allowed oil. the other two portions. Economically, this more affortiaoie product "-iU be ltiunechately saleable as the California nifirkcct reco ery l;etins. It is also necessary for the neighborhood to be -assured th-M tl r ltif te; detis_tv zoniii Brea becomes what. is tieing proposed now -mid not be t11111)11d further along in Ilse 11170 ect's life. 2) The rendering of a dozen ltcine 1hri.ilg [Z.c►ose�-elt Ume is objectionable. Nq planner familiar witli tl:e street kiiumvs that Roosevelt is already near capacity in parkhig space. The lour-flexes tier clot have abund alit on-site parking, and even that amount is diminished by garages being rented out to non-residents for storage. Repeated at!empts to rectify this have failed. Code enforcement concedes that it is abnost biipossible to successfully prosecute this type of violation. To position single family hoines on Roosevelt with a dozen driveway cuts to the eastern curb is to guarantee no parking for home owners or their guests. Planning should be painfully aware of that exact a' { fidd_ 6� it. eL problem on Pearce Drive adjacent to Ow property. To repeat this scenario is to display a lack of ability to leasi from fact mistakes. The specific plan states that the project will not have access from Roosevelt Lmie. Thus was included because of the possibility of this very situation, and trust be ttplleld. We saw- tlie.first subtttission of the plan revision «.-lush slid uphold thus provision. We will be I-appy to W*nrk with the design team and offer some suggestions as to how this latest rc-ld:ring could be .re-worked to the satisfaction of all. We iinderstand that the study session on Tuesday, Feb.10, 1998 will not include cotnmr tits from the public. Please let its know when we will be allowed to dialogue with the architect:'design firm. 6 ` 16 tC, R E C E 1 � J May 12, 1998 MAT 1 9199$ L)EpAA-f,AENT OF COMV,,UNITY DEVELOPMENT We are the owners of a piece of property adjacent to the former Meadowlark Airport. Prior . to purchasirig this property in the early 90's, we met with-the city planning staff in regards to the future plans for the neighboring land. City planners told us that the Meadowlark Specific Plan was not yet completed. They did however, assure us that the city would never allow unlike property to be approved next to ours and that current plans included buffer zones that would protect us. In 1995 a planning document from the city also stated the city's desire to "ensure compatability with existing adjacent land uses". In early 1998, we received an interest card from Cattelus Residential Group (CRG) requesting our response for notification of upcoming meetings regarding the planning and development of the Meadowlark Airport Property. Approximately four days or less prior to April 22, 1998, we received our one and only contact from CRG. On our message recorder was an invitation to a community meeting at a close by realty office. At this meeting we were shown a well underway plan complete with working models. This was our first exposure to the plan and the impact it will have on our lifestyle, our privacy, and our property value. Our questions and concerns were of course expressed to the developer at this meeting. To date, I have been to the planning department three times. I have attended four meetings with combinations of the city staff and/or the Planning Commission and the developer. Only one time at a meeting with city staff and the developer in attendance, were we allowed input. We have listened and asked questions whenever possible and patiently waited for answers while watching the plans rapidly develop. feel we are very fortunate to own one of the very few unique pieces of property left in Huntington Beach. Our lot size is 18,776 square feet. Zero feet away , the average lot size is 3,670 square feet with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. If we were allowed this zoning density, our neighbor would have more than five neighbors on one side of their property. This would be totally unfair to my neighbor and neighborhood, and the city would never allow it. The developments front, side, and rear setbacks are all less than what we are limited to. The developer states that elevations could differ by an additional one foot. Also, he says that all of their homes will have two stories each with nine foot ceiling B� heights. The plans show we will have four or five new neighbors. In the developers plans, 1 cannot find any lot with four or five properties on one side, or for that matter, all sides combined. I ask, does this appear to be unlike property? Does it "ensure computability with existing adjacent land uses"?. This all results in tall homes on elevated lots that the developer so casually calls "compact lots". They are squeezed even closer together because of reduced setbacks, and of course with whom-we will also share a common property line. We end up with well over the normal compliment of neighbors and the associated problems resulting from both sides. Most impacting to us is a tremendous loss of privacy to our home and yards, and a much less desirable property which will result in greatly reduced property value. Please give us some separation from this development. We realize that times are rapidly changing. Land values are at a premium in Huntington Beach and money seems to be the driving force behind most of these issues. We are not asking the property owner or the developer not to build what they feel is best for their property or Huntington Beach. Throughout the city and in currently discussed development plans, buffer zones are given separating unlike properties. Normally these buffers are accomplished by one or a combination of roads, streets, parks, or landscape buffers. All around the city there are many choices of lifestyles. Please address these issues and allow us the freedom to live the lifestyle we have worked so hard and long for. Please give us a protective buffer between these two very different community areas. Since this project seems to be progressing extremely fast, I would appreciate a response to these issues as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Mike Mossler 5391 Old Pirate Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (. �Ib p� AUT MOTIVE INC. Established 1978 15841 Chemical Lane • Huntington Beach, CA 926 Tel: (714) 895-1301 • Fax: (714)373-24 May 19, 1998 REC .EI ED TO: Bob Biddle MAY- Ed Kerins 91998 Gerald Chapman con�,�°NtNOEv�opMF� Phil Inglee Tom Livengood Fred Speaker Haydee Tillotson FROM: Ron Catt -- RE: Meadowlark Development Project 1 have been a resident of Huntington Beach for over 34 years, and a business owner for 20 years, I own both commercial and residential property in the_city. I am the property owner of 5415 Old Pirate Lane, and my neighbors and I are very concerned with the Meadowlark Development project. I have listed some issues that we feel are significant to us as property owners in the area. •The proposed tract map shows area PA3 backing up to Old Pirate Lane without any type of noise or visual buffer. The backyard setbacks of the new homes are only 12-15 feet. I am concerned about maintaining the integrity of my property as well as of my neighbors. Stonehaven Circle, which is just south of us, is getting a beautiful landscape and street buffer separating the rear of their backyards from the new development. The original plan showed a. buffer beginning at Fernhill and continuing around to Old Pirate Lane. Currently, only Stonehaven still has a buffer. I have not been given an answer as to why Stonehaven has retained their buffer, but Old Pirate Lane has not. We would like our buffer replaced in the plan. •Area PA3 consists of 2200 square foot detached homes on 3600 square foot lots. The density level of PA3 is approximately nine homes per acre, as opposed to Old Pirate Lane's three homes per acre, or Stonehaven Circle's five homes per acre. This is quite a difference in density levels, considering they are just on opposite sides of a block wall. , jwJi 1;1jZ � �t6fc- AUT MOTIVE INC. Established 1978 15841 Chemical Lane • Huntington Beach, CA 22649 Tel: (714)895-1301 • Fax: (714)373-2409 The entire project appears to have been laid out as if it were a "stand alone" project, not next door to existing neighborhoods. We find the density of the homes unacceptable. •The PA1 area of the development is the more expensive and larger homes, and the developers placed this area over on the west side of the project near condos, apartments and the trailer park. The proposed selling price of PA1 is in the low $400,000's, while the proposed selling price of PA3 is in the mid $200,000s. Old Pirate Lane and Stonehaven Circle's property values are in the $400,000 to $700,000. --range, our homes are larger, more expensive and near the golf course. Why should our more expensive and larger homes have neighboring houses valued in the $200,000 range? We believe the placement of the homes needs to be re-configured so that the property values are more compatible with each other. As the plan exists now, this will only decrease our property values. *The developer is adding a two acre extension onto the rear of Gibbs Park. This new extension will be classified as an "active" neighborhood park. Gibbs Park was designed and dedicated as a Monarch Butterfly refuge. It is considered a "passive" park. If these two areas become connected, the Gibbs Park will become much busier, with a'great deal of"through" traffic to the extension. This will cause damage and eventual deterioration to Gibbs Park. We feel the best alternative would be to move the new park to a different location in the development, and keep Gibbs Park"passive" as it was intended. •The developer plans to place a signal light at the opening of the development at Heil and Del Mar. However, this does not address the issue of the already dangerous intersection at Heil and Graham, just half a block away. The intersection is currently a four-way stop, and is scheduled to remain as one. I travel through this intersection at least four times per day, and it is extremely dangerous. My neighbors have complained to the city numerous times, and the intersection has yet to be placed on the list to receive a signal light. Three weeks ago, on a Sunday afternoon, my father was broadsided by a woman that ran through the intersection without stopping. Due to the increased traffic that the development will bring, it will only become worse. I propose they place a signal light at Heil and Graham, instead of at Heil and Del Mar, this would control the traffic on Heil between Graham and Bolsa Chica. It would also help reduce the speed limit on Heil, which is also a problem. The developer should be responsible'' for the cost of the signal light. S�•.i{f ^��r�c�°}-►F? ! 7 1 \./. `l 7 AUT MOTIVE INC. Established 1978 15841 Chemical Lane • Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Tel: (714)895-1301 a Fax: (714)373-24C *Old Pirate Lane has always had a drainage problem. The new development's elevation may be raised as much as three feet in some areas. This could cause significant flooding and erosion on our street. We feel that a study needs to be performed as to how the raised elevation will affect the surrounding areas, and the solutions to these drainage problems should be incorporated into the building of the project, at the developers cost. •The response time for the police department in our area is already too slow. The police and fire departments are overworked and understaffed. With 320 new homes being built, there is no way that the departments will be able to respond effectively. I brought this up in one of the meetings, and was told that the new homes would have sprinklers installed in case of a fire. This is not an appropriate solution. With the houses being built as close together as they are, a fire would be devastating, not to mention that 70% of the fire department's calls are for medical aid, of which the first six minutes are the most crucial. I have called the police department five times in the last two months because of vandalism in Gibbs Park. Only one time did they have the ability to send a car out, and he arrived too late. I have enclosed a status report that was published by the HB Police Officers Association, dated 3/25/98, entitled "Huntington-Beach A Public Safety Crisis". I feel it bears serious consideration. I have addressed each and every one of these issues with Amy Wolfe, Scott Hess, various city personnel, and Catellus, the developer. I feel that our concerns are very important and need to be addressed. Bruce D'Eliscu of Catellus Residential Group, stated that they had been diligent in notifying the neighbors of the meetings. In fact, I have never received a notice from the developers, and only two of Old Pirate Lane residents were ever notified. I feel that Bruce and John Erskin have exhibited a lack of cooperation in providing adequate answers to our questions. I realize that growth in our city is inevitable, but if we do not demand a quality product that enhances our existing neighborhoods, while taking the many other factors into consideration, we will only lose as a city. I understand that new development brings much needed revenue and improvements to the city, but if not developed correctly, it will eventually bring greater harm to our area. AUTOMOTIVE iNC. Established 1978 15841 Chemical Lane • Huntington Beach, CA 9264 Tel: (714) 895-1301 • Fax: (714)373-240 My neighbors and I have had many discussions regarding this matter, and I have spent over 25 hours in the last month alone attending meetings and researching this project. We live in a very unique area and feel that it is to the benefit of the City of Huntington Beach to maintain this area. I would appreciate your taking the time to review this matter. Best regards, 12,. Ronald R. Catt cc: Shirley Dettloff Peter Green • Ralph Bauer Dave Garofalo Tom Harman Pam Julien Dave Sullivan 6 �1�4� • 1 �. RECEIVE t M% a K � _ w: MAY- 1 91998 DEPART41�m+1. PHONE: (714) 842-8851 D � BUSINESS OFFICE: 18377 Beach Blvd.Suite 323.Huntington Beach.CA 92648 � MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.Box 896,Huntington Beach.CA 92648 March 25, 1998 Huntington Beach has gone from the nationally acclaimed "America's Safest City" to a city with a genuine public safety crisis. In five short years, the number of police officers on the streets has dropped significantly while the population of our City has increased. As the information enclosed demonstrates, the Police Department's ability to provide proper and adequate police protection to residents, business owners and guests is at a breaking point. The Huntington Beach Police Department was for twenty years recognized at the premiere law enforcement agency within Orange County and quite possibly the State of California. The attitude of past City Councils and prior police administrations has been to hire the very best educated, --- highly trained and experienced lateral transfer officers from other departments seeking to join an agency with our reputation. Utilization of this caliber officer made it possible for the City to provide superior police protection with fewer officers on the street thereby controlling costs and maximizing resources. The statistical information contained in the enclosed packet establishes clearly the deterioration of the Huntington Beach Police Department and its services to the public. The current City Council majority has refused to maintain salaries and benefits at a level competitive to other top police departments in Orange County. As a result, we are losing high quality police officers whose experience, education and training cannot be replaced. What you have heard is true. Salaries of police officers in Huntington'Beach have not been increased since 1992 -- six years. Additionally. the City Council has mandated substantial reductions in benefits, all of which have further diminished the City's competitive position and ability to attract quality candidates. Huntington Beach is no longer the "Safest City in America", in fact, as you can tell from the material provided, our Department is providing a minimum level of service. As summer approaches and more qualified officers leave our Department for other places, the consequences could be catastrophic. Please take a moment and review the enclosed packet of information.. When you have finished, we know you will be convinced that the safety of-your families, homes and businesses is in jeopardy. This downward spiral must be stopped now before it is irreversible. Take a moment to call Mayor Shirley Dettloff at 536-5553. Express your dissatisfaction with this situation and suggest strongly that the contract issues with the police officers be settled in an equitable manner and that the Police Department be staffed to provide quality police service. Sincerely, Chris Tatar �sl�. NAPresident, Huntington Beach Police Officers Association ` °° ' ` :t""'V 6 `« Pc-, HUNTINGTONBEACH ' A PUBLIC S.AFETY CRISIS "Living, Working Or Visiting Huntington Beach Is Becoming Hazardous To Your Health" Prepared for the Citizens of Huntington Beach by Huntington Beach Police Officers Association/Peace Officers Counsel of California TT ,1: 7 10 A REAL CRISIS! • IN CALIFORNIA, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF SWORN POLICE OFFICERS PER 1000 POPULATION IS APPROXIMATELY: 1.7 • AVERAGE NUMBER OF SWORN PERSONNEL PER 1000 POPULATION IN BEACH CITIES FROM LONG BEACH TO SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY LINE: 1.94 ■ HUNTINGTON BEACH (POPULATION OF 200,000 @ 1.7 PER 1000) SHOULD = 340 OFFICERS. ■ AS A BEACH COMMUNITY OF 200,000 POPULATION (@ - 1.94 OFFICERS PER 1000), HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD HAVE: 388 OFFICERS. • HUNTINGTON BEACH AT FULL STRENGTH EMPLOYS A TOTAL OF: 224 SWORN PERSONNEL ■ NUMBER OF SWORN PERSONNEL PER 1000 POPULATION IN HUNTINGTON BEACH: A. OVERALL TODAY = 1.1 B. ACTUAL (INCLUDING VACANCIES AND I.O.D.) = .87 C. SUMMER TIME (@ 300,000 POP.) • @ CURRENT AT FULL STRENGTH = .74 @ CURRENT ACTUAL STRENGTH = .65 • UNDER CURRENT CRISIS CONDITION, CITIZEN SAFETY IS SERIOUSLY IN QUESTION. • AS SUMMER APPROACHES, CITIZENS AND VISITORS CANNOT BE ASSURED ADEQUATE PROTECTION UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOCATES THE RESOURCES TO END THE CRISIS CONDITION. l THE CRISPS ColUTIMUES4 , TRAFFIC-DETECTIVE-HERO BUREAUS • 1 ACCIDENT-INVESTIGATION POSITION VACANT • 1 MOTORCYCLE POSITION VACANT • 2 MOTORCYCLE OFFICERS UNAVAILABLE DUE TO LONG-TERM INJURY (MINIMAL PROBABILITY OF RETURNING TO DUTY) • 1 SCHOOL RESOURCE POSITION ELIMINATED • 2 DETECTIVE BUREAU VACANCIES i • 2 NARCOTICS POSITIONS VACANT • 2 PILOT POSITIONS VACATED DUE TO LONG-TERM INJURY AND ELIMINATION DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING �r TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAFFIC, DETECTIVE AND AERO POSITIONS VACANT OR UNAVAILABLE-FOR DUTY: 11 COMMUNICATION AND JAIL BUREAU • UNDERSTAFFED FOR YEARS, REMAINS: 1 VACANT COMMUNICATION OPERATOR POSITION 4 OPERATORS IN TRAINING 1 OPERATOR RESTRICTED TO '/2 TIME 1 OPERATOR RESTRICTED TO 15 HRS. O.T. PER WEEK 4 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES 1 VACANT DETENTION OFFICER POSITION �It TOTAL COMMUNICATION AND JAIL BUREAU SHORTAGES: 6-1/2 O 6 EFFECTS OF THE CRISIS (PAGE 2) • TRAFFIC BUREAU DOWN 17.6%. THE RESULT IS: ■ PRODUCTION FROM 3 MOTORCYCLE OFFICER_ S IS LOST. ■ REMAINING MOTORCYCLE OFFICERS CANNOT TAKE UP THE SLACK AND MUST BE AUGMENTED FROM THE ALREADY WEAKENED PATROL BUREAU. ■ TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT IS FURTHER REDUCED WHEN TRAFFIC OFFICERS ARE USED TO AUGMENT PATROL. ■ HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS REDUCED 50%. TO COMPENSATE, A FIELD ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR IS BORROWED 314 TIME WHICH FURTHER BACKLOGS OTHER TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT ACTIVITY. ■ TRAFFIC DESK IS CLOSED ENTIRELY ON FRIDAYS. THE PUBLIC IS THEREFORE DENIED ACCESS TO ONE OF THE BUSIEST BUREAUS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 20% OF EACH WEEK. ■ TRAFFIC VACANCIES CANNOT BE FILLED DUE TO SHORTAGES IN PATROL FUNCTION. • AERO BUREAU IS DOWN 33%. DUE TO PATROL BUREAU SHORTAGES, VACANCIES CANNOT BE FILLED. • SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM IS DOWN 33%. ■ ALL ENFORCEMENT CALLS TO SCHOOLS ARE NOW SPREAD OVER THE REMAINING SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS AND THE PATROL BUREAU. RESULT IS A FURTHER WEAKENING OF PATROL STRENGTH AND USE OF LESSER SPECIAL TRAINED PERSONNEL. �tt6Q� EFFECTS OF THE CRISIS (PAGE 4) • LOWER AND LOWER OFFICER MORALE. THE EFFECTS ARE: ■ HIGHER SICK LEAVE-USAGE. ■ MORE INJURY PRONE OFFICERS RESULTS IN MORE I.O.D.'S ADDING TO CITY'S FINANCIAL LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEE AND CITIZEN AS A RESULT OF MISTAKES. ■ LESS PRECISE ATTITUDE TOWARD JOB FUNCTIONS AND LESS ATTENTION TO DUTY. ■ LOWER PRODUCTION, WHICH FURTHER STRESSES THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO KEEP UP WITH THE LOAD. ■ GOOD EMPLOYEES SEEK EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE. ■ A COMPOUNDING OF THE CRITICAL PROBLEM OF RECRUITING AND RETAINING POLICE OFFICERS. UNHAPPINESS DOES NOT CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE CONDUCIVE TO HIRING AND/OR RETAINING QUALITY EMPLOYEES. • POLICE OFFICERS ARE QUITTING FASTER THAN THE CITY CAN REPLACE THEM. ■ THE NUMBER OF QUALITY CANDIDATES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO REPLACE THE EXPERIENCE THE DEPARTMENT IS LOSING. ■ RECRUITING, HIRING AND TRAINING IS EXPENSIVE. REPLACING THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE LOST WILL TAKE YEARS. ■ THE DEPARTMENT HAS LOST APPROXIMATELY 53 OFFICERS BETWEEN 1992 AND 1997 ADDING SEVERELY TO THE DEPARTMENT'S LOSS OF EXPERIENCE. ■ 3 MORE OFFICERS QUIT DURING THE LAST FEW WEEKS INCLUDING: OFFICER GUTIERREZ (WENT TO SANTA ANA -10 YRS. EXPERIENCE) • OFFICER SCOTT (RETURNED TO LAPD - 13 YRS. EXPERIENCE) • OFFICER BAILEY (WENT TO ANAHEIM - 15 YRS. EXPERIENCE) 6 �t6 Pc- HOW CAN HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPETE FOR QUALITY POLICE OFFICERS? • AVERAGE NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS PER 1000 POPULATION ,IN ORANGE COUNTY CITIES IS 1.25. • AVERAGE NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS PER 1000 POPULATION IN BEACH CITIES FROM LONG BEACH TO THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY LINE IS 1.94. • HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS 224 SWORN PERSONNEL EQUALLING 1.1 OFFICERS PER 1000 POPULATION WHEN AT FULL STRENGTH. ■_ @ AVERAGE OF ORANGE COUNTY CITIES, HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD HAVE 250 SWORN PERSONNEL. ■ @ BEACH CITIES AVERAGE, HUNTINGTON BEACH SHOULD HAVE 388 SWORN PERSONNEL. • WITHIN THE COMPETING LOCALIZED LABOR MARKET, THE FOLLOWING OPENINGS EXIST FOR POLICE OFFICERS: ■ 156 CURRENT OPENINGS FOR POLICE OFFICERS. ■ VACANCIES AND OPENINGS CREATED IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS DUE TO ATTRITION AND RETIREMENTS ARE ESTIMATED BETWEEN 297 AND 394. ■ IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, AN ESTIMATED 102 NEW OPENINGS WILL BE ADDED IN THE NEXT 12 MOS. �k TOTAL NUMBER OF CURRENT OPENINGS, ESTIMATED NEW POSITIONS AND RETIREMENT OPENINGS FOR RECRUITMENT IN NEXT 12 MOS. WILL EXCEED: 500 6 16PC-- CONCLUSIONS AND SOLUTIONS • THE MANPOWER SHORTAGES AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE AT A CRITICAL STATE. • AT FULL STRENGTH (224) THE_# OF OFFICERS PER 1000 POPULATION IS FAR BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE, - CERTAINLY BELOW THAT OF BEACH CITIES AND BELOW THE AVERAGE OF CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY. • POPULATION IN HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS INCREASED WHILE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS HAS NOT. • HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS PROVIDED QUALITY POLICE SERVICE WITH FEWER POLICE OFFICERS DUE TO PAST HIRING PRACTICES OF SELECTING THE BEST EDUCATED, MOST EXPERIENCED AND BEST TRAINED LATERAL OFFICERS. • POLICE AGENCIES ALL OVER THE SOUTHLAND HAVE OPENINGS FOR LATERAL TRANSFER OFFICERS. : =- • IN THE COMPETITIVE LABOR MARKET, HUNTINGTON BEACH RANKS LOWEST IN SALARY AND NEAR THE BOTTOM IN.-TOTAL COMPENSATION. • WHY WOULD A WELL-TRAINED, RESPECTED AND EXPERIENCED OFFICER WANT TO COME TO HUNTINGTON BEACH? • MORALE IN THE DEPARTMENT IS THE LOWEST ANYONE CAN REMEMBER. THIS ATTITUDE IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO RECRUITING OR RETAINING QUALITY PERSONNEL. • THE DEPARTMENT IS LOSING POLICE OFFICERS FASTER THAN THEY CAN BE REPLACED. THERE ARE 13 KNOWN OFFICERS CURRENTLY IN THE HIRING PROCESS ELSEWHERE. a1.,+iYli-si:—NT NO. �- COMPETITIVE POSITION.. C ,-.,4GE COUNTY JURISE ; . ,ONS POLICE OFFICER CLASSIFICATION SALARY ONLY AGENCY TOP STEP SALARY COMPETITIVE POSITION Orange Co. Sheriffs Dept. Includes 3.6% Increase 7-98 1 $4,945.00 Santa Ana $4,694.00 2 Newport Beach $4,647.00 3 Anaheim $4,555.00 4 La Palma $4,545.00 5 Garden Grove $4,492.00 6 Fountain Valley" $4,472.00 7 Irvine $4,431.00 8 La Habra $4,426.00 9 - Brea $4.425.00 10 Tustin $4,418.00 11 Laguna Beach $4,396.00 12 Fullerton $4,391.00 13 Orange $4,379.00 14 Costa Mesa $4,325.00 15 Seal Beach $4,293.00 16 Cypress $4,275.00 17 Placentia $4,256.00 18 Los Alamitos $4,237.00 19 Westminster ( $4,235.00 20 Buena Park $4,224.00 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH $4,141.00 22 22 TOTAL JURISDICTIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY SALARY CURRENT TO 3-11-98 HUNTINGTON BEACH RANKED LOWEST IN SALARY LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP WALT[R L.NOddAYAN SVITE 1600 JONN T.KNOX (tA 80.11441 14101 VON 1(ARMAN AVENUE WARREN O ELLIOTT • D.O 80X 19772 - ' OF COUN3EL IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92423-9772 fAN�R#NCISCO WA4NINCTON,O C TNIRTY-FouRTN FLOOR TEI.EDNONE (9491 633.7600 SUITE 170•4 SO CALIFOANIA STREET FACSIMILE 19491$33.7676 401 137-STREET N.W SAN FRANCISCO.CA *4111.4710 WA6NINGTGN.O.C.20006 • (41S)111-3604 (202)743-7272 LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO TRIATT-FIRST FLOOR 1,�,, SUITE t000 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET May 29, 1998 913 L STREET LOS ANGELES.CA 04071.1402 SACRAMENTO.CA 42414-3701 (2ta)412.7400 REFER TO FILE NUMBER 140268-001 Mr.Ron Cart Ron Catt Automotive,Inc. 15841 Chemical Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Dear Ron: Dave Garofalo sent me a copy of your letter to him of May 13 and asked that I respond to you on behalf of Catellus Residential Group. This letter is only an effort to provide my non-legal perspective on the project and its benefits for Old Pirate Lane and the surrounding community. Furthermore,as Bruce Lehman indicated to you following the May 26 Planning Commission study session,we intend to meet with you and our neighbors early next week to discuss project issues with you in greater detail. Suffice it to say-you are not being ignored! As Catellus'land use attorney on this project for the last year(the project has gone through an 18-month approval process to date),I can tell you that from the applicant's perspective,this Development Agreement-approved project acquired from the Nerio family in 1997 has undergone an unanticipated title review. What was predicted to be an expeditious 6-9 month conditional use permit process reducing an approved 600 unit attached and detached project to 345 single family homes has been the antithesis of"permit-streamlining." From the City's perspective,however,many benefits will be realized under Catellus'revised Meadowlark development plan. These benefits,which will inure to Old Pirate Lane, Stonehaven and the neighborhoods to the west and north of the former airport site are: • Completion of a high-quality master-planned community by one of the most experienced,well-financed homebuilders in Southern California. Carl and Bruce Akins,the principals in Catellus Residential,are considered by my Building Industry Association colleagues to be among the finest craftsmen in the homebuilding business and have,unlike other developers,continued operations through several economic downturns. IIVIL-NT NO. 00981490009 c �' 20'd 0VSTt7LF 0i 301dd0 '0'0 - MA'S'N W08=1 L17:9T 8661-6z-A1dW NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mr.Ron Catt May 29, 1998 Page 2 • With one experienced homebuilder implementing the four product areas, consistent quality,a shortened construction period and public facilities being completed on schedule and without interruption will be assured. • Four,separate industry-leading architectural firms(JBZ Dorius,Lim Chang Associates,McLarand Vasquez and Bassenian-Lagoni)are in-the process of designing 16 different models. Had the residential portions of Meadowlark been built in the early 90's,not only would it have been more dense,but it is predictable that the project would have contained the boxy and bulky,pink-stuccoed,tiled roof product that better homebuilders like Catellus have moved away from. Bruce D'Eliscu of Catellus Residential Group has indicated that further refinement of the models to expand the four-sided architectural detail and setback variations and movement will occur as the project progresses through approval steps. • Catellus and the Old Pirate Lane neighborhood are in complete agreement on minimizing"active,"outside use of,and traffic to,our 2.2 acre neighborhood park. With the Catellus-funded improvements to.80 acres of undeveloped Gibbs Park,a 3.0 acre"neighborhood"park with turf areas,picnic benches and one practice field area will be available for neighborhood residents. This is in keeping with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and Park Dedication Ordinance requirements for such a park. Furthermore,as we stated at the May 26 Commission study session,we believe there is no legal or code-related requirement for any more than 6-12 parking spaces for the convenience of residents of our development who want to drive,rather than walk,to the park. a As to price impact on Old Pirate Lane,we are confident that the Meadowlark development will have a positive impact on the expected, continued price appreciation of your homes. Every economic consultant report(Kenneth Leventhal,Al Gobar Associates,etc.)that I have reviewed over the years shows that well-constructed new homes adjacent to older, single family neighborhoods has either zero or positive impact without regard to the price points of the new product. Similar concerns have been expressed in prior years about townhome projects such as Seabridge on Beach and Adams. Yet,adjacent neighborhoods have seen the same price appreciation and retention of value that most portions of Huntington Beach have experienced over the last 15-20 yeah. _ . s 1_�ri, NO. £0'd OrSTCL£ Ol 30Idd0 '0'0 - 38M'9'N W aJ Lb:9T 866T-6Z-AHW NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mr.Ron Catt May 29, 1998 Page 3 In summary,we think the new Meadowlark Community will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood and an asset to the City overall. It is important,however,that the subdivision design is planned and built so that the key access points(including Heil and Graham) to the project are improved as necessary without being overbuilt such that they attract more community-wide traffic and use. We look forward to discussing these issues with you further on June 3rd. Sincerel Jo P.Erskine OSSAMAN,GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT,LLP Mint . l 6qc- CO'd OVSTtQz 01 30I330 '0'0 - 38A'9'N W0 =1 8b:91 866i-6Z-AUW NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mr.Ron Cate May 29, 1998 Page 4. bcc: Bruce Lehman Bruce D'Eliscu Dave Garofalo 90'd OGSTPLE Oi 331d30 '3'O - 3$N'J'N WC]aJ SP:91 866T-6Z-1ktiW i KEN F.KELTER 18281 Gotbard St.#201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Tel:714-841-1815 Fax:714-8404949 VIA FACIMILE May 22,1998 To: City of Huntington Beach Planning Commision Bob Biddle Ed Kerins Gerald Chapman Phil Inglee Tom Livengood Fred Speaker _Haydee Tillotson Re:Meadowlark Development Project Dear Planning Commission Members: I have followed the progress of the Meadowlark Development project and would like to express my concerns.I am the property owner of 5432 Old Pirate Lane, Old Pirate-Lane is a private street where the residents are committed to preserving their neighborhood. I have been working with Ron Catt who resides at 5415 Old Pirate Lane and I wholly support his position stated in a letter dated May 19,1998 addressed to the City Council and City Planning Commission- My deepest concern is the request by the developer for a significant reduction of the buffer zone in the approved 1988 development proposal to a negligible amount of buffer area.At a minimum,this buffer zone needs to be consistent with the buffer zone proposed adjacent to Stonehaven Circle which depicts a 60 foot setback including a greenbelt area. However,the original100 foot setback including a greenbelt area,is preferable. The very fact that the current proposal places higher density and significantly lower cost housing directly adjacent to the residences of Old Pirate Lane is unacceptable.This will diminish our property values substantially.Furthermore,installing an"active park" to the west of Gibbs park only aggravates the situation. h N-T 6 �i6e� Letter to City of Huntington Beach Old Pirate Lane, 4eadowlark Development May 22,1998 Page 2 of 2 Several other matters need to be addressed.Old Pirate Lane experiences a water drainage dilemma.With the proposed site elevation difference,this issue needs to be addressed. The current water line on Old Pirate Lane terminates half way down the street,traveling west from Graham Street.My suggestion would be a provision by Catellus to install a water line on the developers site,to the water line of Old Pirate Lane. This will extend the . existing Old Pirate.Lane water line for better water circulation. Also,the developers proposed signal location at Del Mar and Heil Avenue would better serve the community if relocated to the intersection of Heil and Graham.This intersection is very busy and has been plagued with numerous accidents. Finally,I have developed many successful Huntington Beach projects over the last 18 years and have always addressed the concerns of adjacent neighbors while attaining compliance with City ordinances and other governing bodies.Catellus must also meet the same mandates. In closing,I will only support the development of the Meadowlark project if the issues outlined in this letter have been resolved. Sincerely, Ken Kclter cc: City Council Ron Catt and Old Pirate Neighbors TOTAL P.03 r 1998 X� � June 1, 1998 ------------ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator, City of Huntington Beach 5 FROM: Peter Dacquisto 16310 Venus Drive Westminster, CA 92683 714-842-4502 SUBJECT: Meadowlark Development Project My wife Kendra and I are currently in the process of purchasing a home at 5372 Old Pirate Lane in Huntington Beach. We chose Huntington Beach because we feel that it is a wonderful place to raise a family as well as a solid real estate investment. We specifically chose Old Pirate Lane because of its unique charm and rural feel. Part of our decision making process to purchase on Old Pirate Lane included a trip to, the Huntington Beach Planning Department, to research the details of the Meadowlark Development Project.