Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeadowlark Specific Plan Amendment - Public Hearing - Zoning MEADOWLARK �. .,. a�,.;, •,, .,ems. '<.��e.�•�.- ;��-�y�r` `�:. ,.e. - ..,.F.» �,� ��, .�- a-.� -�. ... ,..,., -, �,, ,, ;,,.,*a. ,�" �>,. --...�wt... _.. �.m-."":;c,•�.3� -r>',i- °==z .s :�•, -:;�, ::rr.- �5'u.'`7M. ''"?%��5:. •`�L-v ..:s:�..Y..rt. tt� '�}-`,r.". �.a. .Fs�a„� ,::Asa.: .4 -::✓�- >0 i?, - m.�-_.p .�r�r� ��k s. 4�.yk - 'L ILII Rbl o } t 1-0 tLI3 2/22/99 01 Ai 0-_�j City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK ....,..,..,.>z:.�, .-_0� �3.x.,�. ...t ..s .��,�° � :" _s�ti:.�a;:�""f•d" '3 �s '�"a':.���._ .e�a,-"�"�"`i�-='`� =�a s':r" �%; `� . - r=, .' ..�....: .......... „w•`�, i cr;: ": ,�.,..:..=-... .r,:a...^�_ .. .�3�io`x:'sti�a .�.� .�-.�,. � �""'*�",.�.�» ,:3*�.�f°i��a�f:. A Jan, 25. 1999 Citv Council Meetina (Overview) ❑Open Public Hearing/ Presentations / Deliberation ✓ Specific Plan Amendment and ✓Appeal of Meadowlark Development. Proposal W 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK .F� .sv^%• .sbi,. ':�� "1�:�+ .;�{��a `• 'c�'�+,'J1. �A�S�:.� 'a .a}� ,'#tk '?�'"X'pO9'.L«^Ys^ir h,., ,��•':: %�'� :.d•� - ..'ors:..,. '�Y�-,."_ E _..... �, 'Ss•'am.-..e...;, ... ,., ....;,,s..:..�..w....,.. ...::........::.... ..�., a.5':� - ..`::'}-'i;. „.�`y:'T_�" U. �•,'„�fy�.;` Jan.. 25 .Z999 Citv Council Meedna Overview cont. USpecific Plan ✓ Motion to approve Planning Commission's recommendation (Motion Failed 3-4) LI Specific Plan / TTM & CUP Appeal ✓ Motion to continue, (based on CGR request) to Feb. 22, 1999 (Motion passed 5-2) W 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach I J MEADOWLARK 4 i r,-'ti., _ F%i %ks a '.:, �;'�`.xi.?J':qsw.,.«' ..... ,_ r " O Jan, 25z 9,99 - Feb. 22, UCity staff and Catellus communicates to address City's issues and Council's comments LIAlternative ' 3 is prepared as a "compromise" development plan option M, 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach "� M EADOWLARK "' � T - - ....,.,....,. ...._. --__.w-. .._. .'- xis<•z.:v,,. w,.„.„. ,_.._. ■ Feb. 1999 Citv Council Meeting LIStaff Recommendation SPECIFIC PLAN */Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 ,/Approve Specific Plan Amendment (ZTA No. 97-4 & ZMA No. 97-01) with revisions to reflect staff recommended changes (per Summary/ pg. D-1A 4 M of ZTA/ZMA RCA ✓Adopt Ordinance No. 3411 with revisions to reflect staff recommended changes M 2/22/99 City 9 of Huntington Beach M EADOWLARK ..,.�r�e;:; ;v;..., ..: 2Z gym,.; .�,�-�,;e.•..-:� � r :.. � 'fr:5,•'.a .St., e ..�,... „��. F:4 ',!' %;^2Rn;^.�, ". � ..,.. i• �•g' �.t..,e .. •C. '�::' .......:.so,... �x�.,„a.,. . ,; ....., o)tr.x .g�..'"+x t,,,,� �,t�t Y''"7,� +*'`__•>'� `.';, Swi'.Y�Nrk - .d . ..__..»�,. ._ _. _,,.. ....� ... . ...,�=�''.�., .. ❑Staff Recommendation(cont. ) 17M 15469 & CUP 97-80 ✓Approve project (ND No. 97-21, TfM No. 15469 and CUP No. 97-80) with revisions to reflect staff recommended changes (per matrix / pg. D-1B-15 of TfM/CUP RCA)and return to Council with findings and conditions of approval. 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach '� MEADOWLARK iW 1- �.,:�, �` �„ -' "�"-�Y„-^,,� inn t�.•�':�i; Feb, 22 , 19,99 ckvCouncil Meetina UAlternative Actions SPECIFIC PLAN OApprove Specific Plan Amendment with revisions to reflect Alternative No. 1, 2 OR 3 Plan OR ©Continue project and direct staff accordingly [LfflW. !q;, 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK ,I,SY. eg �._`,=�'.+?rv`'.�.i;•-x-°;]gtAa@,....`"". � ,,...'r9^.+w�'o<.-S;,tiria,.2+ :'",..�,::"'� '�? .'.r;z.�;;"".'."x'`'";,.y-�c«:.,-.<;�f3�',�-^_�.•. °�"�:,n'€',.'�`'`. .vt� ",.�����^� ,�zwc,€'; �;.'��< ,�-a� y�;.�:°� cis°,,. ,' ?�,+---«f-,,.,�,s,,... - '� ';-?.t ,t, ,.a_,s,�..'T�-.''tx'�3;.`u�� � `s�,�u,•k a." ��'°ta,£��,'.. 4r �,. .sP�T'yy�����e�� :-a.`;m :qr,»� ,•,,.»„a,r--,:�,,.. ,,. '',;,,,,,,,,,,,'.,� ...., ._., ,,,. >� .,•; ,�. ,, ,:.�+,� .., ',;� `'�f�. a-,'si,'....r ,.sm, �. .-"z. .t�s'n �.�vt1�q"45:.�..,;.�. .... -� . ,r , .,. , „ :.<. .. a„ 'F,,:,;^; -,+;,1�� i;(, �>�:'�,�', �•> ,r a.. .�` 1�°� ',�v '£n.max,.. �,xa-., „,.,..,W,,,.:':�. ,,, z,,, �._c .r...�.,..�:e.::�+ra��;sa;r:�, ,,�1.,. »:+_ >wd.:�'�r''�?F,�,x�x�' ��,, ..,.�', •� *�, ".;;,�.�.z•��:. .' m � � �r r;�a,�"k.:,.,�+;±;�:.• r� LIAlternative Actions (cont. ) TTM 15469 & CUP 97-80 OA rove TfM No. 15469 and CUP No. 97-80 with revisions to reflect Alternative No. 1, 2 or3 OR ©Continue TfM No. 15469 and CUP No. 97-80 and direct staff accordingly OR © Deng project rD�T! 2/22/99 City of Huntington Beach MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE -AMERICANS' WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. If you require,American sign language interpreters,a reader during the meeting, and/or large print agendas,to make arrangements, please call: Office of the City Clerk(714)536-5227. To make arrangements for an assisted listening system(ALD)for the hearing impaired, please call: Building Maintenance Department(714)536-5534. 72 hours prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to a meeting. ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999 5:00 P.M. — Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California A. 5:00 P.M. — Council Chambers B. Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting To Order C. Roll Call Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan [Present] D-1A. (City Council) Public Hearing Closed On 1/25199 (Decision Continued From 1125/99) —Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/As Recommended By Staff And/Negative Declaration No. 97-21_ (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment) *****City Clerk's draft minutes of 1/25/99 public hearing attached. Public hearing opened and closed on 1/25/99 to consider the following: Protect Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Project Request: To amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan to: 1. Consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan document and the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family dwellings on small lots; and incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment); COMPUTER INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDAS IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS http://Www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us s s (2) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 2 and 2. Update Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit II to reflect a reduction in densities within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan; establish the boundaries for four residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5 dwelling units per net acre and 13.8 dwelling units per net acre; and incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (Zoning Map Amendment). (*) Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. Recommended Action: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment Nos. 2 and 3), to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. [Approved 7-01 and 2. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with findings (Attachment No. 2) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and revisions to reflect staff's recommended changes". (Outlined in Summary). and Request fGF Ge-u-PA-61 A.G_tiGR dated F=ebFuaFy 22, 1999 "With FeViGiGRG tG Fe (Approved 7-0 as modified All modifications to be presented on 3 4 99 3-8-99 at which time ordinance to be presented for introduction. [Approved 6-1 (Sullivan: no)] Motion to amend to increase in-lieu park fees from $500,000 per acre to $516,000 per acre. [Failed 2-5 (Harman, Sullivan: yes)] Motion to amend to require block walls rather than wood fences. [Failed 2-5 (Harman, Sullivan: yes)] Motion to amend to have modifications return to Council on 3- 8-99. [Approved 6-1 (Bauer: no)] (3) 02/22/99— Council/Agency Agenda— Page 3 The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session for the purpose of considering the following City Council-Redevelopment Agency Agenda Items. The Huntington Beach Parking Authority, Civic Improvement Corporation, and the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority are also agencies on which Council serves as members. On each Agenda these Agencies may have items scheduled. On 1/25/99 the City Council made a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01. It failed by 3-4 vote. D-1B. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened & Closed On 1/25/99 With Decision Continued From 1/25/99 On Appeal Filed By Cattellus Group To Planning Commission's Approval Of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development) Public hearing opened and closed on 1/25/99 with decision continued to this date. Proiect Applicant/Ap Pella nt: Bruce D'Eliscu/Catellus Residential Group Project Request: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 313 detached single family dwellings on small-lots in conjunction with public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. Appeal Request: To have the City Council consider Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 /Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 to ensure that project findings and conditions of approval are in compliance with the proposed amendment(s) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/Negative Declaration No. 97-21. (*) This Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. (*) Notice is hereby given that an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21)was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department. Recommended Action: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No.1) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999; ('Approved 7-0)] and 2. Overturn the Planning Commission approval and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with revisions to reflect staff's recommendation (Attachment No. 3)to the Request for M1 r (4) 02/22/99— Council/Agency Agenda— Page 4 Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval. [Approved as modified 6-1 (Sullivan: no)] Motion to determine need to hold closed session per G. C 54954.2(b)(2), H. B. Police Officers Association vs. the City of Huntington Beach. [Approved 7-0)] Motion to recess to closed session on above item. [Approved 7-0)] Recess: 6:40 p.m. Reconvene: 6:50 p.m. 31115 J MINUTES y� CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M. —Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 22, 1999 A videotape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Green called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan Absent: None CITY CLERK ANNOUNCES LATE COMMUNICATIONS WHICH PERTAIN TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, City Clerk Brockway announced the following late communications regarding agenda items which had been received following distribution of the agenda: Communication from Robert E. Wissman dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark Development regarding the impact on youth sports facilities and schools in the Meadowlark residential development Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark—City of Huntington Beach regarding the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment and Appeal of Meadowlark Development Proposal Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix-Compromise Alternative No. 3 presented by Catellus Development (an additional alternate distributed during the City Council meeting by Catellus) Communication from Miriam Wedemeyer dated February 21, 1999 titled Annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa regarding a request for support for the efforts of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to prevent development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from Paul Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Item D-2A/February 22, 1999 transmitting the opinion of the 4,700 members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust that a nature/wilderness park be developed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes— Page 2 Communication from John Scandura dated February 22, 1999 expressing support for the annexation and restoration of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Communication from Aimee M. Toth dated February 22, 1999 supporting preservation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands Communication from the Assistant City Administrator correcting Page Three of RCA CD99-16 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARINGS - DECISIONS CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 25, 1999 (City Council) Public Hearing Closed On 1/25199 (Decision Continued From 1/25199) — Approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 For Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan With Revisions Based On Alternative No. 3 (Attachment No. 4) And Revisions Made By Council —Approved Negative Declaration No. 97-21 With Findings And Mitigation Measures (Attachment No. 2 and 3) (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment)— Staff To Return With Ordinance March 8, 1999 (450.30) i Public hearing opened and closed on January 25, 1999 to consider the following: Project Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Project Request: To amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan to: 1. Consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan document and the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family dwellings on small lots; and incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment); and 2. Update Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit II to reflect a reduction in densities within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan; establish the boundaries for four residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5 dwelling units per net acre and 13.8 dwelling units per net acre; and incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (Zoning Map Amendment). Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council - an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21)was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. On January 25, 1999, the City Council made a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01. The motion failed. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 3 (City Council) Public Hearing Opened & Closed On 1/25199 With Decision Continued From 1/25199 On Appeal Filed By Catellus Group To Planning Commission's Approval Of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 (or appropriate numbers)— Approved With Alternative No. 3 And Council Directed Modifications - Negative Declaration No. 97-21 —Approved With Findings And Mitigation Measures (Meadowlark Residential Development) (420.60) Public hearing opened and closed on January 25, 1999 with decision continued to this date. Project Applicant/Appellant: Bruce D'Eliscu/Catellus Residential Group Project Request: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 313 detached single family dwellings on small-lots in conjunction with public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. Appeal Request: To have the City Council consider Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 to ensure that project findings and conditions of approval are in compliance with the proposed amendment(s) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 will also be considered by the City Council: an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21) was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department.) Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. A copy of the City Clerk's draft minutes of the January 25, 1999 public hearing on this matter had been distributed to Council. City Administrator Silver presented a brief report. Earlier in the meeting, the City Clerk had announced that the following communications on this item had been provided to the City Council: P Y Communication from Robert E. Wissman dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark Development regarding the impact on youth sports facilities and schools in the Meadowlark residential development Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark—City of Huntington Beach regarding the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment and Appeal of Meadowlark Development Proposal Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix-Compromise Alternative No. 3 presented by Catellus Development (an additional alternate distributed during the City Council meeting by Catellus) Senior Planner Scott Hess presented a slide report. 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes— Page 4 City Administrator Silver stated that the public hearings had been closed; however, those persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter would have an opportunity to do so. Discussion was held on the staff matrix titled Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix—February 18, 1999. Senior Planner Hess reported on issues set forth in the matrix including fire sprinklers, private street widths curb to curb, Spine Road widths curb to curb, Pearce Street widths, the "I" and "K"-curb to curb, distribution of guest parking spaces, tandem parking, and interior garage dimensions (PA 3 or 4). Discussion was held between Senior Planner Hess and the Councilmembers. Senior Planner Hess reviewed the portion of the staff matrix relative to Public Park. Senior Planner Hess continued his report covering the portion of the matrix relative to Community Aesthetics. Issues regarding Community Aesthetics included parkway widths, sidewalk widths, front setbacks (PA 4), rear setbacks (PA 3), fencing exterior/perimeter, and interior/rear. Senior Planner Hess also reviewed Item No. 4 of the matrix titled Administration a) Development Agreement. Item No. 4 had been added since the public hearing was held on this issue. John Erskine, representing Catellus Development, commented on the portion of the staff report with which they agree and do not agree. He referred to the matrix developed by his company which he had presented to the City Clerk. Community Services Director Ron Hagan responded to Councilmember Bauer that the park could be used for a sports field. He stated a regulation soccer field could fit in both directions on the park. He responded to Council's additional questions. Senior Planner Hess reported that such provisions would need to be added to the Specific Plan. In response to a presentation by Mr. Erskine relative to upsized meter connection fees not being charged if the project is entirely sprinkled, City Administrator Silver stated that the issue had not been presented to him or to staff until 4:00 p.m. this date. Bob Beardsley, Public Works Director, stated that there is an item regarding water meters not directly related to this matter but a citywide issue that will be under consideration in the future. Following further discussion Public Works Director Beardsley responded to questions regarding water meter sizes. The City Clerk announced that a revised-revised matrix had just been presented to her from Mr. Erskine. The revised-revised developer matrix was titled Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix- Compromise Alternative No. 3 and dated February 22, 1999. This document was distributed to the City Councilmembers, Deputy City Attorney D'Alessandro, and City Administrator Silver. The City Administrator informed Council that it was the developer's third matrix. Discussion was held regarding the Development Agreement and when it would expire. Mr. Erskine commented on this issue. Discussion was held on the fencing issue. Further discussion was held regarding the Development Agreement, and Mr. Erskine reported on what he believed would be the merits of extending the Development Agreement and amending it as to park fee issues which the applicant does not believe is required. Mr. Erksine responded to Councilmember Sullivan regarding the tandem parking issue. Councilmember Dettloff thanked staff for coming up with Alternative No. 3. She spoke regarding what she believes to be the merits of this alternative. She reviewed the staff matrix. Councilmember Dettloff proceeded through the matrix and presented her preferences. ' 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 5 A motion made by Garofalo, seconded by Julien, to: (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 with findings and mitigation measures, and (2) approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97- 04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions based on Alternative#3 on the Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix dated 2-18-99 (Attachment 4 of Request for Action dated 2-22-99), and (3) to adopt Ordinance No. 3411 with revisions to reflect Alternative#3. The following modifications to Alternative#3 include: Issue 1.c. Spine Road Width (Curb Modify 43 parking spaces to "additional" to curb) parking spaces Issue 1.f. Tandem Parking Allowed in PA 4 for 20 additional spaces in PA 4 Issue 2.a. Park size Catellus Proposal of 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. Land dedication) plus park improvements & in-lieu fees at$500,000/ac. 4.a. Development Agreement Agree to process 3-year extension per developer's request And, any additional water hookup fees be waived, and that these items return to Council on March 1, 1999. Senior Planner Hess stated staff will return to Council with a new ordinance and new ordinance number and new draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. Ray Silver, City Administrator, stated that staff would return with changes to the ordinance as directed by Council for introduction and then adoption. Councilman Garofalo stated that was the intent of his motion. In response to Councilmember Harman, the Fire Chief explained how Alternative No. 3 adequately addresses the fire issues for the project. An amendment to the main motion was made by Harman, seconded by Sullivan that in regard to the in-lieu park fee it should be $516,500 rather than $500,000 per acre. The motion FAILED by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None An amendment to the main motion was made by Harman, seconded by Sullivan, that the developer be requested to provide block wall fencing on interior and rear yards as well as exterior and perimeter yards. The motion FAILED by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None 02/22/99 —Council/Agency Minutes—Page 6 Councilmember Garofalo clarified the intent of the motion to Paul D'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney, to waive any additional fee required as a result of the sprinklers and therefore any requirement that might be imposed for a one-inch meter. The present Council passed a law to charge $2,500 for a %inch meter and $4,500 for a one-inch meter. He stated his motion included the waiving of that additional fee. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, stated that such action would require a legislative act. The water fee is adopted by ordinance; therefore, Council cannot waive the ordinance without amending the ordinance. Councilmember Garofalo stated he would, on the attorney's advice, withdraw the portion of his motion waiving the additional water hookup fees. Councilmember Garofalo stated he would be making a motion to have staff return to Council with a deed restriction on the property with strong language mandating a maintenance program for the wooden fencing as opposed to making it a part of the CC&R's so that homeowners in the future could not change it without Council approval. It is his intent to assure maintenance of the wooden fencing with a deed restriction. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, stated that since Council denied the Planning Commission's draft Specific Plan, staff has not had the time to go through it and make sure it is consistent. The amended main motion made by Garofalo, seconded by Julien, to (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures and (2) approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions based on Alternative#3 on the Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix dated 2-18-99 (Attachment 4 of Request for Action dated 2/22/99) and (3) staff to return to Council with an ordinance for introduction that reflects Alternative#3 with Council directed modifications: Issue 1.c. Spine Road Width (Curb Modify 43 parking spaces to "additional" to curb) parking spaces Issue 1.f. Tandem Parking Allowed in PA 4 for 20 additional spaces in PA 4 Issue 2.a. Park size Catellus Proposal of 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. Land dedication) plus park improvements & in-lieu fees at $500,000/ac. 4.a. Development Agreement Agree to process 3-year extension per developer's request The amended main motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 7 A motion was made by Green, second Dettloff, for staff to return to Council on March 8, 1999. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Bauer ABSTAIN: Sullivan ABSENT: None A motion was made by Garofalo, seconded by Green, to (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures, and (2) approve Alternative#3 Plan which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 or any appropriate Tentative Tract number that shall apply and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 or any Conditional Use Permit number that shall apply and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval on March 8, 1999. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None John Erskine asked that the motion on the tentative tract map and Conditional Use Permit be clarified that the conditions come back per Specific Plan and be consistent with the revisions that the map and conditions thereon would be consistent with the Specific Plan revisions Council made. Councilman Garofalo stated he would hope that staff would interpret it that way. MOTION REGARDING THE NEED TO TAKE EMERGENCY ACTION ON AN ITEM WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA -APPROVED CLOSED SESSION -CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY. THE TITLE OF THE LITIGATION IS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V. POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Deputy City Attorney Scott Field read the following document into the record. The document was dated February 22, 1999 to Mayor and City Councilmembers from the City Attorney— Subject: Motion to agendize after the posting of the agenda City Council Meeting pending litigation February 22, 1999 pursuant to Government Code §54954.2(b)(2) 1. Motion to determine that there is an immediate need to take action and the need for action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to the agenda being posted in that a letter was received from Mark Reed, POA Negotiator, which must be timely responded to relating to pending litigation entitled HBPOA v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 804949. A motion was made by Harman, second Sullivan to approved the above stated motion. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Harman, second Sullivan to recess to closed session pursuant to Government 54956.9 (a) Pending Litigation HBPOA v. City of Hunting Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 804949. The motion carried unanimously. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 8 RECESS Mayor Green recessed the Council at 6:40 p.m. RECONVENE The Mayor reconvened the Council Meeting at 6:50 p.m. (CITY COUNCIL) SUBMITTAL OF BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION STUDY - RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVED AS AMENDED (610.30) The City Council considered a communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director Of Public Works, Fire Chief and Planning Director submitting for Council consideration the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review of Options & LAFCO Fiscal& Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999. Assistant City Administrator Fallon presented a staff report. Earlier in the meeting, the City Clerk had announced that the following communications on this item had been provided to the City Council: Communication from Miriam Wedemeyer dated February 21, 1999 titled Annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa regarding a request for support for the efforts of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to prevent development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from Paul Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Item D-2A/February 22, 1999 transmitting the opinion of the 4,700 members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust that a nature/wilderness park be developed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from John Scandura dated February 22, 1999 expressing support for the annexation and restoration of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Communication from Aimee M. Toth dated February 22, 1999 supporting preservation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands Dan Miller, Principal, RSG Associates, reported on portions of the slide show presentation titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—City of Huntington Beach—February 22, 1999. His presentation included Development Assumptions, Scenario A (Annexation Prior To Development—Key Assumptions), Property Tax Distribution, Current Bolsa Chica (Unincorporated) Property Tax Distribution, Potential Bolsa Chica Property Tax Distribution With Annexation, Scenario A (Annexation Before Development—Summary Findings), Scenario B (No Annexation—Key Assumptions), Scenario B (No Annexation—Summary Findings), Scenario C (Annexation After Development), and Scenario D (Annexation Without Development—Key Assumptions and Summary Findings). 1 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes — Page 9 Assistant City Administrator Fallon reviewed the Study Conciusions set forth in the slide report as follows: In each scenario examined, annexation creates a beneficial fiscal impact to the city, however, the city obtains the greatest benefits if annexation occurs prior to development. Assistant City Administrator Fallon reviewed the motions made by the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee on January 7, 1999 as well as presenting a review of Pages No. 5, 6, and 7 of the Request for Council Action which were also addressed in the slide report. Assistant City Administrator Fallon then reviewed the actions which the city staff are recommending. In response to Councilmember Garofalo, Laurie McKinley, Senior Partner, MNA Consulting, reported on annexation as it relates to the election process and the Local Agency Formation Commission. At the request of Councilmember Bauer, Assistant City Administrator Fallon reported on the Linear Park issue. Councilmember Bauer requested that staff make contact with the Coastal Commission regarding the wording about potential acquisition in the Hellman Ranch agreement to see if a similar wording option could be considered by Council. City staff stated that this could be included in Recommended Action Item No. 6 as well as the oil well issue. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding details that have to be worked out including the Edwards Thumb which could be another NEST-Aston dump situation in the making and how to address concerns from the community groups. In response to Councilmember Bauer, the Assistant City Administrator stated that staff was going to look at the 17 principles and the seven coastal issues, but there are subsequent issues that probably are not contained in those items. She stated that to the extent that staff understands Council's requests at this meeting such as the Hellman Ranch agreement provisions condition, oil well barrel tax situation, and subsequent cleanup, staff will return at a subsequent date with answers to those questions. Councilmember Bauer stated that he had a long list. Further discussion was held. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the matter; that it should not be assumed that annexation by Council is going to take place as the balance, in the broadest sense, between environmental, financial, and recreational considerations must be of benefit to the residents of Huntington Beach before any preannexation is agreed to. Councilmember Harman questioned Recommended Action No. 3 as to the procedural aspect. Councilmember Harman stated that as suggested by the Mayor he would present a motion relative to his concern at the time of the motion on Recommended Action No. 3. Dan Miller, Principal, RSG Associates, responded to Councilmember Harman regarding his question as to the cost of residential development to the community. He responded to Councilmember Sullivan's questions regarding the financial analysis relative to the county Fire Authority tax if the city does not annex according to current discussion. Councilmember Sullivan stated his disagreement with Mr. Miller's response. Laurie McKinley, Senior Partner, MNA Consulting, responded to Councilmember Sullivan relative to LAFCO having the final say as to annexation should the City Council and citizens not want annexation but the developer does. Deputy City Attorney Scott Field reported on court cases. 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes— Page 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS SHEILA KLICK addressed Council in opposition to the annexation. She spoke on behalf of keeping the area available for the pleasure of children and as a nature preserve. ELDA BARRY, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke on behalf of retaining the Bolsa Chica open space for the benefit of the children. MARGE ALLEN asked all those present to stand and applaud if they are here for the Bolsa Chica Mesa. She presented a history of how the plan for the Bolsa Chica has changed. DAVE CARLBERG, representing Amigos de Bolsa Chica, stated his organization's position on the Bolsa Chica including that if development has to occur that it would be an opportune time to address points involved in the restoration. He referred to a letter from Hearthside Homes (Koll Company) which he believes, notwithstanding, it is important to raise the points of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. TERRY DOLTON,Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed Council regarding issues including the Edwards Thumb, Linear Park, Warner Avenue Pond and buffer, the bluff buffer around the project between the homes as well as down to the wetlands, the park designated in the General Plan southerly of Bolsa Chica Road as extended, and other park areas on the Bolsa Chica Mesa designated in the county plan. He stated they would like to see steps taken to have these areas irrevocably dedicated to public agencies. EILEEN MURPHY, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke in opposition to annexation. She displayed a chart titled Major General Fund Revenues Are Less Than Public Safety Costs. PAUL HORGAN, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, stated the organization's concern that it appears to be that the City Council believes it inevitable that development will occur. He spoke regarding the upcoming Public Utilities Commission meeting that will have persons including Senator Barbara Boxer in attendance who have concern. JOSEPH RACANO spoke regarding his witnessing a coyote that is a part of the Bolsa Chica. He spoke regarding the items that will be introduced into the Bolsa Chica including motor oil and Tidy Bowl cleaner. BOB TRAVER, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the annexation stating the financial drawbacks of not annexing. CONNIE BOARDMAN stated that she sees the move to annex as a disturbing trend following the City Council election. She cited the example of the Crest View closed school site development approval. She spoke regarding losing the major bargaining chip of water if annexation occurs. LINDA MOON, Vice President of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, spoke regarding a notebook of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica they have found which is a record from 1976 of the annexation effort and wherein they told the City Council that the Bolsa Chica is a precious gem. She stated it still is. She stated they are not advocating annexation but if annexation occurs that Council must ensure that there are proper buffers to protect from runoff pollution. She stressed the need for the Linear Park to be ensured as well as ensuring that the Bolsa Chica will be the city's precious gem for time to come. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 11 MARK SHELDON, California Democratic Party, 67t'Assembly District Committee, and member of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke regarding the risk of liquefaction; that the area is prone to flooding; residents will be looking for disaster relief; and there will be lawsuits. BILL GREGORY, representing the Surf Rider Foundation, spoke in opposition to annexation of the Bolsa Chica. He stated that it is one of the greatest resources in Huntington Beach and could be a visitor attraction. He stated that the citizens request that Council help Koll Company to sell the land to the city and for the citizens not to be sold out to the Koll Company. LISA MURPHY informed Council that the vast majority of citizens want to preserve the Bolsa Chica. She stated her concern that annexation will lead to development of the Bolsa Chica. She stated that hundreds of persons visit the Bolsa Chica. STAN KRUTSICK stated that over the last two years their water bills have doubled and now there is a notice in the water bill regarding the proposed use of waste water because of increased water demands and the need for supplemental water for the future. He stated there will be an increased demand for water by new residents of the condominiums if annexation occurs; water bills will go up, and people will be drinking waste water. He stated that Bolsa Chica transcends bookkeeping and other issues as it is about the quality of life and a legacy. KIM BENEDICT stated her experience of city problem children benefiting from being taken to nature areas and requested that Council take steps to keep the Bolsa Chica open. KIMBERLY COOK relayed a story regarding three boys which relates to the Bolsa Chica if the Bolsa Chica is developed. She stated that the priority of the city is to do what is best for its people and questioned why the city would wish to develop the Bolsa Chica. RUDY VIETMEIER, representing the Sierra Club Preserve Bolsa Chica Task Force which had been formed pursuant to the Sierra Club's wetlands policy, informed Council that the Task Force is convinced by the science that has been brought to bear on the Bolsa Chica issue that the mesa is an integral part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem and to fragment it or to build on its environs is to threaten it. He stated the contradiction the Task Force sees in the City Council's stated objective to seek acquisition of the mesa. BOB WINCHELL, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, informed Council of his disagreement that receiving money from the Orange County Fire Authority will make the difference in the Bolsa Chica development making revenue for the city. He stated his opinion that developers will change and that the developers staying in business should not be relied upon. Mr. Winchell stated his disagreement with the promise that money will be made because the housing will be so expensive. He requested that Council look very carefully at the financial considerations. He spoke regarding the quality of life that must be considered for the children and their children's children. Mr. Winchell stated that there used to be community meetings; that he believes the Council should get out and ask the people of the community as Council will find items which they should consider. Mr. Winchell stated the matter should not be discussed just among the Councilmembers themselves. JOE CUNHA, Huntington Harbour Bay Club Homeowners Association Board of Directors, stated their unanimous opposition to annexation of the Bolsa Chica; that it will facilitate the development of the mesa which they oppose. He stated that today between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. he had counted the number of vehicles on Warner Avenue passing by the only entrance and exit to their complex and 553 vehicles passed their driveway. He stated what an increase in traffic from the Bolsa Chica development would mean. He stated that at times it is currently not only difficult but dangerous for 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes—Page 12 residents to enter or exit Warner Avenue at their complex and questioned what it will be like when they have to endure an additional 2,400 vehicles utilizing Warner Avenue as one of the main egresses for the proposed Hearthside home development. DEBORAH WALLIN stated that she brings her elementary school students to the Balsa Chica and questioned where else can students come to see a complete ecosystem. DAVID FLYNN questioned what the development means to the members of the City Council; that if any Councilmembers wish to run for state office or reelection they should vote against annexation. ROBERT CRONK stated that the members of Crest View United support the people who want to preserve the Bolsa Chica. He stated that he had talked to a resident who is willing to have his taxes raised to preserve the Bolsa Chica. PAUL ARMS spoke in favor of the fence that surrounds the mesa. He stated that it would be great to go to the federal government to get the money to preserve it. Mr. Arms stated that he does not believe the Koff Company has realized the passion of the people of Huntington Beach to preserve their history. GAE TREECE stated the need to preserve areas such as the Bolsa Chica for children to explore. She reviewed the history of the Bolsa Chica stating the Amigos de Bolsa Chica were opposed to the marina project that once was considered and now is known to be wrong for the environment. She stated that Council is disregarding what has been learned regarding the effects of the development on the Bolsa Chica. Ms. Treece stated why she believes residential development will be a liability. She referred to the city's Quality Service Mission Statement. KEVIN MC EVOY, representing the Los Alamitos High School Ecology Club, informed Council of their work in the wetlands. He gave reasons why the wetlands should not be destroyed including preservation for his children and grandchildren so they can enjoy the magnificent creatures who live on the wetlands in their natural state. He spoke regarding their club's restoration work with the Bolsa Chica stewards. PAUL SLAVIK stated that he believes the Council needs to get their money's worth out of the consultants hired by the city. He stated that the ecosystem is valuable for tourism. STEVE MARION stated that he drives Pacific Coast Highway every day; that the mesa is gorgeous and there is not another like it. DEAN ALBRIGHT, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, stated that he had looked at the infrastructure as a member of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee. He stated the needs of the city in regard to infrastructure. Mr. Albright stated that more housing is not needed. He stated that the Holly- Seacliff project is not fully online, and it will have an impact on the infrastructure as well as the Meadowlark Project approved this meeting as it has been stated years ago there is not enough water in the north end of the city. DOUG KORTHOF stated that more and more of the coast is being taken away and that as good Republicans decreasing government should be worked toward. He spoke in favor of annexation if development does not occur. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 13 MICHAEL FORREST, seismologist, stated that the residents love the Bolsa Chica; that to sell off this wetland would be greed at its utmost level. JAN VANDERSLOOT stated annexation represents a $15,000,000 gift to the developer. He spoke regarding the drawbacks of residential development. He requested that Council seek funds for purchase of the Bolsa Chica. BILL HALPIN stated that the voters had believed the Councilmembers favored preserving the Bolsa Chica. He stated that only two people had been loyal to the Bolsa Chica—Councilmembers Harman and Sullivan. He spoke regarding the agreement reached years ago between the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the developer. JOEL SHELDON stated that he believed that if the city were to annex the Bolsa Chica the citizens could speak to the Council and have some control. He stated that the citizens do not want development of the Bolsa Chica. Mr. Sheldon spoke regarding the walk-a-thon scheduled next month and invited Council to walk with their constituents. Councilmember Sullivan spoke regarding his reasons for opposing building on the mesa. He addressed the water issue and stated that he believes the city should fight annexation. Councilmember Dettloff presented a step-by-step explanation as to the events leading up to this item being placed on the City Council agenda including the potential that if homes are built the property owner could annex to the city without Huntington Beach wishing annexation, the water issue, and the two pending lawsuits brought by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust; that the Public Utilities Commission will determine the water issue if the Koll Company goes to the Southern California Water Company for water. Councilmember Dettloff stated that Council representatives are going to Sacramento to explore this matter. She stated the City Council's position that the Bolsa Chica should be purchased. She reported that Mayor Green and she are leaving tomorrow morning to meet with Senator Boxer's aide in Washington, D.C. She stated that at this point the city did not have the resources to acquire the property. She read the proposed motion of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee. A motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman that the Huntington Beach City Council oppose annexation and not enter into any discussions with the developer. Councilmember Garofalo spoke regarding Councilmember Sullivan's motion and why the Council would vote for it unanimously if it were a feasible motion. He asked Mayor Green why the state had not provided funds for the mesa, only the lowlands, and Mayor Green stated that it had not been considered as environmentally sensitive. A substitute motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to approve the following recommended action: 1. Receive and file the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review Of Options &LAFO Fiscal & Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 1)to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. and 2. Direct the City Administrator to develop a strategy that could result in annexing the Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development of homes in the Bolsa Chica; 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 14 and 3. Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and 4. Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 4-6 of the Request for Council Action; and 5. Authorize staff to communicate with all property owners within the Bolsa Chica regarding the possibility of annexation into the City of Huntington Beach; and 6. Provide the City Council with a status report at a subsequent date addressing additional issues which are not related to the property owned by Hearthside Homes. Deputy City Attorney Field was requested to rule on the appropriateness of the substitute motion. Councilmember Harman read from an article on the opinion page of the Los Angeles Times dated October 12, 1998 titled Business Drums For Basics, the tenor of which was that environmental uses and environmental causes are tied to good business and that the business community is beginning to realize this. He stated that the editorial states that business leaders must remain at the forefront of this campaign to overcome the myth that any effort to manage growth is antibusiness. He referred to the environmental impact report prepared in connection with the Bolsa Chica as it pertains to the portion stating the values of the bio-diversity park. Councilmember Harman read from the minutes of the 1997 Council meeting where Council adopted a resolution in favor of acquisition of the mesa. He commented on the statements of various speakers. Councilmember Harman read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hughes in support of preserving the Bolsa Chica. Deputy City Attorney Field informed Council that the substitute motion made by Garofalo, second Green is out of order. Councilmember Dettloff requested information relative to the environmental impact report procedure as well as to matters pertaining to the Southern California Water Company supplying water to Hearthside Homes. Assistant City Administrator Fallon responded to these comments. Councilmember Dettloff spoke regarding Councilmember Bauer's and Mayor Green's long-time commitment to the Bolsa Chica and the work they have performed on the issue. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 15 The original motion made by Sullivan, second Harman failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None A motion was made by Bauer, second Green to approve the aforementioned items as recommended. A motion was made by Harman, second Green to amend Recommended Action Item No. 3 as follows: Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and that Recommended Action Item No. 4 be approved as follows: Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 5-4-4-6 of the Request for Council Action. In response to Mayor Green, City Administrator Silver reported on the process he believes should be followed to provide answers and added information to Council as well as how to put additional issues on the table and to take additional direction from Council. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believes that staff should not enter into negotiations until the first round of full input is received from the Council and that this is what he understands was the direction from the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee. The motion to amend made by Harman, second Green carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion by Bauer, second Green to approve the following recommended actions as amended: 1. Receive and file the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review Of Options&LAFO Fiscal & Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. and 2. Direct the City Administrator to develop a strategy that could result in annexing the Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development of homes in the Bolsa Chica; and 3. Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes —Page 16 4. Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 4-6 of the Request for Council Action; and 5. Authorize staff to communicate with all property owners within the Bolsa Chica regarding the possibility of annexation into the City of Huntington Beach; and 6. Provide the City Council with a status report at a subsequent date addressing additional issues which are not related to the property owned by Hearthside Homes. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff NOES: Harman, Sullivan ABSENT: None (CITY COUNCIL) APPROVED AS AMENDED RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (PUC) IN RELATION TO WATER & SEWER SERVICE FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PLANNED COMMUNITY (440.60) The City Council considered a communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director of Public Works, City Attorney and Director of Planning transmitting for Council consideration a request to approve responses prepared by staff which address four questions asked of the City of Huntington Beach by the Public Utilities Commission in relation to water and sewer service for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Ronald A. Van Blarcon, representing the firm of McNamara, Van Blarcon, McClendon and Liebold, PC, presented a slide report. The slide report is titled Public Utilities Commission Proceedings and is attached to the Late Communication from the Assistant City Administrator announced earlier in the meeting by the City Clerk. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Dettloff to approve the responses prepared by staff to the four questions asked by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in the February 2, 1999 Assigned Commissioners Ruling Noticing Prehearing Conference as set forth in the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and as corrected by the Late Communication from Assistant City Administrator Fallon correcting Page 3 of said Request for Council Action: 1. Does the city presently desire to itself provide water service or sewer service to the Planned Community? Response: The city is the most direct supplier of potable water to the Bolsa Chica area. No other water purveyor has facilities in as close proximity as the City of Huntington Beach. Only through the city's system can the project area be provided a reliable, looped service distribution network. By comparison, the proposed SCWC water system relies on a water supply source over six miles distant, with redundancy planned by use of wells in a zone of the water basin known to produce 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 17 water of marginal quality. In addition, this dead-end system would require construction of a reservoir with four to seven days capacity to insure adequate supplies are available in the case of temporary cessation of service from the Cypress pipeline. Because Huntington Beach is a city incorporated under California law, any extension of city services, either through contract or by annexation, is regulated by the Cortese-Knox Act and the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The city may not provide water or sewer services outside its jurisdictional boundaries nor may it annex new territory into its jurisdictional boundaries without the approval of LAFCO. The city and/or a property owner must therefore work within the defined procedures established by the Cortese-Knox Act and the Orange County LAFCO in order to extend or receive municipal services. A request for annexation may be made to LAFCO by either the property owner or the city. In fact, a city may be compelled to annex and provide services to a property if a landowner requests annexation and it is approved by LAFCO. Bolsa Chica is within the LAFCO-adopted "Sphere of Influence"for the City of Huntington Beach. LAFCO Spheres of Influence are developed by the Commission to determine future service areas for each jurisdiction and, thus, where LAFCO expects that annexations will occur. Despite the ability to do so, Hearthside Homes has not submitted any application to LAFCO to annex the Bolsa Chica. The developer has indicated that it does not wish to initiate annexation without a pre-annexation agreement with the city. Such an agreement would set forth the terms and conditions of annexation and clarify the responsibilities and rights of annexation for both parties, including development rights, development standards, and infrastructure requirements. Understanding this, on January 20, 1998, the Huntington Beach City Council authorized its staff to prepare a detailed study concerning the implications of annexation of Bolsa Chica. The city obtained the services of specialized consultants and prepared the 56-page report previously submitted to the PUC on February 19, 1999. This report reviews for the City of Huntington Beach the pertinent LAFCO procedures and the potential fiscal impacts associated with the annexation of Bolsa Chica. The first draft of this report was completed in June, 1998 and presented to the City Council Bolsa Chica Subcommittee (a formal Council Committee comprised of three Council members) and the public at a noticed, public meeting on July 29, 1998. Due to considerable public response, subsequent noticed, public meetings of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee were held on September 24, 1998 and November 30, 1998. As a result of the public input, including comments on the report from Hearthside Homes, the original draft report was refined and a final draft issued for subcommittee review and consideration on January 7, 1999. At the January 7, 1999 Bolsa Chica Subcommittee meeting, the Council Subcommittee members took action to recommend that the full City.Council direct the City Administrator to develop parameters for negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement with Hearthside Homes and that staff design a strategy for annexing Bolsa Chica into the City boundaries. This recommendation is scheduled to be discussed by the full City Council on February 22, 1999. (The staff report prepared for the February 22 hearing is attached.) 2. Does the City presently have surplus water or immediate access to water supplies sufficient to meet the stated requirements of the Planned Community? 02/22/99 — Council/Agency Minutes— Page 18 Response: If Bolsa Chica were annexed into the city, the city would have a statutory obligation to provide water service to the area. The City relies on two basic sources for its water supply: It produces local groundwater from the basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and it obtains imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The Bolsa Chica has already been annexed into the service areas of OCWD and MWDOC. Details of the actual requirements for water and related supporting infrastructure, including delivery pipelines, storage reservoir(s) and booster station(s), are expected to be refined during pre-annexation negotiations with the developer. 3. If the city prefers annexation, is it able to immediately proceed with the annexation formalities to annex the Planned Community? Response: If the City Council approves the subcommittee recommendation on February 22, 1999, the city will immediately begin discussions with Hearthside Homes on a pre-annexation agreement. Once a pre-annexation agreement is completed and approved by the City Council, annexation may be initiated and application made to LAFCO. (Alternatively, if the property owner wishes to do so, Hearthside Homes may initiate an application with LAFCO at any time.) It should be noted that the LAFCO process requires prezoning of the property in question and necessarily involves full public disclosure, including noticed hearings at the City Planning Commission, City Council, and at LAFCO. 4. If the city is unwilling or unable to annex at this time but is now willing and able to provide water and/or sewer services to the Planned Community and desires to do so, is the city willing to expeditiously negotiate and execute a binding service contract or contracts for provision of water and/or sewer services to the Planned Community? Response: In March, 1997, Hearthside Homes' predecessor, Koll Properties, proposed a contract to provide extra-territorial water service to Bolsa Chica. While the City Council rejected the specific terms and conditions of that proposal, the city at no time has taken the position that it would never enter into such a contract under any circumstances. Any contract to provide such services outside of the city boundaries would require review and approval by LAFCO. Based on the recent action by the Bolsa Chica Council Subcommittee, the Council is not at this time considering a contract-service approach but is instead moving toward a strategy for annexation that would be beneficial to both the city and the developer. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Green announced that this was the time scheduled to hear public comments not pertaining to items on this agenda. 02/22/99 — Council/Agency Minutes — Page 19 CARI SWAN addressed Council in opposition to the votes cast by two school board members relative to the proposed sale of Gisler School. KATHY VAUGHN, former tenant of the Driftwood Mobilehome Park, stated her objection to the procedure used to select renters who wish to move to the city-owned Ocean View Mobilehome Estates. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A motion was made to adjourn the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, March 1, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 ( DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c i Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ��i� ��J ❑ Approved A Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied ou y City Clerk's Signatur ctier+ 'u1a'a rt�`W ched Council Meeting Date: February 22, 1999 Department ID Number: CD99-04c z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION —rj rin SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSs ;-:,�.F.; SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator /!�-; ' PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director A 1 SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment- Continued from the January 25, 1999 Meeting) Statement of Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s), Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: At the January 25, 1999 City Council meeting, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21 for the Meadowlark Specific Plan were considered. After opening the public hearing and a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation; it failed by a 3-4 vote, thus rendering the Planning Commission recommendation denied. The project was subsequently continued to the February 22, 1999 at the request of Catellus Residential Group (CRG) to address staff's concerns. Staff has been communicating with CRG since the last meeting to address the City's issues relative to the 313 residential unit Meadowlark development. CRG has requested two modifications to their current proposal; permit wood fences in lieu of block walls in the interior of the project; and allow for modification to the Spine Road to accommodate additional guest parking. In addition the applicant is seeking a one-year extension for the Meadowlark development agreement due to expire in July of 1999. This last request will require a public hearing before the City Council and the Planning Commission. �-14 CD99-04C -2- 02/18/99 3:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c Staff still maintains the original recommendation for approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan subject to staffs original changes indicated in the Summary section of this report (Recommended Action). In the last report, there were two staff alternatives presented. A third alternative has been prepared that addresses many of the issues relative to the project (Alternative Action - A). This alternative is summarized on a matrix (Attachment No. 4). Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97- 01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to reflect staff's recommended changes" (Outlined in Summary). 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. 3411 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) with revisions to reflect staff's recommended changes" (Outlined in Summary). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): A. TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE # 1. 2 or 3 PLAN: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment Nos. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97- 01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions based on Alternative # (Attachment No. 4)", and CD99-04C -3- 02/18/99 3:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. 