- During my two visits I was shown a plan from 1988 that displays a buffer zone along the east end of the project. This zone runs from the southwest comer of Gibbs Park, to the southwest limits of Meadow Circle. I was also provided an updated plan that reveals that this buffer zone had been compromised. I was told by the clerk that this plan was the `most recent plan." The plan shows a total of 50 homes in the immediate area of the buffer zone including seven homes along the western perimeter of Old Pirate Lane and four homes along the northern perimeter of Meadow Circle leaving the rest of the buffer zone intact. My wife and I were disappointed to see that part of the buffer zone had been compromised, however we felt that enough of the buffer zone had been preserved. We made the decision to purchase the home and are now in the process of closing escrow. I have since,obtained a copy of the actual most recent plan. The plan shows a total of 51 homes in the same area,but eliminates almost all of the buffer zone. It has also come to my attention that this most recent plan, existed before my first visit to the planning department, yet I was given an old, outdated plan. Had I been provided the most recent plan, my decision to purchase on Old Pirate Lane may have been different! I feel that I was misinformed by the planning department and I am extremely disappointed that more accurate information was not supplied during my two visits. I cannot speak for all of the homeowners that will be adversely impacted by the Meadowlark Development Project, however I have discussed the project with several of the residents of Old 17, 61�6Q� Pirate Lane, Stonehaven Circle and Meadow Circle. Each of the homeowners that I have spoken with has expressed great concern about the direction that the project has taken. I would like to point out just a few of the concerns that have been raised. • Elimination of Buffer Zone: The 1988 buffer zone has, without any regard to the residents of these streets, been reduced to a fraction of its original size. Only a small portion along the western end of Stonehaven Circle is still intact. I do not believe it is worth compromising the property values and privacy of a dozen or more existing homeowners for the sake of one additional new home. • New Home Placement: The plan shows some of the highest density areas, (9 homes per acre) of the development, are adjacent to Old pirate Lane (3 homes per Acre), Stonhaven Circle and Meadow Circle (5 homes per acre). There are other areas of the development that are lower density, however they are located on the northwest end, adjacent to a condominium complex, apartments and a mobile home park. I believe that it is important to maintain continuity between the existing neighborhoods and the new homes planned in this development. I think it would be irresponsible to allow the higher density, lower value homes to be placed adjacent to the lowest density, highest value existing homes on the perimeter of the project. • Height Allowance: The maximum height allowance in the original plan was 25 feet. The revised plan allows the height restriction to be raised to 30 feet. This is an unacceptable height. The privacy of the existing homeowners is already being compromised. Allowing an additional 5' to the height restriction will only add to the dissonance. • Drainage: Old Pirate Lane already has an existing drainage problem. Any increase in elevation adjacent to Old Pirate Lane could cause significant flooding and erosion. It is imperative that the proper measures be taken to ensure efficient drainage for Old Pirate Lane and the Meadowlark Development Project. The residents of Old Pirate Lane, Meadow Circle and Stonhaven Circle will be directly affected by the above issues. There are several other concerns that indirectly affect the entire surrounding area Some of these concerns include but are not limited to; the deterioration of Gibbs Park, an increase in local traffic,the safety of the intersection at Graham and Heil, a decrease in the already saturated fire and police protection, as well as all of the other growing pains associated with expansion. My wife and I were aware that this land would eventually be developed. We were very happy to see in the 1988 plan that maintaining the integrity of the existing neighborhoods was a high priority. This was indicated by the placement of the two buffer zones on the perimeter of the project. These buffer zones clearly demonstrate the goals for this project during that stage of the planning process. We urge you to reevaluate the current direction of this project and please reconsider the goals that were set during its early stages. �-t-d �• " =� NO 1�,25 I know that we all have very high expectations for the future of this city.I feel that it is imperative that we plan for our new developments to coalesce with the existing neighborhoods. I am confident that you will take this matter into consideration when planning the future of this development. Thank you for your time. . Re tfully, Peter . Dacquist t 16Pc �illl' ~ DR. ARTHUR HAUSEN, JF TA Jkm— Economic Development Coun 0 Chairman TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ��, � 2000 MAIN STREET 4CHt HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 6 9658 Alpaca Street Bus ;1A8) 443-67 FROM: DR- ARTHUR C.HAUSEN,JR. South El Monte Fax 443-91 5401 OLD PIRATE LANE - California 91733 U.S.A. Res (714) 846-3f HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 _ RES: 714-846-3750 ,U N 4— 1998 BUS: 626-443-6750 OF REGARDING: MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY�F �DEVELOPMENT DEAR CITY AUTHORITY MEMBER LINDA BOUCHER: WITH THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR YOUR TIME I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. AS IT IS NOW PROPOSED THE MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADJACENT TO OUR HOME ON OLD PIRATE IS TERRIBLY FLAWED. I WISH TO REITERATE OUR CONCERNS AS EXPRESS BY OUR SPOKESMAN AND NEIGHBOR MR.RON CATT. ONE OF THE GRAVEST OF THESE CONCERNS IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE BUILDING SETBACK OF ONLY 12 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINES. YOU MAY REST ASSURED MY CONCERNS AS WELL AS THOSE OF MR CATT AND OUR NEIGHBORS GOES FAR BEYOND OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND CONSIDERS THE WELFARE OF ALL IN OUR CONIM[UNI TY WHO WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT,INCLUDING ITS AFFECT ON OUR CITY TAX REVENUE. INASMUCH AS MR.RON CATT HAS LISTENED TO ALL OF US WHO ARE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT AND WRITTEN A REPORT WITH WHICH WE TOTALLY CONCUR*I WILL NOT BURDEN YOU WITH ANOTHER RENDITION OF OUR OBJECTIONS BUT MUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU RE-EVALUATE THE PRESENT PROJECT BEFORE IT GOES ANY FURTHER- VERY SINCERELY YOURS, DR. ARTHUR C.HAUSEN,JR rl NO. G � IL�� ATTACHMENT NO. 15 IT NO THE SIJBDMSION MAP ACT statute,which is enacted before January 1, 1996,deletes or extends that date. (Added by Stars.1984,Ch. 1722;Amended by Stars. 1987,Ch.803.) Waiver of access 66476.There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement that dedications or offers of dedication of streets include ;ghts a waiver of direct access rights to any such street from any property shown on a final or parcel map as abutting thereon I and if the dedication is accepted,any such waiver shall become effective in accordance with its provisions. , (Added by Stars.1974.Ch. 1536.Effective March 1, 1975.) Local requirements 66477.The legislative body of a city or county may,by ordinance,require the dedication of land or impose a requirement forpark and of the payment of fees in lieu thereof,or a combination of both,for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the recreation approval of a tentative map or parcel map,provided that: dedications(Quimby (a)The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the subdivision Act) or parcel map. (b)The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof.The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density,which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17(commencing wit' Section 40200)of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4.However,the dedication of land,or the payment of fees,or both,shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section,unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area,as calculated pursuant to this subdivision,exceeds that limit,in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard rot to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section. (1)The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city,county,o:local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population of the city,county, or local public agency as shown in the most recent available federal census.The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city,county,or local public agency as shown on its records,plans,recreational element.maps,or reoorts as of the date of the most recent available federal census. (2)For cities incorporated after the date of the most recent available federal census,the park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shown on the records,maps,or reports of the county in which the newly incorporated city is located bears to the total (� population of the new city as determined pursuant to Section 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.In making any subsequent calculations pursuant to this section,the county in v6hich the newly incorporated city is located shall not include the figures pertaining to the new city which were calcultatt-d pursuant to this paragraph.Fees shall be payable at the time of the recording of the final map or parcel map or at a later time as may be prescribed by local ordinance. (c)The land,fees,or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. (d)The legislative body has adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities,and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards. (e)The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. (f)The city,county,or other local public agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule specifying how,when,and where it will use the land or fees,or both,to develop park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision.Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision,whichever occurs later.If the fees are not committed,they,without any deductions,shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. (g) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less,except that when a condominium project,stock cooperative,or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units,dedication of land may be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50. (h)Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section.However a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. (i)If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land,the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by the ordinance. Land or fees required under this section shall be conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency which provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level and to the area within which the proposed development will be located,if such agency elects to accept the land or fee.The local agency accepting such land or funds shall develop i the land or use the funds in the manner provided in this section. J0. 1�, 1 "i 150 1996 Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws � 4 I"A -•- - THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT If park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or a county,the amount and location of land to be dedicated or fees to be aid shall,subject to subdivision p ' � (b),be jointly determined by the city v�• or county having jurisdiction and such public agency. This section does not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. Planned developments,real estate developments,stock cooperatives,and community apartment projects,as defined in Sections 11003, 11003.1, 11003.2, 11003.4,and 11004,respectively,of the Business and Professions Code,and condominiums,as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code,shall be eligible to receive a credit,as determined by the legislative body,against the amount of land required to be dedicated,or the amount of the fee imposed,pursuant to this section,for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. Park and recreation purposes shall include land and facilities for the activity of"recreational community gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than,or in addition to,the owner of such land,of plant material not for sale. (Amended by Stats. 1984,Ch.1009;Amended by Stats. 1985,Ch.286,Amended by Stats.1986, Ch.291.) 66477.1.(a)At the time the legislative body approves a final map,it shall also accept,accept subject to improvement,or Acceptance/ reject any offer of dedication.The clerk of the legislative body shall certify or state on the map the action by the legislative rejection of body. dedications -(b)The legislative body of a county,or a county officer designated by the legislative body,may accept into the county road system,pursuant to Section 941 of the Streets and Highways Code,any road for which an offer of dedication has been accepted or accepted subject to improvements. (Added by Stats.1974,Ch.1536.Effective March 1,1975;Amended by Stats.1985,Ch.114.Effective June 28,1985; Amended by Stats. 1987,Ch.982;Amended by Stats.1988, Ch. 132.) 66477.2.(a)If at the time the final map is approved,any streets,paths,alleys,public utility easements,rights-of-way for Rescission of local transit facilities such as bus turnouts,benches,shelters,landing pads,and similar items,which directly benefit the rejection, residents of a subdivision,or storm drainage easements are rejected,subject to Section 771.010 of the Code of Civil termination and Procedure,the offer of dedication shall remain open and the legislative body may by resolution at any later date,and abandonment of without further action by the subdivider,rescind its action and accept and open the streets,paths,alleys,rights-of-way dedication offer for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts,benches,shelters,landing pads,and similar items,which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision,or storm drainage easements for public use,which acceptance shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder. (b)In the case of any subdivision fronting upon the ocean coastline or bay shoreline,the offer of dedication of public �\ access route or routes from public highways to land below the ordinary high watermark shall be accepted within three years after the approval of the final map;in the case of any subdivision fronting upon any public waterway,river,or stream, the offer of dedication of public access route or routes from public highways to the bank of the waterway,river,or stream and the public easement along a portion of the bank of the waterway,river,or stream shall be accepted within three years after the approval of the final map;in the case of any subdivision fronting upon any lake or reservoir which is owned in part orentirely by any public agency,including the state,the offerof dedication of public access route orroutes from public highways to any water of such lake or reservoir shall be accepted within five years after the approval of the final map; all other offers of dedication may be accepted at any time. i (c)Offers of dedication which are covered by subdivision(a)may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as prescribed for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3(commencing with Section 8300)of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code. (d)Offers of dedication which are not accepted within the time limits specified in subdivision(b)shall be deemed abandoned. (e)Except as provided in Sections 66499.16,66499.17,and 66499.18,if a resubdivision or reversion to acreage of the tract is subsequently filed for approval,any offer of dedication previously rejected shall be deemed to be terminated upon the approval of the map by the legislative body.The map shall contain a notation identifying the offer or offers of dedication deemed terminated by this subdivision. (Amended by Stats. 1982,Ch.8Z Effective March 1, 1982;Amended by Stats. 1994,Ch.458.) 664773.Acceptance of offers of dedication on a final map shall not be effective until the final map is filed in the office of Dedication the county recorder or a resolution of acceptance by the legislative body is filed in such office. acceptance (Added by Stats. 1974,Ch. 1536.Effective March 1, 1975.) ineffective until map 664775.(a)The local agency to which property is dedicated in fee for public purposes,or for making public improvements filed or constructing public facilities,other than for open space,parks,or schools,shall record a certificate with the county recorder in the county in which the property is located.The certificate shall be attached to the map and shall contain all Reconveyance of of the following information: _ dedications (1)The name and address of the subdivider dedicating the property. (2)A legal description of the real property dedicated. (3)A statement that the local agency shall reconvey the property to the subdivider if the local agency makes a determination pursuant to this section that the same public purpose for which the property was dedicated does not exist, or the property or any portion thereof is not needed for public utilities,as specified in subdivision(c). 1996 Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws 151 5171 Stallion Circle Huntington n Beach CA 92649-3607 May 4, 1998 Ms. Shirley Dettlofl�Mayor City of Huntington Beach CA 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms. Dettloff. This letter is in regard to the planned development of the Meadowlark Airport by Catellus Corporation. We recently reviewed the plan which is pending before the city council and believe that it is a sound plan which will enhance the neighborhood. We believe that this plan for single family detached houses is by far the best solution which has been presented for the development of the airport. We have been living immediately ad.jacent to the airport for nearly twenty five (25)years and our primary desire would be to have open space continued in lieu of airport operations, But with the Nerio family planning development of their property, we wholeheartedly endorse the current plan which Catellus has before your Commission. We have been taxpaying citizens of Huntington Beach for twenty five years,. We have no connections of any kind to Catellus, the Nerio family or anyone who stands to benefit from airport development. We ask that city authorities endorse this plan to allow development. S' cerely, E. fira�ddyVirAinia W. Brady ATTACHMENT N(O'. �'�: FRED AND PEGGY SCHMIDT 16851 STONEHAVEN CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 . . . . . .. . . . . July 16, 1998 Ms. Amy Wolfe City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Tentative Tract No. 15469 Dear Ms. Wolfe: We have attempted to follow the most recent changes to the above proposed site plan and were surprised to see a new, and most recent version of the July 14, 1998 (Submittal C), presented to the Planning Commission as of and effective the even date. We had seen the proposal presented at the first prior commission hearing and were surprised at the elimination of the then proposed cul-de-sac near the location of what now appears to be lot 229 of P.A. 3. This location is contiguous to our home, 16851 Stonehaven Circle, BB. Our concerns with Submittal C are multi-fold; (1)privacy to our home has again been almost eliminated, (2)the existing limited view is replaced with a two story home ten feet from our property line, and (3) a concern over our alone suffering a singular and specific economic loss due to our home being the only home on Stonehaven Circle and Old Pirate Lane so obstructed. Every other existing home on these streets will have a street and parking buffer of at least 42 feet;we will have none. Giving consideration to the Commissioner's comments and their apparent approval of Submittal C's perimeter road in P.A. 3, net of sidewalk removal on the exterior boundaries, we would appreciate consideration by Catellus, staff and the Commission of a change to Submittal C which would relocate lots 225-229 from the southerly and easterly property boundaries to an interior location on the extension of the row lots 230 and 239, inside streets P, Q and R. A very crude illustration is enclosed. The apparent effect of this change would be the possible transfer of one buildable lot from this general location and the correction of the substantially inconsistent treatment of our property as compared to our Stonehaven neighbors. On July 15, 1998, I spoke with Catellus' Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu relative to the effect and concept of this change. He appeared to agree with the concept V ire"MENT NO. c-1 I?e-, 9C Ms. Amy Wolfe July 16 1998 r r r rr r t Page 2 `rt trr t r tt and the application of our proposed lot relocation and would support it wj th staff gnd the Commission, as long as staff would mutually support the idea as if it were tlieir rown:`I supp3rt his concerns that the Commissioners not conclude this to be"just another minor change approved at too high a level" as per the last few applicable minutes of the July 14 hearing. Accordingly, this would be a very good time to consider this proposal, not at an even later hearing on point when I would be requesting this same change of each hearing Commissioner or Council Person from the podium. In my opinion, this is a positive change to the existing proposal(s)and I appreciate Mr. D'Eliscu's support at this time. Based on our conversations, he certainly appears to have the concerns of Huntington Beach residents, existing and proposed, in mind. This request would have earlier been proffered but we, including our immediate neighbors, are not . ._ on any routine circulation of information. We first obtained, and therefore became aware of, Submittal C in the mid-afternoon of July 14 and could not get to the hearing in time for the public comment period. Thanks again for your consideration. I would appreciate assisting in your deliberations, should �. you feel it acceptable. Our home number is (714) 3774020. Please leave a message and I will attend any meeting, hearing, etc. the next day. Sincerely, ,�e Fred Schmidt cc: Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu, by facsimile l(,HNIENT N0, . (._ f ( ! tr (! f 1 :n r1 11 I 1 I I • Iff 224 I II 1 11 ( I ts. 7?z 37 3 •' •�J 1 F m 238 : T?� 231 na' 0 z 2 . ■ r'`1 I . 239 230 N 1� c °a Nw 2. a �- a �'w N �• --td 'i I v 4 j11 FzccJ wns tad yI i 1 .. N ( N I 7a7A � HrL •• ' \ 2 6 N i R 0 9%14 LANOSCAPE • 16• is N o--STREET— "t-0.5�'Q' ' �o�,��,�%�7, stMlu'q 1 , I iX i -V I x 2 0LD Pt 2h Uz. • 9.2• _ PROPERTY U E 1 i ;;o EXIST. 6' - 15' REf NING ALL 2.0' - EA F I PI ROPERTY NE ` I 2 5 = H P. a 'M' z i50 •Z ��• X MEADOW CIRCLE . .,MEADOWLARK I:\35106\P.REiJM Nr1NPA3\STREET-O.OWG 7-14-98 ll JUL 14 '98 f d:!;AI 71e 251 25iE PgGE.01 g�2sQc SEP- 12-5t3 SHE 1�9 :00 PM THE- FUNNY- CON 1642 P. 61 Bob Biddle 1710 Pine Street Huntington Bepch.oq 92e46 Phon*(714)242-1486 September 12, 1998 Chairman Tom Livengood Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Chairman, I am in receipt of-Mr. Erskine's letter of September 9th and I am totally amazed at Catellus's attitude and position. Although a developer certainly has the right to request changes to conditions,I have felt for a long time that this process has gone on long enough. Maybe it's time for the entire project to be put to a vote once and for all and be done with it. �— I consider the seemingly endless submittals and requests for changes by this developer C,ompictely objectionable. The Commission and the staff have told this developer what it wants and still we are bombarded with fin-ther requests to revise conditions. I have never witnessed this kind of activity in my tenure as a Commissioner. Maybe I have the process wrong,but I always understood a function of the Planning Commission was to make findings and conditions for approval. Catellus,I believe, seems to believe that the Process should be that the Commission"bargain"back and forth--much like a tourist would do in some bazaar for a souvenir. Frankly,I am offended. However, should we revisit the straw votes,then I would ask my fellow Commissioners to reconsider our vote on the park issue. if it's fine for the developer to ask for changes, then 1 want the same right, I would also like to see the Commission vote upon the"Small Lot Ordinance'before we visit the . Cateilus project. I thank you,Mr. Chairman,for bringing this to the attention of staff at the last meeting and I look forward to it's earliest return to our agenda. I wondefed if this proposed ordinance was in"legislative limbo"only to return after our city was completely built out. P. 02 _ t Thank you for your indu,gencc to my venting on this issue. Hopefully soon we will have this issue behind us and the developer,the staff and the entire Commission may return to our normal lives. Yours In Service, r Bob Biddle P?aruung Commissioner BB fi xc: John Erskine i I aj�Zv Pv September 17'', 1998 Connie Khanh Nguyen,MD Trung Minh Thai,MD 5411 Meadow Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714/377-3720 Mr. Scott Hess Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Meadowlark Project Dear Mr. Hess,- We are proud home owners and proud residents of Huntington Beach. We have chosen Huntington Beach to have our home because of its beauty,proximity to the ocean and nature with the ecological reserve. We are pleased that many others feel the same and are coming here to build their homes. We have recently bought our home on Meadow Circle, after many years of hard work and savings. We thoroughly enjoy it and value the peace and quiet and the view of blue sky from our kitchen and back yard. However, the Meadowlark Project will directly affect us. If there are houses built directly behind us, we will lose our privacy and sense of security, with other neighbors looking directly into our back yard and home. Furthermore, our property will devalue at least 40,000 dollars. We are asking that there be a street between our home and the new houses that are to be built. I understand that this will meet all city requirements and fire codes. I know that the land owner and land developer are fighting to build the maximum number of houses on the lot,but in the expense of our home and homes of the other residents in the area. Thank you for your time and considerations. Sincerely, RECEIVED SEP 2 51998 C,"UA-.1 J�yyC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i i i I i 11. Catellus Correspondence � 1 x µ'^,fa .:�,* ,,.�k f!+=`�, �.fw► A r y„ r =R yy L� E� .r R�vr •` w a ♦ _ i t I •ABC � ,u �r- — �, s ;Y+�f T 4 IM,M i.}'l S 1 M i > f�'�'{i i w� 4 3 Xkv�""'1 � �F• �i�'Sr 3'a t t �, f e o ~y7-7 O 4 *.T'j.�TMy.f+Ywk f Sw r Slide Presentation ��� Table of Contents ■ Catellus Residential Group Meadowlark Pro ect History ,.W.-The.,Meadowlark Specific Plan Planning/Design Issues ■ Overall Project Benefits ■ Conclusions ■ Matrix discussion . . © Catellus Residential ;Group Carl and Bruce Akins, CEO and President �►Started building homes in 1973 *Value and quality have been trademark of Akins family homes *Merged with Catellus in 1996 Catellus land holdings/Akins experience created the "right fit" *Formed Catellus Residential Group to continue the Akins family tradition of quality home building ...aix:,'��.G'�;pp��^cl�`8'r S9�s r .�` 3'.t.Ei''-ir"rI¢,sgst'�:i;;F VkY'+��•.'�'` O+ - '�;':^�_�t�i',utz..'"P;aF FXj� `:¢:;:"�:: ,' t t` a" 's•=ds' ���-�"�R�'� �kyt P� +is.•z ta'.^ GtrF�+i,rl'^"x""t�Atlf ' ".5 fTj'�� y- :�.;x.r-•>1L; x e-"fix„ �°f��.T1.r r ",\fn.�'YL� �t"gY�� � �eT. '•ZSxa�Y+�+���(Eyt�i�'M Yhn"` '- -•.Si:^.e.." �" t. .`.-.a�... :a" k:.:f"i,:'Cr6�' a$ . ,k»�3+ 4 a'"l����fi .,-,`z"£"si^S.'•y�r�s"`x2""y,.� '"�5� �nyk,i,s,"v4,s4 t,. •�`�bn ,�.`n**ter�. '7, � a° i ' ,Rt Twill i� 'i l't� �; ';�sel,�•f +'�e�t'�f'� 1��C�1� x�'� �y$:;«-. II+t��i e it ilk M i, OC � ,^."ytei�''FS.ji S:`4 �: t 4` :`�,:;"^'{y,•"^'xt�ix"+=y a��. ''?�; ;,y'b£ i='tS c=a;h� '.,-> ,>�,-,Ja�:1�""��c•tas..;r '�% 4�'r��^€3 '1?�at'.�y g��;�'� � �yp -• °'ci:'ai��wti��.����£,,4,��., �f'�T.yS.v LS��txen a Y& 1' 'm�` ly�tA f yL,gx;,i.- .-a�� 3 •T"_i�ii>%n Y.ka"s,:•d�nk { � ij' - 1 !.�� �5�� �Lw : Cf _ ON 1_ Li�� Kf�h. � .y �1 5} •� y 1.. .ps�,� a' K ' ,� 1 i+ ��a�}�l •*i � it cr _f Meadowlark �y der. { Proiect History Pro er location v ■ 600 unit plan and Development Agreement` Commercial/retail component ■ 345 unit concept plan ■ 325 unit plan (April 1998) ■ 318 unit plan 7 .j 51 ••1 t //' s ram._• 11Tk�. �w NI1A{��hCA'^u. �S :'� •. iz +r r� � •,.. .fir'S A_�'�'--�'� t•• `� ;'-s. t t� `3 � � - � nx f.: -. !a i rX�Sn.1vQ,��� i„L',�.a` i •iww �� R' Z � •�+^ `ti:i.r.=`3y s'./ lf'_,rL!L�tapl�VICt n:�1st•' .ay •... !• F �[+^w�� r,,•;1(r�� .�'�y';�fi�[,:i!;A., [r R��••[.?l��S:�;"'� �'�.3 �Zj�"'"�::�^+' �..'Y �aai[[�_•J 'ai"' • e1.ge`T i e.a �•.� •S{^ti ra t .:�•�3�.. •� �_:.r- -: � ...�+.. �y vt•`,.;-.T'•\`�.�t.�7� �r �1jGiikfN.� '^ Wes'` �V:� '"T�+1[-,�4,�°ay''• �_ laf...� :]L.y� •`.. I �+F.1�.[*+L•may }('.i�'4_ln� (�{[�.�Yam...= C'i{^ 'ter_ 4 jo SITE 6�O unit Specific Plan 1988 • Approved by City Council r` • 15 acre retail center 13 Single Family oil w ����_ 600 residential units ���� • Attached and single-family residential • Densities from 7-20 units per acre • Very little product design input into residential concept 1 to 1 Spe Attached , ',1 i up to E —1 1 to 240d 20 1 �- ' i 'Commercial., fc- f 1fSk�' P"Y 1 2�t i x r xi;.tf my MY ir dd3w• � 'S,("'M•449 �h+ i6�FI ...` �.r. ,5 '�' ,' �aL•si,:;;,i,,..-d. F�t'�)�/J76- :�z `� � -t P` G� .'. � Tw 17: 12 units per, =�1 �• ,:. -r; �,.�.�� ;, .....- � ::.acre h 7r y� De�eloper�t � regiment 5 � 3 g. Y • ,DA Approved Mby City Council f: Public Benefits " -� • .Airport closure }; Land dedications • Developer fee payments • Public:infrastructure facilities at no cost`to public • Plan that allows for 600 units 1.2,acre paseo"connection to Gibbs Park r �� ` commercial%Retail - �, v` • Commercial`component pier f 'development agreement: z F k T' y ';'� y ox a a. ..�.. :; � f�/+ 'fjli'`}�f/���:%/f'�%/yam/f,'/�• -.. ..' ? 3451lnit`Co`ncep Plan . Catellns becomes involved .Complete review of existing entitlements and development agreement rights vu" • Extensive product and consumer research Re-evaluation of densities Paseo connection to Gibbs park • 345 single-family,homes • . 42%,reduction in density Compact Lot Program C®ncept ■►Affords the possibility of a detached home community rather:than the 600 unit high density plan ♦The detached.community is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ■►Densities and spatial relationships far-less intense than attached alternatives. ■►Market tested, performance driven program that will be successful ■►Well conceived compact lot program creates a sense of permanence and community 345 Unit ASingle ResidentialFamily - p -77 22 o - . Further Refinements/ Staff Input ■ Addition of 2.2 acre neighborhood park a ■ Sidewalks on bath sides of street in all PA's ■ 4 distinctive residential neighborhoods ■ Up to 45 different plans ■ Variety of architectural styles ■ Net reduction in density.from 345-_ 325 single family homes ■ Harmonized together with design VIVO r Meadowlark °� �� �►�� Specific Plan ■ Planning;Areas 1 .4 ■ Proposed Product Types *Elevations �►Desigri Features 0 Site Plans 0 Photographs PLANNING AREA-1 x .. ..:.:. .... . . S.F.R. (detached) • 10 acres .�� �•" , . • 63 units • 6.3 units per acre �.- • 21% of the site ' • 9,plan variations • 2,616-2,887 sq. ft. c PLANNING AREA Architectural Elevations � - y��, t et- �L`! s„�-r• „ 9 f _ f n.*.+-;w �.Z',�•,<,Y• ^ter. ��-.ry "fit.. ,i y fi rm MORA • lrr rrea 1 -2 PLANNING AREA • S.F.R. (detached) • 53 units �✓ t • 6.2 units per acre = .' �.• • 17.5% of the site • 15 plan variations ,� y • 3 different elevations • 2,237-2,445 sq. ft. :. t .. k PLANNING AREA-2 } r Architectural Elevations t x.zY�:.t.=-->... �.'tom. :�YL: r. i'. ^,� � .t h•*•'., v v � -3 PLANNING AREA w • S.F.R. (detached) - • 13.8`acres ; 116 units • 8.5 units per acre r.• �� • 28% of the site • � "t s . • 9 plan variations ' • 3 different �T . elevations • 1,938-2,210 sq. ft t PLANNING AREA-3 � ►rchitectural Elevations �� Cs may.• + .. .�, •�_� - MEN a a sy iY P{,.•: N;" �gck as.+a• '`.;;'i ^,ki't+h'`=,"rg /� ' `i.�:.�i•�riX.Q',`�f'�t,ayt.}.r� � ., 'k^'�t„�'f.s, 'ja i'•r NO- yeti ;�i+t"�' ,� U �`�"..^'.,,`>:�z;�,•<.. f 11�+£,r � ., 3,:irxa:viy=NIX, .` `_'�',,�'si '���$�.�'�tr •,z4yr,^igEa;,::l?}m�i��s�ays'u�, '' �' � 'JET 6'n.'z' !`�hnt• � '� t ^`ar.S�'n�' w �s' fir:,+5,:, ..,x?v.. >,,�•�,r ��',� �^ � ,. 7� '.n"a7'+ R},l +,°„#`�+, .0 �'.z,, rx� r � ,£,t.. � ,';,;.�.lz.�;'1�,. � r{� `� ;�i, jl�jil!' i1�1;`•' ;•7tq;vJ,i� ;1#���i I' Cl�.s,..�,-r' ..:.'1 :I '' r i�' 4`J •,.t' +' I�'j lea r � '�r� `s�� { ► �+ 6r ;1 I I a;'r41 �l; ;,kY � � � 111 •s��^. �h � � , ,� •;� � .ems ' .. �: , !I� �'& � r ( �' awa. ,>'�§"ti -rwrati r ter «wear I 1i I I _ PLANNING AREA-4 may; • S.F.R. (detached) • 9.7 acres • 93 units ` • 9.6 units per acre • 20% of the siteVk • 12 plan variations. .,�. `` ''. p+, '{�� ,� 4 elevations - �►. ;, • 1,595-2,008 sq. ft. A.rc home y PLANNING AREA-4 n` Architectural Elevations STE ji r 1y� i di 0 to mid,$300,000 affoctlable) = a ^� r w r^ avn,.�ny-p n.1.1••. `.:�:>..`iy.;.'is}`�•`�= ';?Rz'n3:."�•.La - ..�`'i''�```�'�^�'"��3'r�Epyti*'�'_��3� �yv a;ry+•Fi.a Sij.inse � ''21'f?i'd:5 " 5��'r�:"4Y"� r Lj`�' i',c.`�yy�r�3ir'F•1( ��„} M;•v:SP: .i -� �'� I l tF 4Y�"�E�, r•Ie• mom I r', Al .s;�r..¢.'7pp F?,.�t^• :Fp;'u G ' � .' ::'.,;�..,rvi� rt�. ..a �;I. y`�{�.i�'�pfk�5°��` x� / i'2:.e;`x i Q wA„• L i 'r'. z 14{',,;,�:•':'.S` 1 y.:�.;4 a.f�{,=Siµ 5.�,' '`� I � ,`.�.'Y:- SS 'ice>rr..�,�....��y;`�1j',• J"�"t IwR,t''.i;l} !f{ >.;t. r• . fir•- � 1 �� -, sir6: • } � - ;%':ir:,, Ir�w www+M 1 I -� i 1g .. June 1998 ti Refinements to plan as a result of: *Continuing dialogue with City staff *Community input Resulting in: *Further reduction in density from 325 to 318 units *Represents an overall 47% reduction_ _ in density from 600 unit plan " ;a - -- -- Add open space ' ' ,„ s lot at Heil entrance ' � �► Add on-street �E parking at park site Increase lot . frontage in :specific.areas ® Reduce number of. lots fronting Roosevelt ; ®' Eliminate flag b lots vAayout for: �PLA►NN 1 NG ,.� a Aij Uw• rY r'a 3• F'�''e � :r'z } }PLANNING . AREA 3 Fri _ . „4w�r511ta,rs�• Sell � '=''�`�'+.,,�+„ �� .k9C4l�,��.J• .sad=� —��• '>g ItSICdG�li71• •sib' Sig; 7ttt o y h 1 SEA 4 4 + tO } T Y �+ 9 PI /Desi n issues zov Planrimg_Commission Direction:;,- . ■, Front and rearyard setbacks ■ Living space above rear garages ®:.: Garage sizes ■ Pearce Drive connection to Spine Rd. Sidewalk design M. Parkway width--PA1 and PA2 ■ Neighborhood park dedication ■ Public parking for neighborhood park ■ Spine Rd, right-of-way street/width ■ Affordable housing ■ Commercial center noise abatement r Agreement on Planning/Design Issues ! The Specific Plan req res flexibility to meet ry market and economic obi ectides ■ R 1 design standards require flexibility to avoid attached.alterriative . ■ Design elements/standards & architectural innovation are keys: .Uniformity and sameness will.not satisfy the consumer ■ The City and Catellus want a quality and successful project IS Resolution should be based on reasonable -- --- - interpretation and the ability to meet project goals and objectives P�'odutt Design Catellus Position.r r �tYard Setback j y Staff Position • Absolute 15'minimum in 3 all areas allowing no y flexibility • 15' is R-1 standard i -_`WO v s . `wf P�1'OIUC Design Catellus Position ar Yard Setback �► • Sub-committee proposed ,�... ..r... .,: . s guidelines of 14' Staff Position f e • Absolute 10' minimum in all areas allowing no flexibility • R-1 standard is v 10 s µ� P�#=1 PLAN 1 Building �t r7. . • �� vy tom.$ C';:�"'�i'>c �� ���yt�y�,�are"-t�"''1 r I r ^sly' s AS a t • 'rL �`+r��5r �sg � r. , • , �JJ��nis ..[ F< ,� •c.->„ s — — '— � 31 II ,,x pA�..ffi)FASRSL�+GECiL�NEt xr Y G� { t ;AWMI! p r c i�w1f�. �k F=,Y;t4A l' i�i�r.tw s�S�y*1j .r'�•;�,'�`#1�:..( ` ai.t.`y���Y':5� e y - s t 435v. t�r ,�7�� J�. } S `�}' � +�r r 7�'�i��� i Y/ 4�r; r'Y 'yf.f"•�`Y(1'�! L i` ;E ,.�a' r ,'� S 4PS, ������� �S: 1 Y:T�I��� 'k F a 4� aria+sts"X ,� .� r•` .f ri y, k �L e,ru .c i �atu`4rP+.fa , .y } yte AF. �a�,���tKr��.;� X , 1 7 b=st i (E75 S) (705:S°) •ram; _ 5 5 "' 2 ". ,s ,4, (527 SF) 6• S S' [u _ I �• / • Average of 1,505 sq. ft. of private open space per unit sc • Minimum 1,400 sq. ft. . �—_ kJ �. 2R 3 tO i :J+ • Average of 961 sq. ft. of private open space per home 61 • Minimum 906 sq. ft. 6 C 16 (c ............... 2 3R - Average of 686 sq. ft. of private open space per home 65 - Minimum 619 sq. ft., \46. 4 WIN N 2R 1R 3R 4R IT 44 • Average of 716 sq. ft. of private open space per home • Minimum 624 sq. ft. 70 � "�'r" �fi�A •«+ YA54.i •s�'aea «i' S +iw:. a!' l .:. r� ,Catell P ' ' r •` 5 - ace` ,. us osition ` p Staff Position Absolute,l5' �rt Zn!-� E• setback with '� r living space abov15 e `r • Living space negates otherwise y x' y _ 1 ✓!k�'i t Y t� Y - .£f t R J: �rt t Proluc`t Design w - Catellus Position --r- _ :.:Staff position y 20' x 20, minimum interior t f R F s dimension (400 R' 1 standard: y 3 ra 18' x 197 (342 Z sq.ift.) Pe1'Ce Drive Catellus Position Connection Staff`Position y • 40" wide public street; parking"-on y 3L both sides I 3 40 needed for y s emergency vehicle access Connection between two public streets s must be.public s Position .Z,I.dew. ,a C-7 a� t, s" art;, Staff'.PoMflon, • I equir,ed for stre"Turhitire-(street:', Aights,,,fl hy drants, t • Wheelchairs and d strbIlers �Goal to Achkvt 5! 7. .............. I um:in all _y Now 5' sid6walk'ith street faµ 77 gift „.GnE .5'-sdewan _� T� Parkwavx 1Nidth11 r =p c< Cate us xosition IU: yStaff:Position F *� 6 foot park �ay •� t ' fi r `'jY N` "Accommodate 'kt i t 5 parkway trees 1� 1,�* n t x • Minim ize sidewalk z maintenance from � r root damage • Newly emerging s Y standard sought . 4 � ' � `" x � � t 7 �,��► r I��L R. } y �n }f ±�,tic r•� f.i :I � NeighborhoodPosition ;t, s Park Dedication � ��'�' =Staff Position +, : • Now 3.4 acres, "P, y • Sportspractice field x ,for park site •, 20 parking spaces (deemed necessary ,for community parking) 'Subdivision e Committee Positign a a = y E < < • 21 acre ,1 •► , f h t • 20,parking spaces 21, k h � ; i i L ^a■..r `t —ta�#�.., r k Y L a.1 ' Catellus Position � e� Width r rStaff Position P � '' �' R 3 nzr j60'`r xv'and 32' 4 } ! Peoadwa Y y F ✓ ¢ x ✓Z.%���Advocated as being { Y jri conformance ,with �"w,cityllstandards lorvl, , sF collector street1 r � :. ITT l :: l 3 Y k•'•t a 'c 4 S R ~' `i�.s•�iM3+�ice'"T f..��...1:_f 3 06ia.7�Iy�N.C•4�.t `yam 1 ✓ a. 3 a K � 3 Y afel p t Staff Position • `-40% bf the units x� } l s ;designated as affordable T. I 1 ` ( Y g 'f i S ` t h � 7 4��. +$fir.y rv�Y �?'' t :.i ak ,�n�� �� -.w6•, ri ��' • 1 Catellus Pose ion Y� > ��se,Abatement i � 1 5 •s}'A'O.� a°s, � .,� (; F 1 A Staff P -Aiosition g � 3 Reserves the right to h review and require alternate mitigation 1 Y zT . measures Including possible a condrtionin of 5 y residential setbacks..: .� , � �► � sue` � �' ! F3 3�5. 5+ wY A Z rt�'���^•. w 1 , a '- t Overa"1[Project Benefits ■ Closure of airport per development , a a reement - g !. ■ Successful commercial facility hat serves "area needs ■ 'New signalization at Heil / Del Mar ■ Contribution to Graham/Heil and Bolsa Chica/Pearce Street intersection ■ Off-tract drainage mitigation of existing conditions - ■ Public facilities at no cost to the public '£ ` Overa�l Project Benefits ■ :Varie of new housin o ortunifi.es ��: g pp ■ `4 distinct residential neighborhoods .; ■ Significant.decrease in densities 0 Significant reduction in traffic generation ■ Increase in State mandated school fees of $700,000 ■ New public parks and $600,000 in fees ■ Increase in property tax assessments ■ Significantly improved project compared to approved entitlements w Conclusions Itecornmend approval _ City Council that the Meadowlark 5peclfic Plan TTM and .CUP b e adopted with conditions of approval and modifications as suggested by Catellus. fl BUILDING r t.s 1Sp-.�Pj ax a!r,• ' x a- .uldi �- •yT .. ._ ti::'• �._ _ -:�-:-yid-= z milli PRODUCT DESIGN---FRONT YARD SMACKS D1SCL5510V5LRCO.M.%lt TEE RECOMIL\DA710\: • SL:+:I is taotaa+ww m.tiasW La'Troia•W leracl i¢aatlae � _ nAfT POSITION CATELLUSPOSITIO.\ Hwuk,.qTo A.TRRv v V • Sa<4 agoaiae of eGa1aY 13 lest mlaeaaol anLud L.k..m.:ta.b_^..aar)tba WNwea d 1C k SONenota Leal yald tat►etk aheB b.10',Cmpb.da ; ani ma olesw•t era Kowa Emat►wmm" thW be PNttd apea.rtleaYlloa sad vldbd..of R•I slandafd a 11 it<t nan'was tahecl� ateN.ealfal mo.taaa end&W uefl mord*4►1 rtebotby.No mere sun tap 84AMI ham"sb&B appl4abn Natxl.r It k<I mininem toed:tie. ban BabAi epee rebacb La.ttse it'.Aafboa. AW.d—Wt W.Nod ef,m pfap-d hoe tone attk a paetlm a(te<kltamre att Oatk kse lasso L' I.mmeof enFw•t hots 10*"1'feet Remmui than banmann Wbaek of])'or«arr. no diAs ha.t all sn4cb a ex<a d L'kc� • p'Oi' peL:f�-.:agT11+M1awlsaAnl wan litre RRUARKS • Ger:.e detoa lit erkuewd.aia+r aie heat whte•ed by grr!ieaoee of bed.—1.nd aaedoam aelbadaem+a. 9+ak L,.13 Irt u end N,.4,t-eltaer enGa•ht♦U eR19•arHlKlae eW:f1 W qutsnaeMeutsa•anntu Baiaea 151frJ W Cpowr 1 bl/.w • Podcad,•ean.Jl-kd b..1 a W mv.mea and oar plxova>Y o!Pm nwla as e.vap ben eat becla eC , PAI -IA(- lA) PA) IeLn` PA Is 9fw C _ � : IM Hui� 1 DII�PaCI1"" a1I1111I1� :O�I117lISSIO 95 Jane 16;1Q98 =T fit CATELLUS June 19, 1998 Chairman Tom Livengood and Members of Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Chairman Livengood: On behalf of Catellus Residential Group I sincerely appreciate the Planning Commission's time, direction and the public input which was received at the June 16`h meeting regarding the proposed Meadowlark project. The purpose of this letter is to summarize our reflections following Tuesday's hearing-and to express our sincere interest in narrowing and simplifying remaining project issues in order that the project be moved forward. Our goal in this regard is an expeditious completion of the Planning Commission hearing and approval of the Meadowlark project on July 14. Our thoughts and observations following Tuesday's hearing are outlined below: PROCESS It is both evident and unfortunate that the Commission found a good deal of the issues discussed at Tuesday's meeting to be confusing. Our intention and belief was that the goldenrod matrix which Catellus prepared and provided would have alleviated much of this confusion. I regret that this material could not be provided sufficiently in advance to serve as the basis for the Commission's discussion of primary project issues. Secondly, the public meeting structure perhaps contributed to confusion on some points by virtue of the limited ability for applicant input(unless called upon) during discussion of various issues and the straw vote process. Our conclusion and commitment as regards process for the July 14 hearing is that we must redouble our efforts to coordinate and communicate with Staff with the objective of alleviating confusion and allowing the Commission to focus on succinct and well defined issues. ATTAR ►I t ' C ATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP � 5 P-k;: PLAZA. SLATE 400, IRVINE,CAL1Fv)r,`1A 92614 (949) 251-61CO FAX (949) 251-8637 -7 1 Y P U Chairman Livengood and Members of Planning Commission June 19, 1998 Page 2 ACTION ITEMS Between now and the next hearing, we see action items as follows: • Assuming concurrence and participation by Staff, we will publish anoint summary or matrix which summarizes issues which are open or of continuing concern. • We propose a series of briefings with each commissioner(or two commissioners), which would also include one or more key representatives from City Staff(including either Melanie Fallon, and/or Howard Zelefsky). • We will assist and expedite in all respects Staff s review of the TTM map modifications which we submitted Tuesday night. We believe a number of the concerns expressed in the course of public testimony are addressed and mitigated by these revisions. • Obtain Subdivision Committee review and approval of TTM modifications made to PA-3 and PA-4 street layouts. In this regard, we would appreciate any assistance which the Commission can provide in encouraging prompt review by Staff and calendaring by the Subdivision Committee. Ample time should exist to complete this prior to July 14`h. PROJECT ISSLES/DIRECTION Our preliminary thoughts and reflections on direction provided by the Commission and straw vote indications are summarized as follows: POLICY ISSUES - We characterize issues related to the public park and affordable housing as over-arching policy issues. We hear the Commission's clear desire to focus on the smaller 2.2-acre public park with higher negotiated fees -- and we will commit to sincerely address this issue with Staff. In this regard, we believe there is great value in expediting the rendition of the City attorney's opinion on the park-related questions set forth in our letter of June 16`t'. We would sincerely appreciate the Commission's encouraging the City attorney to undertake this task immediately and make it a top priority. On the issue of affordable housing we acknowledge the Commission's position and support for furtherance of the City's affordable housing objectives. �7 PC, Chairman Livenzood and Members of Planning Commission June 19, 1998 Page 3 Here, however, we believe some further dialogue is worthwhile, in order to assure that the commission has (1) a clear understanding of prospective affordability of the actual homes proposed for Meadowlark, and(2) the opportunity to compare affordability thresholds proposed by Staff for Meadowlark to those which have been imposed elsewhere in the City. CORE COMMUNITY DESIGN ISSUES -The straw vote process provided helpful direction. We appreciate the Commission's expressed right and willingness to revisit or reconsider some or all of these issues. Specifically, this may afford the opportunity for the "negotiation" which the Commission has encouraged on the park fee issue. Our hope would be to reach accord with Staff on community design issues with a goal of presenting joint recommendations at the July 14`h hearing on most or all of the issues which were the subject of straw votes. Our desire to revisit or reconsider some of the straw votes taken is not based solely upon adamance. Rather, it flows from our strong conviction and the vision we hold for a high quality creatively designed small lot community. Optimizing the potential for this community requires integrated planning and design, with many interrelationships. Adherence to our vision and our commitment to make the community all it can be necessitate our continued advocacy of issues which might otherwise seem somewhat minor. As the Commission has likely become aware, we are very passionate about establishing standards which will allow the community to achieve its maximum potential. We recognize these matters will ultimately be determined as the Commission sees fit, but we believe we owe the City our most sincere viewpoints and the benefits of the experience and expertise we have gained elsewhere and the steadfast advocacy of our strong convictions in this regard. COMMUNITY PLANNING/TRAFFIC ISSUES -The public request and Commission direction that Staff review the project traffic study is acknowledged. The prior traffic study was based upon both a 600-unit Meadowlark project and higher area traffic assumptions related to ±4000 Bolsa Chica homes. Thus, we believe it more than sufficiently addresses traffic impacts for the currently proposed project even given public concerns regarding±700 proposed new homes nearby. CONCLUSION Catellus would again like to express thanks to each member of your Commission for their time, their interest and their commitment to the service of their fellow citizens of Huntington Beach. We continue to believe that a collaborative effort can result in a Community which makes a real statement and enhances this entire section of the City. By optimizing the design potential for the Meadowlark project, we can establish a community of character and quality which will evidence progressive planning and be a continuing source of pride. A-�p�ChLv��NT NO. -� I I Lf PC_ Chairman Livengood and Members of Planning Commission June 19, 1998 Page 4 We look forward to meeting with each Commissioner over the next four weeks and reiterate our desire to simplify and narrow project issues in order to facilitate an expeditious completion of the Planning Commission's project review and approval. Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP Bruce T. Lehman Executive Vice President BTLAmf LAW OFFK:es NOSSAMAN,GUTKNER,KNOX& ELLIOTT,LLP LAKESMORE TOWERS SUITE I&M 15101 VON KARMAN AVENUE IRVINE.CALIFORNIA SM12-1047 TELEPHONE I711r 633-7= FACSULE (714)=7978 FAX COVER PAGE Date: 9/9/98 Time: 5 pm File No.: To: Scott Hess and Amy Wolfe Fax: 714-374-1540 Fax: Fax Fax Fax: From: John P. Erskine Message: IF YOU DO NOT RF.CEIVE 4 PAGES,INCLUDING THIS CO PER PAGE, PLEASE CALL Roxanne Templeton AT (714) 833-7800 NOTE: The information contained in this facsimile document is confidential and may also be Attorney-Client privileged.The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.If you are not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any use,dissemination,distribution or copying of this cornmunication is strictly prohibited.If you have received the facsimile in error,please immediately notify us by telephone,and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S.Postal Service.Thank You. O0973090001 TO'd 0tlslt74£ 0i 301dd0 '0'0 - 387110'14 WW=l VOLT 866T-60-d3S LAW OFFICBS NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP wALTiR L.N0I4AMAN SUITS /100 JOHN T.ICNOJI (t!!l-11l1) 11101 VON NARMAN AVENUE WARRQN C.CLLIOTT P.O.BOX 11772 OF COYNQQI IRVINE•CALIFORNIA $2623-9772 �AM/RANCIiCO T1LC/HONE (/!/)C33'7/00 WAQNINCTON,O.C. TNIRTT-FOURTH FLOOR SUITQ 370.1 Si CA►154AN1A STACCT FACS1MILC 11401 133-7171 i01 IS?"1TRECT N.W. /AN FRANCIQCO.CA 14111•l711 WAQNINCTON.O.C.2000S (416)Ss1.3100 (202)783-7272 LOS ANCELES OACRAMENTO THIRTY-FIAST FLOOR L,� M QYITE leas !AS SOYTN FICUEROA STREET September 9, 1998 elf L OTREET LOS ANCCLCi.CA 10071•t002 iACRAMCNTO.CA SS1/4-3701 (2131 812.7100 Ina)!42.144/ REFER TO FILE NYMQQR 140258.001 VIA FACSEMH.E Mr. Scott Hess Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Final Requested Revisions of(81_8/98)Legislative Draft of Meadowlark Specific Plan(Received by Catellus on 9/4/98) Dear Scott: CateIlus Residential Group has asked that I follow up on our prior comment letter of August 10, 1998 on the July 22, 1998 Legislative Draft of the Specific Plan. As you know,staff has made several revisions in the latest draft(8/28198)which Amy Wolfe provided to us on Friday,September 4, 1998. Catellus appreciates staffs efforts to close the gap between staffs interpretation of the Planning Commission's June 16, 1998 straw vote on the matrix items,and our own. We do feel,however,that the Commission was very specific in many of their votes and did not want ambiguity drafted.iato any of the Meadowlark land use documents. As we stated in our meeting yesterday afternoon,the Meadowlark Specific Plan should be as definitive with respect to park acreage,affordable housing and other key items as the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is. Language in the General Plan is irrelevant unless an inconsistency is created,and as the City Attorney has previously opined,the straw votes did not create such a"consistency"problem with respect to land use or other policy-level statements in the General Plan. Catellus,therefore,respectfully submits the following requested revisions to the August 28, 1998 Legislative Draft Specific Plan: 009C520014 ZO'd ODS1174Z Ol 30I-iX '0'0 - 3.8>1'9'N WMU t70:4T e66T-60-d3S NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mr.Scott Hess September 9, 1998 Page 2 • Page 8,Section 3.4 Open Space/Recreation. "Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with parkland dedication requirements by provision of a 2.2 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark community. The proposed public neighborhood park shall be fully improved with large turf areas to accommodate informal active recreation activities,trees and other appropriate landscaping. A .80 acre area of the contiguous Gibbs Park shall also be improved in a similar manner. Other Open Space and Recreational areas for the Meadowlark project shall be provided by a private mini-park and private yard areas. The public neighborhood park shall provide for storm water detcntion." • Page 10, Section 3.5 Landscape Concept. Parks: "The proposed public neighborhood park shall be fully improved with large turf areas to accommodate informal active recreation activities,trees and other appropriate landscaping. A .80 acre area of the contiguous Gibbs Park shall also be improved in a similar manner." • Page 18, 19,Section 4.4 General_Provisions Paragraph G. Garage Use/Design. Modify final revised sentence as follows: The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required(400 sq. ft.)shall be provided in the form of storage areas in overhead,recessed or other storage configurations that do not impede automobile storage in spaces provided within garage: £O'd OK117L£ Oi 30I3d0 -0.0 - 38N'0'N WMJ SO:Lt 866t-60-d3S 170'd _1U101 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mr. Scott Hess September 9, 1998 Page 3 • Pace 21,26, 31, 36 Planning Area 14. Delete all reference to Day Care or Day.Care,Ltd. • Catellus feels the Planning commission would not want to encourage commercial day care applications for single family homes in a small-lot subdivision. • Page 21-36-PlanningArea rea 1•and Planning Area 4. Provide for tandem parking to satisfy code-required parking in rear garage plan. • Page 38 -Planning Area 4. Modify second sentence to provide for two hundred twenty-five(225)sq. ft.rather than three hundred(300)sq.. Thank you for your consideration of these proposed Specific Plan revisions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jo P. Erskine f NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT,LLP 1pF� cc: Planning Commission Amy Wolfe Howard Zelefsky D0'd OdSLDL£ Ol 30Idd0 '0'0 - 31M'DIN W021d so:a e66r-60-d3S CATELLUS November 23, 1998 RECEIVED Chairman Tom Livengood and Members NOV 2 41998 of Planning Commission DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach; CA 92648 Dear Commissioners: Catellus has reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report and related Attachments for the November 24 Meadowlark Planning Commission hearing.- As you are by.now aware,the report and accompanying exhibits are voluminous. Since the sheer volume and format of the report make it difficult to sort through, prioritize and distill the essence and status of key issues, Catellus and its representatives offer this letter in hopes of providing some clarity in the review of topics and events that have resulted in the Staff Report on the Meadowlark Subdivision before you on November 24, 1998. I. BACKGROUND/RECAP • Catellus contracts for purchase of property from Nerios in August 1996. • Purchase price based upon development rights/density conferred by 1989 Development Agreement. • Catellus indicated to Staff in October 1996 willingness to pursue detached development of approximately 345 homes versus previously approved high-density plan of 600 units if comparable economics could be sustained. • Catellus retains four prominent architectural firms to design 14 unique home plans for Meadowlark. Three of four product lines have not previously been built by Catellus. • Staff encouraged lower density approach and committed to"expedited processing." Bow3 00983240020 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 5 PARK P►.nzA,SutrE 400,IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 251-6100 FAX(949) 251-8837 ��/y Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 2 • City Attorney indicates in late 1997 that Catellus'reduced density plan can be processed via a CUP(without a Specific Plan amendment)under existing Specific Plan. • To accommodate Staff preference, Catellus agrees to process Specific Plan amendment with assurances that scope will be limited to establishing design guidelines which will accommodate proposed subdivision. • Catellus invests over two years extensive joint planning of the detached residential plan with Community Development Staff,while paving for expeditious planning that was identified as a City obligation in the 1989 Development Agreement. • Periodically, Catellus confirms Staff support for proposed homes/product type, indicating willingness to substitute alternative product, if preferred. Staff indicates continued support for Catellus'product design as proposed. • Three Subdivision Committee hearings,two Planning Commission Study Sessions and four Planning Commission hearings on Meadowlark occur in 1998. • Commission directs "negotiated" settlement of park fees and affordable housing issues. Catellus agrees to$1.7 million(additional park fees$1.1 million; affordable housing$.6 million) in negotiated fees in return for 319 home plan presently proposed. (See Attachment 1.) • Straw vote on joint Catellus/Staff matrix whereby Commission establishes parameters for development standards and public facility requirements in Specific Plan occurs on July 14, 1998. • Staff prepares Specific Plan Amendment which is approved by the Planning Commission on September 22°d. • Continued compromises requested by Staff in September/October 1998 fuither reduce proposed density from 319 to 313 homes. • As directed by Commission, Catellus attends numerous meetings with Staff and makes numerous final design adjustments to conform to amended Specific Plan. • Tentative Map(subdivision layout) and CUP (product design) currently before Commission. Staff recommends denial. 00983240020 r Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 3 H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF TTM AND CUP Staff s rationale for its recommendation for denial of the TTM and CUP is founded on two premises: (1) Asserted inconsistencies between the TTIvVCUP and the Planning Commission-approved Specific Plan; (2) Staff contention that the Planning Commission's straw vote process and consideration of project design issues resulted in approval of a Specific Plan amendment which does not reflect good planning—and is, in fact, contrary to the policies and objectives of the General Plan. In short, Staff would not support TTM and CUP approval even if assured both were in complete conformance with the Specific Plan amendment approved on September 22. III.CATELLUS' POSITION - - (1) Meadowlark Subdivision(TTM/CUP) Conforms to Specific Plan. In preparing the TTM and CUP, Catellus' intention was to conform to the Planning Commission-approved Specific Plan in all respects, with the exception of the garage dimension issue which is explained in more detail later. Any inconsistencies between the TTM/CUP and the Planning Commission-approved Specific Plan can be adjusted or conformed in final engineering or working drawings as is done on most other projects. A point-by-point recap of issues identified by Staff as inconsistencies and proposed resolution is set forth in Section IV of this letter. (2) Staff Assertion that Interior Street Width is Inadequate is Unfounded. After-the-Fact Position. Catellus finds Staffs recommendation of denial-even in the case of outright conformance to the Planning Commission-approved Specific Plan-to be quite troubling. Rationale for Staffs opposition is based upon a series of subjective conclusions which culminate in a sweeping statement that the Specific Plan is"inconsistent with the goals and objectives . . . of the General Plan". This position is based upon an unsupported premise that interior street width is somehow inadequate--- an issue never asserted by Staff during two years of 00983240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 4 t joint planning and not made known to Catellus until delivery of the Staff Report last Wednesday. Prior to approval of the Specific Plan on September 22, all community design issues to which Staff now takes exception received more than two years extensive consideration, followed by public debate over the course of three Subdivision Committee meetings,two Study Sessions, and four Planning Commission hearings. Staff has never asserted that failure to adopt its preferred street dimensions would result in safety concerns or lack of conformance with General Plan. The issue of 32 ft. interior street widths, which Staff had indicated early in the subdivision design process it did not oppose,is fundamental to the viability of the detached home plan for Meadowlark. This last minute reversal is procedurally inappropriate, particularly in view of the Commission's careful and extensive consideration of street width issues and 6-1 vote in support of the project's proposed street/parkway configurations. The last minute timing additionally suggests that asserted health and safety concerns relative to proposed street widths are not credible. Any legitimate concerns about issues of such significance as public safety response would have surfaced long ago. (3) Attack on Fundamental Components of Specific Plan Violate Commissioner's Direction to Applicant and Staff to Refrain from Reconsidering Specific Plan Amendment. We do not believe Staff s recommendation for denial properly respects the purview of the Planning Commission or the integrity of the thorough and exhaustive deliberation process which preceded adoption of the Specific Plan amendment. As a point of order, Staff should be precluded from raising or discussing Specific Plan issues in connection with the TTM and CUP applications. Characterizing street width or tandem parking as CUP issues is inaccurate. These issues were considered and fundamentally resolved in the Specific Plan amendment. The Commission and the Deputy City Attorney have given clear direction that consideration of such issues has been closed by approval of the Specific Plan amendment. If Staff chooses to raise this or other similar issues,the remaining forum is at City Council. 00983240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 5 The position that approval of the TTM and CUP would be inconsistent with objectives of the General Plan conflicts with Staff s own prior reports. For example, in its report for the July 14 Planning Commission hearing, Staff recommended approval of the TTM which included the specific street widths to which Staff now objects. (See Attachment 2.) The Fire Marshall also indicated publicly at the July 14 hearing that he was satisfied with the safety aspects of interior street design. With the only revision to the subdivision considered in the specific Plan Amendment being a reduction from 319 to 313 homes, no objective basis can be found for Staff's reversal on this threshold point other than unsubstantiated concerns regarding tandem parking on rear garage plans. (4) Thirty-Two 32')Foot Street Dimensions Exist Throughout the City; Tandem Parking Does not Impact Streets. The street dimensions at issue are not novel. 32 ft. streets with single-sided parking exist throughout the City. In fact, an illustration of this section/dimension is found in the City's own guidebook for street standards. The tandem parking provided for on rear garage plans in two planning areas does not impact the surplus of parking spaces that already exists in the overall Meadowlark Plan. This fact is substantiated by independent traffic consultant, WPA(Attachment 3.) Staff argues that narrow driveway approaches on homes with rear garages and tandem parking will motivate increased use of on-street parking by residents. • No factual basis for this conclusion is offered in the Staff Report or available elsewhere. Factual evidence to the contrary has been provided in the November WPA traffic/parking study. (See Attachment 3.) • In the opinion of independent traffic engineer;WPA,this longer driveway design provides net benefits as regards encouragement of off-street parking in peak situations. 00983240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 6 • WPA's report also indicates that enforcement of any potential parking violations is typically high priority HOA-enforcement item. • In reality, homes with rear garages and long driveways provide more not less spaces for offstreet parking. • Penalizing rear garage designs by subjectively asserting parking inadequacies on rear garage plans directly conflicts with stated General Plan and Specific Plan objectives of encouraging product design with rear garages and minimizing paving of front yards/driveways. • Recent study findings reveal that narrower residential streets consistently demonstrate superior safety performance. (See Attachment 4.). • Staff s position on parking inadequacy is unprecedented. Rear garage homes have become more common in the past two years including elsewhere in Huntington Beach. Catellus is aware of no other instance or any jurisdiction where the reasoning Staff seeks to apply in assertion of its parking inadequacy argument has been imposed. • The detached home community was proposed as an alternative to multi-family attached housing permitted under the Development Agreement. Per unit parking requirements for multi-family units are 3.0 spaces per unit(2.5 spaces plus .5 spaces for guest parking). Parking requirements proposed for Meadowlark are 4.5 spaces per unit. The proposed plan provides parking which exceeds even this 4.5 spaces/unit, large sfd code requirement. Even if tandem parking now portrayed to be of concern were not counted, remaining parking spaces still exceed that which would be required in the event a multi-family product were substituted. (5) Other Staff Objections to Approved Specific Plan. Pages 25 through 31 of the Staff Report enumerate a litany of additional issues where Staff takes exception to provisions of the Commission-approved Specific Plan amendment. 00993240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 7 Issues listed in this section of the Staff Report constitute a resummary of each matrix/straw vote item where Commission findings did not support Staff recommendations. Catellus does not consider it necessary to address or respond to these points individually since these issues were each debated via the straw vote undertaking and were settled by the Commission's approval of the Specific Plan. IV. REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE OF TTM/CUP,SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMITY ISSUES(PART VIII.ANALYSIS,SECTION A PG. 15 THROUGH 24 OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT). 1. Land Use Compatibility The project is compatible with infill requirements. Potential building height issue has been addressed by Catellus in its letter of November 19, 1998 to the Commission Chairman. (See Attachment 5.) 2. Tract Layout Staff indicates the density of the 313 unit project is "well within the densities and maximum number of units (345 units) set forth in the September 22 Planning Commission-approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3. Open mace The project is in compliance with common and private open space requirements of the Commission-approved Specific Plan. 4. Hydrology Public Works has reviewed at least three (3) separate hydrology studies on the proposed project and now deems drainage to be acceptable. However, it is important to note that hydrology studies are typically not required to be undertaken until after tentative map approval. 5. Affordable Housiniz Notwithstanding revisions of the Development Agreement, Catellus has conditionally agreed-On July 16, 1998 to comply with Staff-requested affordable housing requirements (estimated fees of$600,000)as a component of the trade-off for support of the Meadowlark subdivision concept. 00983240020 i Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 8 6. Residential Development Standards/Design Provisions Catellus has provided a separate letter(November 19, 1998, Attachment 5) which addresses Development Standards and Design Provisions point by point. The discussion below elaborates on these development standards issues for Planning Commissioner's information. Planning Area I a. Parking Requirements The Staff Report inaccurately characterizes the living room(parlor)in Plan 2 as a fifth bedroom. If required by the Commission, Catellus will increase the opening into living room(parlor) so that staff will not count it as a bedroom. Plan 3 contains a master bedroom retreat (which is only accessible through the master bath) and this space has also been inaccurately characterized as a fifth bedroom. Accordingly, concerns related to parking adequacy for five bedroom homes are unfounded. Editorial Comment: Catellus can concede and comply with Staffs position on these issues, but wishes to point out to the Commission that doing so will compromise the quality and livability of proposed homes for the sole benefit of compliance with rigid guidelines which ignore actual uses and living function(i.e., large master bedroom retreats are commonplace in quality new homes throughout Southern California and are never counted as bedroom for parking counts). b. Building Height Catellus will comply with building height limits as previously indicated. Planniniz Area 2 a. Front Yard Setbacks Catellus retained four separate leading architectural firms to design the 14 floor plans that will comprise the four separate planning areas (Bassenian Lagoni, McLarand Vasquez, ZBZ Dorius and Lim Chang Associates). Catellus strongly disagrees that the elevations of PA2 homes designed by Lim Chang Associates are not of a"high quality innovative 00983240020 F�- Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 9 design." LCA is an award-winning Pasadena-based architectural firm and is providing striking elevations for traditional homebuyers. If the Commission agrees with Catellus relative to the architectural elevations for PA2, then there is no front yard setback issue. b. Exterior Side Yard Setback Catellus will comply relative to Lot 39. c. Parking Requirements Catellus will comply as required for PA2. Planning Area 3 a. Rear Yard Setback Architectural plans have been designed to provide variations iri rear building elevation. If requested by the Planning Commission, Catellus will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs;result will be diminished elevational variation. (Editorial Comment: Catellus can redesign homes with Staff request for elimination of pop-outs/overhang,but again wishes to express that such compromise will diminish livability and architectural variation.) b. Garage Use Design The issue of garage design(specifically 400 sq. ft.vs.Absolute 20'x 20' dimensions)is critical to the viability of Catellus'proposed detached home plan. Language in the new Specific Plan is problematic and must be adjusted in order for the Catellus plan to be built. Catellus respects procedural direction received from the Commission on this point, and intends to raise this issue and seek necessary adjustments upon City Council review of the Specific Plan. Thus, Catellus merely seeks language that Garage Design will comply with the Specific Plan as approved by the City Council. At that level, we are hopeful of obtaining relief necessary based upon: i) Demonstration that Staff s wording of the Specific Plan on this point did not follow the Commission's prior straw vote, as was directed. C0983240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 10 ii) Conversations with individual Commissioners indicating acknowledgment of this discrepancy and support for conditions conducive to homes and the site plan long proposed(and implicitly garages). iii) The fact that Catellus' compromise on "negotiated" park fees and affordable housing fees was specifically predicated upon support for overall community design and homes proposed. c. On-Street Parking As discussed in Catellus'letter of November 19,this Staff direction is not consistent with the Commission-approved Specific Plan. Planninz Area 4 a. Front Yard Setback Architectural plans have been designed to provide architectural character and variations in building elevations. If requested by the Planning Commission, Catellus will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs. (See Editorial Comment for PA3 Rear Yard Setback.) b. Side Yard Setback Catellus will comply. c. Garage Use/Design See PA3, item(b) above. d. Subdivision Design Catellus will comply. (pg. 24) Public Park Catellus will comply with 2.4 requirement in final engineering. (pg. 24) Fence/Walls Catellus will comply with masonry requirements previously agreed to. 00983240020 �1�2� Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 11 SUM1ViARY: Catellus has worked diligently for almost two years with the goal of developing Meadowlark as a single family home community. The planning process the project has undergone is unprecedented for an entitlement effort that emanated from an already-approved Specific Plan and Development Agreement authorizing 600 attached and detached units. Unfortunately,the entitlement process itself seems to have taken on a character and life of its own. This character has adversarial aspects which are exemplified in this chronology and are not productive or conducive to establishing necessary consensus for approval of the alternative plan which has evolved over two years. If any hope exists for success of a single family detached plan for Meadowlark,the adversarial atmosphere must be quickly eliminated. Catellus has shown its willingness to be a good neighbor,to make multi-million dollar public facility concessions and to listen,and.respond to---.