3411 (Attachment No. 1) with revisions to reflect Alternative # (Attachment No. 4)." B. TO CONTINUE: "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: Staff still maintains the original recommendation for approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan with the changes outlined in the Summary section of this report. A discussion of the issues are contained in the last RCA (dated January 25, 1999). One new alternative has been added to the two presented in the last report that is designed to partly address the emergency access, parking, and Spine Road issues. Because the three development Alternatives are project specific, and relate more to the conditional use permit and tentative tract map entitlements for the development of the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, a detailed discussion of the new Alternative 3 is included in the February 22, 1999, City Council report for the CRG Meadowlark development proposal (Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469). In summary, Alternative 3 differs from staff's recommendation insofar as it includes; ✓ fire sprinklers in only Planning Areas 3 and 4 ✓ 32 ft wide curb to curb private street widths with parking on one side in-lieu of 40' wide curb to curb street sections with parking on both sides (CRG proposal) ✓ provision of 43 parking spaces along the Spine Road (CRG proposal) ✓ provision of 40 ft wide curb to curb street section along "I" and "K" street by eliminating landscaped parkways ✓ allow up to 23 dwelling units to have tandem parking spaces to satisfy minimum parking requirements of PA-1 ✓ 5 ft wide sidewalks in Planning Area 3 and 4 (CRG proposal) ✓ inclusion of Planning Commission's recommendation for parkland dedication, improvements and in-lieu fees, as an option (CRG proposal) ✓ 18 ft wide by 19 ft deep (min. 400 sq. ft.) garages (CRG proposal) ✓ wood fences at interior side and interior rear property lines instead of block walls (CRG proposal) ✓ agreement to process a 1-year extension of the development agreement between the Nerio Family and the City of Huntington Beach for the Meadowlark site (CRG proposal). CD99-04C -4- 02/18/99 3:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c This alternative is a "compromise" development plan option that meets minimum health and public safety requirements but does not reflect the best planning solution. A development issues matrix has been developed to compare the applicant's development proposal, staff's recommendation and Alternative 1, 2 and 3 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). It should be noted that portions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan will need to be amended to reflect the selected alternative once approved by the City Council and brought back for final review and approval. 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.3) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department 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 City Council 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. Summary: Staff recommends the Meadowlark Specific Plan and Ordinance be amended to reflect the following revisions: 1. Forty (40) ft curb to curb paved street sections for private streets throughout Planning Area 1-4. 2. Pearce Street connection ("I" and "K" Street) shall be designed based on public street standards with 40 ft curb to curb paved street section with parking on both sides; 6 ft wide landscaped parkways and; 4 ft wide sidewalks (60 ft total right-of-way street width). 3. Eliminate tandem parking provisions. CD99-04C -5- 02/18/99 3:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c 4. The parkland dedication language contained in the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Section 3.4 - Open Space / Recreation) shall be revised to reflect development of a 4.2 acre (min) active neighborhood park and payment of in-lieu fees based on fair market park land value in accordance with HBZSO dedication requirement. 5. Include park parking provisions within the Meadowlark Specific Plan and require a minimum of 20 parking spaces to be provided for public park users. 6. Incorporate provisions/ standards in the Specific Plan to ensure: land use compatibility between the park and adjacent residential uses; adequate surveillance of the park site; and security for adjacent properties, by prohibiting placement of residential homes immediately adjacent to the park (rear yard fence condition) and maximizing park visibility, public access and land use buffering by means of aligning roadways along the park's perimeter. 7. Six (6) ft. wide sidewalks within Planning Area 3 and 4. 8. Six (6) ft. wide landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. 9. Include Day Care Limited as permitted use and Day Care Large as permitted use subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator within Planning Area 1-4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Attachment (s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 Ordinance No. 3411 which includes Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998 2 Findings of Approval for Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 3 Environmental Assessment/ Negative Declaration No. 97-21 4 Development Issues Matrix with Three Alternatives 5 Request For City Council Action Report dated January 25, 1999 CD99-04C -6- 02/18/99 3:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04c CD99-04C -7- 02/18/99 3:26 PM MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE - AMERICANS' WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. If you require, American sign language interpreters, a reader during the meeting, and/or large print agendas,to make arrangements, please call: Office of the City Clerk(714)536-5227. To make arrangements for an assisted listening system (ALD)for the hearing impaired, please call: Building Maintenance Department(714)536-5534. 72 hours prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to a meeting. ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999 5:00 P.M. — Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California A. 5:00 P.M. —Council Chambers B. Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting To Order C. Roll Call Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan [Present] D-1A. (City Council) Public Hearing Closed On 1/25/99 (Decision Continued From 1/25199)—Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/As Recommended By Staff And/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment) *****City Clerk's draft minutes of 1/25/99 public hearing attached. Public hearing opened and closed on 1/25/99 to consider the following: Project Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Project Request: To amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan to: 1. Consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan document and the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family dwellings on small lots; and incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment); COMPUTER INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDAS IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS http.-Ilwww.cLhuntington-beach.ca.us (2) 02/22/99 —Council/Agency Agenda — Page 2 and 2. Update Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit II to reflect a reduction in densities within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan; establish the boundaries for four residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5 dwelling units per net acre and 13.8 dwelling units per net acre; and incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (Zoning Map Amendment). (*) Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. Recommended Action: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment Nos. 2 and 3), to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. [Approved 7-0] and 2. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with findings (Attachment No. 2) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and revisions to reflect staff's recommended changes". (Outlined in Summary). and Request for Council Action dated T apy ` 2 199 Nyith revisions to r sI nF �� z�Tu� rrrrr�Te�rrro�-a��ette`cc st ff s reGOMrnended Ghangesu (Outlined Ir^rS }ary) —An QFdinanGe oof the City of Huntington Reach Amending the l- unfingfnn Qeanh Zoning and! v>zy-vr-r Text Amendment No. 91 /lit. Inning Map Amendment No. 97 /l91" [Approved 7-0 as modified All modifications to be presented on 3-1 99 3-8-99 at which time ordinance to be presented for introduction. [Approved 6-1 (Sullivan. no)] Motion to amend to increase in-lieu park fees from $500,000 per acre to $516,000 per acre. [Failed 2-5 (Harman, Sullivan: yes)] Motion to amend to require block walls rather than wood fences. [Failed 2-5 (Harman, Sullivan: yes)] Motion to amend to have modifications return to Council on 3- 8-99. [Approved 6-1 (Bauer.- no)] ATTA,CHM-ElN- ----- T , l ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01) 5 WHEREAS,pursuant to,the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01,which amends and updates the Meadowlark Specific Plan; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented,the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the Meadowlark Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as shown on the document_attached hereto as Exhibit "A,"which document is incorporated by this reference as thobght fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: l City Clerk Ci �A� !ney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 1NITIA ED AND APPROVED: 141� ];�" City Administrator 1101ctor of PlatkAfig ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A: Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan 1 &4:990rd inance:zt97-04 RLS 98-438 EXHIBIT A REVISED MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN DATED 9/22/98 4 5 a b' I A A D 0 W LA R 1( SPfClf IC PLAN NUNlINGION BfAfH , CAIIfORNIA MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN City of Huntington Beach SPECIFIC PLAN 8 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 l (714)536-5271 REVISED DRAFT Per 9/22/98 Planning Commission Meeting Action (11/10/98) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................I 1.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................1 1.2 Authority and Scope.............................................................................1 2.0 Project Area Description...............................................................................2 2.1 Location/Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................2 2.2 General Plan Designation.....................................................................2 2.3 Zoning .................................................................................................2 • 2.4 Planning History...................................................................................2 2.5 Legal Description.................................................................................3 3.0 Master Plan Concept.....................................................................................4 3.1 Development Concept........................................................................4 3.2 Land Use.............................................................................................5 7-3.3 Circulation.................................................................:........................7 A. Public and Private Street System.......................................7 B. Traffic Control....................................................................8 C. Transit Facilities.................................................................8 3.4 Open Space/Recreation.....................................................................8 3.5 Landscape Concept............................................................................ 8 f A. Entry Treatments................................................................9 B. Community Edge Treatments.............................................9 C. Streetscape Treatment..................................................... 10 D. Plant Material Palette.......................................................10 3.6 Public Facilities................................................................................10 A. Storm Drainage Facilities.................................................10 B. Sewer Facilities................................................................I 1 C. Water Facilities ................................................................11 3.7 Grading ......................................................................................... 12 3.8 Geology- Soils/Seismicity..............................................................12 3.9 Potential Hazardous Materials..........................................................13 3.10 Archeology.......................................................................................13 3.11 Phasing Plan .........................................................................:...........14 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'dl SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 4.0 Development Regulations............................................................................15 4.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................15 4.2 Establishment of Districts and Planning Areas ...............................15 A. Residential District..............................................................15 B. Commercial District............................................................16 4.3 Definitions........................................................................................16 4.4 General Provisions............................................................................17 A. Parkland Dedication............................................................17 B. Affordable Housing.............................................................17 C. 'Activity Center Facilities.....................................................17 D. Infill Ordinance ...................................................................18 E. Perimeter Buffers.................................................................18 F. Parking ................................................................................18 G. Garage Use/Design.............................................................19 H. Building Additions/Modifications......................................19 I. Treescape.............................................................................19 J. Product Development..........................................................19 K. Porches/Entry Elements......................................................19 ~ L. Variable Setbacks................................................................20 M. Activities/Uses along Spine Road Promenade..................20 N. Street Furniture...................................................................20 4.5 Development Standards...................................................................21 A. Residential District.............................................................21 ' Planning Area 1 21 Planning Area 2.....................................................26 Planning Area 3.....................................................30 Planning Area 4.....................................................34 B. Commercial District............................................................38 4.6 General Design Criteria....................................................................39 A. Residential Subdivision Design...........................................39 B. Residential Product Design................................................40 C. Non-Residential Structure Design .....................................40 J ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Confd,� SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 5.0 Implementation............................................................................................41 5.1 Procedures .......................................................................................41 5.2 Implementation................................................................................41 5.3 Hearings...........................................................................................41 5.4 Apoeals............................................................................................41 5.5 Specific Plan Amendment...............................................................41 5.6 Dwelling Unit Distribution..............................................................41 5.7 Boundary Changes...........................................................................42 5.8 Homeowner's or Community Association......................................42 5.9 Approval Period...............................................................................42 6.0 Appendix a A. Legal Description B. Street Sections C. Heil Avenue Project Entry D. Plaza Lane Project Entry E. Community Wall Plan F. Spine Road Expanded Parkway G. Plant Materials Palette H. Storm Drain System I. Sewer System J. Water System K. Topography L. Letter from County of Orange Environmental Health Division M. Areas of Archeological Concern N. Phasing Plan O. Commercial/Residential District Buffer Area Treatment P. Conceptual Street Scene Q. Conceptual Building Layout PA-1 Conceptual Building Layout PA-2 Conceptual Building Layout PA-3 Conceptual Building Layout PA-4 R. Wall/Fence Master Plan iii LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. TITLE FOLLOWING PAGE 1 Vicinity Map...........................................................................:.3 2 Existing Zoning........................................................................3 3 Conceptual Master Plan............................................................5 4 Development Summary............................................................5 5 Circulation................................................................................7 6 Publi6/Private Open Space Plan.............................................8 1 iv a R s r 1 MfADOWIARK SPfCIf IC PLAN INIRODUC110N CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION 1.0 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Intent 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. 1.2 Authority and Scope { 5 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. §eq. The Meadowlark Specific Plan is comprised of the following six(6)sections: Introduction - Section One, describes the purpose and intent of the Plan and provides the legal basis, authority and scope of the Specific Plan. Project Area Description - Section Two, provides a general description of the Specific Plan area and its surrounding land uses, General Plan and Zoning information and a brief background and planning history summary for the site. Master Plan Concept - Section Three, describes the proposed master plan concept for the project area and addresses land use, circulation, public facilities, infrastructure, open space and recreation, grading, landscaping and project phasing. Development Regulations - Section Four, presents a description of the development standards and design criteria applicable to projects within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Implementation - Section Five, discusses project implementation, project review, appeal and Specific Plan amendment processes. Appendix- Section Six, contains the technical support information which has contributed to the formation of the Specific Plan. 1 a 5 a S~ E M MIADOWLARK SPKIFIC PLAN PRO]CCT ARIA DESCRIPTION CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAN SICTION 2.0 2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location/Surrounding Land Uses The Meadowlark Specific Plan encompasses approximately sixty-five (65) acres of land located approximately six hundred (600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue (Please refer to Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map). The property was previously used as a small craft airport(Meadowlark Airport). Surrounding land uses include detached single-family residential uses (RL-Low Dexisity Residential) to the north, the existing Norma Gibbs Park (OS- PR—Open Space- Parks and Recreation), a church, and detached (RL-Low Density Residential) and attached single-family residential uses (RH-High Density Residential) to the east; attached single-family residential uses (RMH-Medium High Density Residential) to the south, and detached single-family residential uses (RL-Low Density Residential), attached single-family uses(RM-Medium Density Residential) and mobile home park (RMP-Manufactured Home Park) to the west. 2.2 General Plan Designation The General Plan designation for the Meadowlark property is Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp). The exact density, location, and mix of uses are governed by the Specific Plan. 2.3 Zoning The subject property is currently zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan (Please refer to Exhibit 2: Zoning/District.Map). The Specific Plan was first 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 revised Specific Plan limits development within the residential portion of the Specific Plan to a maximum of three hundred forty-five (345) dwelling units and allows for improvement of the project site with detached single-family dwellings on small-lots. 2.4 Planning History On February 1, 1988, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Land Use Element of the 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: 2 • 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(7)units per acre. • An internal traffic circulation plan shall be provided that will: ?. Provide street connections between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue that would not encourage non-project related through traffic; • Limit the amount of traffic on Pearce Street to a total of 2,500 average daily trips; 7 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 60I days of City approval of the first entitlement for development, the airport operation Will cease. • 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. On March 7, 1988, the Meadowlark 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, the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan was submitted to the City of Huntington Beach and was subsequently approved in conjunction with the first Conditional Use Permit application for development of the commercial portion of the,site. The remaining residential portion of the Specific Plan was not developed due to market conditions. 2.5 Legal Description (Please refer to Appendix A: Meadowlark Specific Plan Area Legal Description) 3 EDINGER AVE r• DEL MAR LANE HEIL AVE Q w U U 00 _ Q PEARCE q� Z m o . • PROJECT PLANE SITE WARNER AVE SLATER AVE MIADOWLARK SKOFIC PLAN VICINITY AAP CITY Of HUNTINGTON MACH RHIBIT 1 i RL C. r. C. RL CF-E sw 7V f RLI Ll t' MEADOWLARK CA J i = J J .j J UCi �M 00 RL . RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL VEWTUR s O RL MARSHALL 25 RL J[ gyp{ J A O O < W t CG Ul1E41 Da M*MEcorr M RL � RL �[ -RL� � RL C_ HEIL7 �.�� r. 5 Y RL 7M • CR CG _ RL RL RL RL MICE RL FL OS-PR RL RL RL RL RESIDENTIALRL '�- RL 8. AC. RL RL RL RL MEADOWLARK RL SPECIFIC PLAN RL < RL u • I w COMMERCIAL J y y CG 15.0t AC. ' ..• RM •- f • . i r: L co WARNER AYE f SOURCE: ?Z' SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NTS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MEADOWLARK SPICYIC PLAN ZONINGAISIRICI MAP CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH . W19112 4 A' l EN AIADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AASTER PLAN CONCEPT CITY Of NUNTINGTON BEAM SECTION 3.0 3.0 MASTER PLAN 3.1 Development Concept The 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). 5 The Specific Plan area is 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 new-growth - single-family detached residences, 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 and parks form a public focus. The plan identifies four pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, multiple recreational areas and a meandering pedestrian promenade/ Spine Road, which provides the link between the residential and commercial. 1 segment of the Specific Plan area. The differences 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 and private mini- parks; 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 t�Tes and include conventional small-lot, zero-lot line and z4ot layouts. The visual impact of garages is proposed to be diminished through neo-traditional design solutions which advocate placement of garages towards the rear of residential lots. Building design is 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. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes the following components which provide the necessary development information/guidelines to create a high quality residential planned community: Land Use Grading Circulation Geology- Soils/Seismicity Open Space/Recreation Potential Hazardous Materials Landscape Concept Archeology' Public Facilities Phasing 4 3.2 Land Use The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing 16.6 acre neighborhood shopping center along its southerly boundary and provides for residential uses on the remaining 48.4 acres of vacant land. The project Spine Road divides the shopping center into two parcels and provides access through the Meadowlark residential area. The 48.4 acres of undeveloped residential land within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area is divided into four(4)Planning Areas. The proposed residential densities,range from nine and half (9.5) dwelling units per net acre to thirteen and eight tenths (13.8) dwelling units per net acre, and provide a gradual transition from the commercial and medium high density attached residential uses (RMH) to the south of the property to the existing low density detached residential uses (RL) to the north, east and west. (Please refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Master Plan.) All four (4) Planning Areas are anticipated to be developed with small lot, single-family detached homes. A summary of the proposed residential land use allocation within the four residential Planning Areas by product type,,gross acreage, density and maximum number of dwelling units follows. (Please refer to Exhibit 4: Development Summary). The boundaries and acreage of each Planning Area are fixed. Minor modifications to Planning Area boundaries may be made, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. The maximum gross density within each Planning Area shall not be exceeded. d' t l 5 y arr oeaam 4NI iv _ y'3cC• r Gum :PA-2 1 1 PA-2 LAND -USE. I I LAND USE: ' _SFR SFR - �..� '�► M�!�A� `_ - `mod` �' , , -- _.s<.- _ /..-.•J+fi 3'�'/ " t �/ �t� it S / I tr A � USE: : SFR � / rt REY IL M I I �srs-■ at r• MUF 100' BUFFER �`3'� '�"`3�`�•`J. •:- .y ..L�3,�r • �'+i• 1 yr.-t✓ y Jcr-`�4,,-n ��� -a �;�.,s3'�j,•.;.r;^ -�.- y�:'-ram^1- ` �.' -J`_ LEGEND xsva a�« e SPECIFlC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY ♦ 1 e ( 0 • �J 5 � C + ison{ I f1lXi �R'�LL1�C! 1�S O SCALE: 1 =300' ARDOWLARK SPEIf IC PLAN CONCEPTUAL AASTfR PLAN CITY Of 11UNTINGTON BEAN UNIT 3 EX MIT 4 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN Acreage % of Gross Net Density No. of Planning Area Land Use (Max) Site Density (Max) Lots/Units (Max) (Max) (Max) 1 S.F.R. ¢ 10.9* 22.5 6.5 9.5 70 (Detached) 2 S.F.R. 9.3* 19.2 6.5 9.8 60 (Detached) 3 S.F.R. 14.5* 30.0 8.0 11.8 116 (Detached) 4 S.F.R. 11.0* 22.7 9.0 13.8 99 (Detached)or S.F.R. 45.7 94.4 7.5 11.3 •345 Subtotal Public Park ** ** Spine Road 0.5 0.1 ROW adjacent to Public Park TOTAL 48.4 100% 345 * NOTE: Includes proposed open space lettered lots, landscape maintenance easements, common open space areas and local streets. ** NOTE: Development shall comply with parkland dedication requirements. 6 3.3 Circulation A. Public and Private Street System The Circulation Plan illustrates the general alignment, classification and location of the proposed public and private roads within the project site. The Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (Please refer to Exhibit 5: Circulation Plan.) The Spine Road shall provide access to the property from Heil Avenue and from Warner Avenue at Plaza Lane. Plaza Lane, a local collector road currently terminates at the commercial center's northerly boundary. The Spine Road meanders through the shopping center and the residential Planning Areas, separating Planning Areas 3 and 4, Planning Areas 1 and 3 and dividing Planning Area 2. The northern terminus of the Spine Road at Heil Avenue aligns with Del Mar Lane. Pearce Street, which is located west of the project site, shall be extended through Planning Area 1. Local access to the fotir residential Planning Areas shall be provided directly from the Spine Road. Access to Planning Area 1 and 4 shall also be provided from the Pearce Street extension and Roosevelt Lane respectively. The Pearce Street extension shall be carefully planned to minimize traffic impacts onto the existing street system. Access to Pearce Street shall be such that traffic on said street does not exceed 2500 average daily trips. Roosevelt Lane may provide limited direct driveway access to Planning Area 4 residential lots which front on Roosevelt Lane. Roosevelt Lane shall not be a through street to Warner Avenue. The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane (approximately 500 linear feet south of Pearce Street) shall be fully dedicated and fully improved to City Standards. The design of the Spine Road shall advocate traffic calming and shall constitute an important circulation and thematic design element of the Meadowlark master plan concept. The street section for the subject roadway shall transition as it flows through the project from a sixty-six (66) ft. right-of-way with a "curb-to-curb" paved section of forty-six (46) ft. at Heil Avenue and a sixty (60) ft. right-of-way with a "curb-to-curb" paved section of forty (40) ft. at the northern terminus of Plaza Lane to a sixty (60) ft. right-of-way with a thirty-two (32) ft. paved section within the central portion of the site. The Spine Road design shall incorporate raised, landscaped medians at both project entry locations, fourteen (14) ft. wide landscaped areas and six (6) ft. wide meandering sidewalks along both sides of the road. Open space lots adjacent to the Spine Roald shall contribute additional landscaping, thus enhancing its"greenbelt"design. Heil Avenue shall be improved to an ultimate right-of-way width of eighty-eight (88) ft. Street improvements along Heil Avenue shall increase the pavement width from sixty-four (64) ft. to seventy (70) ft. and will provide an eight (8) ft. sidewalk and a twelve (12) ft. landscape buffer along the northerly boundary of the Meadowlark property. With the exception of the Spine Road and the most westerly segment of the Pearce Street extension (between the western property line and the first "T" street intersection) through 7 EmTm OETAQE0 $Nal-FlllY W —�IM HEIL AVENUEMM( •� �r R tar / J g�a� R IXAo1 z r PA-2 PA-2 -`- 3 IN SCALE: 1"=300' irk Jul ■I 1 ———— —— I PUBLIC r ` fBB7FNi( PARK r r TR so ��4�� -� fAllY W W V 136-36 Eosrra ctuom �1 rl 1„I SrCIE fN�iY GU YeEARCE,_ P:�`_�` Ism 1•/ COMMON i I OPEN fir, �. SPACEI a Jul PA-3 PA-4 1 f Y W �• MEADOW CR. _ _ ilk I _- �!�■ r _ Ni?166 i --- --- i L_U-dVt�RLA?jq J�—W 11 p-N _ W 3E0133-36 ' `Effi Ylll-FNLT Oi<0 J TAM �'�, 1 � LEGEND — MAJOR ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (136' R.O.W.) SECONDARY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (82' R.O.W.) PUBLIC COLLECTOR (60 R.O.W.) PUBLIC LOCAL (59' R.O.W.) FUTURE PRIVATE LOCAL (50' ROW) f r� 0 f. .1 {. =x'l� .� i ace^ �l �•� MAJOR ACCESS l -.±iWARNER_- _ -AVE.—- SECONDARY ACCESS MIADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CIRCULATION PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH EXHIBIT 5 Planning Area 1, all other interior local streets shall be private. Private street section designs for Planning Area 1 and 2 shall include four (4) ft. (min) non-monolithic sidewalks and five (5) ft. (min) landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. In Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 as well as along the "public street" segment of the Pearce Street extension in Planning Area 1, landscaped parkways are encouraged, however, five (5) ft. monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may also be acceptable within said areas. (Please refer to Appendix B: Street Sections). B. Traffic Control The Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Department of Public Works at the time of project entitlement approval, shall determine the need for traffic control devices (i.e. traffic signals). Such determination shall include the appropriate time installation. The developer(s) shall pay the entire cost of installing traffic signals at Heil Avenue/Del Mar Lane, and Warner Avenue, the entrances to the project area. Installation of the traffic signal at Del Mar Heil shall be required with the first residential phase. Development of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area will require a secondary access to Bolsa Chica Street from Pearce Street. The developer(s) shall pay one-fourth of the cpst for the traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and Pearce prior to issuance of building permits. Proportional share of Heil/ Graham signalization shall be paid prior to start of the final residential phase, as determined by traffic signal warrants. C. Transit Facilities Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at locations designated by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit Authority. The design of such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit Authority. 3.4 Open Space/Recreation Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with parkland dedication requirements by dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark community, improvement of 0.8 acre of undeveloped Norma Gibbs Park area and payment of parkland dedication in-lieu fees equal to $500,000 per acre, to satisfy the remaining Parkland dedication obligation for development of the site. In addition private mini- parks shall be provided to serve the residents of the Meadowlark community exclusively (Please refer to Exhibit 6: Public-Private Open Space Plan) and shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowner's Association(HOA). Although the actual amenity program for the private mini- par�s has not been specifically defined, provision of a tot-lot, swimming pool/ spa and community meeting/clubhouse is encouraged. Mini-park acreage shall be based on the required common open space requirement per dwelling unit. 3.5 Landscape Concept The landscape concept for the Meadowlark project is integral to the overall character of the community. It includes a combination of landscape and hardscape features adjacent to and 8 DEL MAR E X',M MAOS bt1EfALY pU _ - HEIL AVENUE r I'x O� QiAOf cp PA-2 PA-2 _ e Yam/ 1! r -- --—_ -- PUBLIC PARK z q`�p• I �O �srtE FAdLY OU -¢� w flex-x rom oEYwe� -�' Al Sw FALY ca r i — COMMON OPEN SPACE PA-3 i PA-4 MEADOW R. w axolx-x r om kuLn-RAY 0 4 ..L,a w"" LEGEND Dow aon aon r°a stun ® PUBLIC PARK ® COMMON OPEN SPACE cv so GJ ep p sq cv cv +v SPINE ROAD GREENBELT oe oo c. m c-.l 6 (noR r aon aon tvusnc = H O �, K Z SCALE: 1"=300' MEADOWLARK SPfCIf IC PLAN PUBLUPRIVATf•OPEN SPUPLAN CITY Of WNTING10N BUM EXHIBIT 6 visible from project roadways which combine to form a major design element of the community structure. Major features of the landscape concept include entry, community edge, and streetscape treatments. A. Entry Treatments • Primary Entry The primary community entry shall be located at the intersection of the Spine Road and Heil Avenue. The community entry design concept is intended to integrate project monumentation, enriched pavement treatment (subject to Planning Department and Public Works Department approval), median planting, layered shrub/turf planting and decorative community perimeter theme walls(Please refer to Appendix C: Heil Avenue Project Entry). • Secpndary Entry A•second project entry shall be provided at the northerly terminus of the existing Plaza Lane. The subject entry design shall reflect primary project entry design elements and shall incorporate enriched pavement treatment (subject to Planning Department and Public Works Department approval), median plaating, layered shrub/turf planting and decorative community perimeter theme walls. (Please refer to Appendix D: Plaza Lane Project Entry). B. Community Edge Treatments • Community Perimeter Wall A decorative community theme wall along the public Spine Road and Heil Avenue will provide project identity; privacy and noise control (Please refer to Appendix E: Community Wall Plan). Removal and replacement of existing walls along the project site's perimeter is encouraged, so that double walls are avoided. • Heil Avenue Landscaping A twelve (12) ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along the project's northerly property line. The landscape buffer treatment along Heil Avenue shall be compatible and complimentary with the proposed landscaping along the Spine Road. • Parks The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes a public park adjacent to the existing 5-acre Norma Gibbs Park. In addition, common open space areas shall be incorporated within the overall community development concept. Park design shall take into consideration Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to ensure adequate surveillance of the park sites and address security related issues for adjacent properties. 9 C. Streetscape Treatment • Spine Road The Spine Road shall provide the primary access to the project. In order to enhance its appearance an expanded landscape parkway shall be incorporated as part of'its design. The proposed plant palette for the Spine Road shall be complementary to the landscaping materials utilized within adjoining residential Planning Areas. Shade trees shall be incorporated in the Spine Road landscape design concept (Please refer to Appendix F: Spine Road Expanded Parkway). 5 • Local Streets -Planning Areas 1-4 A unique landscape design theme shall be developed for each Planning Area. A neighborhood accent street tree and background trees shall be elected and used consistently within each Planning Area. Shade trees shall be incorporated in the local street landscape design concept. D. Plant Material Palette All streets shall be established with identifiable landscape materials (Please refer to Appendix G: Plant Material Palette). The proposed plant materials (shrubs, groundcovers and trees) shall be compatible and complementary to existing adjacent streetscapes. 3.6 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 (s) of the Specific Plan area shall be responsible for the construction of all public facilities/ improvements concurrent with individual project development. Improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. A. Storm Drainage Facilities 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 exist along Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. The roperty's proposed storm drain system shall provide drainage for the site as follows: Runoff from the property shall be conveyed to the Sunset Channel, approximately 2,500 feet from the project site. A portion of storm water runoff shall be detained on-site. The proposed storm drain system will consist of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a minimum pipe size of eighteen (18) inches. All interior local streets shall carry the property's storm runoff into catch basins which shall connect to a backbone storm drain line located within the Spine Road. Based upon preliminary hydrology studies it is anticipated that the backbone storm drain 10 RCP system shall range in size from thirty-six (36) to sixty (60) inches. (Please refer to Appendix H: Storm Drain System.) The proposed storm drain system exits the site at the intersection of Heil Avenue and the Spine Road and is conveyed to the Sunset Channel, within a 66-inch RCP. B. Sewer Facilities The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for the review and approval of waste water collection within the project area, and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) is responsible for the treatment of waste water. The existing sewer system is comprised of several lines, including a fifteen (15) inch in Heil Avenue, an eight (8) inch in Pearce Street and an eight (8) inch in Plaza Lane. The proposed sewer system for the Meadowlark property shall connect to the fifteen (15) inch existing sewer main on Heil Avenue. (Please refer to Appendix I: Sewer System). The property's backbone sewer line will be located within the Spine Road. All "in-tract" local sewer laterals shall gravity flow to the backbone sewer line within the Spine Road. The sewer lines within the property shall be contained in public and private streets or easements which will ultimately be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. All proposed sewer lines within the Specific Plan are tentatively established at eight(8) inches. C. Water Facilities '. Domestic water for the property will be provided by the Public Works Water Division of the City of Huntington Beach. The existing and proposed water supply systems are shown on Appendix J: Water System. On-site water lines shall connect to the existing external system at three locations, thus providing a looped water system of adequate water pressure. The proposed water system shall connect to an existing eight (8) inch line in Pearce Street, an eight (8) inch line in Plaza Lane and a twelve(12) inch in Heil Avenue. The backbone water facility shall consist of a twelve (12) inch line which follows the Spine Road alignment and connects to the existing twelve (12) inch water line in Heil Avenue and the eight (8) inch water line in Plaza Lane. All other project water lines shall be eight (8) inches and shall follow the proposed street alignments, creating loop systems and connecting to the twelve (12) inch line in the Spine Road. Prior to the issuance of building permits within any of the area designated as a separate phase of development in the Phasing Plan, clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works and the Orange County Sanitation District stating that such development will not adversely impact the sewer system. Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Planning Director. 11 3.7 Grading The Meadowlark property is generally flat. A 15-foot grade differential exists between the highest elevation at the southwest portion of the property and the lowest elevation adjacent to Heil Avenue. (Please refer to Appendix K: Topography). The topography is entirely manmade as a result of farming practices and the previous airport land use. Grading will be required to construct streets, infrastructure and other site improvements and to create properly drained development areas. All grading within the Specific Plan area will require a grading permit and shall 14e,governed by soils, foundation and other geotechnical reports prepared by registered civil and geotechnical engineers, building codes, established engineering practices and City ordinances. Reasonable efforts shall be taken in the design of improvements and building pads to minimize the amount of grading required. The maximum slope ratio, horizontal to vertical, will be 2:1 unless otherwise recommended by a Geotechnical engineering report and approved by the City. 3.8 Geology-Soils/Seismicity 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. Information obtained from soils investigations indicate 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 grade. The subject site 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 project site. Although this fault is closer to the Meadowlark Specific Plan area than the Newport-Inglewood it is assumed to be less of a threat to the 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. The fallowing geology, soils and seismicity measures shall be employed prior to the issuance of building permits: Submittal of a structural engineering study evaluating proposed foundation designs and respect the ground shaking and liquefaction hazards on the property. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works and Building Department. Foundations and structural components of the buildings shall be designed according to recommendations contained within the structural engineering study. 12 Submittal of a soils study detailing grading and site preparation recommendations. This study shall be subject to the approval by the Public Works and Building Department. Grading and site preparation shall be accomplished in accordance with recommendations presented in the soils study. Submittal of a soils analysis identifying the absence or presence of methane gas and/or contamination by hazard 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 the City and other appropriate agencies. q 3.9 Potential Hazardous MRterials An on-site 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, determined that gasoline contaminated soils exist on-site (Please refer to Appendix L: Letter from the Environmental Health Division dated June 20, 1990). Investigative measures have been carried out to the satisfaction of that agerlcy for the commercial site and closure has been granted by the Orange County Health Ca're Agency (OCHCA) for the soil and groundwater cases. The potential for future impact to the area north of the commercial site is considered to *be minimal, however, investigative and remediation measures shall be required for the residential area of the Meadowlark Specific Plan to ensure compliance with the Orange County Health Division. requirements. Verification of clearance by the OCHCA shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of building permits. Specific development proposals within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with any/all applicable environmental mitigation measures pertinent to hazardous materials. 3.10 Archeology The Meadowlark Specific Plan area is situated on Bolsa Chica Mesa, an area of higher land mostly above the twenty-five (25) contour line, overlooking the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The lowlands were formerly an embayment which provided a diverse floral and faunal resource for local prehistoric Native American populations. Archeological surveys and test programs have identified nine (9) archeological sites on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Conclusions reached by these studies indicate that all of the sites were shellfish processing camps situated within 600 ft of the edge of the bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica lowlands. One of the Bolsa Chica Mesa archeological sites, Ora-368, was situated on the southeast corner of the Meadowlark property. The site was professionally excavated from 1986 to 1994 and has now been replaced by commercial development. Based on the results of the original property survey conducted in 1986, additional work was recommended in four areas along the southeastern portion of the property. Area 1, which contained archeological site Ora-368, was mitigated from 1990 to 1994. Areas 2, 3 and 4 (Please refer to Appendix M: Meadowlark Areas of Archeological Concern) were investigated in 1996 and found that no intact cultural 13 materials (prehistoric or historic) remain on the property. No further mitigation measures are necessary for archeology. The property is cleared for development regarding cultural resources. 3.11 Phasing Plan The Meadowlark community may be developed in several phases. In order to accommodate the anticipated development of each Planning Area, major circulation, infrastructure and community improvements within the Meadowlark property should be completed prior to occupancy of the first residential unit, exclusive of models. (Please refer to Appendix N: Phasing Plan). The first phase of project developmenv shall include widening of Heil Avenue, construction of the Spine Road and adjoining landscaping improvements and development of the public park site adjacent to the existing Norma Gibbs P;k,as required when entitlements are granted. l 14 5 a DIM MEADOWLARK SPICIfIC PLAN DRILOPA NT REGULATIONS CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH -SECTION 4.0 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1 Purpose and Intent The provisions contained herein shall govern the design and development of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Development standards and/or design criteria and activities not specifically addressed in this Specific Plan shall be addressed in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Municipal Code and City policies. 4.2 Establishment of District Areas and Planning Areas The IYleadowlark property is comprised of a 48.4 acre residential and a 16.6 acre commercial district. (Please refer to Exhibit 2: Zoning/ District Map). The commercial portion of the Specific Plan 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 residential segment is currently vacant and is divided into four Planning Areas. A description of each planning area and corresponding development standards for each planning area follows. A. Residential District Planning Area I Planning Area 1 is centrally located within the Meadowlark project with direct access to the project's Spine Road and Pearce Street. This Planning Area is proposed to be developed with single-family detached homes, accommodating up to seventy (70) lots (9.5 du/ net ac). The majority of the streets within Planning Area 1 shall be private, with the portion of the Pearce Street extension from the west property line to the first "T" street intersection being the exception. Private roads shall be designed to provide a minimum of thirty-two (32) ft. of pavement width allowing parking on one side of the street in conjunction with four (4) ft. sidewalks and five (5) ft. landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. The "public segment" of the Pearce Street extension shall be designed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 is located within the northern area of the Meadowlark project, adjacent to Heil AveAue. Up to sixty (60) single family detached homes may be provided within the subject Planning Area (9.8 du/ net ac). Local streets within Planning Area 2 shall be private, with a thirty-two (32) ft. (min.) pavement width accommodating parking on one side of the street in conjunction with four (4) ft. sidewalks and five (5) ft. landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. 15 Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 includes that area east of the proposed Spine Road and south of the proposed public park. This Planning Area is intended to accommodate up to one hundred sixteen (116) single-family lots (11.8 du/ net ac). All private streets within this Planning Area shall have a thirty-two (32) ft. pavement width which would allow for on-street parking on one side of the street. Five (5) ft. wide landscaped parkways and four(4) ft. wide non-monolithic sidewalks are encouraged, however five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may be provided oak both sides of the street for pedestrian access. Planning Area 4 Planning Area 4 is located west of the proposed Spine Road, north of the existing Meadowlark shopping center and east of Roosevelt Lane. This Planning Area can be developed with single- family residential detached product types. A maximum number of ninety-nine (99) lots may be developed(13.8 du/net ac). All local streets within Planning Area 4 shall be private. The single-family detached development concept shall accommodate a thirty-two (32) ft. paved street section width, allowing for parking on one side only. Five (5) ft. wide landscaped parkways and four (4) ft. wide non-monolithic sidewalks are encouraged, however five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may be provided on both sides of the street for pedestrian access. B. Commercial District Development within the commercial district shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excluding hotels and motels) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (HBOC) and pertinent conditions of approval for the commercial center. 4.3 Definitions Words, phrases and terms referenced in the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall have the same application and meaning as described in the HBZSO. When inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words used in the singular number include the plural number; and words of the masculine gender include the feminine gender. The word "shall" is always mandatory and the word"may"is permissive. 16 4.4 General Provisions A. Parkland Dedication Public Park 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 HBZSO. B. Affordable Housing K Prior to recordation of any final maps the subdivider(s)shall submit an affordable housing plan. The plan shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. The contents of the affordable housing plan shall include the following: 1. Ten percent (10%) of the total units proposed shall be affordable to low and moderate income level households (maximum 100%of the Orange County Median Income) for a period of thirty (30)years. , 2. A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the units being built. The estimated applicable sales price and rental rate of the units. 3. If rental units are used to satisfy this condition,then the units shall be for households earning between 50%-80%of the Orange County Median Income. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall execute a thirty(30) year agreement that maintains the appropriate level of affordability for units in accordance with the Orange County Median Income. If rental units are used to satisfy affordable housing requirements off-site,prior to issuance of building permits the subdivider shall: 1. Identify the location of the rental units and time they will become available for use. 2. Execute a covenant describing the terms of affordable housing/rental unit provisions. C. Activity Center Facilities T Child care facilities or similar community serving building for Meadowlark Specific Plan area residents shall be made available within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. 17 D. Infill Ordinance Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Residential Infill Lot development requirements, in accordance with the HBZSO. E. Perimeter Buffers An one-hundred(100)ft. wide perimeter buffer shall be provided between existing single family development adjacent to the project site and any proposed attached or detached residential development at greater than seven(7)dwelling units per gross acre as follows;fifty(50)percent of that width may be driveway or drive aisle(excluding open or enclosed parking), or seventy- five (75)percent may include attached low density residential units, or one hundred(100)percent may include detached single family residential units at a density not to exceed seven(7)dwelling units per acre. In all cases the landscaped area shall be the outer portion of the buffer area. The maximum building height,of all structures within the one-hundred(100)ft.perimeter buffer area shall not exceed twenty-five (25)ft. The building height within said area shall be determined based on HBOC provisions. A twenty(20)ft(average)landscaped buffer shall be provided along the entire length of the Spine Road. Said buffer may include landscaped parkway areas within the street right-of-way. Residential setbacks shall not be included in meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirement. A twelve (12) ft.(min) landscaped buffer area shall be provided along the northerly property line (Heil Avenue).Residential setbacks shall not be included in meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirement. Buffer areas shall be provided between the commercial and residential district to limit the height of any required noise attenuation barriers to a maximum of eight(8)ft.for the majority of the wall length. (Please refer to Appendix O: Commercial/Residential District Buffer Area Treatment). Noise attenuation barrier design solutions may include wall,berm or a combination thereof and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. F. Parking The number of off-street parking spaces for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall be provided in accordance with HBZSO requirements. Open off-street parking requirements for a maximum of forty(40) dwelling units in Planning Area i and forty-five (45)dwelling units in Planning Area 4 may be satisfied by on-site tandem parking. 18 G. Garage Use/Design Garages shall be utilized for automobile storage. The interior garage dimension shall be a minimum of twenty(20) ft. by twenty(20)ft. In Planning Areas 3 and 4 a maximum of ten percent(10%) garage area reduction(up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area)will be permitted for a non-cumulative up to twenty-five percent(25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area,upon approval of a conditional use permit. When a reduction of garage area is proposed a minimum area of eighteen(18) ft. (width)by nineteen(19)ft. (depth)shall be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and tie minimum required(400 sq. ft.)shall be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations)that do not impede the minimum eighteen(18) ft. by nineteen(19)ft. automobile parking area within the garage. Automatic roll-up garage doors shall be provided in all dwellings with driveways twenty (20)ft. onless in length. Twenty-five percent(25%)of all single-family detached dwellings shall incorporate garages within.the rear half of the lot. H. Building Additions/.Modifications All dwellings within Planning Area 1-4 shall be constructed in accordance with approved conditional use permit(s) and building construction permit plan(s). Additions and exterior modifications shall be permitted on a limited basis and shall be subject to approval by the Meadowlark HOA and Planning Director. Interior and exterior modifications shall be.subject to building permit review/processing requirements. I. Treescape Street trees shall be provided in parkways located between the curb and sidewalk, as required when entitlements are granted. Tree species and spacing shall be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective continuous tree canopy, avoid sidewalk damage, and minimize water consumption. J. Product Development Three different floor plans (min)and two (2) alternate elevations for each floor plan shall be required to be developed within each Planning Area. Reversed floor plans/elevations shall not be considered as additional/different floor plans/elevations. K. Porches/Entry elements Porches and/or single story entry elements shall be provided on a minimum of 1/3 of the total number of dwellings within each residential planning area. 19 L. Variable Setbacks Front yard setbacks shall be varied to avoid a monotonous pattern of houses and create an interesting street-scene. Side and rear yard setbacks shall be varied to allow for improved solar access and provide useful private open space areas(Please refer to Appendix P: Conceptual Street Scene). M. Activities/Uses along Spine Road Pedestrian Promenade Points of interest(architectural,landscaping,recreational and/or sculptural), seating areas, and functional pavilions shall be incorporated within the overall Spine Road buffer design theme. N. Street Furniture Decorative street furniture.and light fixtures shall be incorporated within the residential portion of Meadowlark Specific Plan area. i t l 20 4.5 Development Standards A. Residential District Planning Area 1 1. Purpose Planning Area 1 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development (Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-1). 2. Permitted Uses R • , Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional small-lot homes) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. • Day Care, Large Family, within the Common Open Space Area/Activity Center, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be four thousand six hundred (4,600)sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty-five (55) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty (30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty(20)ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 9.5 dwelling units per net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet and a maximum of two (2)stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent. An additional five percent (5110) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 21 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen(15) ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18) ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10) ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve(12)ft.* * Front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) aggregate of lot frontage at any point of the structure; with minimum three (3) ft. on any interior yard but need not exceed five (5) ft. (or aggregate of 10 ft. for both yards). An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between dwelling units on adjacent, residential lots. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; but need not exceed ten(10)ft. j • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10)ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty(30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. 22 ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. dl Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13)ft. • Garage(s)without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5)ft. for garage and ten (10)ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s)or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30")clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty(30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: ` • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten(10) ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 23 Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-Iots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with a four (4) ft. (min) side yard setback, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall .be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan) . • A four(4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft.per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty (40) ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred(100) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with forty(40)ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five(25)ft. I b) Private Open Space Four hundred(400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 24 10. Building Separation Four(4) ft. (min)building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. i 1 25 Planning Area 2 1. Purpose Planning Area 2 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-2). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional small-lot homes) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit;and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3.• Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be four thousand(4,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty (50) ft. however, the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty(30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty(20)ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 9.8 dwelling units per-net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty(30) ft. and a maximum of two stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50)percent. An additional five percent(5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in l height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen(15)ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18)ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10)ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve (12)ft.** 26 * Front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setbackMfrom interior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) aggregate of lot frontage at any point of the structure; with minimum three (3) ft. on any interior yard but need not exceed five (5) ft. (or aggregate of 10 ft. for both yards). An eight(8) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between dwelling units on adjacent residential lots. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30)inches. r c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: d- • Dwellings and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; but need not exceed ten(10)ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: - ➢ Eaves: thirty (30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30) inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13)ft. • Garage(s)without habitable area above: zero(0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5)ft. for garage and ten(10)ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five 27 percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area,provided there is a minimum fifteen(15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five(5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two(2)feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five(5)ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten(10) ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • gxposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot-line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-lots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with four (4) ft. (min) side yard setback, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 28 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community(Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan). • A four(4)ft. (min)landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42)inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty(150) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty(40)R. of lot frontage. • One hundred<100) sq.ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty (40) ft. or more of-lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. The total common open space area required 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25)ft. b) Private Open Space Four hundred(400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 10. Building Separation Four(4)ft. (min)building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. 29 Planning Area 3 1. Purpose Planning Area 3 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-3). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional .small-lot homes) an& their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit end a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. • Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be forty (40) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and kuuckle lots shall be thirty(30)ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty(20)ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 11.8 dwelling units per-net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) ft. and a maximum of two stories with the exception of the one-hundred (100) ft. buffer area where the maximum building height shall be limited to twenty-five (25) ft. The building height within the buffer area shall be determined in accordance with HBOC provisions. (Please refer to Section 4AE, p.18) 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty(50)percent. An additional five percent(5010) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. j a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows_ • Dwellings: fifteen(15)ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18)ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10)ft. 30 • Patios/Entry elements: twelve(12)ft.* * The above setback requirements are applicable when five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks and no landscape parkways are provided along street frontages. If five (5)ft. (min) wide landscape parkways are provided,front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: Dwelling's, garages and accessory buildings: Three (3) ft. (min) on one side and five (5) ft. (min) on the other side. An eight (8) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch,,(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: ' thirty(30 inches. ) c) Exterior Side Yard Setback The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; with minimum of six(6)ft. on any exterior yard but need not exceed eight(8)ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10)ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center:two (2)ft. I ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30) inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13)ft. • Garage(s)without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. 31 • Garages with habitable area above: five (5) ft. for garage and ten(10) ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five percent(25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty(30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center:two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30)inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line. For a total of ten(10) ft. separation between dwellings. • Jhe zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • `Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-lots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with four (4) ft. (min) J side yard setbacks, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 32 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan). • A four(4)ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42)inches. 5 , 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty(150)sq. ft.per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty(40)ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred,(100) sq. ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty(40)ft. or more of lot frontage. - The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand(3,000) sq.ft.The total common open space area required 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 shall be _ designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five(25)ft. z, b) Private Open Space Four hundred(400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 10. Building Separation Four(4) ft. (min)building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. 33 Planning Area 4 1. Purpose Planning Area 4 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-4). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (on zero lot-line and Z-lots) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract giap. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot.size shall be three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty-five (35) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty (30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited bads, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty(20)feet. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 13.8 dwelling units per-net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty(30) ft. and a maximum of two stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent. An additional five percent (5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in J height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen(15) ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18)ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10)ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve(12) ft.* 34 * The above setback requirements are applicable when five (5)ft. wide monolithic sidewalks and no landscape parkways are provided along street frontages. If five (5)ft. (min.) wide landscape parkways are provided,front yard setbacks may be reduced to an average of twelve (12)ft. with minimum setback often (10)ft., subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. 1 b) Interior Side YardgSetbacks The minimum setback,from interior side property lines shall be as follows: Zero lot-line: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min)setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten(19)ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided. on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • X11 architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Z-lots: • A eight(8)ft. (min)building separation, in conjunction with four(4) ft. (min) side yard setbacks, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. f The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30")clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30) inches. 35 c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent(20%) of lot frontage; with minimum of six(6)ft. on any exterior yard but need not exceed eight(8)ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: q ➢ Eaves: thirty(30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30)inches. d1 Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback-thirteen(13)ft. • Garage(s)without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5)ft. for garage and ten'(10)ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five, percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen(15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and,windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s)or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30)inches. 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with an approved fencelwall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: WaMence Master Plan). • A four(4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. 36 • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty(150) sq. ft.per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty(40)ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred(100) sq. ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty(40)ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. The . total common open space area required 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five)25 ft. b) Private Open Space Four hundred(400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. b' 10. Building Separation Four(4)ft. (min)building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. I 37 B. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Development within this district shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excluding hotels and motels) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (HBOC)and pertinent conditions of approval for the commercial center. a s , 3 i �l 38 4.3 General Design Criteria A. Residential Subdivision Design Residential subdivisions should be configured to establish a pedestrian friendly environment and a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity by providing the following: • Street configurations involving interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of "blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. Streets must be pedestrian friendly: sidewalks, street trees, building entries acid parallel parking must shelter and enhance the walking environment. • Public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. Park and plazas should provide .public focus and should not be formed from residual areas. • A common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Thi§ center may contain services, such as child-care, public meeting rooms and/or recreational facilities. • Common facilities in proximity to a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. • A continuous network of sidewalks, bike, pedestrian paths and/ or other elements to link parts of the community and provide connections to land uses in adjacent areas. b' r • Reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures without compromising auto safety and emergency access requirements. • Landscaped parkways, especially where reduced street widths are being proposed. • Shade trees along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage, and minimize water consumption. • Alleys or other design solutions to minimize the dominance of garages along street frontages. • Increased setbacks and/ or design elements that buffer residential units from impacts of abutting commercial development. • Decorative street furniture and light fixtures along pedestrian paths. • Architectural, landscape, sculptural and/or recreational points of interest and activities along pedestrian paths. 39 B. Residential Product Design Residential units shall be designed to convey a high level of quality and character by: • Modulating building massing and articulating building elevations. • Avoiding building materials, colors and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. t • Minimizing the amount land width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. i , ._. • Incorporating elements, such as porches, in the design of dwellings to emphasize the front yard,as an activity area and"outdoor living room". • Locating and designing garages so that they do not dominate the street scene. • Including separate and well defined entries to visually convey the individual identity for each residential unit: • Providing open space amenities accessible and of sufficient size to be usable by residents. C. Non-Residential Structure Design within Residential Planning Areas }` • Non-residential structure design shall be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. l 40 l AIADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN 1APRINTATION CITY Of UUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION 5.0 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Procedures The methods and procedures for the implementation of the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). If an issue, condition or situation arises or occurs that is not sufficiently covered or provided for, or is not clearly understandable, those regulations of the HBZSO that are applicable to the most similar issue, condition or situation shall be used by the Planning Director as guidelines to resolve it. This provision shall not be used to permit uses or procedures not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan or the HBZSO. 5.2 Implementation Notwithstanding provisions/regulations applicable to the commercial portion and the one- hundred (100)ft.perimeter buffer area of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area,development of the Specific Plan area shall be implemented in accordance with procedures set forth in this Specific Plan and HBZSO. , 5.3 Hearings All public hearings held relative to this Specific Plan shall be administered per the applicable provisions of the HBZSO. 5.4 Appeals aH Any decision, determination or requirements may be appealed in accordance with applicable provisions of the HBZSO. 5.5 Specific Plan Amendment Requests for amendments to the Meadowlark Specific Plan may be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Each amendment shall include all sections of the Specific Plan that are affected by the change. Specific Plan Amendment(s) may require concurrent General Plan Amendment(s),unless it is determined by the Planning Director that the proposed Amendment would not substantively affect the General Plan goals, objective, policies or pT grams. 5.6 Dwelling Unit Distribution The Meadowlark Specific Plan does not allow dwelling units to be redistributed between the four (4) Planning Areas. The maximum density shown on Exhibit 4: Development Summary for each planning area and the total number of dwelling units allocated to the Specific Plan shall not be exceeded. 41 5.7 Boundary Changes Acreage figures shown on Exhibit 4: Development Summary are indicated to the nearest fractional acre. Minor modifications to Planning Area boundaries may be permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Director. 5.8 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, recreational 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 Planning Director as to suitabUity for the proposed use of the open space areas. If the common open spaces are to be conveyed to a homeowner's association,the developer shall file a declaration of covenants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. • The Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. • Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. • The open space restrictions shall be permanent. • Provisions to,.prohibit parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written inYto the covenants, conditions and restrictions for each project. • If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps, reciprocal covenants, conditions, and restrictions or reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowner's association with common areas for the total development. 5.9 Approval Period Not withstanding the provisions of Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subd}ivision Ordinance, Conditional Use Permits authorized under Chapter 241 of the Hunfington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance shall become null and void within two (2) years unless a final tract map has been recorded with the County Recorder's 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. 42 i J h1fADOWIARK SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDIX CITY Of HUNTINGiON BEACH 'SECTION 6.0 i 5 � a f^ J MIADOWLARK SPICY IC PLAN CITY U#IUNTING10N BEACH APPENDIX A LEGAL DESCRIPTION (MEADOWLARK) ALL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 90-268 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK 280, PAGES 29 TO 32 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 90- 268; THENCE IN A GENERAL EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 90-268 AS FOLLOWS: NORTH 89035'03" EAST 662.81 FEET; SOUTH 0045'33" EAST 1301.41 FEET; NORTH 89036'05" EAST 333.38 FEET; SOUTH 0047'03" EAST 419.00 FEET; SOUTH 89035'57"WEST 153.25 FEET; SOUTH 72057'27" WEST 69.53 FEET; SOUTH 0147'03" EAST 221.80 FEET; SOUTH 89036'35" WEST 445.50 FEET; SOUTH 0044'48" EAST 660.65 FEET; SOUTH 891137'06" WEST 331.98 FEET; NORTH 0°44'03" WEST 30.00 FEET; SOUTH 89037'06" WEST 663.95 FEET; NORTH 0042*33" WEST 1291.01 FEET; NORTH 89036'05" EAST 331.69 FEET; NORTH 0043'18" WEST 660.56 FEET; NORTH 89035'34" EAST 331.55 FEET;AND NORTH 0044'03"WEST 640.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 63.459 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS WITHIN PARCEL MAP NO. 92-228 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 280, PAGES 33 TO 35 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS WITHIN HEIL AVENUE, PLAZA LANE, WARNER AVENUE, AIRPORT CIRCLE AND ROOSEVELT LANE. Ar AADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH I�Y�. , (/1 i 1 1` IY �/L`11M �,�Y,y LLL .�1 n,✓ � '"' [' '�r t � M • tl IN 1,1 ! f' ' ) '1 T 11`!'( ( �r�'�,��Y� l IY ! V'1 w • ! ,a ', o � dr.: ++I P\a � 1 r v tr tTi�. ]l t r'F � F ,Y f .R}r �Jl�i"r1„a}.1� r.�I�i A` 4ir,i° 4.e 'I'i t �•�1,, � t. 21 1 ? I.ttt 1f 1 •�� � l+a ttf w$1 1?''(+j li IF q!-(`.l«YI k+�.��lyl�\, �''�yA'r�JlS.'f[(�'�ff.7"•?`t"'i., tp, fl•i2 i •I 1 1 (! .r y t� y..7 + if. l , �i� .�Fyif,��,� /� r�1,��e't!h S''}���`y�?�'1��ilt��+J14'IY,�'+�q �%�Z}u ' . ;f�l �1" yl�. � �f 1 ( d ', 1 ,i t.. i J ',2• y f ,l.` � f I � d 2/ f 1\1 �1� ��Y11 1 i,� �, f�Y'�i��l 1� •••�1'. �. 1,�t a l , I j 1 1• 1 t .'+� }t r-!ti� t¢Htl t. P i !'+7�+�i fl,.+I.�YII ��r,i!t FGrtF n@'� �I��" '' r''^ � •—..I Y1y 1,;�l1�L 1 .•} ,`I ' 1 y/ �. u�:,l i. lid i �• '�j �' v}i",M1/A4t�'+���,.,i)1� �,���•�t��' � `•fit^►0��',y+ �'1 }!, � \�`'': Ps�/a:.l�•w•.�% •,4 �yl,,n,��+�.,`,,!! tfA'.Ijlh29�+' Y ,�� + 9T ,\' y+^:f y,;;;li. 'r,:��AF•.7' 1 �:T'��,*�lw�.', +Y.'/.:j4'�,�'�"��� "- �A' � ;'� ��•a / r,y+a }'�.i`+«�',�'; !"i� � Y„�,:.'F7G'~i �1.'.fl �•.�. i.i• r �, � �' ,,,;� '1�5''"��.✓�,2�},�� w�.�'rLlfii. 9.C'� .�.. lth,�?' �.t.�i•';4.,..,;r.�,• Nj, �'St.:.'. jlrf•+j°+��.+d.�',f~�I�.3�w+Y'��'^.. :Q- q��•��t di+l'4 �, •�1� 1' f� „A.t. �y�'�1} * r�'♦� ''!�1•�iITGAYTsd�,'�Yr '1 w�� l r� .y�� r,✓'1] • �4;',IiJ' ,• ti�..'M�t� a:��l�•... l .� 2+i ' V �' .f� „t , ,• ^ 1 '!kiJ►►':�'..�`�"i ?fit' +r '1,!"• ''��? .. 'r',�t�7r `�;. 5'.1 �.4':y+t`i -41 ,��'�� � .�� '1 y•,�,�1 Ni � •.Nat w'F+l..''���1�'';'�'••„• 16 •.,. rd^ �`� t+ � ,R •, LIM lP � ,� .'�,�M"I' ., ., M, d., '!� '+ ` ,+• • 11.Yr1•'Mlvtti,.,i,( . i � �', r.-± / r. 5'*' "' t!' '' �r 1[v,`l'�.4-1n('••r F2�" yy�Q .'1i!''� .1 1" � '�',',���' •�,y ''4���' w d 5 � s 1 MIADOWLARK SPICY IC PLAN - CITY Of I`IUNTINGTON BCACTI 'APPiNDIX B R/W R/W 42' 32' 5' 16' t 16' 5' SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 2% 2% 42' STREET (PRIVATE) n (N.T.S.) 4 R/W R/W 50' ► 9' 32' 9' 4' 5' 16' 16' 5' 4' SIDEWALY PARKWAY PARKWAY IDEW a 50' STREET (PRIVATE) (N.T.S.) N'LY S'LY 59' 10' 40' 9' A 6' 4' 20' 20' 5' 4' ' IDEW PARKWAY PARKWAY IDEW 59' STREET (PUBLIC) (PEARCE DRIVE EXTENSION) (N.T.S.) R/W f, R/W 60' 30, 30, 14' 16' 16' 14' 4' 6 4' MEANDERING SIDEWALK 4' 6' 4' 2% 2% "+a i i SPINE ROAD (PUBLIC) MEADOWLARK SKOFIC PLAN (N.T.S.) STRUT SECTIONS CITY Of HUNTINGTON KAN 4 � a 3- l MEADOWLARK SPICYIC PIAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX C a �� _ �. ..� �yy• �•. �;, � •fit';+ _ • _ r''•;� ; _., .. •_ i .:�`lS �ter' • +::• ;. �,�' •�, . ELEVATION 5 I s r SIDEYARD FENCE i ., •: i �a4 7••9a � •a••}• �.` i• RESIDENCE ' , S--SSS•j '� RESIDENCE • sd�! !• . .ram - � =RO.IECT PERIh1E—ER NIASCNRvPARKWAY PLAN71,NG DROJECT�,IONiiT,EhTa''ON 110 11110 _ ..\ .}y'.• .tom^ •mow •.J — TURF — "^.NCR= SiDE;'iA:K :/ ENRICHED DAVING ..,—AiR RAMPS NORTH MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN fIEIL AVENUE PROJECT ENTRY CITY Of HUNTINGTON BCACfl h i 5 a t' MIADOWLARK SPRIfIC PLAN CITY Of WNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX D -1iT� • ti. +XJ. it s •,_ - '. • �7 3r ELEVATION I • C NGRE-= S;CE1,11A_K o •�, LAYERED SHRUB PL -r'N—G \ .O ,\' a• Y SIDEYARD. =NCE� r.� RESIDENCE • I. RESIDENCE j N•IASONR\� :)I-aST_R� N INTER OR �IIA--LS ' ONL'f I COkIVIUNl-1'?=RI'.IE =R PARK'jVA''TREES MASONRY WAIL -AIL M=D N=_ANTING� RETAIL CENTER AREAS NORTH ARDOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN PLAZA LANE PROJECT ENTRY CITY Of TIUNTINGTON BEAN r• 4 5 , a s' e MEADOWLARK SPWf 1C PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BCACTI APP(NDIX C 1=1fU WAM I 0614ALY W �— T— r HFL . AVEhUE r r i luwuuuuuuuuuuuu r R cum • • r Cp z '- PA-2 �� I� PA-2 r ; ll tl SCALE: 1"=300' ♦ r M� — T • �..r �r� • r r �' ♦ r i • 1� r r� r PUBLIC r r r r r p p I PARK ii i � � 11 erti r R r r I � r z PA-1 f� i / ' r0 ♦- �R FALY!U W i 1,/66R M B. x -6D EMTM 6fGE FAiY IL7.J COMMON II EN SPA ril# qsS ' PA-3 PA-4 X � r 0 O X Tdo Wd=112 36 " r r A-FA6LY 04 aus- tars 1uaQi Mo• nos i.EGEN mom mom at*" X — ENHANCED PERIMETER WALL m aq cap ca .o w 07 A .o (TYPE TO BE DETERMINED • • • • • • AT TRACT MAP STAGE) ♦ • • • • -a-a-m— PERIMETER WALL • • • • • ® ce Ge the ne c. d 6 Cc SOUND THEME WALL munuuuemm�alunn souNo /ATTENUATION WALL r a nsr� � � xaaao • r PROJECT MONUMENTATION WALL MIADOWLARK SPICIFIC PLAN COMMUNITY WALL PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH k 5 a a I AIADOWLARK SPKIF1C PLAN CITY Of flUNTINGTON BEAU APPRIX f . , ��, � S'_ _ • � � �'� �� \\ �*_ + C � �— } �.yam' _�. _ -:; -- - t�:�- __ : -._�l -��------. ar 3 o z _ �_?, '' � f7. ?- ��� �. �� ._ _� `\ � � a.__ - 3 1r.�� •� _� ' _�_�\ � C �yT ,�` 1 � � � 1 1 11 1 1 ` 1 ' 11 � 1 111 � f 1 5 � a 1 f.. l MIADOWLARK SPfCif IC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX G SPINE STREET TREE: CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES - CARROTWOOD JACKARANDA ACUTIFOLLA - JACARANDA SPINE BACKGROUND TREE: BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS - BOTTLE TREE LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA - AMERICAN SWEET GUM TRISTANIA CONFERTA - BRISBANE BOX NEIGHBORHOOD THEME ACCENT STREET TREE: PLANNING AREA 1 : *AGONIA FLEXUDSA - PEPPERMENT TREE *PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD' - EVERGREEN PEAR *STENOCARPUS SINUATUS - FIREWHEEL TREE PLANNING AREA 2: *BAUHINLA BLAKEANA - HONG KONG ORCHID TREE *RHUS LANCEA - AFRICAN SUMMAC *ULMUS PARVIFOLIA - EVERGREEN ELM PLANNING AREA 3: *GEIJERA PARVIFLORA - AUSTRALIAN WILLOW *METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS - NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE PINUS CANARIENSIS - CANARY ISLAND PINE PLANNING AREA 4: *CALLISTEMON CITRINUS - LEMON BOTTLEBRUSH *LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI - CRAPE MYRTLE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA - SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA NEIGHBORHOOD THEME BACKGROUND TREE: PLANNING AREA 1 : LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA - AMERICAN SWEET'GUM PINUS ELDARICA - MONDELL PINE PRUNUS CERASIFERA - PURPLE-LEAF PLUM PLANNING AREA 2: *ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA - BRONZE LOQUAT PYRUS KAWAKAMI - EVERGREEN PEAR *TRISTANIA CONFERTA - BRISBANE BOX PLANNING AREA 3: *BRACHICHYtON POPULNEUS - BOTTLE TREE CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS - ITALIAN CYPRESS FICUS NITIDA - INDIAN LAUREL FIG I PLANNING AREA 4: *MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA - CAJEPUT TREE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR - FERN PINE PRUNUS CERASIFERA - PURPLE-LEAF PLUM TREE REQUIREMENT NOTE: -LOTS LESS THAN 45' WIDE TO RECEIVE ONE (1) 24" BOX TREE MIN. -LOTS GREATER THAN 45' WIDE TO RECEIVE ONE (1) 36" BOX TREE MIN. *TREES SUITABLE FOR 4'-6' WIDE PARKWAY AIADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN PUNT AAIFRIAL PALIT1� CITY OF WNTINGTON BEAU 5 , a t' l MEADOWLARK SH(If IC PLAN CITY Of BUNTINGTON BEACH APPCNDIX iI E mTm WTAM 9KA8fmLy FU 72" RCP =. � `� HOL AVENUE r - - — I T- / 48" RCP CONNECTS TO THE / 11 COUNTY'S SUNSET CHANNEL (C07) z PA-2 j PA-2 1 SCALE: 1"=300' y CONNECTS TO EXIST. s \ \ 48" RCP r STORM DRAIN IN BOLSA CHICA 48" RCP I r ^ Gen PA ram' r rW AW 3 PUBLIC / PARK f PA-1 48" RCP / (DETENTION " MTAM 48" RCP --�*FALY�L��SSSS 18 RCP �Q �Q Cif MIN Totas-x E7CSTFq TLTA T -� Fl13F FAILY FU ' COMMON j OPEN 0 SPACE _ 48" RCP a 1 1 U i I PA-3 Q , \ \ r ail PA-4 m i _ tas atss w+_Krr�F-te t TEmm C-3t FtRLE'�AIY Fl1 MEA� t _.. 'L _ rP7A HL11 FFAILY10 ALI LEGEND PROPOSED STORM DRAIN NOTE: I SPECIFIC STORM DRAIN DESIGN FOR -___I AREA SUBJECT TO EACH PLANNING C.U.P. PROCESS. ARDOWLARK SPRIT IC PLAN STORM DRAIN SYSTEM CITY Of HUNTINGTON MACH h 5 J ADDOWLARK SHCIf 1C PLAN CITY Of TIUNTINGTON BEAR APPENDIX I E=NQ M7AQB 3i3EfA LY 6U HEIL_ S AVENUE r c ! Z PA-2 j PA-2 �' 3 . 8 1-3t ` SCALE: 1"=300' ar 1 F• �1f� RR, I 1 PUBLIC ®69P/At r iir� r p � � ► PARK j `� . , IICCl1 '' i 03 w n 1 is-x T ' E76M7 OEfAQf'� r `f ' COMMON t ( ' / OPEN SPACE s 1 PA-3 PA-4 ' \ � I E7GSfPD OF7AG® E; \ Mmmw CR- J L Ti ' iM 2W J 3J-36 lElll-fNiT OEO -ice P•`23.. L�� �� -.- •i���i ^ICY; i .v^:':?° t s::r: 1 .':1:'c: !' •�i LE G ND �__ _ �` _;_ '_ ♦�■ PROPOSED SEWER � I � • r— - -, t,,. .,� '`' � � --cam--- EXISTING SEWER 121 NOTE: L 4 SPECIFIC SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN FOR EACH PLANNING AREA SUBJECT TO C.U.P. PROCESS. - M ADOWLARK SPICY OLAN SMR SYSTEM CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 ' I MEADOWLARK SPElf 1C PLAN CITY Of TIUNTINGTON BEAU APPRIX J E WW M79FED 941EDALY OU AVENUE_ q - PROPOSED 12" WATER r = LINE TO CONNECT TO l / 12„ 33 ou+a ►— EXISTING 12 WATER it [R zLINE IN HEIL AVENUE PA-2 I PA-2 SCALE: 1"=300' ! r t r J0. 71 PUBLIC r r -- � PARK " s, .� �---•omrw oEta� ir 8„ / ' _s 9[iF FNiY� � / COMMON r �'.��V�t�ca • OPEN SPACE �4 PA-3 ' 12" r sj PA-4 \ R EMM MEADOW cp.00 MA 201337 rE18�I` n-FNirO�O LEGEND PROPOSED WATER UNE EXISTING WATER UNE PROPOSED 12" WATER LINE TO CONNECT TO � •� -" � �1_ � EXISTING 8" WATER �_— _-� LINE IN PLAZA LANE IIL I-- I. 1 1. NOTE SPECIFIC WATER LINE DESIGN SUBJECT TO C.U.P. PROCESS. MEADOWI�RK SPECIFIC PLAN WATER SYSTEM CITY Of WNTINGTON BEACH a s MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX K I e , 11 i 4 MEADOWLARK•SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of WNTIKGTON BCAG APPENDIX L TOM uF DIREC 4 UN7Y OF L-R6XALTHC HEALTH ENVIRONUENTAL HEALTH OIVkt Z 1 ROBERT E MERRYMAN,REHs k DEPUTY DIREC' i 3 RAN C E MAILING ADDRESS:P.O.80X SANTA ANA,CA 92 HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION June 20, 1990 A 2009 E. EDINGER AVENUE ? SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92705 5 (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: I . 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 exposurb 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 hazarddus 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 tr6ly 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 f 5 l MEADOWLARK SPEIf IC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH -APPENDIX M 0 200 feet ( �_ 0 50 melees ? S 7 1 AREA 4 i / ASPLANE PAAeC:NG AREr1 3 i (� AREA ? •/\ AREA 1 -420 meter grid C • r. WARNER AVENUE l MEADOWLARK ARIA Of MEADOWLARK SPf CIf IC PLAN ARU GICAL CONCERNS CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAM M 4 ' s' i f MEADOWLARK SPfCIfIC PLAN CITY Of HUNtIRG10N BEACH -APPENDIX N E)24TN0 CETAQED p SM38fNLY 0;1 r HEIL AVENUE 'J ''{{R aua o �M rya Z � PA-2 PA-2 61 SCALE: 1"=300' r � t 1`EM.M OETAQO ^SH7.E FNLY 4U 0�4 Q T0. as W A133-38 snaE Fu<r I COMMON � '�:� �-- - OPEN . SPACE �at, -4 PA-3PH Nil PA-4 �_.—� .._.. .ill .. I _— n41-IA - W 030 F 33-36 ...{ i•i ... .g.= I FA LY 04 —y , --- I ,f� i __ lit• 7.:'C'i 43iG '..__--. +. LEGEND U/ — H i I, ` ._.— --- --• ® PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: ttt ( _ �L ;.._ „- .—i- ALL OTHER PLANNING AREA PHASING !I! - I( E^ r 1I'1I t1rF .k 11 SUBJECT TO C.U.P. PROCESS. r �s.a� �. I�j rk7i _ �. �� t. ncanaa L ; OPEN SPACE LOTS ADJACENT TO �••-:.-_ r�__.__Weou ��-••... •��.� SPINE ROAD WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS. MEADOWLARK SPICIfIC PLAN PHASING PION CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAN r• 4 ' a i t MEADOWLARK SPKIFIC PLAN CITY Of WN11HGION BEAM APPENDIX 0 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING \/r _1V COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TO MAIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 5' MIN. DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING t- zaV� COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL i TRANSITION TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - AMMAR SPElfIC PLAN CITY Of RUNTINGTON BEACR 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING OPEN PARKING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING (OR DRIVEWAY) a 5 A � �Yny►y,+ Z'tCT�h COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL �`EDGE TREATMENT FOR OPEN PARKING/DRIVEWAY I MIADOWIARK SKCIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH h 5 � a i I MIADOWIARK SPKIF1C PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPINDIX P � m O p -� O C � • Z � O � Z "0 r.a`.Zy'R� f M l 1` �. (�T�,',}:{y'�.,�f.,��'.,` .. 1 �.,:. ., 'i ,•� 5��_y� r �h ��-l*;�C:fir; I,: '.` i;,'`.,�i"5i`:J� ?�••', rt`+,,nhj,1.� nu:.M q+ � .4`f',�-►�1�5� ., ,,r,./�•.?. ,.i r' Ji••j.,.,�1� lj•:'tl�'.•s'.�?,4',�.'?t:F�'u'I y .y �tPl,� .J ,'ti.t.�: :, , ti'r •y—,y �d:•.:Pyt •J:J., '4 `J ti'. rn:•. ,'i �;i;..lrtt Sr J, a' w:�!';. J ft t�.'�r' ,.r�r,.. �'}'! .r,�h YI .Y j i h. 'Q,w�J k �_L.;��..��;,,^•�N�; .J�:,t` :.1r�,..�., •,IS;.,i�..; ••,x,�; v .�`7. 1- 't.A.,l t:�5.i�::3t .lS` ...+`' ,� 'v � t ', r. •-!� i f •"�cyVN. �21 f r7 Z MEADOWLARK HUN,rINGTON BEACH �v �1 C r r-t-t t� • n rti • Z 4 s I MEADOWLARK SPICIFIC PLAN CITY Of WNTINGTON BEACTI APPENDIX 0 �o Ln Ia I ' I • I , 15' I (MIN) 0' OR 5 (MIN) W Ln I s - I c I W 1 U1L/� 1L/11U lU1L/1 U 11 °. 10' I a (MIN)I . a z 15,ME I°. (MIN) I . uj `r' Iw 5 �Q I 13 I 3 Q (MIN) z ® Ln z 16' I 16 5' 4' 10, I o 1 5' (MIN) I ° ¢ (MIN) I w I •• z ro, OR 5'(MIN) H I zz oa cz) �n I I I � b ' . v I 1 1 Z!11 U1 L/_!1 U1 L /•`L�Cr...1L7�/1'C/1—t / —— MEADOWLARK SPf Cif IC PLAN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 1 CITY Of flUNTINGTON BIACfl NOT TO SCALi I v . I .o 15' I (MIN) � ��' I •• i 10' (MIN) E— �- I L.LJ 1 I W 8, ry I • o co I L-Li t02 18, 1 . 1.0 z 15' a (� (MIN) IZ I ' Ln (MIN) 10' 50' 32' 10, i 4' S' 16' 16' 5' 4' 13, (MIN) z (MIN) H I � 0 18' I 15' I O (MI N) I I . ARDOWLARK SPKIFIC PLAN CONCIPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 2 CITY Of HUNTINGTON BfA0 NOT TO SCALE l r tn I I 18, z 13' I (MIN) 151 i 42' 0 15' MIN (MIN) 12' 15' 16' 16' 5' `n 12' I °° (MIN) t 15' t .q z 15' MIN (MIN) a I " Ls_1 in cn I ® t w 12' i • 15, (MIN) I t� o (MIN) H I : �- 15' (MIN) e z I LAIADOWLARK SPICIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 3 CITY Of HUNTINGTON BCACTI NOT TO SCALD i M � I • v d• � d' I a � Z MI (MIN) I N N z 15 n 13' MIN I ° (MIN) I L.Li �r 18' I � 77,7 I 77/7 0 Z 42' N 0' OR 5'(MIN) j n M N 15' 16' 16' 5' < 15' w 15, MIN , Q (MIN) j z • I ,a . < I . LLJ z � 13' 15 a (MIN)¢; MIN I LEI ck� I I W 15' (MIN) 18 1 / I ° L_.LJ 0' OR 5'(MIN) 12' I u MIN I n 15' 15' MIN MIN MIADOWLARK SPICIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 4 CITY Of flUNTINGTON BCACTI NOT TO SCALE n 4 t t r l MEADOWLARK SPfCIf IC PLAN CITY Of 11UNTINGTON BCAG APPENDIX R i ' =T�, � ,. ��� _ >� _ ><<` p `' �.�a� fir=;. i'' Yn<;�.u��s�� a.,���. ����s •�„ a� %;,�;r;�' ���° R� to „Ira ,,,,... .,,,��^��a`� y�3p�'���4„ ?:�,', xri�..: .rrx�r>._, .z3��.;z,�aFe����"� 'ate� t, ,_�� �'� ,.rt"„�R,... ;z�• zYa``�'rii ,,,� .�k?,< ,.i,.;C;s,., z;a`•; � �� .<z't=.:?3 '..� .Y�k'�" .ct? ';Spa `,�ti+,{,g" =�3...,��a �::.:c� ..a�..c�,;,f ,,«.a ,S„,c�•.'.�' •�t-a'�-�t->-`fa� %"�` ;a..°����•^�'arw .�,,,��.���"�aa:....,,,�%' r�� ' ., ....:,tee ,. �<'..• ....".,;;,,� rd'Ss;:e.: Ymo,,;,.,:',.;.,< f`•.� a ::��•`•��•.., �tifm'*<���s4 n#�aW/Gar;�. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 97-1/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1: r,. 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 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 incorporate development standards for such development within the revised Specific Plan; and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 to revise/update the 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 and establish the boundaries for four(4) residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5du/net ac and 13.8du/net ac are consistent with the following objectives,policies, general land uses and policies specified in the General Plan. ' Goal L U 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective LU 9.1 Provide for the development of single-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. I 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. (PCCL0922-1) Policy LU 9.3.2 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. 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 LU 9.3.3 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. 2. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed project will reduce the previously approved map density for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area from six hundred(600)dwelling units to three hundred forty-five(345)dwelling units. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The compact lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single-family detached homes at more affordable prices. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. i i (PCCL0922-2) 5. The proposed residential densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area, range from 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net.acre, and provide a gradual transition between the commercial and medium high density attached residential uses (RMI )to the south of the property and the existing low density detached residential uses (RL)to the north, east and west. 6. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay(M-sp) which permits development of commercial and residential uses and allows the Specific Plan to govern the exact density, location and mix of uses. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing commercial center and incorporates single family residential development at densities ranging between 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net acre 7. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring 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 in order to address land use compatibility issues related to compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. 8. The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. 9. The revised Specific Plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. 10. 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. 11. Grading within the Specific Plan area 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. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20)days. No comments were received during the comment period. (PCCL0922-3) 2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s)the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring ten percent(10%) of proposed units,to be affordable by entering into an affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the Huntington Beach City Council. 2. Tlie 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 will 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 Planning 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 Play and CUP/TTM are reduced to a level less than significant. The subject plan shall be subject to 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 are non-hazardous, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. 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 Geotechnical 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 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: (PCCL09224) 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits,that 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. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,that 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 barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with the 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 may be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for the 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(8) ft. 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) are 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. (PCCL0922-5) 3 Yl m f 0 � �` ' � � , �� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTS F`OR�M OFHUNTINM- .....®N " _ 5 a �� Zdy'�0`"�r b� .�+Sav a.M§ �se' •"� a' �s P �-- ,�e P+�; �6 a � F PUNNING N � �� � � ENVI�RONMENTAL�°�ASSESSMENT�NO97�'21� ��-` � `� 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 D'Eliscu 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: Project 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 GAWOLFEVv EADOWLATA.DOC • 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. • Providr, a phased development plan, which coincides with the available capacity in the sewer and dater 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, it has been concluded that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) referencing Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 2 04/24/98 GAWOLFE WADOWLATA.DOC (r Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines (incorporation by reference the prior certified EIR) is the appropriate environmental review process for the proposed project. Two 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 Pro%ct 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 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.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 GA WOLFEMEADO WLATA.DOC Grading Grading 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-SO/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. 7. .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 a-ad water systems. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 5 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.DOC ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ZLand Use & Planning 191 Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources 19 Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics 0 Water O Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Qua4ity 0 Noise 19 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. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have.a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to R 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 ad ress April 24, 1998 /Si ature Date y Wolfe Project Planner Printed Name Title Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 6 04/24/98 GAWOLFEVV EADOWLATA.DOC EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. "Potentially,Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation-of mitigation measures has I-educed 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 GAWOLFE NMADOWLATA.DOC `. .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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ zoning? (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Source: 3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEWEADO WLA\EA.DOC r _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 prune 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 local population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 A W OLFEW EADO W LATA.D OC ..entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (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) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ liquefaction? (Sources: 6, 7,8) d) $eiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Sources: 3, 6, 8) e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Source: 3, 6) ❑ ❑ ❑ fl . Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 6,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 3, 6, 8) ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ (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 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (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 15f 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 ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ related hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 any water body? (Sources: 1,6) e) Changes in currents, or the course or ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 direction of water movement? (Sources: 1,6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 11 04/24/98 GAWOLFE NEADOWLATA.DOC _.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 GAW OLFEW EADOWLATA.DOC _.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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 development 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Source: 1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ E temperature? (Source: 2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 GAWOLFEWEADO WLAEA.DOC ( r- - t-ucentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (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? ❑ ❑ O ❑ (Sources: 2, 11, 16,17) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ O ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2, 16,17) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 14 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.DOC —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ site? (Sources: 2, 16,17) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ bicyclists? (Sources: 2, 16,17) fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ Z alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC .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 ❑ ❑ ❑ their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source: 5) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ trees)? (Source: 5) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ .❑ 91 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source: 5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 vernal pool)? (Source: 5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Source: 5) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 16 04/24/98 GA W OLFEAMADO WLATA.DOC ,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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 plans? (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 and inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 6) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ 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 GAWOLFON EADOWLAEA.DOC ..centrally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 hazards? (Source: 2, 18) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.DOC lentially 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: ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ 2,6,12, 19) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ (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 04/24/98 GAWOLFENEADOWLMEA.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 i}npacts 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFE NEADOWLAEA.DOC 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 ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ Fire Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Source: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ z ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Source: School Districts) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Source: City of ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ 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) ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment- or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ distribution facilities? (Sources: 5, 6) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,6) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ fl Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ N ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 21 04/24/98 GAWOLMNEADO WLATA.DOC —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? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1,3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ effect? (Sources: 1,2) c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ 191 ❑ 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEMEADO WLATA.DOC . —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: ❑ ❑ ❑ z 14) b) Disturb archaeological . resources? - (Source: ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 14) c) Affect historical resources? (Source: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which would affect unique. ethnic cultural values? (Source: 5) e) Restrict _ existing religious or sacred uses ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ p ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (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 GAWOLFEVMEADO WLA\EA.DOC / .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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (Sources: 3) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 24 04/24/98 GAWOLFEUEADOWLATA.DOC .,•centially 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 ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 GAWOLFEMEADO WLA\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 6 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 G:\W0LFE\NffiAD0WLA\EA.DoC 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 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC Attachment No. 1 Project Vicinity Map EDINGER AVE. :• DEL MAR _ J LANE = HEIL` AVE . IT). 4 W N _ (n Z U O Q Q v _ .rl PEARCE _ z - - - ¢. Q. _ - Ezi . O PROXCT PEE SITELAN ' WARNER AVE _ I SLATER AVE . •.'.t:::t . S?Fc.tFle—TLA.z AAA. CZT�./zeiA) 1L.. x--�1,72.�1'Ll�.tr ?�FLTIOTI (GU4 f'T"L�� " III 111 1! j! 1 Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 28 04/24/98 GA WOLFEMEADO WLATA.DOC y . a - �l- J J — .as•l. � ";�'-.�..���w i WSRSR MA �r- i Gr}�i $-3� -+-'w•,.s� x,- � �..1 _ +lt•.��'- - '�`,Z.i, �3�'-r-F r'��,=+.A��+�Ir.fit�T� \ j"t�:.- �.c =-ter.,r�_�t�-�-s 'a -st'%�:- ��3��,�,•�! {A�F�-`ta�Y4�"L t 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 GAWOLFEMADOWLAEA.DOC 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 GAWOLFE NEADOWLATA.DOC 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 GA W OLFE\MEADO W LA\EA.DOC 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 GAWOLMN EADOWLAEADOC sh, .1j� „Nr �#:. "7;'',✓� „:\;•�\try u<i;,,- ,i,/.'� �MM eM.. :���•'•�,,.�; r: ,,,, ram% �,�,,,, •�� �`n•�•• .,a' tfi,,, .< ��i�..U�.:4a;�:," ;i'; .... ...' m: MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (February 18, 1999) ISSUE.,_ ., CATELLUS� _;?: PL�INNING �; : �f,�STAFF REC. - n: $TAPE: '., STAFF �. COMPROMISE., . „y PROPOSAL ,:�COMM. ALTERNATIVE#1 ALTERNATIVE#.2 ALTERNATIVE #3,� 1. Site Parking/ Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all Provide fire sprinklers in PA-3 all res. units res. units and PA-4 b) Private Street Width 32'—parking on one Same as 40' 36'—parking on both 32'—parking on one 32'-parking on one side with (Curb to curb) side Catellus sides side approval by PW&red paint stripe on other side c) Spine Road Width 32'—no parking on Same as 32'—no parking on 32'—no parking on 32'—no parking on 32'- with 43 parking spaces (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus both sides both sides both sides which include 20 spaces for park parking d) Pearce Street Width 32'—parking on one Same as 40'—parking on both 36'—parking on both 36'—parking on both 40'-parking on both sides by via"I"and"K" (Curb side Catellus sides sides sides eliminating parkways to curb) e) Distribution of guest Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional Pocket guest parking on Spine parking spaces adequate guest parking Catellus distributed distributed "pocket"guest parking Rd.and 40' "1-&"K"with parking space distribution throughout project throughout project spaces throughout along both sides of the street project f) Tandem Parking 79 units(PA1 &PA4) 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted Allowed in PA 1 only (23 DUs); have tandem spaces acceptable approved by PC eliminate tandem in PA-4 g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20'; Amend Min. 20'x 20'for all Min. 18'x 19'with Min. 18'x 19'with Min. 18'x 19'with min. 400 sq.ft. Dimensions(PA 3 200 units @ min. M.S.P.to units min. 400 sq.ft. as min.400 sq. ft. as as approved by the PC &4) 18'x19'w/400 sq.ft. permit approved by the PC approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. land Same as 4.2 ac.(3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land dedication) dedication)plus park Catellus dedication)plus park dedication)plus park dedication) plus park plus park improvements& improvements& in-lieu improvements& improvements& improvements& in-lieu fees at$516,500/ac. fees at$500,000/ac. in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at OR $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. Planning Commission Rec. b) Park Use Neighborhood Park Same as Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park w/ Neighborhood Park w/multi-use Catellus w/multi-use fields w/multi-use fields multi-use fields fields c) Park Parking 16 spaces 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses Adj.to Park 7 units next to park Same as None None None Permitted Catellus MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX(Cont.) ISSUE : ' m. CATELLUS: �,`.:: " PLANNING STAFF REC. .:._.'.-STAFF _ STAFF. ;' , COMPROMISE PROPOSAL ' COMM `REC. --ALTERNATIVE'#1. ALTERNATIVE#2 > �`.' ALTERNATIVE�#3= 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths 5'(PA 1 &2) Same Min. 6'(PA 1&2) Min. 6'(PA 1&2) Min. 6'(PA 1&2) Min.5'(PA-1 &PA-2),no parkways along"I"and"K" b) Sidewalk Widths 5'(PA 3&4) Same Min. 6'(PA 3&4) Min. 6'(PA 3&4) Min. 6'(PA 3&4) Min.5'(PA-3&PA-4) c) Front Setbacks Min. 15' Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA4) allow 2'2nd story to permit 2' setback without projections projections projections d) Rear Setbacks Min. 13'& 15'; Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 13'& Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2'2"d story to permit 2' 15'setback s projections projections without projections e) Fencing -Exterior/perimeter: -Block Wall -Block Wall -Block Wall Same as PC Same as PC -Block Wall -Interior/rear: -Wood Fencing -Block Wall -Block Wall -Wood Fencing 4. Administration a) Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Agree to process 1-year Agreement extension NOTE: Items in bold lettering(ref.to Alt.#3 column)denote new modifications/items (") Requires a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council .'nm bkS'z�� - 4 � fps �� � (� _ e_iK• �,�� a Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: January 25, 1999 Department.ID Number: CD99-04 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �. REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS � SUBMITTED BY: , RAY SILVER, City Administrator A11161 . PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Diirrector fJ�7 Za_� / SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01'AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97- 21 (MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21. These applications represent a City initiated request to amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan document to allow for development of single family detached dwellings on small-lots within the residential portion of ,the Meadowlark Specific Plan area and to establish standards for such development. On September 22, 1998 the Planning Commission approved the request with a 5-2 vote and is recommending approval of the Specific Plan amendment (Recommended Action - A) because the small-lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing. In addition, on December 3, 1998 the Planning Commission took minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three changes to the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). The changes pertain to garage size, rear yard setback and front yard setback requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the Specific Plan amendment with revisions (Recommended Action - B) in order to address design impacts associated with development of small-lots/address site parking, emergency access, public park and community aesthetic issues and ensure its compliance with General Plan goals objectives and policies. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT.NOS. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark?Specific Plan with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) with three revisions approved by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)", and 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. jL11 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) with minute action changes approved on December 3, 1998 reflected below". Planninci Commission Action on September 22, 1998: THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY. TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998: 1. . THE MOTION MADE BY TILLOTSON, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)TO THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM GARAGE AREA OF 400 SQ. FT. TO BE PROVIDED FOR AUTOMOBILE AND GENERAL STORAGE IN PLANNING AREAS 3 AND 4. MINIMUM INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE 18 FT. BY 19 FT. DEEP. GENERAL HOUSEHOLD STORAGE AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS PRESENTED BY CRG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 3, 1998: 03' AYES: LIVENGOOD, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER t k NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE, INGLEE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE o ' MOTION PASSED 2. THE MOTION MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION TO THE DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO PERMIT SECOND STORY PROJECTIONS, NO GREATER THAN 24 INCHES, WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN PLANNING AREA 3: AYES: INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE , ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED 3. THE MOTION MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION TO THE DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO PERMIT SECOND-STORY PROJECTIONS, NO GREATER THAN 24 -INCHES, WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN PLANNING AREA 4: AYES: LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS ABSENT: EJIDDLE (out of the room) ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED f B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97- 01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to reflect staffs recommended changes" (E. Summary). 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. 5 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) with revisions to reflect staffs recommended changes" (E. Summary). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may.make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue.Negative.Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01, and direct staff accordingly." 2. " Deny Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No..97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01, with findings." a� i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach 4 Location: Six hundred feet (600) ft. east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue (former Meadowlark airport site). Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 represents a request to consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Conceptual .Master Plan into a single document; to modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family detached. dwellings on small-lots; to incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Specific Plan document (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 , 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. 97-04; to establish the boundaries for four (4) residential planning areas with net densities ranging from 9.5 dwelling units per acre (6.5 dwelling units per gross acre) and 13.8 dwelling units per acre (9 dwelling units per gross ;acre); and to incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Environmental Assessment /Negative Declaration No. 97-21 represents a request to analyze environmental impacts associated with the proposed Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning and map amendments (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) . 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. The existing Development Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the Nerio Family for development proposals on the Meadowlark property will remain in effect until its stated term expiration date (July 1999), completion of the project in accordance with the. agreement, or default. CD99-04 .2. 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Existing Specific Plan Development Summary The current Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 7, 1988, and allows development of approximately fifteen acres with commercial uses and a maximum of six hundred dwelling units (single family detached, multi-family medium density and multi-family medium-high density) within the remaining fifty (50) acres of the Meadowlark property. The commercial portion was developed subsequent to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP No. 90-45) allowing development of 122,665 sq., ft. shopping center in 1991 (Meadowlark Plaza). The residential portion of the property is currently vacant. The approved residential product, density and acreage distribution is as follows: ;Acres Type of unit Density .18.acres (min) Detached Single-family 7du/ac 20 acres (max) Attached Multi-family 12 du/ac (Medium Density) 12 acres (max) Attached Multi-family 20 du/ac (Med/High Density) Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan Development Concept Summary The proposed Meadowlark Specific Plan 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). One of the goals of the Specific Plan is to allow for development that is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and the City of Huntington Beach. The Meadowlark residential community is intended to be designed in the form of distinct, complementary and interconnected "neighborhoods" (Planning Areas) with safe and well functioning streets and park areas. The Specific Plan identifies four pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, multiple recreational areas;and a meandering pedestrian promenade/ Spine Road, which links the residential ell and commercial segment of the Specific Plan area. The streets are proposed to be narrower, tree lined and connected to the public park, private mini-parks and community serving facilities. Landscaped parkways are proposed to be provided to enhance the pedestrian friendly.community design concept. All four residential planning areas are proposed to be developed concurrently. The mix of housing is intended to allow a broader range of product types and includes conventional small-lot, zero-lot line and z4ot 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 CD99-04 -3- 01/21/99 7:31 PM 6 -(q t REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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. Sections 3.2 — 3.11 of the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (EXHIBIT "A" OF ATTACHMENT NO. 1) provide detailed descriptions of each of the following document 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 L'andscape Concept 3.10 Archeology 3.6 public Facilities 3.11 Phasing Plan B. BACKGROUND The 1988 Meadowlark Specific Plan does not address residential development on small lots within the Meadowlark property. On June 24, 1997 Catellus Residential Group submitted a draft for small-lot development standards in conjunction with a master plan layout for.the development of 330 single family dwellings on small-lots on the subject site. A Planning Commission subcommittee was formed to evaluate the small-lot development concept and establish city-wide development standards. The Planning Commission small-lot subcommittee held several meetings and reviewed numerous design issues associated with the subject design concept utilizing the Meadowlark proposal as their focus of discussion and analysis. A recommendation was developed with direction to staff to prepare an ordinance. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: .._ On June 16, 1998 the Planning Commission held the first public hearing on this proposal and considered the staff recommended draft Meadowlark Specific Plan and associated issues. Additional public hearings were conducted and on. September 22, 1998, the Commission approved the amended Meadowlark Specific'Plan with numerous modifications (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). , On Delcember 3, 1998, the Planning Commission held a special meeting and considered the development by CRG (CUP No. 97-80, TTM 15469, ND No. 97-21) involving construction of 313 single family detached dwellings within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan.area. Staff recommended denial of the proposal based on non-compliance with the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998. At that meeting the project proponent requested amendments to the draft. Meadowlark Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed product type. The Planning Commission considered the request and as part of minute action, indicated that the City Council should consider additional revisions to the Specific Plan document related to garage use/ design standards, and allowances for building projections within the front and rear yard setback areas (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). These suggested modifications would be necessary to avoid CD99-04 -4- 01/22/99 9:43 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 revisions to the CRG proposal and bring it in compliance with the revised Specific Plan document. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning, Fire, Public Works, Community Services and Police Department are not in support of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Development proposal. Discussion of project, General Plan compliance and analysis of outstanding Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment related issues follow: 1. General Plan Compliance The Meadowlark Specific Plan is intended to set forth the planning concept, design guidelines, development standards and administrative procedures necessary to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The goal of the Specific Plan is to establish the framework for development of a high quality planned community. 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, Article 8 and 9 of the California Government Code Section 65459 et. seq. The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan has evolved to its current form and contents through a lengthy public hearing process. During the public hearing and review process a multitude of issues associated with the development of this Specific Plan to accommodate small-lot development were attempted to be addressed. Because of the interrelated impacts of one issue, and its potential solution, to other Specific Plan aspects and due to efforts to accommodate the submitted CRG development proposal/ product type, a number of issues still remain unresolved. Outstanding Specific Plan issues are discussed in detail in Sections 2-5 of the project's Analysis and include park and recreation facility needs, emergency access, planning/design and safety issues. Staff has determined, based on the significance of unresolved issues impacts, that the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan document is not in compliance with the following goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan: 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: Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the following: Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. CD99-64 .5- 01/22/99 9:43 AM r �� t Q(� REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Objective CE 1.3 Provide a circulation/transportation system which enhances and minimizes response time needed for emergency vehicles. Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well-designed and convenient on and off-street parkingjacilities throughout the City. Objective CE 5.1 Balance'the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment, the community image, or quality of life. Objective CE 6.1 Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City-wide standards. Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1 Create an integrated park system that is complementary to existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Goal RCS 3 Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. f CD99-04 -6- 01/21/99 7:31 PM. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 2. Site Parkingl Emergency Access a. Private Street Curb to Curb Width The Planning Commission bpproved Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes reductions to street section design standards for private streets within the project area, specifically, it includes; reduced curb to cdrb paved street widths (PA 1-4); reduced sidewalk widths (PA 3 and 4) and; reduced landscaped parkway widths (PA 1 and 2) -please refer to the diagr9m below for terminology application-. Street Right of Way L-d>a,ped cure to cure t a„�a* Street Right of Way Sidewalk Parkway (Paved SuwSeccion) Pukw%y idewalk Landscaped curb to care kyed Sidewalk, Parkway (Paved S"dse ion) Paw saewalk > > �ti•' 3 > > > •i it > > > >�>�> •�f�f >`>S> >e> Ye>e> > > > > s > .'