--------- community concerns. The plan now stands at 313 vs. 345 homes initially proposed. To a great degree, concessions by Catellus have been made possible by improved market conditions. As a result of these many compromises,there is now significant community support for the Commission's September 22 project approval. Unfortunately, City Staff has now provided a recommendation against the same residential concept it has supported and fine-tuned for the last six months. This is very disappointing to Catellus in light of the overwhelming benefits provided by the proposed 313 unit plan as contrasted with previously existing vested entitlements. Catellus exhausted nearly all ability for economic compromise in agreeing to the additional $1.7 million of"negotiated" park fees and affordable housing fees directed by the Commission. Catellus understood the quid pro quo in return was support for its proposed 319 home subdivision(which now stands at 313 homes). Catellus has shown willingness to compromise further on minor design and conformity issues which will expedite project approval. However, Staff s recommendation for denial and latest proposals for significant revisions to the subdivision(such as street widths,reduced number of homes, additional park acreage and fees)which have substantial economic impacts cannot be accommodated and are likely to be fatal to the plan unless they can be set aside or mitigated without significant additional cost to Catellus. 00983240020 Huntington Beach Planning Commission November 23, 1998 Page 12 We trust that the Commission will study the numerous project refinements that Catellus has made since the July 14 and September 22 hearings, both in response to Commission and Staff direction, and Community input, and find Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use permit No. 97-80 in conformance with the Commission-adopted Meadowlark Specific Plan. We thank the Commission for its continued diligence and patience throughout this process. Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP Bruce T. Lehman Executive Vice President W983240020 r ��/2��� MEADOWLARK ICLY ISSSU E SUL ARY—STRAW VOTE ACT1UNb- - C (FOR 7/14/93 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING) v A TZ C D . l; CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COh1NIISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/08) SUBMITTAL (718/98) (7/14/93) 1 1. Affordable 10%of total project(32 units)@ Concur w/staff. • Concur with staff. No Change. No action. All parties concur. Housing 100%of median income. If rental, $600,000 estimated to be spent. then 50-80%of median income. 11. Park 3.4 acres plus negotiated fees Q 2.2 acre dedication,.80 Gibbs •Concur with P.C.straw 3.4 acres plus negotiated 2.2 acre dedication,.80 Gibbs park Dedication $500,000 acre. park improvements,plus vote but seek Council fees at Fair Market Value improvements,plus negotiated fees pegotiated fees(higher than policy direction on use of of land as determined by fees(®500,000 per acre). current City park fees), fee: (Dedication is 2.4 acres qualified real estate w/Map"C"). appraiser. Vote: 7-0 111-A Sidewalk 6'width(44'R of W). Concur w/staff. 5'width with flareouts No Change. 5'width with flarcouts around Design around street furniture. street furniture. rA3 and PA4 (42'R of w). (42'R of W). I Vote: 7-0 • 1 • Catellus has indicated willingness to pay Commission-requested fee of$500,000/acre rather than the current fee schedule Q$182,000/acre and acquiesce in the staff recommended affordable housing requirement in the context of an overall compromise which results in approval of the 319 unit revised map.Tradeoffs indicated as necessary to achieve this result include City support for CRG's requested street sections,setbacks,sidewalk/parkway widths,and garage sizes,which CRG believes will enhance the aesthetics and/or livability of the homes. ••Staff and applicant aic in agreement relative to 100'buffer height,child care/n7ceting facility and commercial noise attenuation.1 07/16/93 - OG9 d 110016 07/14/91 1 ATTACHMENT I N r, - MEADOWLARIC KEY ISSUE SUM 44ARY-STRAW VOTE ACTIUNb - (FOR 7114/98 PLANNING •. JMMISSION HEARING) � A B C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/R.EVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6116198) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) III-B Parkway 6'parkway width/4'sidewalk Concur w/staff. Minimum parkway width of No Change. Minimum parkway width of 5'. width (52'R of W). 5'. (50'R of W). (50'R of W). Street trees shall be PA and PA2 subject to review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. Vote: 7-0 III-C Pearce Drive 60'right-of-way including 4V public Support Catellus alternative of Straw vote(52'right-of- No Change. Pearce Street extension shall be Conne@tton to street(6'parkway/4'sidewalk). 52'right-of--way with way)acceptable;however designed to "Public" street Spine Road elimination of parkways in this prefer 32'street width(with standards to the first"T" (vlq Streets I segment,but 6'sidewalk. parking on one side)which intersection(40 ft.curb to curb) and K) would allow for inclusion of with the remaining portion parkways(50'R of W—same designed to"Private"street as remainder of PAQ. standards(32 ft curb to curb,5 ft. parkways and 4 ft.sidewalks, parking on one side) Vote: 6-1 oz ATTACHMENT NO. - lYMADUWLAKK. I�.LY IJJUL': JU1: %KX —J1'XA.W VUIL' AkI IitJ00 J (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING :- .iMMISSION HEARING) -�- A II C D E CRC STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION POSITIONAIEVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (M/98) (7/14/98) IV Garage Size 20'x 20'interior dimension. Concur w/staff. (Small lot All PA 1 and 2 garages CRG must provide overall PAI and PA2 comply with min. Subcommittee exceed 20'x 20'(400 sq.ft.) storage area to 20X20;PA3 and PA4 must recommendation). difference between what is provide overall storage area a to 10 of 13 plans exceed R-1 provided in garages less difference between what is minimum by 36 sq.ft.(378 than 20'x 20'and that provided in garages less than 20'x sq.ft.or more). provided by 20'x 20' 20'and that provided by 20'x 20' garages(up to additional garages(in a comparable size); Garages in PA3 and PA4 464 cu.ft). min.interior dimension shall be 18 with less thar1400 sq.ft.to ft.wide by 19 ft.deep. include storage cabinets(per exhibits)as standard feature. Vote:7-0 V. Fence Design. Provide masonry walls between all Concur w/staff. Concur with straw vote. No Change. All parties concur. Community units. Development Department staff shall coordinate effort between developer/adjacent residents to address common fence design i issues along the easterly 100 ft. buffer area. Vote: 7-0 0% (AGHMENT NO. r MEADOWI,Akk-kh—Y ISSUE SUMT14 ARY —STRAW VOTE Ac;TWINS - ., (FOR 7/14/98 PLANNING �- jMMISSION I-TEARING) A B C D E CRC STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6116198) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7/14/98) VI. Public Parking 20 public parking spaces required to Deferred subject to further Propose 12 public parking No Change. Provide 16 parking spaces for for serve 2.2 acro park. discussion re park use. spaces along Spine Road public park use. Neighborhood adjacent to public park- Park consistent w/worst case Vote: 6-1 recommendation by independent traffic consultant. VII Commercial Resolved. Resolved.. Resolved. Resolved. Address noise attenuation issue Center Noise between the commercial center and PA4.Provide noise attenuation barrier with a maximum height of 8 ft.for the majority of the parcels abutting commercial uses;limited portiQns of the wall may be up to 12 ft.in height; enclose truck loading dock I areas;This Specific Plan requirement for 8 ft.noise attenuation wall may result in additional residential building setbacks and/or revisions to the tract map,based on the noise study. Vote:6-0-1 (Absent) i i I I °(� ATTi1%..*HMENT �'� - MEADOWLARK KEY ISSUE SU.' 'ARY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (rOR 7/14/98 PLANNING` JMMISSION HEARING) A D C D E CRG STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (718/98) (7/14/98) Vlll-A Habitable 10'minimum for habitable area Concur w/staff. Proposes Y minimum No Change. 5 ft.setback for habitable space Space above above garage; 5'for garage setback. setback with conditions to above garages for a maximum of Rear Garages No relief for rear-set garages assure privacy and 25%of dwellings within each w/habitable space. minimum building to planning;min. 15 it.between building setbacks. habitable area on adjacent lot to the rear; CC&R's to restrict Plotting of floorplans w/5' window changes and room rear setbacks occurs in 61 of expansions in PA1,3,and 4. • proposed 319 units(19%); CRG will provide at least 18'between back-to-back structures. Vote:7-0 VIII-B Rear Yard 10'minimum because open space Garages can be 0 ft.; 10'minimum. No Change. Garages can be 0 ft.; Setbacks will be 15'x Won each lot. 15'minimum for dwellings; 15'minimum for dwellings;50% 50%of wall can be 13'. of wall can be 13'. Vote: 7-0 i ','I �r1�HfU1ENT nin. ... - - MEADOWLARK ICY ISSUE SUP"`NARY-STRAW VOTE ACTIONS - (FOR 7/14/93 PLANNING -OMMISSION HEARING) � u � A B C D E CRC STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION- POSITION/REVISED RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE/COMMENTS ISSUE STAFF REPORT(6/16/98) STRAW VOTE(6/16/98) SUBMITTAL (7/8/98) (7114198) VI II-C Front Yard 1 S'minimum setback; 12'average Concur w/staff. 10'minimum,with No Change. 1 S'minimum setback; 12'average Setbacks w/min. 10'setback where 6' conditions to assure w/min. 10'setback where S' parkways arc provided,subject to maximum variation and parkways are provided,subject to CUP. maximum vtl eraee setbacks. CUP. SS of proposed 319 units require some relief from minimum setbacks proposed Vote: 7-0 by staff. Minor latitude is requested for-addt'I IS units to accommodate any unforeseen site issues or mix changes. i I N M i .,�:�-iiV1EN 1' N��. NA -- �� un"�ington- each[` epa went of Gominuniy-Developmenit TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner DATE: July 14, 1998 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 s (Meadowlark Subdivision—318 Small Lot, Single Family Residential Units ) LOCATION: Six hundred (600) ft. north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June 16, 1998, staff presented to the Planning Commission a proposal for a zoning text and map amendment to the Meadowlark Specific Plan(Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1) in conjunction with a request by Catellus Residential Group for-the subdivision and development of 48.4 acres of vacant land within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area with 325 single family dwellings on small-lots (Tentative Tract Map 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 —dated April 1, 1998). The Planning Commission took straw votes on"key issues"related to the Specific Plan amendments and continued the item to the July 14, 1998 meeting. During the June 16, 1998 meeting the applicant presented a revised Tentative Tract Map (dated June 16, 1998)to the Planning Commission and staff. The Planning Commission directed staff to review and present the map to the Subdivision Committee and prepare findings and conditions based upon the straw vote actions taken on the Meadowlark Specific Plan. On June 24, 1998 the applicant submitted a further revised tentative tract map to staff(Attachment No. 1). Staff reviewed the revised map and generated draft conditions of approval/recommendations for project revisions (Attachment No. 2). The tentative tract map dated June 24, 1998, and staff s recommendations were presented to the Subdivision Committee on July 8, 1998. At the meeting the applicant presented additional revisions to the June 24, 1998 tentative tract map (Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 dated July 8, 1998) which depicted 318 residential units. The Subdivision Committee voted to forward Tentative Tract Map No. 15469,- dated July 8, 1998 and the original April 1, 1998 map, to the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting for discussion purposes on key issues relative to these maps. Copies of the July 8, 1998,revised map were not available for staff/Planning Commission review at the time this report was due. A verbal presentation of the most current modifications to the tentative tract map will be made during the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENT 2 .. 111b ,( �c. RECOMMENDATION: `otion to: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No..15469 to the July 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting with public hearing open and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions based upon straw vote motions on the Meadowlark Specific Plan changes." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Bruce D'Eliscu, Catellus Residential Group, 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400, Irvine, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: Trustees of the Nerio Family Trust, 9340 Bolsa Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 REQUEST: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 325 small lot, detached single family dwellings in conjunction with a public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(Sl: May 1, 1998 Negative Declaration (180 days from complete application): October 28, 1998 Tentative Tract Map (50 days from action on ND): December 15, 1998 Conditional Use Permit(3 months from action on ND): January 27, 1999 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Tentative Tract Map 15469, dated June 24, 1998 2. Suggested project revisions/conditions for Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 (dated June 24, 1998) 3. Planning Commission Report dated June 16, 1998 SH:AW:kjl Staff Report—7/14/98 2 (98SR46) . 11/zq MJV lc) JD L.J•Gu • .. �....���...... ..�.....�... _. — —-_ ___ ® P `A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ENGWE.ERING November 13, 1998 Mr.Bruce D'Eliscu ' Catellus Residential Group 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT: MEADOWLARS RESIDENTIAL PROTECT - PA-4 PARSING/CIRCULATION Dear Mr. D'Eliscu: This letter provides a brief summary of our review of Planning Area 4 (PA-4) related to some parking and circulation issues. The findings in this letter are based on review of the proposed site plan, past traffic engineering experieace,and standard reference materials. BACKGROUND The study area(PAA)is shown or was indicated to have the following characteristics: — The homes in this area would be detached, on relatively small lots. -- For aesthetic reasons, some of the homes (appro)dmately half of the 97 dwelling units) have driveway widths of about 10 feet or less, which then expands at the garage entrances to provide parking for two vehicles in front ofthe garage. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite I90 • Laguna Hills,CA 92653 • (949)460-0110 • FAX: (949)460.0113 ATTACHMENT 3 NL." 10 70 1J•Gf -- -2- A street width of 32 feet is planned for PA4,with parking to be allowed on one side of the street. The Homeowners Association would require vehicles to be parked in the garages and ou-site in the driveways. EVALUATION We were requested to generally address the parking and circulation for PA-4. We discussed the parking requirements with MDS Consulting(Civil Engineers) and it was indicated that it may be desirable to confirm the adequacy of the 32 foot street width. In addition, you indicated that concerns had beta raised regarding the design of the longer, narrower driveways with the garages toward the back of the lot and their potential impact on parking. The following is our brief summary of the pertinent issues. + It is indicated on the site plan that the enclosed and on-site "open" parking space requirements have been satisfied. The off-site `open" parking is shown to exceed (44 needed, 50 provided)the requirement. + We were informed of a possible concern that the residents living in the houses with the narrow driveways and garages in the "bacle' could become discouraged with the on-site parking arrangements and begin parking on-street. + While the narrow driveway design could require added vehicle movement in order to utilize some on-site parking spaces,it would be our opinion that an overriding factor to determine if people would park on-site would be the strength ofthe Homeowners Association. Without enforcement by the Association, it is possible that garages (with or without narrow driveways) could be used for storage (or other uses), rather than for parking vehicles. (NOTE: We understand that storage cabinetry would be provided within all PA4 garages. WPA?fa,faze Eng-eeriv,ln4 Review of Pw*Lne/Grunion Isurer Job Meadow&=*Acsida+6arf Projed - PA-4 NOU 16 -98 15:Zr F K LRTELLUS RES l utry i i►L- (i ti d�1 i7_13 I U 1 r 14_3 r417`+G •�•+� _3_ It was indicated that this should mitigate circumstances where storage needs intrude upon garage space intended for vehicle parking.) Nevertheless, the driveway design factor is expected to be significantly less of a factor than these other considerations. ♦ Even where design aspects of homes with rear-set garages incorporate narrow,approximate 10 foot approaches,the long drives and flared driveway expansion areas in front of garages actually provide more, not less, space for on-site parking. t Even ifthcre was a tendency for those homes with narrow(less than 10 foot wide)driveways to park on-street,this would affect about half of the 87 DUs. This Iesser number of affected homes saves to reduce the potential impacts, if this situation should occur. ♦ During peak situations (i.e. a party at the subject residence), it is anticipated that the driveway would be fully utilized, with less regard for maneuvering. In fact, the longer driveways would be beneficial to parking in these situations, as more vehicles could be stored on-sift due to the longer driveways. t Overall, it is our opinion that the strength of the Homeowners Association, and their enforcement of their rules,is much more critical to parlang than the driveway design. Even though some of the lot designs require added on-site maneuvering(the narrow driveways), it is believed that the actual parking impacts of this factor should be minimal (considering the number of homes affected,the anticipated change in parking behavior,the benefits of the design in peak situations,the Homeowners Association factor,etc.). It can also be noted that the proposed plan provides a slight excess(six spaces)of on-street/of-street guest parking, which serves to offset potential impacts. ♦ With regard to the planned 32 foot street width with parldng on-site, we believe that this would provide adequate street geometries for these private streets. WTA Traffic Engineering, Inc. had previously surveyed a few Orange County cities to determine their WPA A-a,(Jcc E�&eering,Inc Rerinv of Parldng/CEi+culation Y=es Job X96I191J9r_vty.%pd Meadowlark Reridazdal Project - PA-4 A&M NL" 1 t3 tod r R %-M 1 1=LLLJ� r'�.z l L/CI\1 1 r1L 1 1 Y c.r a a��..r .u i I lY...l(Y l.r.v •+•+ v.r —4— private street width requirements. The attached Table 1 provides an indication that the proposed street width is adequate. We would support this finding,as the parking area would utilize 8 feet ofwidth,which leaves 24 feet ofroadway for two-way residential traffic,which is adequate. The other cities allow strcct widths of 34 and 32 feet, which supports the planned width for PA-4. ♦ It is our understanding that the study area(PA4)with proposed single-sided parking meet and exceeds all objective requirements for on-street parking under Huntington Beach standards. Further, it appears that additional parking is not necessary to accommodate designs which include homes with rear-set garages. Therefore, from an engineering perspective, it would seem the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the subject Specific Plan (which we understand directs encouragement of rear garage designs in the interest ofincreased aesthetics and neighborhood diversity)could be supported,as the design itselfwas not found to be a significant impact factor to parting. We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC Steven S. Sasaki,P.E. Senior Engineer SSS: nc MW Trafiv Engbteering,Inc Review of Par*ing/CFrdtla n Imuer Job R961191.itr stv.%Pd Meadowl=k Raidagdal Prgea - PA-4 IrLJ•/ 1V JV 1.J �• • . �...��Lw •tLJa✓_• •...`. � ___ —�..++ ..... a.��r.�-- .— __ -S- TABLE 1 PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS STANDARDS JUMSDICTI(ON WIDTH COMMENTS 28' No Parking ANAHErivi 30' Parkin -One Side 28' No Parking FULLERTON 32' Parking-One Side 36' Parkin -Both Sides 26' No Parlong LA HABRA 30' Paricing-One Side 38' Parkin -Both Sides YORBA U NDA - 20' 7T No Parking Prepared on November 9, 1998. • Curb to curb. #961191.tbl WPA Traffic Fngsneaiv,Inc. Review of Parking arcutadon rssues Job K961191.1tr.stv.wpd MeadowlarkReddensialProject - PA-4 TOTAL PAGE.06 ** Residentfal Street Typology and Injury A c6den t Freq u en cy { Peter Swift, PX-. Swift and Associates Dan Pointer, WCP, Irwnportation Planner, City of Longmont, Matthew Goldstein, Swift and Associates. Intern 1997 March 31, 1998 Swift and Associates Town Planning Urban Design Civil Engineering 421 21st Avenue ( J) 772-7052 work Copyright 1997 Longmont, Co. (303) 651-7226 fax Peter Swift 60501 phswi 2Lcom a—maO All Rights Reserved ATTACHMENT 4 Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency ABSTRACT Communities all across the U.S. are concerned about the safety of their residential streets. Although this concern is nearly universal, the literature offers few precedents and little information on the relative safety of common residential street typologies. This study offers a method for analyzing the theory that the physical design of streets impacts safety. Through research, systematic observation, and statistical analysis, this study attempts to identify the safest residential street form with respect to several physical characteristics. These findings expose issues that need to be addressed by practitioners and policy- makers, and encourage further study of related topics. Approximately 20,000 police accident reports from the City of Longmont, Colorado were reviewed and compared against five criteria that would signify the- probability that the street design contributed to the accidents. Once catalogued and entered into a database, each accident location was mapped and described by thirteen physical characteristics. Comparing injury accidents per mile per year against other factors, several correlations were explored. The most significant relationships to injury accidents were found to be street width and street curvature. The analysis illustrates that as street width widens, accidents per mile per year increases exponentially, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet (curb face). 1. INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental elements of recent thought in the field of planning and urban design is the assumption that'narrow streets in a grid pattern are safer than wider streets. Although this theory has been discussed at length by practitioners and academics, little substantive research is available to support this assumption. With the cooperation of the City of Longmont, Colorado, this study aspires to add to the literature by evaluating residential street typology and the related injury-accident frequency. Longmont, Colorado is located approximately 35 miles north of Denver and approximately 15 miles northeast of Boulder. It is experiencing a sustained period of growth as many communities are along Colorado's front range. Longmont has about 19.2 square miles of annexed land and a current population of approximately 60,000. The rate of growth and increasing traffic congestion are two of Longmont's most often mentioned ills although the quality of new development is rising on this list. Longmont has two developments that are considered to be of the neo-traditional design. These developments with their narrower streets, alleys and well developed street grids give the City staff and the City residents first hand examples of a development design that builds in a higher.quality of life. Be that as it may, the debate over acceptable street widths continues in Longmont as it does in communities throughout the U.S. II. DATA GATHERING AND MAPPING The data used in this study was obtained by reviewing approximately 20,000 City of Longmont police accident reports. Each report was examined against several criteria that would indicate if the accident occurred as a result of the street typology. Eliminated from the study were accident reports that included the following information; 1. Road conditions that were wet, icy or snow covered - only accidents that occurred when the roads were dry were included. 2. Substance abuse -Any notation of the driver being impaired or suspicion of being under the influence of any substance. 3. Traffic volume - accidents which occurred on any street other than a "local" with average daily traffic (ADT) greater than 2,500 cars per day. Following the identification of the pertinent accident reports, they were catalogued and entered into a computer database. The elements of the organizational database were; the name of the nearest cross street(for map reference), vehicle type to characterize those involved, catalogue number, and number of persons injured. A comment column was also included to address minor anomalies or address unusual conditions. Each accident location was plotted on a City of Longmont street map. Four elements related to accident location and traffic volume were documented on one map: accident location, chronological occurrence, quantity of accidents at that location, and streets ADT greater than 2,500. The Colorado Department of Transportation has established an inventory of streets in a report entitled "Longmont Street Inventory". This includes an inventory of all the streets in the city with respect to its length, primary surface width, through lane length and other data. The primary surface width and total miles of street were of the greatest interest to this study. Many discrepancies in street width were discovered. Field measurements were conducted to correct the data. These field observations also included evaluation of the other variables in the study. III. ACCIDENT LOCATION OBSERVATION Thirteen physical characteristics of each accident location were systematically observed and listed as follows; 1. Street Curves yes or no 2. Sidewalk type attached, detached, none or both 3. Street width (curb face) in 2' increments 4. Distance to nearest curb-cut <20', <50' or >50' 5. Curb type modified, 6" vertical or none 6. Tree location <6' from curb, >6' from curb, or none 7. Building type single-family detached, multi-family attached, or commercial 8. Building height 1, 2, 3 or >3 story 9. Traffic control device distance from accidant <20', <50', <100' or>1*00' 10. ADT 11. Sight distance Curvature, clear or obstructed view 12. Number of accidents 13. Posted parking restrictions No parking, both sides or one side The ADT of some.road segments were not known. In these cases, the ADTs were estimated by identifying the probable travel shed and multiplying the number of houses within this area by 10. For example, an area with 79 dwelling r units, at 10 trips per dwelling unit, yielded an ADT of 790 trips per day for that residential street. Although the use of 10 trips per dwelling unit may be higher than the recognized trip generation rate for attached units, this method allowed for other trips that may have used the street but had neither an origin or destination within the travel shed. IV. Statistical analysis and correlations A multiple regression analysis was applied to the data with Kwikstat 4, a windows driven statistical program. The number of accidents per mile per year (a/m/y) was used as the dependant variable in the analysis. The results appear as follows. FIGURE 1 Street Typology and Injury Accidents Raw data and Regression 10 00 Ay _ 7!/ 2 ......_.._..._.__.__._._._........._.__......- -- _._ ._ _._....._ __ ;_ 1 0 jj 20 22 24 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48- 50 Street Width (ft) The test for those independent variables in Table 1 having a lineal relationship is indicated by a p(2) tail value <0.05. As can be seen, the closest variable to a/m/y was street width (p[2]=0.0004) followed by street curvature (p[2]=.0192]). TABLE 1 Output for the multi-variate regression. KWIKSTAT 4 OUTPUT 03-12-1997 Multiple Linear Regression STRT4.dbf Dependent variable is ACC. MILE, 13 independent variables, 193 cases. Variable Coefficient St. Error t-value p(2 tail) Intercept -12.19898 16.924442 -.7207904 0.4720 CURVE -6.224334 2.6347529 -2.362397 0.0192 SIDEWALK 1.0448362 1.6762454 0.6233193 0.5339 ST. WIDTH 1.0192777 0.2800041 3.6402245 0.0004 CURB CUT -.4585994 1.7468163 -.2625344 0.7932 CURB TYP -3.171602 2.3794034 -1.332940 0.1842 TREES 2.1865019 1.9718020 1.1088851 0.2690 BLDG TYPE 0.2355268 0.9193333 0.2561930 0.7981 BLDG HT. -.3457528 1.9773023 -.1748609 0.8614 TR. CONTR -.9939434 0.8539271 -1.163967 0.2460 ADT -.5977305 1.7397448 -.3435737 0.7316 SIGHT DIS -4.295735 2.3403386 -1.835519 0.0681 NO. ACCID. 0.3793795 1.0138272 0.3742053 0.7087 PARK. RES 6.6473680 5.0542305 1.3152087 0.1901 R-Square = 0.1921 Adjusted R-Square = 0.1335 Analysis of Variance to Test Regression Relation Source Sum of Sqs df Mean Sq F p-value Regression 9252.7206 13 711.74774 3.2750355 0.0002 Error 38901.210 179 217.32520 Total 48153.931 192 Low p-value suggests dep. vars. ACC. MILE may be linearly related to ind. ears. The above resulting adjusted R2 value is a straight line evaluation. A more robust treatment of the data was conducted for street widths of 20 to 50 feet vs. A/m/y with the following results; r Y=8.204 - 0.5974 ' X + 0.0112 "X2 Where; Y = Accidents per mile per year X = Street width (curb face) in feet The corrected R2 value was 0.37. The data for the development of the regression curve and Figure 1 are as follows; TABLE 2 Total Street Lencith Num. of Accidents Regression Width miles Accidents per Mile Acc/MileNear 20 7.41 2 0.271 0.74 22 4.30 1 0.231 0.48 - 24 11.53 1 0.09 0.32 301 3.61 6 1.66 0.36 32 2.46 5 2.03 0.56 34 9.45 4 0.42 0.84 36 18.23 29 1.59 1.21 38 0.26 1 3.85 1.68 40 74.13 100 1.35 2.23 42 35.35 8 0.23 2.87 44 4.51 36 7.98 3.6 46 •7.49 13 1.74 4.42 48 1.54 31 1.95 5.33 50 1.62 161 9.88 6.33 Using this regression, a typical 36 foot wide residential street has 1.21 a/m/y as opposed to 0.32 for a 24 foot wide street, the street with the least a/m/y. This is about a 400 percent increase in accident rates. The a/m/y for a 30 foot wide street is 0.36. It appears that the group of streets with the safest results occur between 22 and 30 feet in curb face width. There was another interesting observation made concerning this study. Figure 2, below, is a graph of street width vs. ADT. It shows a clustering of accidents below 1,000 ADT and between street widths of 36 to 44 feet. The most intense portion of accident frequency lies below an ADT of 500. This indicates that more accidents occur on wide streets that have low daily volumes. ��/Lys It also appears that a greater number of accidents occur on straight, rather than curvilinear streets. There seems to be a nexus with these observations and Farouki's conclusion (see note 1, below) that there is a greater number of accidents with an increase in vehicular speed. It is logical to assume that vehicular speeds increase with straight, wide streets of low ADT contributing to more severe accidents. FIGURE 2 Residential Streets Street Width and ADT 25•— x x x x N X X X X X X N X X X X p X X - - - X X X X. Q X X X Q _ X X X 0 _ X X X X 0.5 —X- ?G -�- X X X X - � X x X X X 0 + X I X• 20 25 30 35 40 . 45 50 Street Width V. CONCLUSION This study indicates a clear relationship between accident frequency and street width and curvature. The findings support the theory that narrower, so called "skinny" streets, are safer than standard width residential streets. Since municipal code generally mandates a minimum of 36 foot wide residential streets (planned unit developments may be an exception), the results from this study indicate that current street design standards are directly contributing to automobile accidents. This brings up a larger question of public safety issues concerning fire apparatus and emergency vehicle access with narrow streets. The service reports from the Fire Department of the City of Longmont were evaluated. There were no fire related injuries or accidents during the eight year period of the study. There were fires in the older part of town during the study period that have alley access and narrow streets, but no injuries were attributed to those.. fires. It is suggested, therefore, that the municipal or county government look at the larger picture of public safety issues and ask if it is better to reduce dozens of potential vehicular accidents, injuries and deaths or provide wide streets for no apparent benefit to fire related injuries or deaths. Fire and EMT response times were not part of the evaluation for this paper. The authors, however, are in the process of evaluating several towns and cities.in the Denver metropolitan area to see if there are any correlations of that nature in the older portions of the municipalities that include narrow streets. Lastly, we encourage additional research to verify these results. This is a relatively untouched area of potential research. In a very limited search of the literature, two studies stand out.The first indicates that the mean free speed of cars in suburban roads increases linearly with the roadway width, particularly between 17 and 37 feet'. The second paper by Giese, et al, suggests that spacial enclosure, sight distance and [width] constriction techniques influence vehicle speeds'. This study supports the hypothesis that injury accidents are related to vehicular speed and vehicular speed is a function of street width, ADT and alignment. Further, since posted parking did not have statistical significance in a/m/y, accident mitigation should include narrower streets and on-street parking. ' Farouki, Omar, and William Nixon. 1976.The Effect of the Width of Suburban Roads on the Mean Free Speed of Cars.Traffic Engineering and Control 17,2: 508-9 'Giese, Joni L., Gary A. Davis and Robert D. Sykes, The relationship between residential street design and pedestrian safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers Compendium of Technical Papers on CD-ROM.August, 1997. f f' CATELLUS November 19, 1998 Mr. Scott Hess Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Scott: Catellus Residential Group ("CRG")has reviewed the draft Staff Report for the November 24, 1998 hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (Meadowlark Project),-which we.received last-_ --- evening. Since CRG has had only 24 hours to review the lengthy Staff Report and attachments, we have confined our comments to the zoning compliance section(commencing on page 8) which is discussed in the"Analysis" section commencing on page 14. We have not commented on the General Plan Conformance section, since the Planning Commission has already,based on a positive staff recommendation on July 14, 1998 on the identical subdivision(with the exception that the July 14 Specific Plan provided for more dwelling units), found the Meadowlark project, as proposed by CRG,to be consistent with the General Plan. (Page B-la July 14 Staff Report.) Based on the interpretations provided or modifications agreed upon by CRG in the comments below,the project is consistent with the Specific Plan adopted by the Commission on September 22, 1998 and therefore in full conformance with the General Plan. We would appreciate the staff making the revisions to the Staff Report and/or providing our comments in the discussion of each item in the Analysis section of the Staff Report. PA 1 Pg. 17(a) Parkin The Staff Report inaccurately mischaracterizes the living room (parlor)in Plan 2 as a fifth bedroom. If required by the Commission, CRG will increase the opening into living room(parlor)so that staff will not count it as a bedroom. Plan 3 contains a master bedroom retreat(which is only accessible through the master bath) and this space has also been inaccurately characterized as a fifth bedroom. Accordingly, concerns related to parking adequacy for five bedroom homes are unfounded. ATTACHMENT 5 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 5 PARK PLAZA,SUM 400,IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 251-6100 FAX(949) 251-8837 //Avol Mr. Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 2 Pg. 18(b) Building Height The controlling factor for building heights was intended to be the dimensioned figure (on drawings) and not the scale of the schematic plan shown for illustrative purposes. CRG will comply with the 30 ft. building height limit as measured from curb elevation on all plans in final working drawings. PA2 Pg. 19(a) Front Yard Setbacks CRG strongly disagrees that the elevations of PA2 homes are not of a high quality innovative design. CRG's agreement to provide parkways in PA2, as required by staff-,was-based on the indication that average setbacks of 12.5 ft would be applicable(PA2 provides 13.9 actual average) Pg. 19(b) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks Lot 39 is the only lot within the revised subdivision map not in compliance(the result of a minor plotting variance). CRG will comply by replotting the home on Lot 39 in final engineering. (c) Parking Requirements As staff has previously been informed, CRG will comply at final plan check with PA2 garage requirements by modification of present 19'x 21'garages to 20'x 20' dimensions. Plan 2x and 3x incorporate additional, non-required garage space. As per staff recommendation,this space will be designated as an alternate use. PA3 Pg. 20(a) Rear Yard Setback Architectural plans have been designed to provide variations in rear building elevation. If requested by the Planning Commission,CRG will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs; result will be diminished elevational variation. Mr. Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 3 (b) Garage Use Design Plan 1 will provide 400 sq. R.per Planning Commission vote of July 14(matrix); 20 x 20, 25% cap inserted by staff in Specific Plan on September 22 was inconsistent with Commission July 14 direction. Laundry areas are frequently included in garage space. Inclusion of this square footage is not necessary to meet combined floor area/storage area requirement as directed by the Planning Commission on July 14. CRG requests Planning Commission recommendation for approval of proposed garages and modification of Specific Plan 20'x 20',25%cap language by City Council. CRG will comply with City Council-approved Specific Plan ordinance. All proposed homes comply with minimum R-1 requirements of 18'.x 19' granted -for St. Augustine and other larger units throughout the City. Pg.22(c) On-Street Parking CRG is unaware of such direction by Planning Commission and believes the CRG parking plan to be the most efficient and compatible parking design. We believe Staffs recommendation will create an HOA-enforcement problem. PA4 Pg.22(a) Front Yard Setbacks Architectural plans have been designed to provide architectural character and variations in building elevations. If requested by the Planning Commission, CRG will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs. (b) Side Yard Setback CRG will comply in final engineering and working drawings. (c) Garage Use/Design All PA4 garages will be designed to meet combined floor area/storage area requirement as directed by the Planning Commission vote of July 14, and will incorporate minimum 18'x 19'clear dimension. 25%cap inserted by staff in Specific Plan on September 22,was inconsistent with Planning Commission direction and vote of July 14. Mr. Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 4 Pg. 24(d) Subdivision Design Will comply. Pg. 24 Public Park City ordinance in place at the relevant dates of applicant's filing and in 1989 under the Development Agreement proscribe in-lieu park fees of S182,000 per acre. The City is now in the process of updating the appraised fair market value per acre referenced for determination of in-lieu park fees. This fair market value must be determined on the basis of a City-wide average. It is unlikely the City-wide average;which will include consideration of non-coastal areas,will approach the $500,000 per acre amount requested by the Planning Commission and conditionally agreed to by CRG. - -- - Based on CAD rounding variance,a 2.38 acre calculation was rounded to the 2.4 _ acre figure which was used in the Specific Plan. This 2.38 acres has inaccurately been rounded to 2.3 in staffs discussion of park. CRG will comply with the exact 2.4.acre requirement in final engineering. Pg.24 Fences/Walls Requirement for masonry was agreed upon previously by CRG. Landscape consultant oversight. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Staff Report. Sincerely, Bruce DBliscu cc: Ray Silver Melanie Fallon Howard Zelefsky Amy Wolfe CATELLUS November 19, 1998 Mr. Scott Hess Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Scott: Catellus Residential Group ("CRG")has reviewed the draft Staff Report for the November 24, 1998 hearing on Conditional Use Permit No.97-80/Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Negative Declaration No.97-21 (Meadowlark Project),which we received last evening. Since CRG has had only 24 hours to review the lengthy Staff Report and attachments, we have confined our comments to the zoning compliance section(commencing on page 8) which is discussed in the"Analysis"section commencing on page 14. We have not commented on the General Plan Conformance section,since the Planning Commission has already,based on a positive staff recommendation on July 14, 1998 on the identical subdivision (with the exception that the July 14 Specific Plan provided for more dwelling units), found the Meadowlark project,as proposed by CRG,to be consistent with the General Plan. (Page B-1 a July 14 Staff Report.) Based on the interpretations provided or modifications agreed upon by CRG in the comments below,the project is consistent with the Specific Plan adopted by the Commission on September 22, 1998 and therefore in full conformance with the General Plan. We would appreciate the staff making the revisions to the Staff Report and/or providing our comments in the discussion of each item in the Analysis section of the Staff Report. PA l Pg. 17(a) Parkin The Staff Report inaccurately mischaracterizes the living room(parlor)in Plan 2 as a fifth bedroom. If required by the Commission,CRG will increase the opening into living room(parlor)so that staff will not count it as a bedroom. Plan 3 contains a master bedroom retreat(which is only accessible through the master bath)and this space has also been inaccurately characterized as a fifth bedroom. Accordingly,concerns related to parking adequacy for five bedroom homes arc unfounded. CATELLUS RFSIDEN. TIAL CROUP 5 PARS: Pf.A-I.+.SIATF.400,lavim,CAurott.nA 9Z614 (949)251.6100 FAX(949) 251,8837 TVZ /cam , IVUV 17 70 1!•oo rfc .r, ���...r. ..�..,......... ..._ -- --- ---- -- --- "e Mr.Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 2 Pg. 18(b) Building Hcieht The controlling factor for building heights was intended to be the dimensioned figure(on drawings)and not the scale of the schematic plan shown for illustrative purposes. CRG will comply with the 30 ft.building height limit as measured from curb elevation on all plans in final working drawings. PA2 Pg. 19(a) Front Yard Setbacks CRG strongly disagrees that the elevations of PA2 homes are not of a high quality innovative design. CRG's agreement to provide parkways in PA2,as required by staff,was based on the indication that average setbacks of 12.5 ft would be applicable(PA2 provides 13.9 actual average) Pg. 19(b) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks Lot 39 is the only lot within the revised subdivision map not in compliance(the result of a minor plotting variance). CRG will comply by replotting the home on Lot 39 in final engineering. (c) Parking Requirements As staff has previously been informed,CRG will comply at final plan check with PA2 garage requirements by modification of present 19'x 21'garages to 20'x 20' dimensions. Plan 2x and 3x incorporate additional,non-required garage space. As per staff recommendation,this space will be designated as an alternate use. PA3 Pg.20(a) Rear Yard Setback Architectural plans have been designed to provide variations in rear building elevation. If requested by the Planning Commission,CRG will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs;result will be diminished elevational variation. Mr.Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 3 (b) Garage Use Design Plan I will provide 400 sq. ft.per Planning Commission vote of July 14(matrix); 20 x 20,25%cap inserted by staff in Specific Plan on September 22 was inconsistent with Commission July 14 direction. Laundry areas are frequently included in garage space. Inclusion of this square footage is not necessary to meet combined floor arealstorage area requirement as directed by the Planning Commission on July 14. CRG requests Planning Commission recommendation for approval of proposed garages and modification of Specific Plan 20'x 20',25%cap language by City Council.- CRG will comply with City Council-approvcd Specific Plan ordinance. All proposed homes comply with minimum R-1 requirements of 18'x 19'granted for St. Augustine and other larger units throughout the City. Pg.22(c) On-Street Parking CRG is unaware of such direction by Planning Commission and believes the CRG parking plan to be the most efficient and compatible parking design. We believe Staffs recommendation will create an HOA-enforcement problem. PA4 Pg.22(a) Front Yard Setbacks Architectural plans have been designed to provide architectural character and variations in building elevations. If requested by the Planning Commission,CRG will comply to eliminate second story pop-outs. (b) Side Yard Setback CRG will comply in final engineering and working drawings- (c) Garage Usc/Desian All PA4 garages will be designed to meet combined floor area storage area requirement as directed by the Planning Commission vote of July 14,and will incorporate minimum 18'x 19'clear dimension. 25%cap inserted by staff in Specific Plan on September 22 was inconsistent with Planning Commission direction and vote of July-14. c Mr.Scott Hess November 19, 1998 Page 4 Pg.24(d) Subdivision Dcsiaa Will comply. Pg.24 Public Park City ordinance in place at the relevant dates of applicant's filing and in 1989 under the Development Agreement proscribe in-lieu park fees of S182,000 per acre. The City is now in the process of updating the appraised fair market value per acre referenced for determination.of in-lieu park fees. This fair market value must be determined on the basis of a City-wide average. It is unlikely the City-wide average,which will include consideration of non-coastal areas,will approach the $500,000 per acre amount requested by the Planning Commission and conditionally agreed to by CRG. Based on CAD rounding variance,a 2.38 acre calculation was rounded to the 2.4 acre figure which was used in the Specific Plan. This 238 acres has-inaccurately been rounded to 2.3 in staffs discussion of park. CRG will comply with the exact 2.4 acre requirement in final engineering. pg. 24 Fences/Walls Requirement for masonry was agreed upon previously by CRG. Landscape consultant oversight. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Staff Report. Sincerely, Bruce D'Eliscu cc:. Ray Silver - Melanie Fallon _ Howard Zelefsky Amy Wolfe TOTAL PAGE.05 � CATELLUS November 19, 1998 Ms. Amy Wolfe Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ref: CUP NO.97-80/TTM NO. 15469/Neg.Dec.No.97-21 Dear Amy, Pursuant to the aforementioned DRAFT Document dated Nov. 24, 1998 and specifically Attachment 12, page 46 (item F) of the report. We are in disagreement with your -- proposed conditions of approval language, in that it is inconsistent with previously submitted noise assessment reports by MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES, including the updated report#98-72.a Dated Nov. 17, 1998 as provided. We request modification to said condition to be consistent with aforementioned report. Additional comments will be forthcoming from the office of Mr.John Erskine. Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP - Lo - -- Bruce D'Eliscu Vice President CATULUS RESIDENTIAL OROUP 5 PARK MAMA.Sure 400,IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949)251-6100 FAX(949)251.8&37 -3 EXTERIOR NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MEADOWLARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH November 17, 1998 Report#98-72.a Prepared For. CATELLUS 5 Park Plaza Suite 400 Irvine,CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve,PY— Martin Beal MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach,CA 92660 760-0891 - ///2 Ic- Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 1 EXTERIOR NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MEADOWLARK RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents measures to achieve the City of Huntington Beach exterior noise standards for the proposed Meadowlark project in Huntington Beach. The project area is shown in Exhibit 1. The future noise environment at the site will be affected by traffic noise from Heil Avenue. Noise from Warner Avenue will not affect the project site.The site lies over 600 feet from Warner Avenue. This analysis will also assess the noise impacts on the project site from the shopping center to the south of the project Of particular concern is delivery truck noise during the early morning hours. 2.0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOISE CRITERIA 2.1 City Noise Standards j Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for. (1)the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment,and(4) the variations associated with the time of day. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq, is the average noise level for any specified time period.The equivalent noise level is expressed in units of dBA. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour. More specifically,it is the average noise level based on the acoustic energy content of the sound.It can bd thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level being measured. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a 24-hour,time- weighted annual average noise level. Time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times.The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA.These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. •rartAv a. l>a Ot ArA7 PdkUm IA i l,tptr•� I - su en i ea•n - �tru•m I OA c rt[v1 L DA cr• '• R tX E 'y 11 n.Atf7 _ Ef 0. cnSEE C. L16 tf DRcn. , •+.gr;:Dn an DA47da1(>fl MS ► 7 LIST DpI }I 3a.rA es L tJHnn[�. AV a-�-� clt °' 9- e.t�•• S � M OR �� „� 55� Irin a inn[ S w. � hE7mR ClSEA: n17+Ga1A1 3 OR .-4-' '=- =s 6 .r s7 ptltY 6L TD.A pfFQ7 I: > LITTLER Sf OR S9 tCs S - r1ALlT a taut 3 wtcD°' 3 = cuRY o4 v RIrD co arWE •Y •w►'i7a OY ; _ wCt! Sl t.N _iALISACE 1.� r - UWA f tAr[f[TtA d'S 5 alto - 3 3 tl[D AU ' SCErwto dl 1 y b g r rtLslt cR S ct = gi. t �I Proj .• ect Site t ct; rf .,Y . 3 Z - t� Jtut a ° ur 5 Erwueaµa 1: • r - s s tt . v f � t fn tTALt 1r ,f � 3 � 4 o(•�Iv'. �' N 7 N t ••Z u Iy a P GI• I ( Gj lyjr G 5 lr a!•tAATL*411 �IYr• -• � `. 1• t •[ut[ l![ V r � to =! � tl• "y' tv 115101.iD � � mme ��r �of C �(•. I � 41mr G r �UllO —. -- '�—' yE t• : � �. wwt t ' -�S rl Dr .S� � = " • s relit yJ�RNE � AV ]1•�.G -.. --- I --- Mir t ' fig v e ' a 3 3 9 LIM CIO u r 1L�. r ett n DR �• r..n rlr`8a 3►tort as _cr A AV LOS a- •1ATOS ' AV t 00 7 . . :` 'S S ` 4- 8 s .t� c'°� • I .� I 1�� Qrar �(I�G P a 9Y y r • n o 4stio a A[d NMI S e r, w. . It v ..` pcl ,/ �` t ET • S Q irk p � •�S�'. �[ I r TE tER O[ -r , IALLl A a ,�•� � � ,� � v to C .1 �► ,,',f J t�`' �V�� 3� -- ` t- .+ot iKt 'v SEE D JA F r t` ryrnwrta . I nw my u ` Upt, � • J a -R !fM�tr 1• �.4• + (0 EM SA ;re tl Kt 1• �&.I.'. •C•, r nr..n r �� [L11S trttQlr Exhibit 1 Project Vicinity Mestre Greve associates i//L "t k Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 2 The Conditions of Approval of the City of Huntington Beach specify indoor and outdoor noise limits for residential land uses.The outdoor noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 CNEL.The interior noise standard is 45 CNEL..This report presents measures that are necessary to insure that the buildings in the project comply with the exterior noise standards. 2.2 City Noise Ordinance The Noise Standards detailed in the previous section are applicable to roadway noise.The noise criteria discussed in this section applies to the noise generated by the delivery trucks that operate adjacent to the project's southern boundary. The noise ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach sets limits on the level and the duration of time a stationary noise source may impact a residential area. The Iouder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. Table 1 lists the A-weighted noise level and the maximum cumulative period of time that the noise level may occur during a one hour period. Note that the ordinance applies different criteria during different time periods. The ordinance is much more stringent in late night and early rooming hours and reflects a heightened sensitivity to noise during these times.The most stringent restrictions apply to the project as the facility would potentially be open during the most sensitive time period. Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 3 Table I City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance Noise Level Maximum Daytime Ordinance Nighttime Ordinance Cumulative Duration (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. -7 a.m.) EXTERIOR ORDINANCE Not to be Exceeded at any Time(Lmax) 75 dBA 70 dBA 1 minute(1..1.7) 70 dBA 65 dBA 5 minutes M.3) 65 dBA 60 dBA 15 minutes(L25) 60 dBA 55 dBA 30 minutes(L50) 55 dBA 50 dBA INTERIOR ORDINANCE Not to be Exceeded at any Time(Lmax) 65 dBA 55 dBA 1 minute(L1.7) 60 dBA 50 dBA. 5 minutes(1.8.3) 55 dBA 45 dBA t 3.0 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS 3.1 Traffic Noise The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration (THWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level."A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them*results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distance to the 60,65,and 70 CNEL contours are found. Traffic volume utilized for Heil Avenue is presented in Table 1 (as specified earlier, Warner Avenue will not generate problematic noise levels on the proposed project.site because it is over 600 feet away from the project boundary). Future traffic projections were obtained from Mr. Mario Sanchez at the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Department on April 7, 1998. //p. �' Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessmcnt Mestre Greve Associates Page 4 Table It Future Traffic Volumes Roadway Traffic Volume Heil Avenue 21,000 The time and traffic distributions utilized are presented in Table 2. These data are based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the southern California area and are considered to be typical in the project area. Table 2 Traffic Distribution per Time of Day Percent of ADT- - - Vehicle Day Evening Night Type 7am-7pm 7pm-10pm 10pm-7am Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Utilizing the traffic data presented above and the FHWA Model,distances to the 60,65 and 70 CNEL contours were determined. The distances from the centerline of the roadways to the contours are presented below in Table 3. These projections do not take into account any barriers,topography,or buildings that may reduce noise lcvels. Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 5 Table 3 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Conditions Distance to Contour(feet) Roadway 70-CNEL 65-CNEL 60-CNEL Heil Avenue 48 104 225 The site plan shows that observers located in the outdoor living areas closest to Heil Avenue are 51 feet from the centerline of the roadway. This information and the results presented in Table 3 indicate that the observers along both roadways will be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. The actual noise levels will be 69 CNEL for observers along Heil Avenue. All lots within the projects that are directly adjacent to Heil Avenue will require mitigation in order to reduce noise to levels considered acceptable by the City of Huntington Beach. Mitigation measures that.could reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels are discussed in Section 4.0. 32 Shopping Center Noise Noise measurements were conducted previously at the Knott's Berry Farm loading dock Truck noise was measured for approximately.40 trucks as they entered and left the site, and a maximum noise level noted for each arrival and departure. Noise measurements were also made of the loading and unloading operations and the fork lifts. These measurements confirmed that the truck arrival and departures were in fact the noise source of most concern. That is, the noise levels associated with truck acceleration or deceleration or truck braking during arrival and departure are the loudest. The measurement data indicated that the majority of truck pass-bys have a maximum sound level in the range of 65 to 75 dBA (at 70 feet). The loudest truck measured was approximately 82 dBA at 70 fcet. The average of the data was 69 dBA at 70 feet with a standard deviation of 5.3. The California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour (Section 23130). The maximum sound Ievel established by the code is 86 dBA at 50 feet, or 83 dBA at 70 feet. None of the trucks measured exceeded this level. However, the loudest truck measured was very close to this limit. If a statistical normal distribution curve is fitted to the data obtained, the frequency that trucks will exceed certain noise limits can be predicted. For example, based on the data collected 1 out of every 125 trucks that would use the facility would be expected to exceed the motor vehicle code standard. For worst case analysis, an Lmax of Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 6 expected to exceed the motor vehicle code standard. For worst case analysis, an Lmax of 82 dBA at 70 feet was used to project the noise exposures at adjacent residential areas due to delivery truck/loading dock activities. The proposed project specifies the placement of residences directly to the north of an existing shopping center. The area most likely to be impacted by activities associated with the shopping center are these residences. The primary source of noise generated by the shopping center will be that associated with delivery trucks. Truck deliveries are expected to occur at any time of the day or night. The Critical short term Lmax noise levels associated with delivery truck operations are typically due to truck accelerating and decelerating,or truck brake squeal. There are other noise sources associated with delivery trucks. There is the backup beeper. door slams, and general cargo loading and unloading at the loading dock. The truck pass-by noise, however,will be the worst case noise scenario at the adjacent residential areas. One cross-section was analyzed to determine the potential noise exposure at the worst case receptor location adjacent to the proposed project site. This receptor was used to determine the noise generated due to delivery trucks. The receptor location selected for analysis is shown in Exhibit 2.The potential truck noise levels at this receptor location is presented in Table 3. A noise source height of 8 feet was used in the analysis to model the location of a heavy truck engine with respect to the ground. The elevation of the adjacent residential receptor at the worst case receptor is 15 feet above ground level. An observer at the wont case location is 50 feet away from the nearest point of the truck travel area in front of the loading dock and will be exposed to an unmitigated Lmax noise levels of 85 dBA.These noise levels would be generated by a large truck The distances and the truck operation noise of the loading dock at the nearest residential areas are shown in Table 3. Meadowlark Exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 7 Table 3 UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS Single Event Truck Pass-by Receptor Distance(ft) Lmax(dBA) Worst Case 50 84.9 Daytime Exterior Noise Ordinance Limits: 7S dBA Nighttime Exterior Noise Ordinance Limits: 70 dBA As can be seen in the noise data in the table above, the unmitigated noise levels due to the delivery operations exceed the daytime and nighttime exterior noise ordinance limit of 70 and 75 dBA,respectively.Therefore,mitigation is required to reduce truck noise to levels considered acceptable by the City of Huntington Beach.__ -- 4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION 4.1 Roadway Noise The outdoor living areas which lie inside the 65 CNEL contour for roadway noise will require some form of noise mitigation. All lots of the project that are directly adjacent to Heil Avenue will need mitigation. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise levels to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier.Representative cross-sections along the roadways were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary wall height that would reduce traffic noise to levels within the City of Huntington Beach criteria, Calculations indicate that 6 foot high noise barriers along Heil Avenue will reduce noise in exterior living areas to levels within 65 CNEL for all lots in the project that are located adjacent to this roads(the wont case locations are projected to experience a noise level of 63 CNEL with 6 foot walls along Heil Avenue). This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. The recommended location for the barrier is shown in Exhibit 2-- Noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks in order to be effective.The noise barriers for rear yard areas may be a wall, bem or a combination of the two. The-sound wall or any patio barrier Meadowlark)exterior Noise Assessment Mestre Greve Associates Page 8 that might be necessary may be constructed of 5/8 inch plexiglass,any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. 4.2 Shopping Center Noise 42.1 Exterior Noise Calculations indicate that unmidgated worst case maximum noise levels in the rear yard areas due to truck noise will rcaeh approximately 85 dBA. This level exceeds the City's daytime exterior Lmax noise ordinance of 75 dBA and the nighttime exterior Lmax ordinance of 70. A 12 foot wall will be required near the Ralph's Market loading dock and an 8 foot high wall will be required near the Long's Drug Store loading dock.These barriers will be required along the project's southern boundary in order to reduce noise in the exterior yard areas to levels considered acceptable by the City of Huntington Beach. Portions of the wall that are not near the Ioading docks may be lower. The location and required heights of this wall are shown in Exhibit 2. Noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks in order to be effective.The noise barriers for rear yard areas may be a will,berm,or a combination of the two. The sound wall or any patio barrier that might be necessary may be constructed of 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. 4.2.2 Interior Noise Worst case noise levels at a second floor building face will be approximately 85 dBA. The City's interior noise ordinance specifies that interior Lmax noise levels should not exceed 55 dBA during the daytime and 45 dBA at nighttime.Thus, the building will have to attenuate exterior noise levels by 30 dBA in order to achieve the interior noise ordinance. An interior noise study should be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to the issuance of building permits.Building upgrades will most likely be required in order to achieve the interior noise standards. These upgrades could include upgraded windows and mechanical ventilation'so that the windows can remain closed. IYA.1l sass �mw-r csc MEN W. WN ZEN I oil r� a Q Exhibit 2a Noise Barrier Locations * a © n `LO A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGIIJHfiRING November 13, 1998 Mr.Bruce D'Eliscu Catellus Residential Group 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92714 SUBJECT:- 1tME4DOHIAMRESIDENTIAL PROJECT - PA-4 _ PARKIN/CIRCULATION Dear Mr. D'Eliscu: This letter provides a brief summary of our review of Planning Area 4 (PA-4) related to some parking and circulation issues. The findings in this letter are based on review of the proposed site plan, past traffic engineering experience, and standard reference materials. BACKGROUND The study area(PA-4)is shown or was indicated to have the following characteristics: — The homes in this area would be detached, on relatively small lots. — For aesthetic reasons, some of the homes (approximately half of the 87 dwelling units) have driveway widths of about 10 feet or less, which then expands at the garage entrances to provide parking for two vehicles in front of the garage. 23421 South Pointe Drive • Suite 190 • Laguna Hills,CA 92653 • (949)460-0110 • FAX: (949)460.0113 A f� t t1 �i,t: 3"ice �•,� i �, �1 ATTAC{mil't E v ?p 1..1•.:i r'K LHICLLUS 7,1 4 37-7 1 540 F.03126 —2— A street width of 32 feet is planned for PA-4,with parking to be allowed on one side of the street. The Homeowners Association would require vehicles to be parked in the garages and on-site in the driveways. EVALUATION We were requested to generally address the parking and circulation for PA-4. We discussed the parking requirements with MDS Consulting(Civil Engineers) and it was indicated that it may be desirable to confirm the adequacy of the 32 foot street width. In addition, you indicated that concerns had been raised regarding the design of the longer, narrower driveways with the garages toward the back of the lot and their potential impact on parking. The following is our brief summary of the pertinent issues. + It is indicated on the site plan that the enclosed and on-site "open" parking space requirements have been satisfied. The off-site "open" parking is shown to exceed (44 — needed, 50 provided)the requirement. 4 We were informed of a possible concern that the residents living in the houses with the narrow driveways and garages in the "back" could become discouraged with the on-site parking arrangements and begin parking on-street. ♦ While the narrow driveway design could require added vehicle movement in order to utilize some on-site parking spaces, it would be our opinion that an overriding factor to determine ifpeople would park on-site would be the strength ofthe Homeowners Association. Without enforcement by the Association, it is possible that garages (with or without narrow driveways) could be used for storage (or other uses), rather than for parking vehicles. (NOTE., We understand that storage cabinetry would be provided within all PA-4 garages. WPA 71rajfw Engineering,Inc Review of Parking/Cirmladon Issues Job#Y61191.&stv.wpd Meadowlmk Acddendd Projed - PA-4 ATTACHI, I'Ll i l L �. �1 r� l� �� PG/ -3— It was indicated that this should mitigate circumstances where storage needs intrude upon garage space intended for vehicle parking.) Nevertheless, the driveway design factor is expected to be significantly Iess of a factor than these other considerations. ♦ Even where design aspects of homes with rear-set garages incorporate narrow, approximate 10 foot approaches, the long drives and flared driveway expansion areas in front of garages actually provide more,not less, space for on-site parking. ♦ Even ifthcre was a tendency for those homes with narrow(less than 10 foot wide)driveways to park on-street,this would affect about half of the 87 DUs. This lesser number of affected homes serves to reduce the potential impacts, if this situation should occur. + During peak situations (i.e. a party at the subject residence), it is anticipated that the driveway would be fully utilized, with less regard for maneuvering. In fact, the longer driveways would be beneficial to parking in these situations, as more vehicles could be stored on-site due to the longer driveways. t Overall, it is our opinion that the strength of the Homeowners Association, and their enforcement of their rules,is much more critical to parking than the driveway design. Even though some of the lot designs require added on-site maneuvering(the narrow driveways), it is believed that the actual parking impacts of this factor should be minimal (considering the number of homes affected,the anticipated change in parking behavior,the benefits of the design in peak situations,the Homeowners Association factor,etc.). It can also be noted that the proposed plan provides a slight excess(six spaces)of on-street/off-street guest parking, which serves to offset potential impacts. ♦ With regard to the planned 32 foot street width with parking on-site, we believe that this would provide adequate street geometries for these private streets. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc had previously surveyed a few Orange County cities to determine their "A Traffic F,,�gineering,Ina R"iew of Parking/CYrextatfon imam Job l/961191.1h-sn.wpd Meadowlark)teddomo!Project - PA-4 ATTAGnom-1,4 i �:.. 