• >S>f> 31 Staffs position on the proposed private street curb to curb width is as follows: Issue: The Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes 32 ft wide curb to curb paved street sections for the private streets throughout the project area. The City has in the past approved projects with reduced street sections and restricted on-street parking along one side of the street. In terms of this Specific Plan proposal, staff originally supported reduced street widths in the context of an overall framework for a small-lot master planned community plan that could accommodate the necessary parking, storage and open space needs. The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan does not comply with the City's policy practice and HBZSO requirements for residential parking and park parking requirements. The Specific Plan does not address minimum park parking standards and allows for tandem parking within Planning Area 1 and 4 to satisfy minimum parking requirements (please refer to discussion below) which could negatively impact on-street parking by; forcing overflow on-site parking on streets inadequately designed to CD99-04 -7- 01/21/99 12:08 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: , CD99-04 accommodate the additional number of automobiles and creating conditions which could prevent adequate emergency vehicle access throughout the project and impact emergency response time. The Fire Department has expressed concerns with the proposed reduced street width development standards ano, has indicated that development on the Meadowlark property should provide: uncompromising Fire Department access and turn-around areas on residential streets; should satisfy critical response standards (5 minute response time - 80% of the time to all areas of the community); and provide adequate emergency egress for evacuating residents from dwellings during emergency conditions while providing for emergency vehicle ingress. Fire Department staff believes that the proposed Meadowlark small-lot development standards, if implemented as proposed in the CRG development proposal, will impair fire'access to emergency events. The Fire Department does not support the street width reduction proposed by the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Man. Public Works staff conducted a windshield survey to determine compliance of on-street parking restrictions within small-lot projects with reduced street widths. In addition staff conducted informal interviews and obtained information regarding storage and garage . . space needs from property owners/ residents of small-lot development projects. Overall staff found that on-street parking restrictions were not implemented as intended. Generally on-street parking on residential streets with reduced street sections occurs on both sides regardless of imposed Fire Department limitations. Moreover staff found that residents of small-lot projects generally desired additional garage and/or storage areas. It is staffs opinion, based on emergency access, parking and storage needs and inherent enforcement issues built in small-lot development projects with limited on-street parking and reduced street widths, that the curb to curb street section proposed in the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan would not properly address project parking and emergency vehicle access needs. Staff believes the proposed Specific Plan should incorporate street section design standards, which accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the street. Staff Recommendation: A minimum of forty (40) ft curb to curb paved street sections should be provided for private streets throughout Planning Area 1-4 orthirty-six (36) ft curb to curb street sections with fire sprinkled dwelling units. b. Pearce Street Connection (Street "I" and "K") Issue: Pearce Street will be extended through Planning Area 1 and will ultimately connect Bolsa Chica Street and Heil Avenue via the Spine Road. A segment of the Pearce Street connection (Street "I" and Street "K") is proposed to be constructed in accordance with CD99-04 -8- 01/22/99 11:47 AM ' REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 modified private.street standards providing thirty-two (32) ft curb to curb paved width with parking on one side; five (5) ft landscaped parkways and; four (4) ft sidewalks on both sides of the street. Although the Pearce Street connection is proposed to be designed as a local residential street, the subject road segment (Street "I" and "K") as well as the . remaining portion of Pearce Street will function as a collector once the connection between Bolsa Ghica Street and Heil Avenue is made. Based on the anticipated street use, traffic as well as on-street parking impacts, staff believes that the subject street segment should be designed as a public street, to address parking and emergency access concerns. Staff Recommendation: The Pearce Street connection,should be designed based on public street standards as follows: 40 ft curb to curb paved street section with parking on both sides; 6 ft wide landscaped parkways and; 4 ft wide sidewalks (60 ft total right-of-way street width). c. Tandem Parking Issue: The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan permits tandem parking to satisfy minimum parking requirements within Planning Area 1 and 4. Historically the City has not approved residential subdivisions with tandem parking. This subdivision would be precedent setting in this regard. Staff believes the proposed tandem design solution does not provide the:functional convenience and accessibility offered by side by side parking. Staff anticipates that this condition, combined with reduced street sections, will result in overflow parking along street frontages and negative impacts to on-street parking. l PLAN 2 P LAN 3 ow Pit-j RM 1 _ PA-1 W 3 PARIaIiG CHB11 '?Rai i Ea111111 CD99-04 -9- 01/21/9912:08 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends deletion of the tandem parking provisions from the Meadowlark Specific Plan and supports application of the current HBZSO provisions which do not allow tandem parking configurations to satisfy minimum required parking. 3. Public Park Issues a. Specific Plan Park Dedication, Improvements and in-lieu fees Issue:.The Planning Commission approved draft Meadowlark Specific Plan document contains language that requires dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark community in conjunction with improvement of 0.8 acre of undeveloped Norma Gibbs Park area and payment of parkland dedication in-lieu fees equal to $500,000 per acre to satisfy the balance of the parkland dedication obligation for development on the subject site. Staff believes that inclusion of the aforementioned parkland dedication language in the Specific Plan is inappropriate and places the City at a disadvantage because; it does not adequately address park and recreation impacts; it limits the City's ability to recommend and evaluate alternate park development scenarios which do not involve placement of the park adjacent to Norma Gibbs Park; and precludes periodic adjustment of the parkland dedication in-lieu fees to reflect fair market park land value applicable at the time of project approval (CUP/TTM). The City has set its park standard at five (5) acres per one-thousand (1000) people. Under the Quimby Act, the City has the option of accepting fees in-lieu of land dedication. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO section 254.08H) 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. Oair 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. Based on Quimby Act and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the required parkland dedication obligation for the permitted 345 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area is 5.92 acres (345 units X 3.43 density factor X 5 acres /1000 = 5.92 ac). As indicated above, the subject parkland dedication, at the City's discretion, may be satisfied by land dedication only, in-lieu fees or a combination thereof. CD99-04 -10- 01/21/99 7:31 PM P^ lot 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 CRG contends that the 1989 Meadowlark Development Agreement provide that the City can not require any exaction, including park dedication, that is not specifically authorized by the Agreement and the Approvals, however, the developer has agreed to satisfy parkland in-lieu requirements based on a land value of$500,000 per acre. Upon review of applicable documents the City Attorney's Office has concluded that the City can require parkland dedication for the development of the subject property. Specifically, the City Attorney has determined that parkland dedication is an allowable exaction under the Development Agreement and applicable 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. Therefore parkland dedication requirements apply to the development of the Meadowlark site and CRG's parkland dedication in-lieu fee contribution should not be viewed as voluntary. Chapter 99 of the HBOC states that the fair market value of land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser for purposes of determining in-lieu fees. The Community Services Department initiated an appraisal because the current parkland dedication land value ($181,900) per acre was based on a 1990 land appraisal. It has been determined, based on this recently completed appraisal by a City retained qualified appraiser, that the current land value within the vicinity of the project area is $516,500 per acre, thus strict land dedication of 5.92 acres would have a real value of $3,057,680. Assuming that the City was to accept raw land as the park dedication requirement for the development of the Specific Plan area, it would then have to fund the subject park's improvements. Current park development costs are approximately $150,000 per acre. Thus the City would need to appropriate $888,000 to develop the park site. Staff evaluated the proposed Specific Plan amendment, assessed project.impacts to the community and has concluded that the proposed development of single family detached homes on small lots (345 du max) will have a significant impact on at least two major areas of the city's park and recreation system; youth and sports facilities and active neighborhood park uses. This conclusion is based on an analysis of the youth sports needs assessment study and the condition of the surrounding parks and school facilities that could meet the above stated needs. Staff's position is that a minimum of 4.2 acres of parkland should be dedicated in conjunction with payment of in-lieu fees at $516,500 per acre/to satisfy the balance of the project's parkland dedication obligation, thus address project park and recreational needs and impacts of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. CRG parkland dedication, improvement and in-lieu fees proposal(313 dwelling units) The CRG development proposal includes dedication and improvement of 2.4 acres of neighborhood parkland plus development of 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park for a total of 3.2 acres of active Neighborhood Park. The aforementioned dedication and improvements in conjunction with private recreational amenities on the project site (pool, meeting room, CD99-04 -11- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 tot lot) are intended to satisfy the minimum recreational needs for the proposed development. Staff believes that a 3.2 acre active neighborhood park site will not fully, address the active neighborhood park demand impacts of the project due to its insufficient size and lack of buffer areas. The following outlines the applicant's proposal in a matrix form. .r�:a:: '.,�'>L, .,{- . rt.PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREM NT-FOR>, A R 31'3;DWELLING3 _m°rire.'"'?,c`.;•q:.':::=?ve.;. ,..x•„...":"? a...,o-.,. •, w, w`^i7i;y',t ,Ft' ..ivi" kM.rr;:i s"'3<c ro'+',3:f rtt J�:,,.;,,x '.;4.:^.,...0 r':d�{� .. .L• .vnv'r •'y",^.''y v�•x t_ "&�Gxf'".,.>• .,,,rram� ..yy .y'.#Y:t':.�;- :!`' ., Y'a'.r'L.=., .,�_ .;;#,«tf•rs..y,; -..It >..�,;,ut:' .q^s:n: ..['..;tz�'- r;�x iR'R'�+3�'t�> wnY. '�.^ .R .k•- -XY;... 3 c>.9,•«' >d�#b 9='r:.ti,,6<...,. �:�..��• a'� CRG"PRQPOSAL :.-"�_, .x�>'<:...�... �. � ,;'.T, ..;L� :E,,... "n;,ter >4'W.,t. -,'=:,^ •�afa.>�" ft r$�,p ..ty i•:�•:r`= ��=�4 a.z��e.,....; a" m - % ''.. .>..�°:<:.u...Ff,"►=':: $ Value Comments Park dedication of 2.4. 1,200,000 Value of land is based on estimate acres (2.4 ac X $500,000/ac) accepted by the Planning Commission ($500,000 /ac) prior to completion of land value appraisal by the City. In lieu-fees for 2.97 acres 1,485,000 (5.37 ac—2.4 ac = 2.97 ac X $500,000/ ac) Total 5.37 ac 2,685,000 Staff and the Community Services Commission recommends a minimum of 3.4 acres of parkland dedication and improvement of 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park in order to develop a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park which could accommodate minimum practice field areas and incorporate adequate buffer zone(s) between the various sports activities (AYSO soccer, Little League baseball, etc.) as well as practice field areas and adjacent residential properties. In addition, based on the City Attorney's opinion regarding applicable parkland dedication provisions, it is recommended that park dedication in-lieu fees be paid, equal to the difference between project parkland obligation (5.37ac) and land dedicated ( 3.4ac), based on the appraised land value of$516,500 per acre. These fees will be utilized to improve the 3.4 acres dedicated by the applicant; improve 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park; reconstruct the tennis courts at Harbour View School; and construct lighting improvements at Marina High School. Staffs opinion is that these off-site improvements will mitigate project impacts on youth and adult sports facilities. The following outlines the above staff recommendation and dollar value of the project's parkland dedication obligation in a matrix form. CD99-04 -12- 01/21/99 7:31 PM ' p--h � 15 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 � �w��:PARKL:AN_D::DEDIGATIONREQUIREMENT: FOR',537�AGRES/�313�LDV1%ELLINGS =�� •�:,� .{. , u.€�-,,, - ,«,.y:.� °-.;N.,,`-,y;°;;,"'*"Y„1^"zx�?'« ,'t5:' ���i:R..r,;.;ia,�i-re,;; ',';,:,;° r:.",v :''.Ln,t:r<Z .,, «F"..•,4- ...ri�r. i$;,_�, e :.M.,,, .. „Y: -r .,"'y ,,:,t, :.:'.:.;. t;'�, ,ti..-e- .,: �n"an�,.,I, '`a+,, Ka ^'yx"�z : :w3;ts=;, K,',r,,�Z-�.w:, .a.;>- �, .;"-'•` -.� '„�<'-.>� ���-..,::..�„''` r °�°a# ':'�,r :, ,<r.;c:,'-t 'sC..' ::,:e.¢� ,}:.X. �«x. �a,`:`�;lv•^t';:§';.Y';%'* :�°.:`:'',�S",;n"rr%',�,.. ,.,cY,•,..-.�'__ �"., .k, vi.;;'. ,.�' .3:; •$,. . M=$' �q'. I>'..:. rog,,,,..;.'a.";.y.,•ayy-<z�-- xS&ic..-°%,`^S,:k;..Q.:.;.:. .,�:"` �:, z`:�. ;.7,. z'ls,�"S`"`:n L%i;L;r....k,.»:%:4:::v=,a��..._sksa' :C.4i,..�•u.2+,.&`s.`,rk,.a,-° ' ;bs.'� ^'X3az. ,..`.a.�--r.�aa.�`:,�:.;,a3:?<rg""w'r`P-:`^a,t._- M?' :'"2��,:>:,..".�°�;-:? i$ Value Comments Park dedication of 3.4 1,756,100 Value of land is based on recent land acres: '(3.4 ac X $516,500/ appraisal valuation of $516,500 /acre ac) In lieu-fees for 1.7 ac 1,017,505 The amount of in lieu-fees shall be (5.37 ac— 3.4 ac = allocated as follows; 1.97 acres X $516,500) a. Park improvements of the 3.4 acre park and 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park (4.2 acres total active neighborhood park—4.2 acres X $ 150,000 /ac park impr.= $630,000) and Allocation of $ 387,505 (remaining in-lieu park fee funds $1,017,505 - $630,000 = $387, 505) towards reconstruction of tennis courts at Harbour View School and lighting improvements at Marina High School. Total 5.37 ac 12,773,605 Staff believes the aforementioned parkland dedication alternative will adequately address project impacts to the City's parks and recreation system, accommodate the needs of the Meadowlark community residents, provide the necessary facilities concurrently with the development of the subject proposal and will eliminate City fiscal impacts associated with initial park improvements of the proposed neighborhood park site. Staff Recommendation: Revise the parkland dedication language contained in the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Section 3.4 - Open Space / Recreation) to reflect development of a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park and payment of in-lieu fees based on fair market park land value in accordance with HBZSO dedication requirement. CD99-04 -13- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 b. Public Park Parking Issue: The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan does not address minimum park parking requirements. The Public Works Department analyzed the parking needs for the future public neighborhood park. Based on a daily trip generation rate of 5.9 trips per park acre and anticipated uses fgr practice ball fields staff determined that a minimum of 20 parking spaces will be necessary to accommodate parking for park users. CRG asserts that a total of 16 parallel parking spaces along the easterly side of the Spine Road adjacent to the Park will adequately mitigate park parking needs for a 3.2 acre park. Staff believes that 16 parking spaces will not properly address future parking needs. Staff is concerned that parking park impacts will negatively affect circulation on private residential streets to the north and south of the park site which are proposed to only accommodate parking on one side of the street. Staff Recommendation: Require a minimum of 20 parking spaces to be provided for public park users.' c. Dwellings adjacent to the Public Park Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan includes limited language on pork design issues pertaining to consideration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, but does not incorporate design standards/provisions for buffer areas between park and residential land uses/activities. The Community Services Department has expressed concerns regarding lack of adequate buffer areas between the public park and adjoining land uses and the placement of homes along the park's periphery. Moreover, Police Department staff has discouraged the placement of single family homes adjacent to the neighborhood park for safety and crime prevention reasons. Overall, from a land use planning, safety and code enforcement standpoint staff believes that provision of a buffer area between the residential and park site activities is warranted to ensure safety, preserve residential area privacy and proper land use function and additional design provisions/standards should be included in the Spedfic Plan to mitigate land use compatibility and safety issues. Staff Recommendation: Incorporate provisions/standards in the Specific Plan to ensure: land use compatibility between the park and adjacent residential uses; adequate surveillance of the park site; and security for adjacent properties, by prohibiting placement of residential homes immediately adjacent to the park (rear yard design condition) and maximizing park visibility, public access and land use buffering by means of aligning roadways along the park's perimeter. CD99-04 -14- 01/21/99 7:31 PM ' REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 4. Community Aesthetics a. Sidewalk Design (PA3 and PA4) Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes five (5) ft wide monolithic sidewalks vith flare-outs, to accommodate street furniture clearances, within Planning Area 3 and 4. The subject sidewalk design is not in compliance with City Standards. Staff finds the p1rdposed design inappropriate, particularly in the context of small-lot development proposals where narrower lot frontages, reduced setbacks and frequent driveway curb cuts limit land availability and furniture placement affects pedestrian access. In summary staff believes that the modified sidewalk design does not represent the optimum design solution and it can affect overall street appearance and function. Staff Recommendation: Require provision of six (6) ft. wide sidewalks within Planning Area 3 and 4. b. Landscape Parkway Design (PA1 and PA 2) Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan requires five (5) ft. wide landscaped parkways along both sides of the proposed private streets within Planning Area 1 and 2. Staff believes that at a minimum six (6 ) ft wide landscape parkways should be provided to accommodate tree growth and achieve the desired tree canopy effect along the street frontages. Staff Recommendation: Require provision of six (6) ft. wide landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. 5. Day Care Land Use Provisions a. Day Care Limited and Day Care Large Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan does not allow small family day care uses (up to 6 children) within the residential areas of the community and limits large family day care uses (7-12 children) to the Common Open Space Area (private mini-park site) along the west side of the Spine Road. Staff finds the aforementioned land use limitation to be detrimental because it deprives individuals (property owners and residents of the Meadowlark community)of this specific service and of the ability to engage in the business of offering small and large family day care services. CD99-04 -15- 01/21/99 7:31 PM ' h REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Staff Recommendation: Include Day Care Limited as permitted use and Day Care Large as permitted use subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator within Planning Area 1-4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. 6. Planning Commission Reguested Revisions on December 3, 1998 a. Planning Area 3 - Rear Yard Setbacks Issue: Dwellings within Planning Area 3 are subject to compliance with a fifteen (15) ft minimum rear yard setback with a maximum of up to fifty percent (50%) of the rear building wall set at thirteen (13) ft. Fifty-one (51) dwelling units (Plan 1, 2 and 3 housing product types) of the CRG submitted development proposal within the subject planning area do not comply with the minimum rear yard setback requirements due to primarily second floor projections and first floor configurations. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan text to allow for second story projections, no greater than 24 inches, within the rear building setback (Straw Vote : 4-3) b. Planning Atea 4 - Front Yard Setbacks Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a minimum of fifteen (15) ft front yard setback to be provided within Planning Area 4. The CRG development plans for said area do not comply with the applicable front yard setbacks. Specifically, Plan 4 (second floor) as designed encroaches within the minimum applicable setback. This condition affects twenty-two units within the planning area. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow for second story projections, no greater than 24 inches, within the front yard building setback (Straw Vote: 5-2) c. Aanning Area 3 and 4 - Garage Use/Design Issue: - Garage dimensions and storage -The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan establishes garage design/ use requirements for development within the project site and sets minimum interior garage dimensions of twenty (20) by twenty (20) ft as the standard (MSP sec.4.4, pg.19). In Planning Area 3 and 4 a maximum of ten percent (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. The Specific Plan states that when a reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) CD99-04 -16- 01/21/99 7:31 PM. I9 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) should be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) is to be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations) that do not impede the eighteen (18) by nineteen (19) ft automobile garage parking area. The submitted CRG development plans for Planning Area 3 and 4 do nit include 20 ft wide by 20 ft deep garages (interior dimensions), thus 75% of Planning Area 3 and 4 is_not in compliance with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow 100% in lieu of 25% of the garages to be 18 ft wide by 19 ft deep (interior dimensions) and require a total of 400 sq. ft. minimum automobile and general household storage area to be provided within each dwelling unit's garage area to satisfy parking and storage needs. (Straw Vote: 4-3) E. SUMMARY The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan document is to a great extent tailored to accommodate the CRG proposal. The Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, does not address key park, emergency access, safety and planning issues and is not in compliance with goals objectives and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, although staff ;supports the concept of small-lot development, staff believes that it is imperative to modify the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan to bring it in compliance with the General Plan and ensure: adequate park and recreation facilities; on- site parking compliance; on-street guest parking compliance; street section design to accommodate emergency access; and to allow small and large family day care uses within Planning Area 1-4. Staff is recommending approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment with the following development standard modifications: 1. Forty (40) ft curb to curb paved street sections for private streets throughout Planning Ar6a 1-4 orthirty-six (36) ft curb to curb street sections with fire sprinkled dwelling units. 2. Pearce Street connection ("I" and "K" Street) shall be designed based on public street standards with 40 ft curb to curb paved street section with parking on both sides; 6 ft wide landscaped parkways and; 4 ft wide sidewalks (60 ft total right-of-way street width). 3. Eliminate tandem parking provisions. CD99-04 _17- 01/21/99 7:31 PM - � Ct Zv REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 4. The parkland dedication language contained in the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Section 3.4 - Open Space / Recreation) shall be revised to reflect development of a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park and payment of in-lieu fees based on fair market park land value in accordance with HBZSO dedication requirement. 4. Include park parking provisions within the Meadowlark Specific Plan and require a minimum of 20 parking spaces to be provided for public park users. 5. Incprporate provisions/standards in the Specific Plan to ensure: land use compatibility between the park and adjacent residential uses; adequate surveillance of the park site; and security for adjacent properties, by prohibiting placement of residential homes immediately adjacent to the park (rear yard design condition) and maximizing park visibility, public access and land use buffering by means of aligning roadways along the park's perimeter. 6. Six (6) ft. wide sidewalks within Planning Area 3 and 4. 8. Six (6) ft. wide landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. 9. Include Day.Care Limited as permitted use and Day Care Large as permitted use „ subject to a0proval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator within Planning Area 1-4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. A development issues matrix has been developed to compare the applicant's development proposal and staffs recommendation (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). J • CD99-04 -18- 01/21/99 7:37 PM fl�l�cl2f REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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. 97421 (ATTACHMENT NO.3)was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to SectioQ 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department 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 City Council 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. Attachment(s): DescriptionCity Clerk's Page Numb er No. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1 97-1 Ordinance No. which includes Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998 Findings of Approval for Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text 2 Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 3 Environmental Assessment/ Negative Declaration No. 97-21 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 5 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 1998 I 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 1998 7 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 8 Development Issues Matrix WOR i CD99-04 -19- 01/21/99 7:31 PM ' �� I 02 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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.3) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the Hl3ZS0 and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department 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. 9 97-1, it is necessary for the City Council 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. Attachment(s): DescriptionCity Clerk's Page Number No. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1 97-1 Ordinance No. which includes Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998 Findings of Approval for Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text 2 Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 3 Environmental Assessment/ Negative Declaration No. 97-21 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 5 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 1998 1 , 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 1998 7 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 8 Development Issues Matrix CD99-04 -19- 01/21/99 7:31 PM' -� �� � 2.3 4 e . Attachment No. 1 Removed Please refer to 2/22/99 RCA for Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 4 e% i f ,xx.'�,.°�s' •s7* f'H:� e3, x> _ _ t<d%'u'�mm"g _ c Al b -(q ���" Attachment No. 2 Removed Please refer to 2/22/99 RCA for Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 r ' s s- '_ 5: �1 �a rr a ems,.• ' ' rl xa'< b r - w"::z""a;.,.s�+c, uk :`'X, g—. � 2 �^�-.'�'d�°� •-� � a Attachment No. 3 Removed ' Please refer to 2/22/99 RCA for Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 4 s% ,'-r "3 ... .4a�y-.f +' +f-`, N ^.'ram �,,:z. '•' F.�i Za�^�� -��' z.<`''vh •ey-ts.�c «r � d 9�?a f ;ti �zl .p .. �.y" •m £, ..�.�.�« �>:��et-, �:5,'a_a3 „� 2rd•,' d. •, ,�: �s�. �' t €tea• �x:�a.�. a 'i;'? :�.• :�r;„ ���t'�' �;� y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood and Planning Commissiopers DATE: December 10, 1998 SUBJECT: MINUTE ACTION DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN On December 3,. 1998,the Planning Commission discussed changes to their previous recommendation on September 22, 1998 relative to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1). They voted by minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three (3)revisions as follows: • Garage Use/Design (Planning Areas 3 and 4) -require a minimum garage area of 400 square feet to be provided for automobile and general household storage in Planning Area 3 and 4. Minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. General household stot,nge areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (Vote: 4-3). • Rear yard setbacks(Planning Area 3) -permit second story projections, no greater than 24 inches within the rear yard setback(Vote: 4-3). • Front yard setbacks(Planning Area 4) -permit second story projections no greater than 24 inches within the front yard setback(Vote: 5-2). The Planning Commission hopes that you will take these revisions into consideration when acting upon the draft Meadowlark.Specific Plan. ,cc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner f Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (RL9907) � .. fC4 4 i% i ` �§o-i'„'�,:�rs� �.7,�' '4ti�'�°+�''��r.'�'� v:x'����a ' '''" 4z"t+� ""`""'°' v�� � ��, z, .�.,�: uv'•r � ;,:t --g-' �=�>.� s3�,et" ".�'�t,':� s �yc'^.i��,� �' •.,���".,�„�6b%... >. y; .�""-,4.g y'p;++,�� .ti.