3 Pv -4— private street width requirements. The attached Table 1 provides an indication that the €' proposed street width is adequate. We would support this finding,as the parking area would utilize 8 feet ofwidth,which leaves 24 feet ofroadway for two-way residential traffic,which is adequate. .The other cities allow street widths of 30 and 32 feet, which supports the planned width for PA-4. ♦ It is our understanding that the study area(PA-4)with proposed single-sided parking meets and exceeds all objective requirements for on-street parking under Huntington Beach standards. Further, it appears that additional parking is not necessary to accommodate designs which include homes with rear-set garages. Therefore, from an engineering perspective, it would seem the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the subject Specific Plan (which we understand directs encouragement of rear garage designs in the interest ofincseased aesthetics and neighborhood diversity)could be supported,as the design itself was not found to be a significant impact factor to parking. We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, "A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC Steven S. Sasaki,P.E. Senior Engineer SSS: nc WPA Traffic Engineering,Ina Reri~of Parking/CIrmlocion Enter !ob Y961191.1&stv.wpd Meadowlark Residential Project - PA-4 Al iA 311viLN 1 fG-1 -s- TABLE I PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS STANDARDS JURISDICTION WIDTH COMMENTS 28' No Parking ANAHEIM 30' Parkin -One Side 28' No Parking FULLERTON 32' Parking-One Side 36' Parkin -Both Sides 26' No Parking LA EWMA 30' Parking-One Side 38' Parkin -Both Sides YORBA LINDA 20' No Parking Prepared on November 9, 1998. • Curb to curb. #961 191.tbl - WPA ZYgVic Engineering,Inc. Review of Parking/CYrcumdon Isures lob K961191.hr stv.wpd Meadowlark Residmdal Projed - PA-4 ** TOTAL PAGE.06 ** pv i I i i I I I I i i 12. Tentative Tract Map & Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97-80/ TTM 15469) Exhibits rz , \ VLIV �� - F { It if!of o-If k 6• 4 li I /s r t c■m mom ' aat-r.ar w � I 4 Ai g N I' /i t 11 `'q. [ a I ` i 1 r it — /' it if 1 If Is of of it li It H a a a g. 9 ` .- a ...M,+.a.r lrn is is el It 13 1 a a= o• e= a a a h f 11 a . . �. of /[ gi /t i ®I gi ®I •' /, 1,. @= 1. it TF wi 1[ - T ®_ 1[If Ii 1[Bi BI II gI®=It®BI - 1 '. •i f .2E N Egp _ E 8I fill of ins M La-..� mnnm.oto. 1• - ,�, i[itiiEitF,iiiiiEF_•FFi::::ii:::iiiti3Eti£:EEF:i":-.il,ttftlft=.ast:e.m:as:.........2.........n...............:.a=tea..=..=t.....:n.:e..:=:::.:._.-------- ...L....4teit..t..L:OtC..t:tie.4+.i:,...::i.:t.i.?Y:YY444YLt.:.ti:.t:?K4t'iLt..4Y:::s4:Fi.s4:6......t..:.4..i:i..iiiti4.i4ititiiiNii.ti..Y:ii..=t...... t4tii4.4s4i O ::Si:ifiiiliili:'.iila{iiSiliiiil:iili:;iiiliiii{it{i{iiifiiiFSiii{iiiaiaiilfiiIII[iiiiiiiiiii:{t{illiijiillliiliiilii Eli III liiiitiS III 111iiS;I[11111ili7iIEi 'i1 C ..IF,IiI[,Li,t[I!,£,BliiRl,1,£Eii: ii: -:ai£/E![IFI::£IIiIIi7Ii[IIF£IFIi:::a::::i:?iilasiiz:CIi-:[:I„IIMIN if Egui-I,ttills F'_lil;;us EE.i:££!=£!b£., Z .,ie.:.:aa,t:aa.{{t..............Ft:::::a::::::.t.::r.a4tt:a.tL:t:tsaaL:sits:...a4:aa:H.:i,t::Ca:::4Y:.a..t it.t,■;.a.;t:=tat.:ae;........Ei Z liil{tHIM 11:ilia:iliiilfiii:I[Iitii€iiilfi1iiSiiiil{S - — �D.. j� .. a Z 4I 0 M94 S iF� � ,� t� _1-Nr; �� > a'i .� > F=:; � i�^•� 'i� � a E I � �.i�', IR�a n QQ .I ,` aS. . �� - � /' \ �.ti -fig i y ,_,■ > �i tt Cr• �t, 8 _; 5 -li�I :C M�� Q''T_ .� - J I Ii _ :.- ! i -•__ e ?_!�. g�g" _ i t� •flit ! !is O O 5 k ' ✓. I- iI{' '/�'i Q�L—; @-'_R ,^�,.al+' ; '; —';�_Jei_r •�'' gt Imo— •: '�� s = _ .� fNo ?C^1 '=. sR� r J �•a a. 5�`�.. D -� -6 2 � e'1I(�/,_„7._..{� : r�4�`lse 3: a s� ��qy \ I �' %� o—;iX i._�J =�t•r Z m >E 2■ S. \ I � i f' ; =a �' �4 i �x, , ,a,, =7 i. 7 D 1 ,1 A 1 , ft st It\ 6_g—r• g �'2 ��{,��j�r��� a � ,4 w:►yi.� CO O< I tip I! (;I-; ipii !S c 7I I7 1D 5i�j QQ[t■ t•tS`31_= _, :...a D m r 4t1� Rilel1j1'�I;s it�ltttlilf..D v ii • ■ I¢ F I !!!! ` •t =' i c E i E !t! J�I��it �.bil• till t t- D --- E}.i I - 3t I I m --1 Z O E px „` ■ F�- [ 1'1+la►'j i lift m Z i B j ijjl f- 1 t �.. ! I ►1 i O ` ! �'j g s [s- f35i dI f t 11 ` {•t { p' O D Z = p 11 R'i3�(� IK :£-� ;3i• ! 1 p € fiFI tI tf1`'i[�!tilj!(lii.illi:.€{tE' 'n"C7 C Li., to=F t[ct € 1€ �E•' CS {,tt•;:i1,•/i t 1. �I 1; t g 1 �'I �' 1l; br ! it i . ! 1 EC t M I.11l/� � C) �. � • t:g1�i:�tg= �:gsi! llpl! {r�ttl ��i;j•`g 1m r O ( a -.:-E[_ � t ;i i€=� IiiisE €�li� tit EiIE'�t•6fZ_ ` i Ep Lp1 t vL ....-i...1-n m D 1 t4� [i .�di�elRva R I� !!�• i1 [o70D V! ii r �� tqi p li I I -;�-.j ii Bit��aa6 l ?i` gjERe : nz ::. A•�+ � it le C.• F ::: llI !S L.Oa ■ �OII i:'i} • .. i• f it lj i _ III; _[ w �. 'In iii IXull W,bi:TR(lt3)J Ih spdOl FACY 00) r- 7CtL V_-1]1,1 7 , 1 7/ 75 79 YLar��T Y •O• .yf,'S. '=N`A =-- t.'A 29 ) _I „ ^^ •- O O f s1 so O 0 Y , o o c3 = IT7fRA.1 Chit ls. i� y t p - - - I iyj pC T Ytm1 trY 10 _2 31 . rr .� NLmI.Y-C W` I Y CO 1fSTRCCT•" I, O •rr..�3- . 00 i Q Is 3] 7/�T _ G.• - �. . 1 N q 17 O _ I.-' 3. 12 TILIO11E�d M ZV I�-�►� a ��_...__-.�-: • � 39 10 /1 I 37 L,Ti,..Is ly .. �y M o .� 'o. o' f, m :ram•�.,:w .:1; w. E 11 O O GU Sinn ..� ,...� tl 90 s9 se S7 Sf sS • • _.... .. i •••-• O G.C. O O O s1 O GO s3 63 TREE �5 1 •3 l 13e AQ• c'{.'J•AW � STALl10N 9] P R tL, CIRCLE/ © , 77 73 7/' 73 76 77 7e \\-�-�' '� $ d� � / O O O O O O CO 79 g 1OT 31/ PAW �Ciy m O P 27 AQ(GROSS) rn {- 1 9s a t7 96 9s e1 'DETENTION DA91) ® •, I O Cr7 O O et ,;+'tY:7' :; : � ' YATgl Leff --- -' --..._._-. - /� .••- «. , tNEEf 7 C� ? _ J.• ..•,.w_r MIT t ..- _ _ - __ ':� ,arc•}� d .. 4 YATCN CWE � 1 NIT 3 'D3 GELDING Cry«O ©. GU O ,91 \ so7 soa soa no• sn, su, 313 y,r• I'fCi Y1(iUli(AgC11 { \ CIRCLE p° pt� i- 'HE; cO :;o 0 o c� o y y 41:li'.J.Y Od.I It I i: �tl• y I p 1e1 100 , _sTR(ET." Y _�� MEADOWLARK r ,LAN ` i�—r •s\ ��;y ©�� I, 5vN I ,O, .. •'k bl?i • C,°-,°.� I+,, ✓/;�/ - ,D9 ,03 30. 3D] o:. Sol, 300, 799 1d,� -"'�wOID PIRATE LANE PLANNING AREAS 1-4 li TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 0WHIER APPLICANT DEVELOPER r••.IF 011!f1 TENTATIVE TRACT • NO 15469 MUML �P.• ., �.d,»w.� ,..,.MDS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATELLUS SHEET 2 OF 3 STALLION T1166 W 10/35-38 CIRCLE,/ a2 (rrr © y II 77 7! 71 73 7t 77 7e Darnxi tx7Aa 1m UM-MAY Ua) P 80 / 27 Ac�4Clloet7 •• r j 21AC.t1ET7 �•. 1 ''I �'.:�.. ..� r::.::: is L al a7 of e! a1 �, 1 ,Tl fCiETE71I10.1 BA51t4', = ' :;. •. 1 ......I I f „ i ...,.•,.,r•. SHUT t H<EI ? i•'Tt•� ..._. r `. .o.r r.a' , I r .. - rrH lol'C fSeem a \ ,( 1 1 ,YATCN 9 •N�11 a9 90 91 92 f! ~ ' ;r _ u 6• SNE[ S GELDING J - _O O. O O ' �c-11 CIRCLE O 491 so7, loe, so9 Jlo nl, !u, sly' ;+ tJQi1NH .AU111341, s:�r.... ^.IbJCil:FA1.4.Y Q1,lot 10o - SIRtt -u . 111 OU'+ �T � , ' //: "•.•,• b!d 10 135 36 "� M _ 51 102 99 C^�' !Oa 70J 302 ]01 300, 799 �� OLD PIRATE LANE 27 1 I "L•FAIA..Y Orj) 1103 Q . 29a, x97 79e ' : ywa�� '' �r':� mr I I• t..�.1ia.'.rQI 1.�...�.. .• / O O O ce7• © Q CIE" G O' O ,i7a�r...:.� 1�a' - ••--I I PEARCE • D VC <•urcl h >8�:- ------• -- :� -TR[T—°'. 'o'•-e-•�'• 'i+p u 113 117 111 110 10f IOe. 107 IOt 1o! loa "'' p 1•,,, // ]3J 237 251 23oI !a9 2ae 2a7 , 'y�";• "' 0 O O O O O O O SS •T• zee / p'p•�'p'GO'O' 2aA' iaa 2» 2xa .W_P'% PAW O'pgm I o7 AC. 11prJ7I ]e to 22s xxs I 11a I' �' ' � 7s1 Iss at ts7 tss 7s9 •�•.• iN �i ©, % ,'.. . . .t LLi777 j tC il' O'O'O'�' �2p, O O O `I lL u a ' lef 190 UI 192,,f! 114 If3 U1• 197 10' 9f 200',�; 1 tea _ , ]tl ]Ix 72Of 7O , I,y +—'�3• ILI'=•' �a 'LL.. Its ,•®-p © OO OO O.O �•O O ` O O II o 1 ut �- :- �, -:BB —w.• - StR T 7O 241 Ise l - - -1e0 a 1tt Iss 15: 2O N xn 2]] S r! u n 1e 0 m. 179 < . � T ' a , las ISa© � 131 ' \ 272 »o'x let 276 U761 �2J'e 2�ssJ �7 ]xo 265 IO O O 1 120 1.3 11 ` 177 170 I IQ 13a lag I•�� S�HE[T�—fix T _ 7tt 237 , •A.. l 'r.. 1e• 1 O Z. O O O & ra' GU �' v..• al•9 ,: . o TRc Ay' ' �• .. 1t.b' 157 la �'ir r. 1 • T xa7 25e t01 202, 20] 20a, 705 20t a • ' ' 1e7 � � ,..I© n . '1 p.• "O' nr , �• '.:y"•�'_Vi�'`1' , r. 1 i I) 1p m 1 s 172 1© Ise •, u xu :!a M4 411E 81 AI.M 441'I 15 1yL, r 1 I Its © us ua .). rXlSTFki Ui7llai7)• i •• I '7 1• O• may 17a 17! It0 139 lat C� r� �• •712, 211• 710, 20917a9, 731 -f tell © o o ®'. » .. © o r'/liY U� '• [ •�: 1© 0 1 MEADOW CIRCLE .J •. v .- &- 116'--�.. .awe—•+.r—r D _a— 'w..d—i_.. _ _, .. .._ _-•---. ... r .jam I2f ."y TN[C1-'• • — — - n U177Isa....117 13a••46 1!9 t10 Iq q1 Ib! 111 112 113 r - I •il la 21a 21t 317 213• Zia �. - - +�N V Y•■ Yrro J L.•ro 1 + ,,,y .• / ' i•r1�'•'.•[ • ,''� �'.. —rr11 M•riu IQtel•iWrlw s�ul� ' ! ��a 200/33-35 `—E _ 1 . • °"`m°30-- _. .. ..MEADOWLARK 11 -.r .I NAIJ'u, LONGS "'""'" 1� � bS41 :.'03 141-48 1 11ANNer Nlnl,; yd g PLANNING AREAS 1-4 r:mlm""I-Fu"004 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 TENTATIVE TRACT - NO. 15469 �\ �E8 APPLICANT k OCVELQPEB ar a E_,p p 08 o t I7 r• pmM. M w — MDS ��- CATELLUS ^— -- —,— CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SWIFT 3 OF 3 �nO ' 1 30 30 20 20 . ..................... ------ ----- 10 10 10 10 • wm w" w" 1. 30 ----------- --------- ....... 20 Y. n, 10 0-m- 30 3 30 0 20 ---------- ;o 10 10 10 t t, I mew-w 30 30 14 ------ 20 INN.` I W 20 10 ID SECTION E_E' w. (7) 30 -f: 1 1 1 ------ --------- �ti20 -------------------------------------- 10 X. KCTVN Y:-E Wom MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREAS 1-4 .kA OWIM Rft�A DEWBOM TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 nor --mw + SITE CROSS SECTIONS CATELLUS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHMT I OF 1 mom tea; ,• . e �I i���s�; ;_ �� � Q ! I UN ��f ��j `tea!- :��►➢ '� -- ems. Nk It r7imm, inita i�iYiA f a' I' �! Lr� r c��_-r' f i d u�i■ �liu�ui� II�_ 0 A� �+"i��IIY�MdIMGM�M rYIJV7 � I" �i il'7 S:='I�"".""'� •, AI�II�i�I��� �u"R Irill■`��■l ;I; .gem.,,. , . .9�i' r �1 tl'�� .I,�I..ri�r.11:r.i. Qi7 l • "Rik, 1RIQi� ���gi�� I ■.•---r-... .� a :� si7► ��!.+`�3,N aa.���"i, � 'p ta:�� ' -- • �-�R1r�-Jur,�1 1 1� 1wAAA�r��' �'= ji��� •c U..6 A]d r/i�r�� fwp �4r��� IiLaCF,.�I i�C1 fow LA 'tCG �. f�ii.�� rsf aA A i as iw It III all III p Clu.q i HEM i - -- -- wrrr�vr-- • � i\ ' wYwlrr"-.�; -' . -- � - "'---' __ rJ .. • _• -_ - _ I• rr� Y f/' ( // ,",. •:I 'Mrs;..:.:...�,..• N S 00-1. .......w Y "t lrl. N i' gi11( I Y , I•r' n �• � rr? U N N 1 Y "I •� . �� "`; Pc STREET f;+ •F;I tPL'R' „+� �t G++v ,�1��$I '1. ."l / - --- i iJ i rF • -1•h" :"wr:`M:Y'•" :i• . .�� Yi� r N -N N N' » N N ,1 • • •• . �.�• • QL5 r ` % ... STREET 1 .... \: '_ .«r.•. 1 /: • t'{11{r.I'/fd(, ARK suiiroN 0"A AA (4.5 AcO RCJ I C,RCLC !� - •' \-Lr/� _ �I W ��: PTEN9gt1 N' 7 •n EX Y Ill .1 PARK r! n, rr, n• » .' 2.7 AG ICA089) / 24 AC,YETI ,CC:..), P: • CY "/ », - » \� DETENTION BMW 1 ' r.•.r.w ATCN LORE Y ~ -.___. ___ .._•_ _. !f� r• <' ..-. - - ._ :...w.� r.o.... 11 - r .v a..•..r w SHEET A — URrrT 1-1_ _ _ _ .. •:a•• SHEET E ;( '..':— ..AT LINE I. 117 KIT I If ENEET i LEWD C �\ 4i, GIRDING 1 N' a a r a t {w I { + .r CIRCLE ,� -� , I`�ikA;I tJGi t \ I P\ ~ 1WAY(IN �__ ..... 4 ,» �, '� STREET Y MEADOWLARK • . ._. Y __ yIa �. 'u w., - %,"� . �' ..( (3 I' I PLANNING AREAS 1—4 �.q 19(k;iltk9 t>s rA�iCi 1 III TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 NILICAN TECHNICAL -SITE PLAN MDSJ�JSItlEB ePPLIGANT tr D�yCL fOPCR r.I iF`rYII[u " ~'"»» "'"'� ""•" CATELLUS —' "-- .-.. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 3 j as r 1 • p I ^I � ` � �qf 3 , i� >. � Q 1�1CC �t�r MA�IIw� yZ �I •`y'� Cc �tM c r�. ��� � rc• '�"li �� � ��ri r?�� Oi,:,��;��� ,_ IrC 9 �hZ+iYliY�i7.1�\�_Q� 1 17�II31 I�I�qww� f ° RIC ,1w1 � I1l i1�I II ��i�) g:11:l1l lde ee1 yll ltli��y�ll� 81yII1 11e11� ,� — -- --- S. INCl wtt�C621f11'�t . �� r � �� �� ��� ��� •� �. 1 ac efkinitY�iellI Ii�iisTeil�;3! tICfIITI"If - I ( Rlull ,Dl�l 1 •'01 , MAI _ , ii ice' I I I f cl I CFI I reel I E� c I ��I g�'I� R� -oaf- -Ili xx I * .01 : lCoMM ws r.11nelft t� I� � —r_...-- DOSTfJ(3 OL•7AC1l� SN(�E•fAM.Y OtO .� II '..,,.I' .r.,.�r I^'n""!,•"'�- I �e•I1�1 � �II•;1:, I� „Yl`... �� III u I _ �-(►111YA1[Sla[[f) T T ' T 1• « I / .. - I1mCaLiffiAT- '�,• ». LI_.- Ly -_U.____LLL...111��W1 � - _ I �_ [�..' - �-ee1FIK�(LANAl.V919 FOR PA-2 d0T8 4E0 T13 .rw. ww e ®`_4s�a"' •r•wrn.oml m� IBMmm � _ _- - .if J/l?I:.I. -_ �' -_— I Q. //��1����ryry W Y+Y, 1•�.�:naonrl � In lkw w • w « I TI MIVIi IW,rwmY �. PARKlKf ANV89 FOR PA-1 aOTB 62-10R 11r _-- - !J�1,�r II 4 v.a.un...•-.r�rl .: I 0,11 117iAL�Ar�.ak�leaoD 'j' _ _ /r, I PA►tl(HO ANALV9l9 FOR PARK 5M(LOT AN) ,��} I ,_'wL .• � I tC[�•-,[�•� �a .,.,..YT rasm riomm ® r...Yr,wr••r»r rra«.wm ��p I�''� -'� �STRC[T'B'=r... '--p � • ® •.a y.r.•wn ¢ µ•J•+" :�: _ I.1{r�1 ,S r 1. .. '•�,• ..A. ra r»or I I '�� •�+ I .I I � r"-11 , 1 � 's .cello :���u f"«T.� fir• �••,`�. wn•.. 1 r r Y _ v r Y r Y u _-a_:-_-.'- : •' 4 .. .. ..� .._.. �::�.. r ST €?•� � 1----`w c�� >�...w r r f �..�' elm PAfd(� c sruuoHilp a� Y� •. :r®,..®. AQ 1 ( Q 1 , PANK - - '� -• - PAFK 2.7 AG(CROB9) 1 1 4 ` ,'3'•....1 24 AC.PC" •� ...' /Y `. ({/ .•1.. ( I Y t o `. T _ `i (DEIENRXN BA.iI' 1 , `, I•�... }� ..•.J c_.. , y .•;' e' 1.. - YAICHLIHC• I liaY[� _ �� ...__ .. -, SC[SH[[I'72. ,,p .� ._..,•n-c—_* .::_ .. , Lr - 1 a I a I ^`�'\� - •� 7 r. w w In rl, lu ul SC[SHCCI G[LCNNC Y r�—I _ / yd - k F F F ,,p,M,• CIRCLC w •.IY/ `JiL•FAN1.Y�f0 .: VCJMV AIAP r�C' (r +. ,� _�:..._u •' _ � !a � �7IC+'J'II �. `T• _ l•• •lam �� ���' -r�I '�µ�. ( ;� r ���r=° �a _fir 1 MEADOWLARK :>rrx��AM.y nar PLANNING AREAS 1-4 . Oro S TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 ( PARKING PLAN APPl1CANT R DEVftOP[a MDS •:—.f r��'R=� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CATELLUS .,,. SHEET 1 OFr2 N r I!AFAH21fta� q mmum ZENwo ' 'Fill F'O EXTEW" PAF1( (DETEW.3NBASO. L�f.iAlwLn116,fp ,mem Fr,�7 r j I �; 111J1` _.J/ I'°,(Iu;'/-\ Y-� / :'1V:r ............ • Ito ------- - 17 Ar-(GFKM) 7.AC.(PED SET wrl PA.8 • JIM fWLP&I UTI 62-IM MAfCHLINE —I po I SEE SHUT I MAICKINE. aow 4. 7 -) :=4ff-A� JIM= OT" In 'o"OZO STREETCO co M. Z (PRIVATE DOM MTACI 0 SM9 FA CIO ST PA.A 1-7- STREET . c DRIVE an W 111:E�;, I CEO."CM .0. IR 07 AC.PAFK w..r, .$TRE T I , 1»i ( �• ,'1,'�. El, lip II lto gi aELQ f t Tf �..�I. 'I _ ( -1 �( �m� _ Y. - .-ISTREET_STREET G 43 Ir 'U'M OR M 118 J 441'/ I.....u L Irw MTM N:TACI Im lJ Fx Star::-Rldlil`00 MEADOW CIRCLE LKOM C� r CEO n"11 lal r TIT. IN I ,1A h. X. TRI -c !'MR,\7 Ipj, - - . . I .".� \- -, "' J­ , ji- Q V\ co� �- j Ll WA 203 41-46 00-M OVERLAND DRIVE mym mu-r-Awyow F1 W 200/33-35 • MEADOWLARK J, I w1wer PLANNING AREAS 1-4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 QWNF rime =1p.111:& PARKING PLAN MDS CATELLUS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 2 ails HEIL AVENUE _ ��•_ _�•.::..,.,,.� _j_ .� / - - _ �—•- """' --_ .ram 1 e I•" 1 toINO •3 ' w. . - �i• to- - S R 1 •,.. �%'° �►REfi '(' •.'v _ ua Y 1 1 - R4YTs�'rr•— 3•asC..r� I°�i#�4Rr- �1 --- _ -- _ % L RQLAR OTm*ATE How rMG! - 1 .,,f n! If - °• ,+, �'_�- I t1.1.... _. u �•� to f �% Y u — :• .. LOFOINATpI LON HALL A10 ROIL/Ul GYM rlNL! WALL AND FENLE LEGEND � Lf ., .. 't\f fPl�-2 - -•-•-._ ro•...co.c,Y,.u..Y..ueY»..• 13 r -u+ 1 it STREET n ......... . :1: •a,r°caen.rw low waa.Io f. :I .I I. I / ..1. L. -.T. 1 __ \� - - .w r+raY• Y MAOOrof:Y KALE nee IaAu a .. <;L• ?dr'•-� �.•, I % .(_I •n- 1� '�" ,,. \\ , u u SS n. ' u •�' gtYTRlf1�.nR•rs-�:.i", � i _ — «.... 1... �� ; t-l� '-• _ •;�_iJl�� �/ .- I` , s _ .,.,, `Q. ry n��c a,la � y .a. it .. + I IL •� (1e.- ..f.-n-f t;�:y. .y -�+.. \ .:`. �L�f� n.. �� .-.... •u /4. 1 i.pSIR[[�II �fl.til� "` •��` .!(tl .:I} a./ YI f 1 1� 4•^... -�'S P��:`I r !Er 11 LT 1 I�`y�-1 1 ` PAN(0 ACJa: ''}, ('� S (4.5 ACC s� ..,....- .„ !� Ij r l J ��1 _r' [1 , ' 1, i a • ,' ERTENS. ..•... weary 'AP }I'iL_,! •j„ 't-.:�- '(.-• 1'>� '; ,. T rl-•r , �; 24 (NET) •• j (DETEI N OA:2: -:'• I 1 ' j w J i• � � � ■ a' YI N PARK 1 ■ o ■ • w 24AG(KEn ■(-'� (� �\ Ne IOElEIIIION BASH) i i MATCH LINE SEE SHUT 1MATCH LOW ■ •,, _ - —_\� Jul _ ...... SEE SHEET I xi i m r r all no nr n! V'IALL AND FENCE LEGEND •, •r "• _ w "• �� t(( �._._.� r•v"w i4r:rYR rNrorrlr M•rrr,a • - w.r. /_ ,w r. _ �..y-...-_.Slk(�1_ _,Yr �• `�i T� r'V wxw LOK�I{R MNOM�\if•t Nr.L �II xl �• _ •••.•••.. r'OrW rPM.IW 10rrt.1�MO 1 �, _ _ — - --.-'�_�•s, w�.rlrn ran -- \\ ••• n v .a xr __ • �I I u� 1 ■. -•A1�O�J� an N r N r Xl r n r ■ j/i zl PEA ` �DRIVE �/ L_L• a„• ..�_fIR[E_1 •�++� I ; r: a : a : a `3 l 14 + 1• W PAW 0.7 AC. F N w m w r - r r w r ! F J } F w [II J - - c - _ 14• w - -r� __ .A •1 w - .n r "►�t ,1� x. ��x R� rr x. 1 i i a 3 4 rO r _- - r - ✓�"'� _ —i 14.m N — w m , „�7•It7-- - �,r 1 1 a7 N r r m N m w '• w _ ,n r• u. 1 r •N m - w ,- SIREEI •�_� 71�1` x. nr n1 �1 /�.Nr �1C4'•T� �'• x. N. _ r 1 r v, r r \. ( j 3 ; R" 1• 1. IP — rM 1• r r in awl r r wr r . ,N ■ay r r w 1 1 •� rSIREF �5 t 1• 1■ r 1 1■ 1 nr m nr m grallwAwru=wunlr�wc MEADOWLARK i PLANNING AREAS 1-4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 MNE APPLICANT k DCVCLOPEN MDS+rf..fOr.r/Ll�r WALL AND FENCE PLAN Rr.9}:r oxAl u n aaal4n w► "- "'=" CATELLUS rm. �--- CITY OF HUNTNGTON BEACH[ COUNTY OF ORANGE[ STATE OF CAI FORNIA aJoe n6w6s lo." ..! 2 OF�2 N i PLANTING LEGEND -- - [muau iBE[aN4AtlEIIC »t°mee»eara• HEIL ' AVEMJ .....,.r° .rr.•`i.«..1�'i.ww'..r.r....nr�lr.. • `tttt � a p[ rr I/ ^..fir+ s R o• .� r r ••. x ree�a__••••*s "Em momroomfilt Reocoeamaiu[: » r.....,...wr. 0 fVwwY �l•,_rr wl� IAY«If.l w.w...vwr r all v n. r , t r • na 11 l� OIIOYM4CYY[II: •.w.r.w.wr u_ ....... ,tI Yrr © ft"'N"_ __ n u tf] .•..................+... srr.a (�.".."•"W�'°'.".i".'r.. W nE F a i .l, ...............�.. ~ � L ..or.r.rr wr•..rr , ."'- VINES: w _ • Y wlrar.maew " �, P��2 SIR • Y � a 1 Y ,l r ll u F » It X ..•. � ^ _I /1. F t n• .n Y J r l tl w w w Y r u r is u ��lisy�[s, i•_ ... �`�+�. •..�..,�•� (/�'�� -`.; t ••. _-';..•`tom :j'•� T�^, �_: J \..�..•(4S AWPARK .... YKXlIY_rl[AP , IN u n• n• »r r r . 27AO.IONOSS) I . 24 AC.(NET) _ ... .. /•�. �..'�� \ +,,"'(\ »-. (C MNITION OASM i• I�I /...f� \I -J �•••� - ST '- ' i YATCN ud '- ---- - �• SEE MEET 2 4 .r I — I .�` G............. �.I Fim nl• ar w WATCH LINE roa+lwvww«+u•warn.alC p -�OEE SHEET 2 ter_ MISS __ === -_'__=__ -- " • •• ;� M r a� 1�_ �_. MEADOWLARK - " r� n t u. ►rr rL`,=rl� 111'Z,•,.l N' 11( � 'I��i-II j � �� ." .Y-l�— PLANNING AREAS 1-4 - -= ---- = TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 owmr APPLICANTnEVELGPER MDS;'._o4�.r CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 orlYft w K Guluat roalrw ow CATELLUS CITY OF HUNTNGTON BEACH[ COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA i pa 026W65 I&I"a SHEET 1 OF 2 crm--1 t� 'r�i1^�'cl i'!^J��i It t ci _ J c.:1 ,::a•.,, r js �}• ,,�I �If•6! , @ F'!! �ar a w`! E� 17''GI��� ,E} a '• e7 I ,r ��rr �1.�� r ' I 'Q Q g W �f V Q Q ° 14 a :a.• .} C:i erai'.i —r p C��af�`I,,l� }I it ei* ,Ci �, �s. Enot��t<o� Lica v`.+ ,iLr{!,'y'':.-�� �� 1' 't` l �f}�`� rt;fit IBM ial' FU 1'la'�.'.r � ''ir•'� ,� A ' �p �y�j I t' �•F°' f i -i:�.+'a �Z• 11' '1• � fT F fZ ,, rn n �"I. �!•� TI Er .A' � Ark a .R'tt I'r �T?A '1' A;:t+ n �a rL ,E[ � rA:u•,: ' K� � �G' �� 'i� >r_a R._� rts_�: �_,�: at *•' � F� °� ,•�:� Zr �� 'G,..tir ��. G,•tF � Vt! o?r; •@ @� ��k h `�'t .r d ���r� "■iA' !�� , ��I ��� 4;. / �.f'r @ d h f} 'rah@ 4! e# d� A v v yr N I A. � rd A'. .a'. :O Ir 1 :li• dig J 1i. y . '� '. r w� '•A '�• o u� b 'G /} d rQ !a O rP a 4 • la��5 � 4ilE����� � �� � � i$,.C�/5�r,<°� r.,EP '7 r%; �'' ' v 3R • R`17 .y W PA -TYPICAL STREET PLAN P.A.2--:TYPICAL STREET PLAN M , • SS } a RECREATION AREA 3 PARK •• •••• •i �'i. • MAJOR SPINE-TYPICAL PLAN a • • ra•••na••n a aawnn,••: • • a r i� MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREAS 1-4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 ON'NfJI APPLICANT.h OEJ(�pP(R ,� MDS=�••�°=a°'��=• 20 SCALE EXHIBITS' Kam•:� m uatl•Uor pal. �« �.d.�-�.... .— �... ..._ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF:CALIFORNIA M Ytso7es 104"s CATFLLUS — 3FEET 1 OF 2 t E ESMNT V T� ` 0 PJL 4-TYPICAL STREET PLAN P.A.3-TYPICAL STREET PLAN I 7;u 't• A v. 181 STREET 125 ST�- a � ` i 04 I• � 1 i� LOT P—OPEN GREEN SPACE — i` • f4.r • , ...r• LOT N—OPEN GREEN SPACE raa•wuwu•w.nw.Nc � gyp« � v .. i I �• ..Yacrw MEADOWLARK - — PLANNING AREAS 1-4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 QwNER APPLICANT a pEYCLOPER .� MDS7._:_^iairi�• 20 SCALE EXHIBITS rm 11r�ua4:utsa•aw aae -- " = •^' -— y« CITY nc HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF.• ••1F'ORNIA PM�V.•"•...,y d.W CATEI.I.US ""'•" """y M �1 •��pe I2mm 10 r 2 OF 2 N w r PHASING SUMMARY .44 • M(M AWNUI IMPROVEMENTS • P[...ICE DRNL ,••4-LANNINO AREA 3 \Q•nYn/'^ / •/ • •S12M WID[Mro0 �IR[[I OW0ING IM►R:v'M[MIS^, .` iLOIS 2/3-29.274-203, 0 . •LANDSCAPING ,••+LAA^•TNO AREA. ! �• •\ •� -_rvJ.L.�- •IRArrIC SNWAL/7ATIOM/STRI►WO • PV•WING.MAI '• '•1 , _ 'lots �-IS 3ff�72r7.•RI is •L•IS I26-II9 •I74 -1 9 2 y,�R..�.- I.W. ' _ L • • SPLNL ROAD I�.[[t IM'ROY[YLMIf-n^ n , ^ ,STREET IMPROVEMENTS -STREET IMPROVEMENTS (STREET M,PORTNW or STREETS I (sIR[[r W.1•.PORTION Of in[[t•I') Gk . a - _ , • / !• 1�"••• Viirir •WERASIRUCIUR[(PLI"SERVICES) .W7RASIRIICIUR[(PU"SERVICES) •R'-INFRASTRUCTURE •n••Lou'AAA* I ES) -LANDSCAPING -WIRASTRUCNR[(PUBLIC SERVICES) it /• •• - • OPEN SPACE LOIS LETTERED LOTS • ry-LOIS AREA 7 ^ ' 77 -LANDSCAPING -SIR IT r . 19 ' (STREET•'P,/•RIN'I W ST.•c•) = , I • PUBLIC► (LOT 31Q-LAN .I I, /.• A I LANDSCACAPING •IMIRASIPU:IAA[(PU^I:.3ERY^o)^ -PARR IMPROVEMENTS • PHASC..d / • ,x I• 1 •' • PRIVATE PARK(LOT 313) -Lois 220-313 • PLANNri AREA f r -STREET IMPROVEMENTS -LOTS II4-123 / I'---; r)• ••" --LANDSCAPING -OrCN MAC[Lot STREETS W.W.Y,Y,AND LANDSCAPING :, - ( TARN IMPROVEMENTS L�{ae�: �,•�. , � 1- � ' PORTION Or Su[[If 0•, U-) �iT! LnE'� - e-'•'•T=1,[s•I:-( t'.�- •WIRASTRUCIUR[(PUBLIC SERVICES) '�uw~.r' •` / •` •` / �../ J '..P[I/1'$E-1 ,-•,'Y•. I - - PdASL..2 • PLANNING AREA. 1 -LOTS 160-173 193-116 i-•- [2 ♦ r an rRK" • PLANNING MCA 1 -STREET IMPR01[Y[NTS t3 i.", w'W�, •MODEL COMPLEX/PARXUW (STPC[IS•I'L PORINW or STREETS ♦ [ ;. �!�,; ,/ , `' -LOT S 52-37.)3-eo BB•AND a 1 5 / • -- u /Y v-' •SUL[r IMPROVEMENTS 'WrRASIRUCTURE(PUBLIC SERVICES) 1 ma's' _ / i Lyf•, �•, (.o.INNI Or STREET-1•)PUBLIC SCRVICCS h' • ♦ '--•1 )...J i •WrRASTRUCTURc pL. ( ) Pat-{�yf- --- - --- c.• • PLANNWG AREA 2 P1iASL! PA-1 •,� ?; ! dalrl I, 1 / I -MODEL COMPLEX/PARKING f f /- 1'E - / •LOTS•11-17.2/-31 • PLANNING AREA t ♦ 4 -LOTS STRE T IMPROVEMENTS EMENT ��+:u--� L 6-113 •Su[[1 WIBOV[Y[MIS -STREET wNOVIM[NIS (SIB[[IS-0 •N•,•r•••G•••[ (STREET'v.PEARCE DRIVE - ��� ,, PORTION or Su[[f•C-) EAST Or Sum•X•) ' -INFRASTRUCTURE(PUBLIC SERVICES) PA-4 — � 'f•"x,!/. •INFM INC SIRIUa[(PUBLIC SERVICES) _ ;) •1 I e: 11 'J - • ! . •!M N OT ]Na • �NICI • -LS20[ ICLOMP[XPIMPING 11'•' - -SIR _ -LOTS 201-20f.370-211 (SIT'1 I.PRO•V[M IM T'S ^ -STREET IMPROVEMENTS It S•S.EY•. O •.-►-O..0 (STREET-1•. N I U•) EASTF STREET• D►Rra•N •U1rRASIRUCIURE(PUBLIC SERVICES) O STRICI•U•) , I R U1 (PUBLIC SERVICES) 1� [ 1- / LL``}}--IT '• • PLANING AREA/ • PLANNING ARIAEA4 -, •Y00[L COMPLEX ASKING •IOtS 136-1/7.158-131 •LOIS 143-137.137-200 -STREET IYPROVCY[NIS -STREET IMPROVEMENTS (PORTION Or Su[[I-AA-) (• RtTR Or STREETS"AA" •B3•) INFRASTRUCTURE(PUBLIC SERVICES) _— 'allalN' I' . a„_{ I • %'ate } QpwBRNIri {1 j Fii"' '• xi 1IN.mu �•.., 'I !IL `r AT .! •~1- GwIwaANIgur.o,ow,ELOPER 1 N.•' Y ii i / i �..Y_ L 1 nR... ,r. R+u-.. Q I,�� .•M'S..O••r.r --• CATELLUS •sr r PA- , 4) PHASE BOUNDARY --— __ •E.. . 1 I � � � nr �� � 'I• _ .--_ -.-_ TRACTBOUNDARY — 1 MDS&-.�__ '� 1 I I.• Y•..,.�. . •• n. N I�� , � •t'P.� •on.r••,.r•••N•rw.....I w+ea I� • . • . • .�� 1 I� ; , ,. i MEADOWLARK •-� ,.j'� , , . PLANNING AREAS 1-4 ' k f�•-�I�L I I I, �I ' _ — _ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 - -- ._. .._ _•_;:;_,,�M. . . ., �-- PHASING PLAN " Mnr CITY ,OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 3 N 0o r I� rM J1RCIi �C'_ •'4 a I � .•. ... - r ln rx I i Y . i wtf: �Pfl 9� a--rflla[1'N;:r� C'� (I �,•�-' _ r,11Ij I .'�1 �,1 /--- 11, r N Y, N N a M 1/ N , `` +..�._.T1 _.I•' ........ .. 17�'i'A7dP,.l'':I- a U F. I 4 a - o..r.... m... ��1_ -t .r �' HA$E 1 .•:• rPJ �.�; g :Pu.���ttMM�10 I t , ,••.(....1a.5 ACJ ...... 1 a a I ;I a �n .! ;I:'a ✓:�:aa Ex11:N510N �Q f- I' a " 1 _ ►MAS[RWNDART •t 11 , V' IN m � /••�- /. .J TRACT BOUNDARY �•-�� ( , - ( ' _- "--- r .a • ( 27 AC.lCi1089) ' ' ..,, I ....•� 1- NOD[ MOM[ I 1 • u r a a „ I 21 AC.UET) .._ 1 .��• ' ..� .,.. .; l ® r _ (OETENDCN I In 1 1 .. ... 72 Iris' utlril - lu � ,+. „ :1���• � � .,... ..Sl,�•I-(�'---..._._ •f.1� ...... •'YATCN tEI! ac`_A:. -.=i a...' !• / .. ...... i 1 ...1 }/ !•'�; •j�i •11 I. -. ...M... - EM[ETEI ...... IRI[ •rr-........... -.A. a`' �., I II .I/I, I I 'I. ..1 I •_ . ... n ; L � r.r,,..� ';.�, ;»•:'� YAT�N lw[ I'I I'•.� I I i �I 1 a ..\ -1 � a / .;i %�' w /� ExEeT t� I I •tl'.!I.. r - a. II. ( .ate• .� a \ �., j i w w IN w w w �EMEET7• CJ STREET N MEADOWLARK R .,..M... I•• ar--S., 'I• _._LJ I rl.�—i-\h• I - [J\!`/=N�'�.";� ' �.1 II ��II I III 1��1�• 1�5a1..1 Y�r�',".. � �Y�•�•�: - - t N' PLANNING AREAS 1-4 V� I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 ` owNr APPLICANT A, DVIQPER� " i rims � I PHASING PLAN CATELLUS Y— --- •--• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 3 N r N III ' ; !•• YI IN I ( ` 71 JyI ` PARK .... _ 1�'✓/r J5/•�'• �l� 27 AC.(CN089) I r I- ri'L.�1 I p �'!. A. r u / `/"�r ':� J(t iOA�U ..._._TCII.. I !I ]� t`l >� ,, • .1•;.�, t. �� .PHA 1, . .. .."...•.... - m. SHEET -• _ `.......-•S;RCEI -�...,{............. �.A ��� 7f ':�..:..��x.• '..•.••.• '6MEET J- 1 1 . I,) 1 r • •. ' /' •?;';' •MATCH 101E '�I^• •I[I It -� I '� 'S3i.. j • .�•. JNELT k PA-1 .� i f cc11.. a 7 ,' ' '-• r w, w. -RREET . -- • `J Z 1 "i r-. u FTIP .1 r.v STREET r "� P• •�I tt.,. ��' •.fw IS JiU �.sU��L..l"���`� ......,.... (PHASE 6) I ,r-1 11r / r/•'= +Y I+N Ism I., i IN.I w I +« .�+n -�I •j ` 1';'� ',� ", I ml NII w I wow I N, dr .,,._ .• �C�J� •. Frye� 1 z; .. .."`...'...- r y. ..w .7 "'I'I.1 1 I I __._ Ir ., , ' r't •.l;i /•�`/^' ••I I i;JYI ILp�Il __ FARCE `I•'• ORIVE Purcl hl '[ 1�`I} .o•.' �• ' ° STREET i�.i•'0' (STREET '0' I I( il'I:ldT 1. Ir 1'i �'.. i ti.. • ��I�' ' •_ � �'i = •` ��� _ t r, 4 ''- ��,�i��i_Irl,{'1•J� ! ,I 1- I u 11 l �4 1"f ,ti }`i �— N� I -;� PHASE, : NIL �� �, ;n,i_ ,_1_ i I , ;�' 44JJ UUn' YN 1,• I« .I« I ,w 1 'aI: ' INi • I ��' jA R �N ,+•( r ,f ".-r E ' ' `� ���IIY n, .r� 'i I � ��_� � i�� � �l: •� I •" �•J••.� .t`{l�'�I� Y � ;4 ��l��f .�'I.i���1����:4i��l�j.�� '`.»1 +y 111 I LLLL_I .-! 07 IIIrJ1(1 I ,al YI+.M• t ''l�' �`•.'f�1���� VI���i�I�r— ��}Il �I��r .._. � •\•1 � 'q: I i r'.•'.l � 4vv� MII ��" -'� � .� sTREn Y. 1 :A;1 i Y rIII I `1.••^ �iREET �'.,... ....:. • I 's. ._] Ir, Ii.,: I 1 v 1 r A. :.:..__! °s. L' �1'• ��-{{ ``I� I I•: I I.: I j I+, f ;t 1 : L'J� �I ,_i�.,�I .,-�;�_�;�T�,�71 i I " ,. % ' .i�P.FI�S :4}T �-•{ ,�....I„ N, I_�,� �j I' I , a �., ' ,n' +1 ' ° `I`1Ti. �j"'-" i+n un I w / yp� EEE`••''-•• • {I,J�� 5 /YJ�. 1 l{)1 yJl NIA Ir '~ •11; II J�.. n �-J 1 i .J 1 I�,, •. I \ IE � 1I_1 LJ_1 L( Y IY --- �- \. STREE Y v.:.� (�H E ) t ��_ /Ay'c� �—� ' �" •`1 - r••{{�J1 �, '��,'t'.'11,. r � I ,ULtl� Ii4..,y`,.. `. .. rJt} Ir •'d1rl �S. Io ( ;IJSTREET ,..-.Q. It LJ N"NwLY j'1� 1� J 1•u 1� I it _ '« rtl' JI�JI�� P J '�Ic� + I �, " �»; ''�llffl''� n,1�--� II � 1(''���, I I`-I 'f�' 1 Iw 1_!.� , .� .\j N, w w +u ! �� `L.-'-}• I•I �•• �` J,ri fir-'-I,'• n_1lI) .�uu ',-.• , uJ' q .«Y I. IL'J ' Ste! \' �1 E Ir 1 w '• 1.t :o.. .n 1 1 ` 1. IN �' '-I "1��,.«i' L.�`1 'f •,... ,al•ac. 'LI'�T, i•..." YCADOW CIRCLE ••�• _� l • .. .� •~•� ,, (PHASE STR[CT 11 ,• 'i I SIR[CI Ii lI i.-Jo I ��•� l�-� � ^I � � -I• •� .I•' �' ?�f.��•,'` !' �I i I ' III I I i I Ell ,, -�l) , �►'� �( , -} ; _ } ,:al;: :� El j; I II II n W� n n II I n n U� I u I i II II U II y.J'1 �' _. PA ,I I `OVERLAND DRIVE It.\I.1'l11 I •I IA(�WASE44) �� ° 1 I �� 3 , MEADOWLARK MA,CKFT I I�I II,t,,,; l I I ;,,! 1; I k; CRA Y BOUNDAiT4Ri PLANNING AREAS 1-4 YCDCI NOYC RACY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 PHASING PLAN Qyry[ APPLICANT B A, D[Q[LQp�g r r T p y r e r,r.r r +wrYxmA Yu. MDS -- - �"• """ "'"""'" CATELLUS --- •-- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 3 OF 3 N I 1 a ,•-,• n-r are 1 uo• ara 1 l a zrru nm O a LIVING i OR. O ❑ , El , I 1 G 1 ©AMILY FFs scion MB w a Ib�a u•.n• Kan . , 1 0 ...KEl a � -- ..a. .tr ENTR a f n0 a DEN w xwr �u4«? x. OOK C r t B 3 , 1 ° .ICITH N 1 y O tl 4 o^ a. El 0 d ------------- 1 m , 1 OARAOE 1 * l 10-Y 1 O• fO' 4 • •f KR4f I�I 1 1410 FIRST 1 1206 SECOND a 1 1 1 3 BR+D /BR, 3 BA APPROX 2616 SF ' ss MEADOWLARK }, HUNTINGTON BEACH v CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 , 'L ,..1, ,l N i ��'.1�1_�11--�—•-!.a_�--=1-'r� "1'" �!r yt_J�- v �- l �\.:. - — i w N• qq +� �• ® 3 �j T S•. fly Ul1Y n NMtII aaalw.N • IB m. ulYoa.NnonrYsl IC .mr.4wOLWOQd..b1. vwsu.r •I..enoraar war.W •a..nwwr <aRY RI01 L110m RYI01 aama pW 7W m� WW I�Q QW Qw ww QY 1 nw nw Qrr aY 1 aw ww nw Qw, 1 M.0 wY nw 1 a wW qW wW pY �Y nW ww E\TERNIN►IATENIAIS 1 ,IIYYY � • IYNI♦IN11 YUMIMN•Illlf �1 ❑0 1 Unl""CE ANU ll111 1 INIY'U Uvll YIAaLU NA\M la YNNIp YMCI �Q 11 UIIIWWNYYI AMIIYIIIL ' — 1:C...1 Ill-1 Nf 11 N/1 IN WT 11 WIM NY... (1 O 11 Wl'UTAII\t•{UWIVANI 9 IC MIYQIALLL MW IAII �� � „ ML'WK1 MCtY..LL GIW 1313 1313 V \,l„11'ItiYIIW\ . 1111 I AA '4lYG�rN a,Ir,U11MgY1,ILIL 1'U'Illu'' Ml IMVI NFNUla�n 114VgU /.�\� a lUl 11 l\11 YY• r I • l IMN4\IN YAII\Y tl\ILII\I y` ILINY lW1a111w'1' wr I DING. ,N..Iv.• ,d.1G.w.ma 1 ww nNl �wt 1 Qw QY / MEAD OWLww QWARK �y HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP L N alaao nma/ � -r. b In U U rk IC ,m 4W R .4 �aalaa IF' rF=T 11 z' gal ® . b ~� IC REAR IC RIGHT C? rn MEADOWLARK HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP N I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jae IB 1C ID C� Fri MEADOWLARK t : HUNTINGTON BEACH i—r— CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP � s N "� reoe aer c 0• M'T 4 KT 9T•Y ]]'y' l I I "' I f AARAO 4y ro ]r-r 1 rt xr• I i ; 1 Q I� I' oo � ' t£,o MBA a •°.N PAMILY ' >1 1 1 >-->•-•' UILJ w 1 I 14 DEN/ BRA _ " _ BR 4 0 1CPO . .f ;""""' '°•.]° ' PARLOR ' 9 1 1� KTa] -- `J�".1;1! 1 13s3 E1RST C0 D 1 Q 2 BR DENS 31396?PRO 2749 F ¢ �- s ' MEADOWLARK HUNTIN.GTON BEACH 01 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP \1 v IkMI Fwr _ ��77••yy 2 7 ^ t I M L LWLL V �D�---1 � G 9 •(V I 1 __ �rAuk 2A .Ia IWga i 2B Na..s. v.raollaraar , +wrc W.l.- Raa R1Y mam olaatla aaam ' I lone OY alcoR araw aatm ou qw nw qIr qIw I 1 qN1 n111 Owl 1 nln qNl nNN I w nIp qr1 P Wr E!fTF.RIIIR M{IFRIAL% ' � ~ Ptl 1'YI41tl �O �1,y YIMIu ' VN•I II I\ 1 1N.Y11a14 IIIM w IM a YY W. L -0 sn��n�rvitl wunln 44 I 1Y r ru au11 �. IM`I bMl c -V I V I YL11 Wall\u+anu•\•WI f• 1. wlu WIr 4 aulu±ui��wawiilw � � u►wrl u.Wwu u.r � antlrl wrW. •t"• 11F'p�1,I1 4 r,.rl Ny lla,Itl\ r•..+I 4LYJ I ( 11..�F II Y • r1 IVtlI ,•t ° "� I ,l4 W W IN utlll\Yrl InY\IIIY11 �y � ,'�' 'rM MW♦ uN .. W y V �I• _ L l.„u W�.rur°alrolllnllroi .a.• 2C �WaauIW4laur , carwwr r 10a1LL >W Y sam Q alma i �•I nw nw qw prw � 1 AW Parl qW Yu. I 4W YY qW pq MEADOWLARK HUNTINGTON BEACH I-C CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1 � FN •4< O two 11.31•91 J Fn 'w - � I. 2.11 !ter I Ls mm=� Ef E �+ Ll 211 REAR •LB Rnrr . A rf t � ! •MEAD OWL ARK HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 1v V.12 Tyr V.12 TV 2A 2B 2C MEADOWLARK HUNTIN-GTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP WAN Nw OPTIONAL ARAO EXERCISE/ �ELI!,#AT mw - ------------- NOOK MBA MBR I FAMILY do 'Mm- Ix BR2 --------16— DEN 4 .3 LIVING B 3 A,E /*Y\ El 1:1 Nemu M m M 1470-FIR T 1421 SECOND 4�R+DEN, 3 BASS. f W b�, APPROX 2891 SF MEADOWLARK HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP n _ a P Q Q R 11 • /.YNpI. pIN.. 3 A'°"'Y4..pi.apa,Y.-I. �l D YOL IYiOCWMY1p1OA All m »r m® ao.a .scua loua Ilp m® GOA" �W nW nN ION nIN 1 Oo OM n,1 1 n1Y nY1 nNI qMO 1 OW na, oI4 n,YI 1 OW nN nN ptN EXTERIOR MATERIALS n 1,sn.-ro I. 1 uIE.v[Y[w 1 �.ur-vaY[ll I Ya1K.A..IM MA MT 131111TORAC f11AEW 1YAM .1. YWO .AC. Q 11.MI GA.IXYYKaAYO1.[aall II lI4AY11E KAI 111[ 11 MIIK tulll 11 IXIyYAf1Y[Y.OIIfi117Op, 11 YOW[A[nA AYD.AIi. KUYw1Y E[CIYM,K lIU1M ® 1313 � ❑ � � w w.own.lAnl :1 YYIY NIYYl1 II v �w�w�uwla��u�.Kw,ww uu .& I Ew1O. ' 3 D -:y, wYelww i 1 {I� 1 nN nYY MEADOWLARK `7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL ;GROUP N fBS011•Ildl �� PaF NP.iN1� �_ Yl T%x 3 A ,Err �Ls 3 A REAR 3 A RRpIT MEAD OWL ARK .y HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP �N I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I MI TTP I L.. I 4:17 rrr I Ln---- I L7---- �---- '- I 3 A 3 D MEADOWLARK HUNT INGTON BEACH a CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP N J " u 1M�0 r+w r 1 I 1 1 L--I I I . 1-4 I I I I I i=1--- 1 I I � I � I j I I I I I 1 I I I I - - ru rrr I ._.,. z 3B :- C MEADOWLARK .c HUNTINGTON BEACH �1 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP � U N �� E . A , D CW L. A R K PLANNING AREA 2 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY PUN I pICLLR6�� IOW FLOOR. In0 6 F. sccoup FLOOR, IndsF, TOTAL. 7A51 sr. a CM OARAbe. 4"or. PLAN 2 PLAN 2X Or•e"n16 Me^. OrlLLIu6 AneA F.",FLOOR. "a". NNAT FLOOR, N. SC& O FLOOR, 1770 s F, WO6O FLOOR. 1700 N. !+T TOTµ. 7l1 AL. 7160 aF. 0 sr. TOT k a CAR 6ARAOe, Us OF. 7 CM 6MA0e. •I!6P. 1 cM 6ARA4C. 110 s/. , y`,}� TOTAL s65 sr. PLAN 9 PLAN 9X ll p'O.L"dwwC O"ELLON MCA. Mir FLOOR, 1766 sr. fwT FLOOR. 1766 sr. OCCOIO fLocR ul sr. 6Cc~FLOo16 III Or. wts TOTµ, 766l s►. TOTµ. 716l af. r' ! a CAA 6ARAee. Alo s1. !CAR 6MA" w!01. O".OM6. d O"ORAL CRArf ROOM Memel"I.sr. 751.SP. room 6ARA4e AMO Am 771 a!,TO OMILLOW VmChmo StilteM 1N I r l r.r u.a• vo .r. trr __ '•r r•r r+ r•r .ram -- w0° ..� a sow ---------------- J71- 1 ILw IIW.® PA f •r � NP.1 P Nrilr 1 ❑ r 1 1 El O •---� — a OEM 100 i vc.cP r..nc...,. � 1 Cr.y eo n 1 I ❑ 7 x x� 4' Elj LU ;I .s-r yr w-r �•� r-� Ir-P y. rr•r •171 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR . wesF: usesF. 1266sF. T MEADOWLARKPA-2 MANITMAIjIMSF. HUNTING-TON BEACH 1'I.W27.OTA1.2770SF. C. 1'IAfV 70 rA1.2Ju sF. CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP -c f-r rw I Z-f -w Aw sow saw C3 CD m—,lkd,— t P. Wam Md.— O WJti O wit acarr wr.wr No—I n u OrWrV 117.1or fth 3 0A 3 irr.11r PLAN I PLAN 2 PLAN 3 SECOND. FLOOR SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 1119sr. 1179SK MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP fl-so-so ,- i111Y1' -- SIIIMI' •- r•r Ir-r rev Ir-r r -r o•r r.r 1 � I A s-------------- --+ ---------- ' ' 1 • e—F,1--•ass—sex—S��1— - I I 1 Iirtl,llr )Y.Y rYAn ' r.r/r,,,, n �. � nrnsP .P.Irr vra.r .M Irw IY-r �K�r ' ..rr r .rr • I I -- W 1 -- I' rYAn' "' I Iti~~ R,' I IDi l.lrr w, i ' - y Tn Cr6rp1 1------� I IT-1 f _ --� • �. i= 7 I j'�' 7Yw.CI Gr u 1.1 ' 13r IT O 1 1 of +�� I Ir•r — ar nr r•r � � IN-r Ir•r s'•e r 1 PLAN 2X PLAN 3X FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR MEADOWLARK PA 12 12"SF. L HUNTINGTON BEACH IN CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP � I i j!� t.+:rt '� — •'� ',is i..,�:; ii 11t. NWrm d 1,d worl IICCC" a Ep � a 1 A .'' fOm6 n01 mtm O.Nti .ta'd , �.,••' -..ti, f . '.ice• • ) qW OW q.0 lR>A +� +• .4 NYm.1 4d vTb 00 00 ••S ' �i .^ •}.vT1•��`'•.J � ��,8 Il �rf ~•f=4'`t'.�J+i�?t��'•�•��y�/t!y�'. • ri sS �R, .�-' as .:''�.' 'SY•lf:'v.`.J•' .—..--.��. 'k•' •� r ��000� ��l 111 II 11 •�+ + ttl�.•�� `•• j NL.i�1 t.• vTu. •�' t'O• _ _4.C '�✓ : 001 .._..ter.. "' :rr � � r■ :; '� :,'•. Kim `� KL � ;iil ,IL err .•sy, �.s•r•=�f�. 000 a n.n.. 1 C xzm mm ca= G"m .C= t ow n,o. qw qp t nnr or nrw q.o t qw qnr qw owt MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP P it 2 y. c, ;I1 1 1 A RIGHT ELEVATION ® ' 11 IAREAR ELEVATION L U IA ELE ATION MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP �4171ACHME:N; INN. _14'_33_ tltr v� YJ. p'`y, ,t' L ~!�• %Iwp:r J 4J w..•.rr _ �' ■II�1� ill �lI '1 •i��-f. y�-ir,;s_��+��,, �-`;f; ,� r n - — 1 _t _ •r'` `' Tim',:=' � ,�J 000r�o !u I vc � nr oro or qLa y•T ! nW qal qr of tut t�t'r •'t: .._.•:i?r�rN 'n.•-.p,•:, r, zly _•tt ee r i _R10ll�i ril li •.: �;�. ..�- .. :�.� ';Kip .I[' ,II �1 :�;; �:;i•i 2B .a..�.u>o ;. t nW ntr •Y: •••tV�.a••S .J: ••,. •i:. •1 NLr:.J RBI ..Auer �••11!117 ...•e.-ter± .••\; 31.1.• ;KY �` 2 �� 'r:; 'Mil ■■ a■ .�• �:•S• RIK is 7t�Rq . • � '�• . - 2 C fm6 fuaDftYefC}tyaapy rrttQ .� t ew ntW nw qr t nat qt•t qfa qr s nw ow tmu qua MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP f��!AC�' M-Ei# i� Diu. y 3`{ ...r/ �Z y PC- lilt 1 ; 1 [ IGHT 2 Ati R ELLEVAEVA TION N-1 FIN 2 A REAR ELEVATION 2 A ELE ATION MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP ATTLACIL-11k,1811".11 , NO. ate• •,ti. �t. .a•J '• ri`�.!a • :jJ•7 �r-.� :.1 .F: r•����• t T i :th' ;no u Wild 3 A .�° ,..sem..oJno JIHaA uxw m RMSED OWR Accra :ice } N,1 1 9w 9.Y 9a 91YJ ••.•' J mu om em 91.1 Y • j :SAY• Jr1v ••,1 • A 000 fall off �� � ~ :•.7�:• t, �0�00• j�� r 0000n t■ f� 3 B A� J.aA rIu ,� �, •`w1 •Y �� I 9a ou zman L� •, '. �: LA'S •�•> A�'[ � J va vY1 i ��. I•'�w •�t\�•t• n� - ••`lT ^'• r.Y+•�'jl••• MYWr II.d A J.+Jr ..7•• Lk 3' 3',r'i5•n .� `,+: . J� ••% ' �; Ill ■■ I[[' 1[1(; n ``��..t^' uu, ■wi ■[i ,u r.:�i' -ram' ::11•+: '�� 'i' r � 'r :t1 ....�. ;•'SAc•_ `I� ill: 1 •� � OO_000 II 'ail' 11 jc' ice• � ` L::]Q[--J.�i �'• ,il ,/1[� I11 J..rlrv� Fr..� n.AIJIa.Y. 3 C 7 o+w 9v vIM ow J 9JH 9JIJ 9JH 91a MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP .,� ! f.. it 2`f PC- all mmm i� 3ARIGHT ELEVATION 3 A REAR ti ELEVATION 'Ell 3 A ELEVATION MEADOWLARK PA-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP ///7, �� ---',-_-_� -_'-_--__-__--��-_-_-_--'-----_'-__-'------------ --------- _---__- -__-___'_-_- -__--_-'___-_----___--_- ' � MEADOWLARK PLANNING � l�AREA �� �� �� �� �� ^, .... .............. _� , �~~~~. . ���`��`��'�������� CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP ^�..~~^^^^~.~^ ' '-- -- --------' �� INC.��, vz^���������u� �� PARTNERS, ��n�� PLAN TYPE UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL GARAGE TOTAL % 3BR^2.5 BA. 1,010S.F. ' 8808.F. 400G.F. 2,290S.F. 2 4BRJ2.5BA. 1,1150'F. RJSS.F. 418S.F. 2/480G.F. 3 4 BRn.5BA' 1,133 S.F. 1,032 S.F. 408B.F. 2,5738.F. cmumom^w nuumnm^L ' noom. vooFS. no*uucuw,u,nmwmmmLE `THUNDERSTORM GREY" *FORRESTOREEN* "BLACK°^=U, 'THUNDERSTORM GREY" SCHEME TRIM STUCCO GARAGE ACCENT SCHEME TRIM STUCCO GARAGE ACCENT ` mno ICInm ICIzm DEmm ' men mvmm mem ICI no , DEmm mwo SWmn ICI 266 , ICI 739 mpw ICI 739 ' ICI 6 5 ~~� 3 nn*w nnmm mww "moo » oxm, nrn, ICI Ills m/zo | �-� Cmwnr umwmx uoom. TAMKOCOMPOSITIONSHINGLE xou,u uxom/^S*TITLE :SANDSTONE' '�- '"�.�"�= Wa�m��mm�rm^ " 'MOUNTAIN SHADOW �m 'SUNRISE BLEND" �/s� TRIMSTUCCOGARAGEACCENTSCHEMETRIMSTUCCO^ / ICImw ICI no m^m xz/nm / moo m^m , xxm, *om, xxon uxwm � ~mmw unsm/ � � , mmw ICIm/ mmo ocmm » uz58o mm/ ��'x '--------- - --- -------'----'------ -'�'--'--'-- - ' .- - '_ '- '-- - -'- ' ----� -�----- -----~----'----------'-'--- � _ 71� i may. ELEVATION 2-B ELEVATION 1-A ELEVATION 1-C r11 MEADOWLARK P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 STREET SCENE � CATELT i RESIDENTIAL GROUP '� 16DECn ' 1'AQf4 I n i t f Fri REAR ELEVATION C REAR ELEVATION A REAR ELEVATION O d� t� t Q MEADOWLARK PLANNING AREA 3 ENHANCED REAR ELEVATIONS N CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP IJUNE9, PAGE 2 .w wa 1 7 l J 10 4 I 1: II I• III ELEVATION R •• ..o. ELEVATION A y, LEGEND OI CONCRETE FLAT THE 1� EXTERIOR PLASTER ^.r 2 S—TILE Il VINYL WINDOW 0 U PLASTER CORBEL (IJ DECORATIVE SHUTTERS Q DECORATIVE WOOD KICKER @ DECORATIVE POTSIIELF 3�10O ORNAMENTAL CUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT Iq DECORATIVE METALWORK ` WOOD TRIM f l © FOAM TRIM W / PLASTER OVER O Q WOOD RAILING z 1© ROOL—UP GARAGE DOOR DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAP Q WOOD SIDING -•, O9 STONE ACCENT 0 WOOD TRELLIS iL MEADOWLARK PLAN ONE ".o. P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 FRONT ELEVATIONS CATELT RESIDENTIAL GROUP —�,, IsEp9s PAGE 3 r - nii RIGHT ELEVATION A REAR ELEVATION A w r.•.1 > C �-� <y rnrrya�y i� a LEFT ELEVATION A� MEADOWLARK PLAN ONE -0. P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 SIDE & REAR ELEVATIONS N CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP I Sep ts s PAGE:4 n r—-—-—-—-— ---—-—-—- mu it II 0 .�IROOM MST 0 "'TH ------- --- 0 0 . 0 RATM11 p c if 9 .CTRICAT 0 1 -!�11 To w- 1� 1 i i A i NOR Otin-1. --------------------- --- --- uOOT ci LJ 77- UPPER LEVEL 1,010 S.F..F.. If 1. I-n ELEV. A IL---------- ---------- --------W-j r-i r I r-,i -i I I UPPER LEVEL LJ LJ ---- ---L-j ELEV. B I -- ----------------- LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL "80 S.F. ---------------- ELEV. 0 ELEV. A MEADOWLARK P LAN . ONE ".�. 5 P L A N N I N G A R E A 1 3 BR./ 2. BA. CATELLVF. 1,890 S.F- , RESIDENTIAL GROUP I SHP 91 'A G LIS 4 L Ku.; P., 0. 5 .................. t�l La ELEVATION C ELEVATION D LEGEND CONCRETE FLAT TILE EXTERIOR PLASTER S—TILE II VINYL WINDOW PLASTER CORBEL @ DECORATIVE siiurrERS DECORATIVE WOOD KICKER DECORATIVE POTSHELF ORNAMENTAL CUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT DECORATIVE METAL WORK m FOAM TRIM W / PLASTER OVER WOOD RAILING WOOD TRIM ROOL—UP GARAGE DOOR DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAP WOOD SIDING .ram Q STONE ACCENT WOOD TRELLIS M EADOW LAR K PLAN TWON P L A N N' I N G' A R E A 3 FRONT ELEVATIONS CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP a spr 91 PACE 6 e RICIIT ELEVATION 0 REAR ELEVATION 0 ITS � .a , LEFT ELEVATION 0 MEADOWLARK PLAN TWO 1 P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 SIDE & REAR ELEVATIONS V - CATELLTT" RESIDENTIAL GROUP -G PACC 7 43, DED OOW 2 DEDR Ohl 1 700 I BAT N 1r•r• jai � trot AWIL � 4 0Lo I I err i i'.�• `.i i O -* DEDR00 I ��i SERV. - -- �r t io ,N „ _ 1•FW f -- I DINING i tY G D S E ur r ' 1 NST BEDRM. I I u u'r• wr r ' �« ' i Ji �-J � 1 1 =-*• UPPER LEVEL ELEV. D i 1,115 S.F. ( c Ic— UPPER LEVEL t L_j ELEV. C /- LOWER LEVEL i� ELEV. D — 955 S.F. LOWER LEVEL ELEV. C MEADOWLARK PLAN TWO P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 4 BR./ 2.5 BA. 12,070CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP S.F. l set" PAGE B r 11 - •w a.n w wn 2 I 9 tl 4 11 tl I l l 4 ELEVATION A ELEVATION C LEGEND .f lO CONCRETE FLAT TILE ® EXTERIOR PLASTER — T O2 S—TILE Il VINYL WINDOW ry'?� 0 PLASTER CORBEL ® .DECORATIVE SHUTTERS .( 1 O DECORATIVE MOOD KICKER, © DECORATIVE POTSHELF ORNAMENTAL CUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT �j DECORATIVE METALWORK © FOAM TRIM M / PIASTER OVER © WOOD RAILING rlai 7 MOOD TRIM y, Q ® ROOL—UP GARAGE DOOR O DECORATIVE CHIMNEY CAP © WOOD SIDING s OD STONE ACCENT WOOD TRELLIS �w 1� i r J MEADOWLARKPLAN THREE , P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 FRONT ELEVATIONS r CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP ISePi PAGE 9 n� 1 �F tT . TI RIGHT ELEVATION C REAR ELEVATION C ;> P4 ,.� LEFT ELEVATION C 1 MEADOWLARK PLAN THREE u41.P-o• P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 SIDE & REAR ELEVATIONS 1 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 11EP11 PAGE 10 eo• `-------- ----------� 1 t ----------- _ 11 it 1 ---''%t • �, 1 . I I�L_J1� I I I w 1 AMIL � 1 M- BA 1 MST DRIL BE 9 00 I •• ■I 00. 1 qv I '•' u' '- /1i't u' 1 1 ----- I ' I I l_JL_`J �� ______ '•1 ��1 I — — , SERV. CSK I ° OATf 1 r.•' 1 1 orlx w■tu■ I 401 F. DINING I 1 P 1 I O oEB M s � I 1 le•■ ■I P 1 1 1 1 1 _ UPPER LEVEL I I 1,133 S.F. 1 ELEV. C 1 : 1 '�+" 1 x00I 1 I ■ I �,. Li —� UPPER LEVEL F.LEV. A -- LONER LEVEL {_f 1.032 S.F. LONER LEVEL ELEV. C ELM A MEADOWLARK PLAN THREE 1 P L A N N I N G A R E A 3 4 BR./ 2.5 BA. 1 N CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 2,165 S.F. I Sep 91 �. PAGE 11 PLAN # FIRST SECOND GARAGE FLOOR FLOOR 1 752 SQ.FP. 850 SQ.FI'. 400 SQ.FT. 2 867 SQ.FT. 873 SQ.FT. 360•'SQ.FT. 3 838 SQ.FT. 1.201 SQ.FT. 402 SQ.FI'. 4 913 SQ.FT. 1.057 SQ.FT. 402 SQ.FT. ° MEADOWLARK ° CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP BASSENIAN LAOONI ARCHITECTS 10.12.98 r +f: r K II Y U C P L O • � . � .lam � : � • My�KT 4 �'lv"�(!AYa�--�'^� Y.'� -- __--� � __ �_:: .�ti�nt ', ..._._.__._—•s_::�_.:.— .li •� �.•� ,— �.rl. �`�ti _--- -___ --- '`'� — •1. � 1.� i PLAN 4 A PLAN 3 B PLAN 2 C PLAN I A i, A�w a f.Tut It" ■%*I It.STUCT_D P. W Tw R f STKTD(VTRIY YRMHIMM' -Li D.STIKTOfOIHIFIi 7YMwlla MHuln WC''R•• F.WO(MITVRIII:1.►.WIK 'H ". KI►.IHTA r c'y ■ MEADOWLARK ■ 11 WWR KATIXAI. W,WW. :� ,- II.WOIRI RAO. 1 1H) MI FH 1, 1VO011"In"Frial AM-A 1 nus MIIY11 LRK►OV'II MI'f1iR TAIU 1 M1 HI K1NI I.CIA VAR A WHINU C A T E L L U S 'I.TJ MUAXWERS - It.WR OVIT IROW ►.WRaDlrr IRON F�+•��--•�----- �L..�. 10•12—98 1 — 1 `�A k N 11 A C C 'All tj 40'Y}.�i •v+�i�-=� � _ _�_�-_ �=-!i�l�i.� _ �__=.=Ja� -=_.-_t"i,�W'`�,bj' J.r\.r'Y�• ___'�.. __�,��_ --•-=-- i�w����'��_._�"-"�' .�• �.�,= -_:t .+' � .►�•'u PLAN 4 B PLAN 3 C PLAN 2 A PLAN 1 B • ttcrr�a eeenlsu �,.� ACpMI{CTP.bTII tOM taYt 't.STJllp !Mt W1•Tl! C.STCIOOITIIM '/ArrTYYr _ P.STYro tOttllfJl 1Yw11w1a rnwrTA• r nxnlrrlua. +..ronnwn.a• �•• t ntYllAxu wrurr lrr ���' ■ MEADOWLARK ■ ICINI °;,Et� F i• - X.ttFkGfJItAFITRIAILl 1 YlW RD- I LCANYAS AWNING C A T E L L U S NAwYO1uxwl u - �•••• Y.WtIILWli IA1111 r+•n►w r""+'•"' t 4 r ' f r -C O M.DEDRM BEDRM i LA f BEDRM 2 M BATH —n-- 'SYT �L_ 101 BA 2 LAV (�J\ - bLa � i BEDRM 2 I �e1 .pf HEDRM 2 I \ at,._• I I ... M.BPDRM I . N �.� iI j ( PAMMY ( , •) N. �•. �i OU41NO/ `<POR ,r PLAN 2 PLAN 1 1740 SQ.FT. 1602 SQ.FT. I 13 MEADOWLARK o CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP BASSENIAN LAOONI ARCHITECTS _ y l2 q pri II I _ � x amRM Maw•tN.-1� Msw�it I amwK 2 x amRM sma+o 1 w.r-,er O .. n:.uJ } O Orr.LOFT DmRM 2 i I OPP.RLRRPAT •�1 HmRM —F.102 I OPT.[APT SE lnry t es.•a` aw. ��. � ',s'f9�i•. H®RM) HEDRM 4 BmRM 4 "r wJ.w7 r •o�..et �w 1 •I i j �+•r •ram• � I I sro low i1�- � ,I j I PAI-=Y 1 I PAMlLY i 1 PUNL ' t DD+WO/ ��� /� 1 � f• DRfQiO� uvH•O rJ.w.[ —�l� l�• TT PLAN 4 PLAN 3 1970 SQ.FT. 2039 SQ.FT. o MEADOWLARK o CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL CROUP EASSENIAN LAOONI ARCHITECTS IO.IY# A c u n� L a K of e v / v N SLY/! J q +.. '�`�:�j ��(y�M• >�+, wy4�.,�S=rC.w�►Y`e--'�7{++ _ ---�'� w _-- q — --— r� .Irw��1^ "'t►f�i �.'1�"aa —= --- — �v{ _ t - A r PLAN 4 C PLAN 3 A I PLAN 2 B PLAN I C i •t"'Y A(YINIYIYn?STIUtr11W r11(IIL U.SI11lY I) IIMY!/T IY Y M� L'.snKYV nTMIAI -wasnYs• r n►11 Y'CII PUIw117X w1:�11u Y1A R11WVRA• r' U.WIIIW IY1r11LL 'YAYWIAIY44YUYT ` P.WIMJIIlAN]A TYw14 WW/' '` ■ ILW111S1 MEADOWLARK ■ (XXl l,YTrrrr N,ILYr �� snnn ± rAll. 1 YlA9 nu. L wmlwars 1 on- nrm Yni ILY "NAtURTAUS 1 r1W rYl11 LCANVArAWWNO C A T E L L U S ".C"VnLQUXwl:As - 1 N.Tleovna m •'•�� 10-17/YB 1•.WREXurrurw �•+r^••-�•�- N ...... ------ Of LEFT g R, ------------ -MENEM RIGHT 41 C4 a n --qj REAR PLAN 2 - B ■ MEADOWLARK ■ CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP BASSENIAN LAGONI ARCHITECTS LEFT. -, , , YIjW MENEM Fp7l ---- ------------- RIGHT 42� -FLY. T 1 -H-H ------------ ....... .... ;g MT. I--------- --- REAR PLAN 1 - C MEADOWLARK ■ CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP BASSENIAN LAGONI ARCHITECTS 47, i ja _ 1 ------------ LEFT i RIGHT -'�- r-r-im Tt: ----------------------- - ATM. �1 - -- -t- a.#7 REAR PLAN 4 - C MEADOWLARK o CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL OR 13ASSENIAN LAGONI ARCHITECT51 t: .......................... ------------ •-------- ri• RIGHT MUM rE ..... al4} -- ��y Sf1LG7hG--- �T][G --------------- a tt. REAR PLAN 3 - A o MEAD OWLARK o CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP ... BASSENIAN LAOONI ARCHITECTS JA 10'+ 12.98 MDS CONSULTING PLANNERS •ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS ' 17320 Redhill Avenue,Suite 350 (714)251-8821 Irvine,CA 92614 FAX 251-0516 September 29, 1997 Ms.Amy Wolfe R E C E I V E City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development S E p 2 91997 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF MEADOWLARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE TRACT 15469 Dear Amy: On behalf of the applicant, Catellus Residential Group, MDS Consulting is submitting this Tentative Tract Map Application Package on the Meadowlark Project for your review. Per the applicants conversation with you, we acknowledge that the following items required for this Tentative Tract Map Submittal Package are not included; however,will be submitted for your review prior the Planning Commission hearing: • Planning Area 2 Architectural Elevations . • Planning Area 3 Architectural Elevations • Colored Site Plan • Colored Conceptual Landscape Plan • Colored Architectural Elevations • Massing Model • Material Palette • Photographs -Photos and a photo index were submitted at the initial Tentative Tract Map 15469 on March 3, 1997. We would like the Planning Department to use these photos as part of this submittal package. • Slides - Slides were submitted as part of the original Tentative Tract Map 15469 on March 3, 1997. We would like the Planning Department to use these same slides as part of the submittal package. • Public Notification / Mailing List - Two sets of mailing labels and an address listing were submitted as part of the March 3, 1997 Tentative Tract Map 15469 package. Since the first submittal was deemed incomplete, the Planning Department is still holding -the Public Notification Package. We would like the Planning Department to use these as part of this submittal. • Substance Site Statement - A Phase One Report, dated November 19, 1996, prepared by Petra Environmental, Inc., was submitted as part of the original Tentative Tract Map 15469 package in lieu of the required Signed Statement Declaration regarding the location of the project site to any known hazardous and substance material pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Attached please find a copy of the Planning Departments letter, dated July 29, 1997, which lists staff- recommended design modifications to the Meadowlark Conceptual Master Plan. The following are responses to each of the listed twenty-eight recommended modifications. Please note that our Tentative Tract Map, Technical Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Parking Plan and Wall and Fence Plan incorporate many of your design recommendations. S STANLEY C. MORSE GARY DOKICH SKIP SCHULTZ September 29, 1997 Page Two 1. Maximum Site Coverage The maximum site coverage for any lot is 50%, with an overall site coverage average of 39%. The maximum site coverage per the revised Specific Plan is 55%. 2. Open Space Additional open space lots have been incorporated along the entire alignment of Street"A" (Spine Road). This allows an additional landscape buffer along Street "A" and increases the building setbacks. Planning Area 3 has direct access to the proposed public park without crossing the Spine Road. Planning Area 4 shares a 0.7 acre private recreational park with Planning Area 1. The 0.7 acre private park was redesigned to a more central location along Street"A"which allows greater accessibility and visibility. 3. Sidewalks Sidewalks have been provided on both sides of all proposed public and private streets, except on streets with non-fronting lots. This occurs only within Planning Areas 3 and 4. 4. Heil Avenue Buffer A fifteen foot setback has been provided for the lots which backup to Heil Avenue. The fifteen foot setback is measured from the realigned "back-of-curb". The fifteen foot setback consists of a 4.5 foot parkway, located from back-of-curb, a 4.5 foot sidewalk and then a 7 foot landscape lot from "back-of-sidewalk"to the proposed perimeter wall. 5. Guest Parking A minimum of a 0.5 on-street guest parking space has been provided.. The Parking Plan illustrates the on-street guest parking spaces of Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 due to the proposed thirty-two foot street width which allows parking on only one side. On-street parking spaces are not illustrated for Planning Areas 1 and 2 because the private streets within each Planning Area are designed to City standards. 6. Guest Parkinq Plan A Parking Plan is included within this submittal package. 7. Private Community Parks The private 0.7 acre park has been redesigned to a more centralized location. The park is located between Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 4 and fronts Street"A" (Spine Road). 8. Landscape Medians A landscape median and comer landscape monumentation has been provided at the intersection of Street"A" (Spine Road)and Heil Avenue. A landscape median within Street"A"at the terminus of Plaza Lane has not been provided. Additional landscaping has been provided along the right- of-way of Street"A"at the Plaza Lane connection. 9. Infill Ordinance Where there are existing block walls along the projects perimeter, the applicant proposes to construct a second wall adjacent to the existing and to provide a cap to enclose the two walls and also to fill in the void with concrete. 10. Daycare Center The project does not provide for a daycare center. The revised Specific Plan strikes out the provision of encouraging the project of provide for a daycare center. 11. Park Acreage The Meadowlark Project provides for a 2.7 acre public park, measured to the centerlines of the three adjacent streets and a 0.7 acre private park site. September 29, 1997 Page Three 12. Garage Dimensions Some of the proposed dwelling units provide a minimum 18 foot wide garage (exterior dimensions). 13. Front Yard Setback The minimum from building setback provided is ten (10) feet and porches and entrance elements may have a front setback of eight(8)feet. 14. Garage Setbacks The minimum front garage setback provided is eighteen (18)feet. 15. Exterior Corner Sidevard Setback The minimum exterior sideyard setback in Planning Areas 1 and 2 provided is ten (10) feet. The minimum exterior sideyard setbacks within Planning Areas 3 and 4 provided is eight(8)feet. 16. 100-Foot Residential Buffer The maximum building height for all proposed dwelling units within all Planning Areas is thirty feet. (Thus eliminating the need for the 100 foot density buffer.) 17. Planning Areas 3 and 4 Both Planning Areas 3 and 4 were designed to maximize land use efficiency. 18. Cul-de-Sac Design Pedestrian / landscape connections were provided between the proposed cul-de-sacs located perpendicular to Street"A" (Spine Road). Additional landscaped open space lots were provided along the entire alignment of Street"A"(Spine Road). 19. Pierce Drive The ultimate right-of-way of fifty-five (55) feet will be provided until intersecting with the street. Only four lots, located opposite existing offsite housing, will take access from Pierce Drive. The entire width of Pierce Drive adjacent to the four lots is proposed to be dedicated to the City as public street. 20. Westerly Proiect Adiacencies The A.L.T.A. identifies, and verified by survey, existing single-family structures and mobile homes are a minimum of three feet off the westerly property line. 21. Easterly Proiect Adiacencies All onsite drainage shall be contained onsite. Where possible, lots were designed to"side-on"the adjacent project boundary rather than-backing up to the project boundary to increase privacy of both homeowners. 22. Planning Area Entry Nodes The Conceptual Landscape Plan has provided landscape entry nodes at each Planning Area entry. 23. Lot Dimensions The Tentative Tract Map provides lot dimensions, lot area, lot frontage, and site coverage. 24. Product Type ' Floor plans have been provided for all four Planning Area products. Elevations have been provided for Planning Areas 1 and 4,with Planning Areas 2 and 3 to follow. September 29, 1997 Page Four 25. Definitions Section The definitions section of the revised Specific Plan takes many of its definitions from the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 26. Development Standards Matrix A Planning Area Summary Matrix is provided which analyzes the four Planning Area's Design Standards versus the respective Holly-Seacliff Standards. In addition, a Development Standards Matrix is provided which compares the design standards of the old Specific Plan to the revised Specific Plan. 27. Specific Plan Draft All Specific Plan text amendments are provided in a strikeout / underline format, except for the proposed Section "N" Design Standards which have been italicized because of the number of pages. Some additional accomplishments which have aided the Meadowlark Project are: The increase of the public park from the original acreage of 1.9 acres to the 2.2 net, 2.7 acres gross. • The realignment of Street"A"(Spine Road)for better park frontage. The agreement with.the school districts regarding fees has been finalized. • We believe that the 2.7 acre public park located adjacent to the existing Gibbs Park extension provides for an adequate recreational facility. If you have any questions regarding the content of the submittal package, please do not hesitate to call me at (714)251-8821. As we discussed on the phone, if during your thirty-day review process, that additional information or clarifications of exhibits are necessary, please let me know as soon as you have identified that need, rather than waiting for the thirty-day process. R ctful sub itted, bent A Ile Director of ing RAZ:jo cc: Bruce D'Eliscu, Catellus Skip Schultz, MDS GA3511061C0RVIPPLPKG.D0C ATTA-1-11AvEEN S lNA111J. it ���� i ;� � � 13. Planning Commission Report - 6/16/98 i `�%' '` � " urititig""ton�Deach�rDe" artmerit�of�Communi : Develo mend'-����=:>:A`== TO: Planning Commission � FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director `r 1 ✓ BY: Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner DATE: June 16, 1998 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan) LOCATION: Six hundred (600) ft. north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission review is Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA)No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA)No. 97-1 which will affect the sixty five (65) acre property known as Meadowlark Specific Plan area located approximately six(600) hundred ft. east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. Both requests have been initiated by the City of Huntington Beach in order to update and consolidate the current Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document. Additionally, the zoning text amendment is intended to update the Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow for development of the subject area with single family detached residences on small lots (minimum sizes ranging between 3,000 sq. ft. to 4,600 sq. ft.) as well as establish and incorporate development standards for such development within the revised Specific Plan. Moreover, the proposed text amendment will implement a reduction of the overall residential development density from six hundred (600) to four hundred forty-four (444) dwelling units. Finally, the zoning map amendment will address revisions of the Conceptual Master Plan- Exhibit II to reflect the proposed redistribution and reductions of residential densities within the project area. The revised Meadowlark Specific Plan is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and will supercede the current Specific Plan document. Staff has evaluated Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21 and recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, take straw vote motions of primary issues (Attachment No. 1), and then continue the subject proposal to the July 14, 1998 meeting. Staff supports the subject proposal as presented by staff for the following reasons: The revised Specific Plan includes Affordable Housing provisions which foster development of housing that addresses the diverse economic and affordable housing needs of existing and current residents of Huntington Beach, in compliance with City goals, objectives and policies. The revised Specific Plan includes Parkland Dedication provisions which address park and recreation needs of existing and current residents of Huntington Beach, in compliance with City goals, objectives and policies. • The revised Specific Plan includes design standards which advocate high level of design quality and character which should not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety, nor detrimental to the value of property, of improvements, of the neighborhood or the City in general. The revised Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan. S ow to, a A HCr � s � ' P �cwr=- t m. ` t WAX= r — a I�Rr .� I Aow►a PROJE I r— RI ! , --�� RI / PAU R2 .R2 MN '�RI I> RI R7 + � RI RI R0. wI a RI I m CF-R RI RI E RI FKM- ,�� RI RZ Rl ROS IIF I` lit I� ' RI n RI RI IM RI Al +Ri J� VICINITY MAP ZTA 97-4 / ZMA 97-1 / ND 97-21 MUNrl#4C ON BEACH HUNTiNGTOtr BEACH pLAN?l4yG D7VISIOY RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Take straw votes on key project issues(Attachment No.1), direct staff accordingly and continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 to the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting". ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with mitigation measures (Attachment No.2); take straw votes on key project issues and approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 as proposed by CRG with findings and forward to City Council for adoption". B. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 with findings for denial (City Council only reviews if appealed)." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Trustees of the Nerio Family Trust, 9340 Bolsa Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 REQUEST: A zoning text and zoning map amendment to update the Meadowlark Specific Plan, reduce the maximum density for residential development on the subject site from six hundred(600)to four hundred forty-four(444)dwelling units to allow single family detached residential development on small-lots. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): May 1, 1998 Negative Declaration(180 days from complete application): October 28, 1998 ZTA/ZMA(3 months after ND approval): January 27, 1999 Staff Report—6/16/98 2 (98SR37) SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOGA 'ION y „ `GENERAL PLAN:, ~ ZONINC'r LAND.'USE-,- Subject Property: Mixed-Use Specific Plan Meadowlark Specific Plan Meadowlark Shopping Overlay (M-sp) Center and vacant North of Subject RL-7 Residential Low RL-Low Density Single family detached Property Density Residential residential uses (across Heil Avenue): East of Subject OS-P Park, P(RL) Public, OS-PR-Open Space Parks Norma Gibbs Park, a Property: RL-7 Residential Low &Recreation, RL-Low church, single family Density, RH-30 Density Residential, RH- detached and attached Residential High Density High Density Residential residential uses South of Subject RMH-25 Residential RMH-Medium High Attached single family Property(across Medium High Density Density residential uses Warner Avenue): West of Subject RM-15 Residential RMP-Manufactured Home Mobile home park, Property: Medium Density, RL-7 Park, RL-Low Density single family detached Residential Low Density, Residential, RM-Medium and attached CG-Fl Commercial Density Residential, residential uses General PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 represents a request to consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; to modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family detached dwellings on small-lots; and to incorporate development standards for small-lot development within the revised Specific Plan document. Zoning_Map Amendment No. 97-1 represents a request to revise/update Conceptual Master Plan-Exhibit II to reflect reduction in densities within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan resulting from Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4; to establish the boundaries for four(4) residential planning areas with densities ranging between six and half dwelling units per acre(6.5du/ac) and eighteen dwelling units per acre(I8u/ac); and to incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan. The revised Specific Plan will supercede the former Specific Plan. All requirements of the existing Meadowlark Specific Plan will be replaced with the revised Specific Plan. Following Planning Commission's final recommendation on the Specific Plan, it will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Tentative tract map (TTM No. 15469) and conditional use permit(CUP No. 97-80) for the subdivision and development of the residential district(48.4 acres) of the Meadowlark Specific Plan with detached single family homes on small-lots have been submitted for review and consideration and are being processed as separate project requests. Staff Report—6/16/98 3 (98SR37) ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use- Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) on the subject property and the following goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective LU9.1 Provide for the development of single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU 9.1.2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: a) Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated"box-like" structures). b) Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. c) Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. d) Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. e) Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. Objective LU 9.3 Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity. Policy LU9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the following. a) Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of "blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. b) Integrate public squares, mini parks, or other landscaped elements. d) Establish a common"gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as childcare or adult-care, recreation,public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e) Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f) Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. h) Site and design of units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and"outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. Staff Report—6/16/98 4 (98SR37) i) Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more"intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. j) Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. 1) Include setbacks and other design elements that buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting existing commercial and/or industrial development. Policy LU9.3.3 Require that non-residential structures incorporated in residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Goal RCS 2: Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of the existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Goal RCS 3: Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. Goal RCS 4: Ensure recreation facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet the current recreational interests of adults and youth. Goal RCS S: Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. Zoning Compliance: This project area is zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan and regulations applicable to the development of the subject property will be governed by the revised Specific Plan. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed project and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 97-21. (Attachment No.2) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 97-21 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998, and ending on May 20, 1998. No comments, either verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 97-21. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Staff Report—6/16/98 5 (98SR37) Coastal Status: The Meadowlark Specific Plan area is not located within the coastal zone. However, all sections of the zoning ordinance, including the Meadowlark Specific Plan are part of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). As a result,the City submits all zoning text and zoning map amendments to the California Coastal Commission review and approval. Such amendments are considered"de minimis" and are acted on by the California Coastal Commission without a public hearing. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Community Services Commission: The Community Services Commission considered park dedication alternatives for a development proposal by CRG involving construction of three hundred twenty-five (325) single family detached dwellings within the residential district of Meadowlark Specific Plan on June 10, 1998. They voted 5-0 to require 3.4 acres be dedicated and developed as active,neighborhood park; improve 0.8 acres of undeveloped existing parkland in Norma Gibbs park; require dedication fees equal to the "value of the land prescribed for dedication". Environmental Board. The Environmental Board considered Negative Declaration No. 97-21 on May 7, 1998. No concerns relative to the subject proposal were expressed. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Community Services, Economic Development, Police and Fire, and the Building Division have made recommendations that have been incorporated within the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan. The Police Department has reviewed the subject proposal and has not noted any concerns relating to shortage of human resources in relationship to provision of police services for the subject area. Police Department staff has indicated that development of the Specific Plan will result in a need for 0.4 additional officers. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on June 4, 1998, and notices were sent to property owners of record within an 1000 ft. radius of the subject property, tenants at the commercial center and adjoining mobile home park(Sea Breeze), applicant, and interested parties. Staff Report—6/16/98 6 (98SR37) ANALYSIS: I. Background Information A. Purpose Intent and Authority of Specific Plans The Meadowlark Specific Plan sets forth the planning concept, design guidelines, development standards and administration procedures necessary to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The intent of the Specific Plan is to establish the framework for development of a high quality planned community. California Government Code Section 65507 authorizes cities to prepare and adopt Specific Plans for the purpose of bridging specific development proposals with local General Plans. Specific Plans typically incorporate planning policies, regulations, tailored development standards, improvement programs and other regulatory methods into one document. The preparation, adoption and implementation of the Meadowlark Specific Plan by the City of Huntington Beach is authorized by Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Articles 8 and 9 of the California Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. B. Existing Specific Plan Development Summary The Meadowlark property was previously used as a small craft airport(Meadowlark Airport). The current Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 7, 1988,and allowed development of approximately fifteen(15) acres with commercial uses and a maximum of six hundred (600) dwelling units (single-family detached, multi-family medium density and multi-family medium-high density) within the remaining fifty (50) acres. The commercial portion was developed subsequent to approval of a conditional use permit(CUP No. 90-45) allowing development of a 122,665 sq. ft. shopping center in 1991. The approved residential product, density and acreage distribution is as follows: Acres Type::o. nit' Density 18 acres (min) Detached Single-family 7du/ac 20 acres (min) Attached Multi-family 12 du/ac (Medium Density) 12 acres (min) Attached Multi-family 20 du/ac (Medium/High Density) C. Existing Development Agreement The Meadowlark Development Agreement is an agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the. Nerio Family applicable to development proposals on the subject site. The Development Agreement outlines the rights and responsibilities of the City and the Nerio Family with regard to further development on the site. The City and the developer entered into the agreement in 1989 order to • Establish development rights on the property; • Provide for cessation of all airport operations; • Provide a secure means of financing needed public improvements; • Provide additional employment opportunities and housing; and • Generate substantial additional revenues to the City to enable it to maintain and improve vital public services for the residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Staff Report—6/16/98 7 (98SR37) The Development Agreement allows the property owner to proceed with the project subject to existing policies and regulations; in exchange the property owner is obligated to provide public improvements. These improvements include construction and installation of infrastructure and other facilities, dedication of land for public benefit, and cessation of airport operations. The Agreement may terminate under any of several conditions including expiration of the stated term (10 years due to expire July 1999), completion of the project in accordance with the Agreement, or default. I1. Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan Development Concept Summary The proposed Meadowlark Specific Plan development concept provides for a mixed-use community of commercial and residential uses. The Specific Plan establishes the general type, location parameters and character of residential development(48.4 acres) while allowing for creative design solutions within the overall framework of the plan. The commercial portion of the Specific Plan(16.6 acres) has been developed and will be subject to the previously approved conditions of project approval (CUP No. 90-45 / TPM No. 90-268 /CE No. 91-31). The Specific Plan area has been designed to allow for development that is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and the City of Huntington Beach. The development concept(uses, densities and product types) is intended to allow for reconfiguration of the standard elements of growth—single - family detached residences, multi-family development, retail and recreation facilities—to enhance community, convenience and identity. The Meadowlark residential community is intended to be designed in the form of distinct, complementary and interconnected"neighborhoods" (Planning Areas) in which streets are convenient and comfortable to walk, parks form a public focus. The plan identifies four pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, multiple recreational areas and a meandering pedestrian promenade/Spine Road, which links the residential and commercial segment of the Specific Plan area. All four residential planning areas are proposed to be developed concurrently. The difference between the design of the Meadowlark community and other residential projects will be slight and significant at the same time. The streets are proposed to be narrower,tree lined and connected to the public park, private mini-parks and community serving facilities (meeting room, day care center or similar uses) for Meadowlark residents; in addition landscaped parkways will be provided to enhance the pedestrian friendly community design concept. The mix of housing is intended to allow a broader range of product types and include conventional small- lot, zero-lot line and z-lot layouts. The visual impact of garages is proposed to be diminished through neo-traditional design solutions that advocate placement of garages toward the rear of the residential lot. Building design guidelines are intended to address the street and sidewalk with entries balconies, porches, architectural features and activities which help to create a safe and pleasant living environment. Please refer to sections 3.2—3.11 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan Legislative Draft(Attachment No. 3) for detailed descriptions of each of the following project components. 3.2 Land Use 3.7 Grading 3.3 Circulation 3.8 Geology—Soils/ Seismicity 3.4 Open Space/Recreation 3.9 Potential Hazardous Materials 3.5 Landscape Concept 3.10 Archeology 3.6 Public Facilities 3.11 Phasing Plan Staff Report—6/16/98 8 (98SR37) III. Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan Issues The revised Meadowlark Specific Plan will be implemented through application of general development provisions,development standards and general design criteria set forth in Section 4.0 Development Regulations of the Specific Plan. Some of these provisions are not acceptable by Catellus Residential Group (CRG). Moreover land use compatibility concerns,primarily related to buffer provisions between Planning Area 3 and easterly adjoining properties,have been raised by property owners residing along the easterly property line of the project site on Old Pirate Lane. Property owners residing west of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area have also inquired and expressed concerns regarding provisions of direct driveway access from Planning Area 4 to Roosevelt Lane. In addition drainage, traffic impacts,park use and impacts on police resources have been raised as issues. Attached to the report is a matrix (Attachment No. 4)which compares the proposed development standards for each one of the four Planning Areas of the Meadowlark Specific Plan with the Small-Lot Planning Commission Subcommittee recommended standards for small-lot development in multi-family zones, and Holy-Seacliff(RL-3) development standards. The matrix also includes, for reference purposes only, the proposed development standards by Catellus Residential Group depicted on the tentative tract map (TTM No. 15469) and conditional use permit(CUP No. 97-80) for the subject site. The following is a discussion of project land use compatibility, development standards of the Specific Plan, public park requirements, affordable housing and traffic impacts. A. Land Use Compatibility As noted above, the current Meadowlark Specific Plan allows for development of a maximum of six hundred (600) dwelling units at variable densities ranging between seven(7) to twenty (20) dwelling units per gross acre. The revised Specific Plan limits development within the residential portion of the project to a maximum of four hundred forty-four(444) dwelling units. The proposed residential densities, range from six and half(6.5)to eighteen(18) dwelling units per gross acre, and provide a gradual transition between the commercial and medium high density attached residential uses (RMH) to the south of the property and the existing low density detached residential uses (RL)to the north, east and west. All four(4) Planning Areas are anticipated to be developed with small- lot single-family detached homes, however the Specific Plan allows for an alternate development product type of multi-family attached residences within Planning Area 4. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring an one-hundred (100) ft. wide buffer between existing single family development adjacent to the project site and any proposed attached or detached residential development of greater than seven(7) dwelling units per gross acre. The buffer provision stipulates that if detached single family homes are to be provided within said buffer area, the maximum density shall not exceed seven(7) dwelling units per gross acre. This provision will minimize the effects of compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. Staff Report—6/16/98 9 (98SR37) The revised Specific Plan also includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. Moreover the plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. Furthermore the revised Specific Plan incorporates language for provision of adequate infrastructure inclusive of drainage, sewer, and water facilities as well as traffic control devices (i.e. traffic signals) per City Standards. Grading within the Specific Plan area will require issuance of grading permits and will be governed by soils, foundation and other geotechnical reports prepared by registered civil and geotechnical engineers, in accordance with building codes, established engineering practices and City Ordinances. Reasonable efforts will be taken in the design of improvements and building pads to minimize the amount of grading required, thus ensuring maximum compatibility with existing development B. Development Standards 1) Front Yard Setbacks Staff recommends provision of fifteen(15) ft. front yard setbacks within the residential district(Planning Area 1-4) of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area and has incorporated a provision within the revised Specific Plan document to allow reduction(s) of said setback where six (6) ft. (min.) landscaped parkways are provided along street frontages and high quality, innovative concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles are proposed; in those cases front yard setbacks are proposed to be reduced to an average of twelve (12) ft. with minimum setback of ten (10) ft., subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 2) Rear Yard Setbacks Staff proposes ten(10) ft. (min.) rear yard setbacks for habitable portions of dwellings within all residential district planning areas. CGR has requested consideration of five (5) ft. rear yard setbacks for dwellings within Planning Area 1 and 4. Staff believes that a ten(10) ft. rear yard setback should be provided as a minimum buffer to ensure livability and maintain privacy between adjacent dwellings and lots. The Commission may consider additional setbacks for units abutting commercial areas and existing 6,000 square feet residentially zoned areas. 3) Private Open Space Staff recommends provision of four hundred(400) sq. ft. of private usable open space on each residential lot. The total private open space may be provided in one or more private open space areas per lot, as long as the primary area is a minimum of three hundred (300) sq. ft. and has a minimum dimension of fifteen (15) ft; additional private open space areas will be required to be designed with a minimum dimension of eight(8) ft. The precise location of all private open space areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4) Common Open Space The revised Specific Plan incorporates provisions for common open space areas in addition to those required on each individual residential lot as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. per residential lot with less than forty (40) ft. of frontage. • One hundred (100) sq. ft. per residential lot for lots with forty (40) ft. or more of frontage. Staff Report—6/16/98 10 (98SR37) The common open space area is required to be provided in increments of no less than three thousand (3,000) sq. ft. The total common open space area may be provided in one or more areas as long as each area is a minimum of three thousand (3,000) sq. ft. and the primary area has a minimum dimension of fifty(50) ft.; additional common open space areas are required to be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25) ft. 5) Garage Design The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for garage use/design and establishes a twenty (20) by twenty (20) ft. minimum interior garage dimension in order to accommodate storage for a wider range of . vehicle sizes and general household storage needs. CRG opposes the suggested minimum garage dimensions and contends that the currently required eighteen(18) ft. by nineteen(19) ft. garage space is adequate, if properly designed to accommodate automobile and household storage. 6) Fence Design The revised Specific Plan requires provision of masonry walls at interior side yard and rear yard locations. CRG has proposed a wood fence design alternative which incorporates galvanized steel posts as part of the fence design and extends the durability of wood fencing (Attachment No. 7). Although staff finds CRG's proposal to be an improvement over conventional wood fence design staff believes masonry construction provides the best long term wall solution. It should be noted that the Planning Commission has required installation of masonry walls at interior side and rear yards on numerous projects in the past few years and staff is in the process, based on direction received by the Planning Commission, of preparing a zoning text amendment to the HBZSO to address these issues on a city-wide basis. 7) Sidewalk Design Staff recommends provision of four(4) ft. wide sidewalks in conjunction with six(6) ft. wide parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. The Public Works Department has indicated that if sidewalks adjacent to curbs are proposed and permitted as part of the development of Planning Area 3 and 4, they should be six(6) ft. wide (min.)to accommodate street furniture and provide adequate access for the disabled. CRG contends that modified five (5) ft. monolithic sidewalks which allow for clearance around street furniture would adequately address the City's issues (please refer to CRG recommended sidewalk design alternative—Attachment No. 6) . Staff finds the suggested sidewalk design proposed by CGR not in compliance with City Standards. 8) Landscaped Parkway Design The revised Meadowlark Specific Plan requires provision of six(6) ft. wide parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2 and encourages parkways within Planning Area 3 and 4. CRG agrees with the concept of incorporating landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2, provided that parkway width is reduced to five (5) ft.(please refer to CRG recommended street sections—Attachment No. 5). Staff believes that six(6) ft. wide parkways would best accommodate tree growth and achieve the desired tree canopy effect along street frontages. Staff Report—6/16/98 11 (98SR37) 9) Pearce Street Extension Street Section Design Staff has recommended that the Pearce Street extension be designed in accordance with public street standards (60 ft. right-of-way width/40 ft. curb to curb-parking on both sides of the street). CRG has requested that the City consider private street standards (52 ft. right-of-way/32 ft. curb to curb parking on one side of the street). Staff believes that the Pearce Street extension should be constructed at a sixty ft. right-of-way width to address fire emergency access issues. 10) Noise Attenuation Wall A noise study was conducted by Mestre Greve Associates to evaluate potential noise impacts from the existing Meadowlark shopping center to adjacent residential uses. The study concluded that construction of a twelve (12) ft. high wall along the southerly boundary of Planning Area 4 would adequately mitigate noise impacts. Although it was determined that from a noise attenuation standpoint a twelve (12) ft. high wall could address noise impacts, staff finds the wall height and its proximity to habitable areas of proposed dwellings along the southerly portion of Planning Area 4 to be problematic from a planning standpoint. Staff believes that said wall height should be limited to a maximum of eight (8) ft. and a buffer area, if necessary to limit the aforementioned maximum height, be provided between the two land uses. CRG has been in contact with the property owners of the adjoining shopping center and has indicated that improvements to the existing food market loading dock area and truck traffic rerouting can significantly reduce noise impacts, thus the required wall height. No documentation ensuring improvements to the food market loading dock area, truck rerouting or an acoustical analysis supporting the above statements has been submitted for consideration up to this point. Staff believes, the proposed specific plan language adequately addresses land use compatibility concerns. Wall details, buffer area design and/or off-site improvements and truck traffic operational modification data will be required to be provided in conjunction with specific development proposals for Planning Area 4. C. Public Park 1) Dedication The City has set its park standard at five (5) acres per one-thousand (1,000)people. Under the Quimby Act(Attachment No. 15),the City has the option of accepting fees in-lieu of land dedication. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Section 254.08 H.) states: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D,which amount is the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land in such neighborhood park properties in the City shall be determined every two years by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. (Please refer to parkland dedication section 254.08 of HBZSO - Attachment No. 8). Staff Report—6/16/98 12 (98SR37) As described in the above section of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, it was the City Council's intent to have fees which are paid in lieu of land dedication for park purposes to reflect the current value of land. However,the City has not hired a qualified real estate appraiser to bring its in-lieu fee schedule in conformance with today's land value in Huntington Beach. It is staff s belief that based on the provisions of the zoning ordinance the City can negotiate an in-lieu fee which is comparable to current land value rather than providing 100% land dedication. CRG has submitted a conditional use permit and tentative tract map involving subdivision of 48.8 acres of vacant land and development of 325 single family detached dwellings. The parkland dedication requirement for three hundred twenty-five (325) detached single-family dwelling units is 5.57 acres, however,the Planning Commission, as mentioned previously, has the discretion to require land, or in lieu fees. Catellus Residential Group (CRG) contends that the 1989 Meadowlark Development Agreement and associated Development Approvals provide that the City can not require any exaction, including park dedication, that is not specifically authorized by the Agreement and the Approvals. The City Attorney's office has concluded that the City can require parkland dedication for development of the Property (please refer to City Attorney's letter dated January 24, 1997—Attachment No. 9). The current Specific Plan clearly contemplates a park dedication"that could be used for a greenbelt that would provide access through the development to Gibbs Park and/or an area on the western edge of the Park that would be set aside for park parking." The Existing Land Use Regulations (ELUR), as defined by the Agreement, includes HBOC Article 996-B (Parks and Recreational Facilities), which provides the City's regulations concerning parkland dedication or payment of fees in lieu of land dedication. Thus the park dedication is required as part of the ELUR and is an allowable exaction under the Development Agreement even though the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) which was prepared in 1987 for the project site indicates that when developed the Norma Gibbs park site will provide sufficient parkland for the development alternatives the EIR analyzed. It should be noted that at the time the aforementioned EIR was prepared, Norma Gibbs park was undeveloped and in a degraded state with less than one hundred (100) of the original five hundred (500)eucalyptus trees healthy and stable. In 1995 the park was developed as a natural grove of trees, recreating the monarch butterfly habitat which once existed on the site. As a result of the eucalyptus grove improvements there was insufficient area left to develop a traditional neighborhood park. In addition, over the past decade, redevelopment of closed school sites has resulted in a significant loss of recreational open space while youth sports needs have grown. These facts have necessitated a change in the City's philosophy regarding neighborhood parks and specifically in this case created a need to create an active neighborhood park to serve the surrounding residents (Please refer to Community Services Department report dated May 29, 1998 —Attachment No. 10). Staffs current position in terms of acceptable parkland dedication options for development of the Meadowlark property is outlined in the Community Services Department report dated May 29, 1998, to the Community Services Commission(Please refer to Attachment No.10) which was written in response to CRG's development proposal involving construction of 325 single-family detached dwellings, as follows: Staff Report—6/16/98 13 (98SR37) Staff Alternative 1 Park land dedication The developer is required to dedicate 5.57 acres of undeveloped parkland to the City to satisfy requirements pursuant to the City's park dedication ordinance. Staff Alternative 2 Park land dedication, improvements and in lieu fees The developer would dedicate and fully improve as active, neighborhood park 3.4 acres; fully improve 0.8 acres of undeveloped Norma Gibbs park;pay negotiated dedication fees equal to the"value of the land prescribed for dedication" (Please refer to parkland dedication section 254.08 of HBZSO - Attachment No. 8). CRG is proposing to dedicate 2.2 acres of public neighborhood park, improvement of 0.8 acres of adjacent undeveloped Norma Gibbs park and pay in-lieu fees per current Park and Recreation fee schedule to meet parkland dedication obligations. The approximate dollar value of the above referenced parkland dedication alternatives and CRG's proposal is as follows: :Parkland ;In-ii6df,6es A Comments Deditwion 4, ww r y= _; r a,, (aja i�roxiiriate"$ al e) Alternative 1 5.57 ac N/A N/A $ 2,785,000 Alternative 2 3.4 ac $1,085,000 $120, 000 of in-lieu $2,785,000 (negotiated fees will be allocated to @ improvements of 0.8 $500,000/ac) acres of unimproved Norma Gibbs Park CRG proposal 2.2 ac $613,083 $120, 000 of in-lieu $1,713,083 (based on fees will be allocated to Park and Rec improvements of 0.8 Fee of acres of unimproved $181,924/ac) Norma Gibbs Park The parkland dedication alternatives proposed by staff is based on a development of three hundred twenty-five (325) single family detached dwellings. If the total number of dwelling units changes the amount of dedication will also change. In order to address any questions relating to parkland dedication specific language has been included in the revised Specific Plan(please refer to Section 4.4 General Provisions A. Parkland Dedication— Attachment No.4) indicating that Public Parkland dedication requirements (parkland and/or in-lieu fees and improvements) shall be satisfied in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 254, Dedications and Reservations, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Said language is intended to supercede and replace Negative Declaration mitigation measure No.13. Staff Report—6/16/98 14 (98SR37) 2) Public Park Use/Access to Passive areas of Norma Gibbs Park The Community Services Department has analyzed anticipated impacts related to Meadowlark Specific Plan development on existing park and recreation facilities in the area and additional needs that will be generated upon project completion. Staff has determined that four areas of park and recreation needs would need to be addressed: Neighborhood Park uses; i.e.tot-lot,picnic area and open play space; Practice fields for boy and girl sports; Community meeting room space for local organizations; Sports court use (tennis,basketball etc.) The Community Services Department has emphasized that park development and improvements within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area are intended to primarily serve local area residents and provide facilities for practice and pickup games. The park is not proposed to be used as a competition field and will not be lighted. Access to the Norma Gibbs Park will be provided and is not anticipated to alter the passive nature of the existing park. Community Services Department staff has indicated that currently Norma Gibbs park is frequently toured by schools and it has always been anticipated that an active play area would be developed within the most westerly 0.8 acres of parkland adjacent to the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Provision of active play space within the Meadowlark Specific Plan is expected to improve and minimize undesirable activities within the passive portion of the Norma Gibbs park site. Moreover the proposed access and expansion of the Norma Gibbs Park site will accommodate additional surveillance of the park and improve park users' safety. 3) Public Park Parking The Public Works Department analyzed the most intense development scenario for the Meadowlark Specific Plan area which involves dedication of 2.2 acres of park (see discussion on Public Park Dedication section—CRG proposal). Based on a daily trip generation rate of 5.9 trips per park acre, and anticipated uses for practice ball fields staff determined and recommended that twenty (20)parking spaces be provided with direct access to a public street, (please refer to Public Works letter dated April 7, 1998— Attachment No. 11). CRG contends that twelve (12)to thirteen(13)parking spaces would adequately address"worst case" scenario park parking needs for 2.2 acres (please refer to WPA Traffic Engineering memorandum dated June 1, 1998—Attachment No. 12). Staff believes that provision of twelve (12)to thirteen(13)parking spaces would not adequately address park parking needs and has the potential of impacting adjacent residential streets. Staff wishes to re-emphasize that the recommended park parking reflects dedication of 2.2 acres of parkland. Additional parking will be necessary and should be provided if the approved park area exceeds 2.2 acres,based on the aforementioned daily trip generation rate (5.9 trips per park acre) and proposed park uses. It is anticipated that park land dedication of 3.4 acres would result in a park parking requirement of approximately twenty-seven(27)parking spaces. Proposed park parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and Community Department at the time of specific project development submittal. Staff Report—6/16/98 15 (98SR37) D. Affordable Housing Affordable Housing requirements are applicable to development of the project area. The City Attorney has issued a legal opinion on this matter wherein she states that the most important official policy document in effect at the time of Development Agreement recordation was the General Plan. In the Housing Element of the General Plan, one of the stated goals is to provide "a variety of housing opportunities by type,tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the city" (Huntington Beach General Plan 1984 Housing Element , Section 8.0 (2).). Furthermore, the City Attorney states that the City recognized the need for using its police powers to promote the provision of affordable housing in Section 8.2 of the Housing Element, entitled"Adequate Provision". Which reads as follows: 8.2 Adequate Provision Adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community is an issue of the highest priority in Huntington Beach. For reasons previously discussed, it appears unlikely that market forces alone will produce enough housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households to meet expected needs. Since decent housing for all is important to the welfare of the entire city, it is particularly important to address this need through the use of those public powers which impact housing. (Huntington Beach General Plan, 1984 Housing Element, Section 8.2.) Moreover, in order to carry out the goal of providing adequate low and moderate income housing, the City adopted many specific policies (please refer to letter dated March 31, 1998 from City Attorney— Attachment No. 13)which are applicable to the subject Specific Plan area. The City Attorney found that the Meadowlark Specific Plan is subject to the above provisions of the General Plan and that the Development Agreement does not prohibit the City from requiring developer(s) of the Meadowlark Specific Plan to provide affordable housing. Staff believes that the Planning Commission should remain consistent with its years of past actions with respect to affordable housing. This project in no way differs from other residential projects that have been asked to address the affordable housing needs of the City. It should also be noted that there are several pending projects that will be brought before the Planning Commission in the coming months that have agreed to address affordable housing. Therefore, staff has included appropriate language within the revised Specific Plan text(please refer to Section 4.4 Special Provisions B. Affordable Housing of Attachment No. 4) in order to clarify the issue and ensure provision of a minimum of ten percent(10%) of the total number of housing units approved as affordable housing to families of low and moderate income for a period of thirty (30) years. The revised Specific Plan further stipulates that on-site or off-site rental housing may be proposed to satisfy this requirement at the appropriate income level. AFFORDABLE ROUSING PLAN ALTERNATIVES Type of`Housing Numbl of 1m ` ;Income Lev61 Annual Income Housing (Family of 4) Costs For Sale Housing 10% of total units Low and Median $65,800 $233,000 (on-site or off-site) proposed-secured (max 100% Orange Selling for 30 years County Median Income) Price Rental Housing 10% of total units Very Low and Low(50% $32,900445,300 Rental (on-site or off-site) proposed-secured - 80% of the Orange Level for for 30 years County Median Income) three bedroom: $823- $987 Staff Report—6/16/98 16 (98SR37) E. Traffic Impacts Although development of the Meadowlark Specific Plan site, as revised, would generate additional vehicular movements to those presently existing in the surrounding street system,traffic conditions in the immediate area are not expected to be much different than those analyzed in the previous traffic report for the current Specific Plan. Development on the site would be subject to standard City conditions related to traffic/circulation. Developer(s) of the Specific Plan area will be required to pay the entire cost for a traffic signal at Heil Avenue/Del Mar Avenue as well as one fourth(1/4) of the total cost for the Bolsa Chica/Pearce and proportional share of the Graham/Heil signalization costs. The revised Specific Plan allows for limited direct driveway access to Roosevelt Lane from Planning Area 4 (residential lots fronting on said street). Due to the limited frontage along Roosevelt Lane (total length of approximately 557 ft.)overall impacts related to the proposed Specific Plan revision for driveway access have been deemed less than significant. Access to Pearce Street shall be such that traffic on said street will not exceed 2500 average daily trips. SUNIMARY: There are several issues discussed in this report that warrant individual attention. In addition, there will be issues raised through the public hearing process that may need further analysis. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission hold a public hearing,receive testimony, take straw vote motions on key project issues and then continue the proposal to the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. This will enable staff to make any final changes to the Specific Plan and complete a thorough analysis of the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of Key Project Issues (for straw vote) f-'(: 40 tu4.e-y� � 2. Negative Declaration No. 97-21 flek- +0 tkaQ" 419 3. Legislative Draft of Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan dated June 5, 1998 (previously provided) 4. Development Standards Matrix 5. CRG Recommended Street Sections �-v(- +0 k�-kck .1c : 1 y- 6. CRG Recommended Sidewalk Design Solution A-:5 7. CRG Recommended Fence Design Lek- A-0 k�,k&Q c. k' 8. Parkland Dedication/HBZSO Section 254.08 Jro VAAe* 3 9. Parkland Dedication Legal Opinion-Letter dated January 24, 1997 �e•F �'O ��� 3 10. Community Services Department/Parkland Dedication- Report dated May 29, 1998 �� +0 (�..o9"* 3 11. Public Works/Park Parking-Letter dated April 7, 1998— � 1►A.4p-x -*+ 12. WPA Traffic Engineering Inc./Park Parking-Memorandum dated June 1, 1998 - Q-eF 4,0 1'A. Qe 4- 13. Affordable Housing Legal Opinion-Letter dated March 31, 1998- + 13" 4�- '7-- 14. Letters in Opposition and/or Support -}o I-kcQp�L i 15. Quimby Act — &RA SH:AW:kjl Staff Report—6/16/98 17 (98SR37) ATTACHMENT NO. 3 THE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN LEGISLATIVE DRAFT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED THE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION/ZONING COUNTER ATTACHMENT NO. 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN PROPOSED DEVELOIVYIENT 4DARDS FOR h1EADOWLARK, PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCORIMI'ITEE RECOA•111•IENDED STANDARDS FOR SMAL►.-LOTS ON MULTI-FAMILY ZONES AND IISSP(ItL-3)STANDARDS Meadowlark Meadowlark Mcudowlurk Meadowlark Subcommittee IISSP PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA4 Issue Suggestions (RL-3) Applicant —Staff- Applicant---Staff--- Applicant—Staff Applicant---Staff---- Minimum Lot Size(sq.ft.) 2.800 3,300 —T,6-00--T 4,600 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Average Lot Size 3,400 n/a 5,110 4,965 3,670 3,355 Minimum Lot Width Interior Lot 30' 30' 55, 55 50' 50' 40' 40' 35' 35' Cul-de-sac Lot 20' 20' 25' 30' 25' 30' 20' 30' 25' 30' Minimum Setbacks Front IS +offsets in IS' 10' 15'with prov. 10' IS'with prov. 12' IS'wtth prov. IS' IS'with prov. front facade for reduction for reduction for reduction for reduction Front Porches(covered 10, n/a 10, 12'with prov. 10, 12 with prov. 12' 12'with prov. 10, 12'with prov. &open on 3 sides) for reduction for reduction for reduction for reduction Upper Story 5'offset above-1 n/a Provided- Subj.to CUP Provided Subj.to CUP Provided Subj.to CUP Provided Subj.to CUP floor review review review review Side 20%aggregate; 20% 5' 20%aggregate 5' 20%aggregate 3'(min 8' 3 min on one 4 zero lot- min.3'on one aggregate (10'max);min. (10'mar);min. between side&Ymin on setback side&5'on other min.3'; 3'on one side 3'on one side buildings) other(min.8' permitted (min.8'between max.5' &5'on other &5'on other between units); w/6' units);/zero (min.8' (min.8' zero setback separation,5' setback permitted between units); between units); permitted w/6' setback on w/6'on other side zero setback zero setback separation 5' other side;z- permitted w/6' permitted w/6' setback on other lots req.4' separation 5' separation 5' side;z:lot req, setbacks setback on other setback on other 4'setbacks side;z-lot req. side;z-lot req. 4'setbacks 4'setbacks Exterior Side 10'which 20% 10, 20%lot;max 10, 20%lot;mar 8' 20%lot;min. 6' 20%lot;min includes min.4' aggregate 10'which 10'which 67 mar.8' 6'/mar.8' landscape area min.6'; includes min.4' includes min.4' max.8' landscape area landscape area Rear(dwelling) 15 ;50%o I5 5 10, 14' 10, 13t 10 5 10, building width can be at 13' (garage) Garage may be 5' S' S 5' S' S 5' S 5 zero M Meadowlark Meadowlark hleadoi lurk Meadowlark Subcommittee IISSI' PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA4 Issue Suggestions (RL-3) Applicant ----Staff Applicant—Staff-- Applicant---Staff------ Applicant—Staff— Garage Setback 18'on side w/6' 18'-front 18'front 1.8'front 18'front 18'front entry; 18'front 18'front entry; 18'front 18 front sidewalk;20'on entry; entry;10' entry;10'side entry; 10' 10'side entry entry;10' 10'side entry entry; 10' entry; 10' side without. 10'-side side entry entry side entry side entry side entry side entry entry Minimum Interior Garage 20'x 20' 18'x 19' 20'- 20'X20' 191- 20'X20' 18'X19% 20'X20' 18'X20" 20'X20' Dimensions(W x D) 6"X20' 6"X20' 4" Maximum Building Height 30' 35' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' Maximum Stories 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 JB 2 Maximum Site Coverage 50%+5%for 55% 50% 50%+5% 50% 50%+5% 50% 50%+5% 50%+5% open air porches, patio covers, balconies,etc. Minimum Private Open 400SF None By 400 SF By 400 SF By 400 SF 400 SF Space per Unit setbacks setbacks setbacks setbacks Common Open Space Area 150 SF per unit; 150 150 150 SF/lot<40' 150 150 SF/lot<40' 150 150 SF/lot<40' 150 150 per Project total area must be SF/lot<4 SF/lot<4 wide; IOOSF/lot SF/lot<4 wide;IOOSF/lot SF/lot<40' wide; IOOSF/lot SF/lot<4 SF/lot<40' at least 3,000 SF O'wide; 0'wide; for lots 40' 0'wide; for lots 40' wide; for lots 40' O'wide; wide; with a min. IOOSF/lot 100SF/lot wide 100SF/lot wide IOOSF/lot wide 100SF/lot IOOSF/lot for dimension of 50' for lots for lots for lots for lots for lots lots 40'wide x 50'.0•0 40'wide 40'wide 40'wide 40'wide 40'wide •Zero Setback.Allowed ••Condominium Project ***Projects less than 20 units must provide a minimum 600 SF of open space(private&common)per unit. Private open space excludes side and front yard setback areas. if a portion is provided as common open space that area shall have a min.dim.of 10' pihaded areas denote stall recommendea developmentstan ar F r 1 1 • iy-t