� '�' '�na`'",:..4'���,�p '"��' � �a 12.0L MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 Council Chambers- Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION-5:00 PM a (Room B-8) HB MALL SPECIFIC PLAN/CUP STATUS (5:00-5:45 PM)—Jane Madera DOWNTOWN DINING WITH ALCOHOL ORDINANCE (5:45-6:15 PM)—Peter Yanek AGENDA REVIEW(6:15-6:30 PM)—Scott Hess REGULAR MEETING-7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P' P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Inglee, Chapman, Tillotson, Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone wishing to speak must ftll out and submit a form to speak No,action can be taken by the Planning Commission on' this date .unless the'item is.agendfaed Arty one wishing to speak on items hot on tonight s agenda or.on non public hearing items may do so during ORAL:COMMUNICATIONS._Speakers on items scheduled f6z PUBLIC HEARING i dN be invzte,d. :.to.speak Burin th ublic hearzn 4 MINUTES PER PERSON,IVQ DONATING OF.TDIE:TO OTHE P g �p g :°( RI .. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-la ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97- 1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14, AND AUGUST 25, 1998 MEETING) (Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan): J APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Bruce D'Eliscu LOCATION: Six hundred(600)feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA)No. 97-1 represent requests to modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The zoning text amendment is intended to update the Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow the development of 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 reduce the maximum allowable 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 reductions of residential densities within the project area. The revised Meadowlark Specific Plan is consistent with goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and will supercede the current Specific Plan document. ? 5 , On June 16, and July 14, 1998 the Planning Commission took straw votes on"key issues" relating to the Meadowlark Specific Plan text and map amendment and the development proposal for the residential portion of the Meadowlark site in order to provide Catellus Residential Group (CRG),the project applicant for the residential portion of the Specific Plan area, with adequate direction to finalize the tract map and site plans of the subject residential development. A key issues matrix was provided in conjunction with the August 25, 1998, Planning Commission staff report which summarized issues, staff and applicant positions and Planning Commission straw votes to that date. Staff has revised the July 14, 1998 draft Specific Plan to reflect the planning Commission's direction(straw vote action)and few minor editing modifications to the document. Please note that the Specific Plan which is being forwarded to you includes the same text which was previously provided on September 9, 1998, and new exhibits/appendices only. On September 9, 1998,John P. Erskine,representing CRG, submitted a letter requesting additional revisions to the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. Commissioner Biddle has responded to the CGR letter which has been included. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ZTA and ZMA for the following reasons: • The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures all concerns are mitigated to a level of insignificance. • The proposed zoning text and zoning map amendment are consistent with the existing General Plan designation'of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay(M-sp),with surrounding . zoning, and the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. • the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed revisions to the Meadowlark Specific Plan will foster development of housing that addresses the City's diverse economic,physical, affordable housing and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. • The proposed reduction and distribution of densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area is suitable and properly adapts to the terrain of the project site and surrounding land uses. PC Minutes—9/22/98 2 (98PCM922) p - la tZ06 • The proposed regulations for compact lot, single family detached residential development advocate high level of design quality and character and will not be detrimental to the general health,welfare and safety,value of property, improvements,the neighborhood or the City in General. • The compact lot, single family detached design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single family detached homes at more affordable prices. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dick Harlow,211 Main Street,representing applicant, stated that he wished to clarify issues and straw votes from the previous Planning Commission meeting. He referred the letter submitted September 9, 1998 from John P.'Erskine. The Commission discussed with Mr. Harlow the request for tandem parking to meet code requirements. The Commission was concerned about The size of the cars,the visual aesthetics and which planning areas this would affect. Fred Schmidt, 16851 Stonehaven Circle, stated that he wished the Planning Commission to consider his previous request to locate Lots 224-228 to the interior of the site and amend the ten (10)foot landscape requirement to eight(8) foot minimum in the parkway area. Gregg Neff, 5421 Meadow Circle, stated that he had been notified that changed plans at Stonehaven and Meadow Circle would negatively impact his backyard and asked the Commission to consider this. Jerry Rich, 5452-Meadow Circle, stated concern that the size of the lots,the garages and A' driveways are too small. He stated that this was an opportunity to develop decent size lots instead of creating an affect like the downtown area. Mr. Rich also stated that more consideration should be given to the existing homes and residents. Sally Graham, 5161 Gelding Circle, stated that there should be a moratorium on building on small lots until the Small Lot Ordinance has been adopted. She also stated that Pearce Street would be too narrow. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission took straw votes on additional revisions to the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan that/were submitted in a letter from John P. Erskine, dated September 9, 1998. Commissioner Kerins stated that he would be voting against the Specific Plan because he feels 'the parking requirements are too low,the applicant cannot meet the garage and open space requirements for Planning Area No. 4,the lots are too small and the Small Lot Ordinance has not yet been adopted by the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON,TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 WITH MITIGATION MEASURES,ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 WITH PC Minutes—9/22/98 3 In(98PrCM922) KJ � 1� Za � FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Speaker - NOES: Kerins,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN: 1. Page 8, Section 3.4 Open Space/Recreation Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with parkland dedication requirements by dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark Community, improvement of 0.8 acres of undeveloped Norma Gibbs park area and payment of parkland in-lieu fees equal to$500,000 per acre to satisfy the remaining Public parkland dedication obligation for development of the site. In addition,private mini-parks shall be provided to serve the Meadowlark Community exclusively and shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. Although the actual amenity program for the private mini parks has not been specifically defined,provision of a tot-lot, swimming pool/spa and community meeting/clubhouse is encouraged. Mini-park acreage shall be based on.the required common open space requirement per dwelling unit. 2. Page 19, 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 square feet) shall be provided in the form of storage areas in overhead,recessed or other storage configurations that do not impede the minimum 18 feet by 19 feet automobile parking area within the garage. 3. Page 21,26, 31, 36 Planning Areas 1-4 Delete references to Day Care Limited and Day Care,Large Family land uses from the "Peymitted Uses"sections of PA 1-4 and replace with language to allow Day Care Large Family, within the proposed Homeowners Association owned Activity Center areas. 4. Page 18, Section 4.4 General Provisions Paragraph F. Parking Add provision to allow tandem parking to satisfy parking requirements within PA-1 (maximum 40 dwelling units)and PA-4 (maximum 45 dwelling units). PC Minutes—9/22/98 4 (98PCM922) 5. Page 24, 29, 34, 38 Section 4.5 Development Standards, Planning Areas 1-4 j Modify standards on fences to allow open view fences up to 42 inches in height within front yard setback areas. 6. Multi-Family Residential Alternative,Planning Area 4 Delete references of multi-family alternative provisions from all Specific Plan sections. No modifications were directed to be made on tile following requests by Catellus: a. Revise"bedroom"definition so less on-site parking would be required. Currently,there are several rooms that meet the definition of a bedroom which requires more on—site parking than the plans depict. All definitions are referenced in the HBZSO. b. Reduce primary private open space area requirement from minimum 300 square feet to minimum 225 square feet. c. Allow portion of-the private open space area(minimum 400 square feet)to be provided in driveway areas when garage is located at the rear of the site. Private open space typically is in the rear half-of the lot,not in the front setback or on garage driveways. d. Permit all garages in Planning Areas 3 and 4 to be less than minimum 20 feet by 20 feet interior dimensions. Currently up to 25%of units may have garages less than 20 feet by 20 feet with additional storage areas. e. Specify type:of public park improvements. Current language is general. • b! FINDINGS OF APPROVAL- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 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 incorporate development standards for such development within the revised Specific Plan; and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 to revise/update the 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. 974 and establish the boundaries for four(4) rksidential planning areas with densities ranging between nine and half dwelling units per net acre(9.5du/ac) and twenty-seven and half dwelling units per net acre(27.5du/ac) are consistent with the following objectives,policies,general land uses and policies specified in the General Plan. Goal LU9: 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. PC Minutes—9/22/98 5 ( 8PCM9_22L �R ! 7' Obiective L U 9.1 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 d4veway and garage access. :. d) Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. e) Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. Obiective LU 9.3 Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new 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. 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. PC Minutes—9/22/98 6 (98PCM922) — ltkt Policy LU 9.3.3 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. 2. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed project will reduce the previously approved map density for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area from six hundred (600) dwelling units to four hundred forty-four(444) dwelling units. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The compact lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single-family detached homes at more affordable prices. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning ,practice. 5. The proposed residential densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area,range from nine and half(9.5)to twenty-seven and half(27.5) dwelling units per net 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. 6. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay(M-sp) which permits development of commercial and residential uses and allows the Specific Plan to govern the exact density, location and mix of uses. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes ari existing commercial center and incorporates single family residential development at densities ranging between nine and half(9.5)to twenty-seven and half(27.5) dwelling units per net acre 7. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring 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 in order to address land use compatibility issues related to compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. 8. )The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. 9. The revised Specific Plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. PC Minutes—9/22/98 7 (98PCM922) 10.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. 11. Grading within the Specific Plan area 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. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration'No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. . 2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the attached conditions of approval,avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s)the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring ten percent(10%) of proposed units to be affordable by entering into an affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the 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 will 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 Planning 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 approval by the Public Works Department. PC Minutes—9/22/98 8 (98PCM922) 4. During grading/construction, if a sump pit is encountered, drilling mud present must be sampled and tested to ensure that the material are non-hazardous, subject to the approval of j` the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. 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 Geotechnical 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 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,that 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. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,that applicant shall submit a construction plan demort�trating 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 barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with the 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 may be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for the 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(8) ft. 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. i PC Minutes—9/22/98 9 (98PCM922) 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 wit 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. 5 , 14. In the event that a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and/or Tentative Tract Map (TTM)are 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. B-lb CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-80/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14 AND AUGUST 25, 1998 MEETING) - (Meadowlark Subdivision—325 Small Lot, Single Family Residential Units): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Bruce D'Eliscu LOCATION: Six hundred(600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica } Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe Due to the time necessary to complete the review of revised plans, staff is requesting continuance of the discretionary applications associated with the subject development proposal (Tentative Tract Map 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80)to the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. This request for continuance falls within the anticipated project processing time frame outlined in the City letter to CRG dated August 31, 1998. In addition,on September 11, 1998 the applicant was informed that the submitted hydrology study.should be revised to address project drainage/hydrology issues and should be resubmitted by September 18,1998 in order for the City to analyze its adequacy for the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning,Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 to the October 27, 1998 conditions based upon the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan. t PC Minutes—9/22/98 10 (98PCM922) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER,SECONDED BY KERINS,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 ( TO A DATE UNCERTAIN,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED h 4 C. CONSENT CALENIYAR C-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 98-2(East Garden Grove—Wintersburg Channel,Reach 2)• . i APPLICANT: Orange County Flood Control District,P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702- LOCATION: East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel from 1,047 feet upstream of . Goldenwest Street to 300 feet upstream from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge including the confluence with Oceanview Channel (Facility no. Cob) PROJECT PLANNER: Wendy Nowak d, General Plan Conformance No. 98-2 is a request by the Orange County Flood Control District to determine if new improvements to a segment of the East Garden-Grove Wintersburg Channel are in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: j _ l Staff recommends approval of General Plan Conformance No. 98-2 for the following reasons: • The proposed project is consistent with the zoning code requirements of Public Land Use. The proposed improvements are necessary to provide adequate100-year flood service to surrounding developments that will prevent flooding of the surrounding properties. Any construction will occur during permitted hours to ensure minimal noise and construction impacts on surrounding properties. No listed endangered species will be affected by the construction of the channel improvements. i The proposed project will be consistent with the City's Land Use,Environmental Resources/Conservation,Noise and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. i i PC Minutes—9/22/98 11 (9(98PCM922) Ul A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE,SECONDED BY INGLEE,TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1537 APPROVING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO.98-2 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED r; C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 25 1998 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE,SECONDED BY INGLEE,TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 25, 1998,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ' ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS a NONE E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS [NONE] E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES/COMMENTS Commissioner Inglee—requested that staff review the procedures used to process the Meadowlark application in order to avoid the same types of problems with future j applications. Commissioner Livengood—requested that staff check the condition requiring staff review of landscape screening across Edwards Avenue for the Fire Station and Water Reservoir approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1998. Commissioner Kerins—stated that he wanted a written report distributed to the Planning Commission covering the issues discussed at the meeting that occurred between Wal*Mart staff, Commissioner Livengood and Planning staff. t PC Minutes—9/22/98 12 (98PCM922) F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS F-1 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Howard Zelefsbx Planning Director—reviewed items from the previous and future Council meeting. F-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Senior Planer-reviewed items for the October 13 1998 meeting. } G. ADJOURNMENT—Adjourn to the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. 5 , A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER,SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD,TO ADJOURN TO A 5:00 PM STUDY SESSION ON OCTOBER 13, 1998,AND THEN TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM,BY TIM FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kJI f- APPROVED BY: lkw7ta Howard Zelef , Secretary Planning dommis ion Chifhpers6n l PC Minutes—9/22/98 13 (98PCM922) a% i l ':�". � �;•*a�$r���'�'-'�Qr n.� .war,�o�:,.. •� M �' e r � �° � ,xY e �.�, ,tea $ � .��' ¢"�+ � � •;���_���n�'"iX'.> �4.4� � i3�,°�-.,",�„•�,'a Sa�'�'. �ysTj+ S�'�',. :�,•�-,.r +4v'"aS „�} ':_E`.r �r ^R � �Z� ., f<� <sr`�&w°.'S ',e..2 `-a.:r�. �3 ..a " ^'fir-=w-"t •1a��''� �'�i'��$ a �:@ ^?'h7� $ ,H` 'k , �`. r� � -(q t2t� the iught PLEASE REFER TO I ge i MEADOWLARK PROJECT DATA REFERENCE BINDER INDEX 3000 to ITEM # 16 rany n ch and b' t I i p Icy t 2- g / i I I a; i I I I I I i i i ✓«; +�:,�-��:NrptS�,n ,st�^r,�a3R� :tea; '�:."g�� a'�`4�� »,�,� x;- N�,r--:�,i. ,_,ar ,.� .� .��..... �� z;. MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Jan. 22, 1999) 'U SA' qW 1. Site Parking/. Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all res. units all res. units b) Private Street 32'.— parking on one Same as 40'-, 36' — parking on 32' — parking on one Width (Curb to side Catellus both sides side curb) c) Spine Road Width 32 — no parking on Same as 32' — no parking 32' — no parking on 32' — no parking on (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus on both sides both sides--' . both sides d) Pearce Street 32' — parking on one Same as 40' — parking on 36' — parking on 36' — parking on Width via "I" and side Catellus both sides both sides both sides "K" (Curb to curb) e) Distribution of Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional guest parking adequate guest Catellus distributed distributed "pocket" guest spaces parking space throughout project throughout project parking spaces distribution throughout project f]i Tandem Parking 79 units have tandem 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted spaces acceptable approved by PC g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20'; Amend Min. 20' x 20' for Min. 18' x 19' with. Min. 18' x 19' with Dimensions (PA 3 200 units @ min. M.S.P. to all units min. 400 sq. ft. as min. 400 sq. ft. as & 4) 18'x1 9' w/400 sq. ft. permit approved by the PC approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. Same as 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication & Catellus dedication & dedication & dedication & improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus $1.0 million in-lieu in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of IZ27 fees) $387,500) $387,500) $387,500) b) Park Use Neighborhood Park- Same as Neighborhood park Neighborhood park Neighborhood park w/o multi-use field Catellus w/ multi-use field w/ multi-use field w/ multi-use field c) Park Parking 10 spaces - 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 space d) Houses Adj. to 7 units next to park Same as None None None Park Catellus A M.-ADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Cont.) N - N 'r„ ' ;usi.'". #:='`i SY .;'i;?. �v'f,.•<,d ,:t''e:�`• 7�;,.. z h ,.• , CATELLUS.,, .g,P.LANNING STAFF,' a - STAFF< ' .. SSTAFF < �.. , ,. �. F; Po•„ �n aak�a r a� <:�^, ,;t: •e.. .;ta 7;. .=•y.^WM;, "i;� r* .fig`"'�-, ?., ,r.� a i-<�e=:� a: ... •.93'=-.,;,i:-m:; mA TERNATNEw#1�-�.�� ALTERNATIVE;# 2,. •z.= '•;"+c`� '?.�:>.�.'r•-v«tee.." :�`Y�yr.a 'a' ���!.,,,a- .J .,�'^% w,^�• ._,{,::.��^,/,°,�,,<,,. .r 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths 5' (PA 1 & 2) Same Min. 6' (PA, 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) b) Sidewalk Widths 5' (PA 3 &4) Same Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) c) Front Setbacks Min. 15'; Amend Maintain min:-15' Same as PC Sam_ a as PC (PA4) allow 2' 2"d story M.S.P. to setback without projections permit 2' projections } projections d) Rear Setbacks Min. 13' & 15'; Amend Maintain min. 13' Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2' 2"d story M.S.P. to & 15' setback s projections permit 2' without projections projections f 1 II RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Meadowlark Specific Plan -ZTA No. 97-4/ZMA No. 97-01/ EA/ND No. 97-21 (Cont.) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 , RCi Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Attached (Explain) Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR'MISSING-ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission reports and other pertinent project background information and exhibits included in the PC/CC Meadowlark Project Data Binder ;REVIEWED RETURNED` FORWARDED`!�3 Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) -EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF hTEM Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:AW:kl 02-22-99 03: 33AM FROM III TO CITY CLERK P01 FEE-Ze-13'39 08;ZES• FROM M I LL I E ISE'.IEF OD l I NC February 22, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Mein Street Huntington Beach, CA 92US Re: Meadowlark Development � Honorable Mayor and City Council: ; 3 .< As you review again the plans for the Meadowlark residential development, please consider the following: 1) The construction of these new homes will create an Impact on youth sports facilities and schoole in the west Huntington Beach area. 2) These Impacts can be mitigated in part by payment of the park fees by the developer and dedication of a neighborhood park. 3) We encourage you to use these funds to install lights at Marina High Sohool and renovation of parl4school athletic fields in the surrounding neighborhoods. 4) This action will have an immediate and long-term benefit to the thousands of current and future youth athletes in our community, Thank you for your support of our youngsters and quality of life in Huntington Beach. Very truly yours, Robert E. Wissmenn 3915 Humboldt Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 "` TOTHL P.01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication 0 ~ Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning /� 2w---- DATE: January 20, 1999 SUBJECT: MEADOWLARK OVERVIEW MEMORANDUM D-1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97- 1 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment) These applications represent a City initiated request to amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan document to allow for development of single family detached dwellings on small lots and to establish standards for such development. On September 22, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the request with a 5-2 vote and is recommending approval. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission took minute action (Attachment No. 1 of this memo) to recommend that the City Council consider three (3) changes to the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan. The changes pertain to garage size, rear yard setback and front yard setback (Recommended Action "A" of the RCA). Staff is recommending approval of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to address design impacts associated with development small lots, address site parking, emergency access, public park and community aesthetic issues. Also, to ensure compliance with General Plan goals, objectives and policies (Recommended Action `B" of the RCA). D-2. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development Plan These applications represent an appeal by Catellus Residential Group of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission's action to approve such entitlements. The appeal is to assure that the findings and conditions of approval for the project conform with the City Council's final action on the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The proposed 48.4 acre project includes 313 single family, detached dwellings on small lots, a 3.2 acre park(2.4 acres dedicated by applicant), private open space/recreation facilities and infrastructure improvements. � �G Meadowlark Overview Page Two On December 3, 1998 the Planning Commission approved the request by a 5-2 vote and is recommending approval (Recommended Action "A" of the RCA). City staff recommended denial to the Planning Commission and is maintaining the recommendation for denial to the City Council (Recommended Action `B" of the RCA) because of inadequate site parking, emergency access issues, reduced park size, non compliance with the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan and inconsistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVES There are two (2) development alternatives suggested by staff included with item D-2 that address the site parking, emergency access and Specific Plan issues for the City Council to consider. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Attached are three (3) memos from Planning Commissioners relative to this project. The first is regarding minute action taken by the Planning Commission at their December 3, 1998 meeting addressing three (3) proposed revisions to the Meadowlark Specific Plan for City Council consideration. The second memo is from Tom Livengood, Planning Commission Chairperson, discussing the history of the project, experiences by the Planning Commission and a recommendation to approve the project. The third memo from Planning Commissioners Ed Kerins and Bob Biddle represents a minority report stating reasons why the project should be denied. SUPPLEMENTAL BINDER Due to the lengthy history of this project and the numerous reports, staff has compiled all background information in a separate binder. HZ:SH:kjl Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minute Action Memo dated December 10, 1998 2. Memo from Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood, dated December 8, 1998 3. Minority Report Memo from Planning Commissioners Ed Kerins and Bob Biddle dated January 21, 1999 xc: Planning Commission Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Scott Hess, Senior Planner Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL9908) 2 �� G CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter .Office Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood and Planning Commissioners DATE: December 10, 1998 SUBJECT: MINUTE ACTION DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission discussed changes to their previous recommendation on September 22, 1998 relative to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1). They voted by minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three (3) revisions as follows: ♦ Garage Use/Design (Planning Areas 3 and 4) -require a minimum garage area of 400 square feet to be provided for automobile and general household storage in Planning Area 3 and 4. Minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. General household storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (Vote: 4-3). ♦ Rear yard setbacks (Planning Area 3) -permit second story projections, no greater than 24 inches within the rear yard setback(Vote: 4-3). ♦ Front yard setbacks (Planning Area 4) -permit second story projections no greater than 24 inches within the front yard setback(Vote: 5-2). The Planning Commission hopes that you will take these revisions into consideration when acting upon the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. xc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner = Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL9907) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Planning Commission Communication 0B Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Tom Livengood, Planning Commission Chairman c_ _ DATE: December 8, 1998 , :2"' c� SUBJECT: MEADOWLARK _ > In the ten years that I have served on the Planning Commission, three as Chairman, this project has to be rated at the top as most "difficult." Since March of this year, the Planning Commission has been struggling with aspects of this project. My personal feeling is that the project would have progressed much smoother with a flexible Specific Plan similar to the Seacliff Specific Plan. Many items were put in the Meadowlark Specific Plan that should have been taken care of with the conditional use permit. Having no Small Lot Ordinance created many problems. The applicant's and the City Department's rigid interpretation of what the standard should be made the process difficult for the Planning Commission. The Commission has invested numerous hours in workshops (presented by a professor, architects, building industry), tours of small lot developments in Orange County and our community, study sessions presented by City Departments and public hearings. The Commission debated the pros and cons and took action. The Planning Commission's first step in April was to complete a recommended Small Lot Ordinance. This was completed in June. To date the Planning Department has not submitted a draft ordinance to the Commission for action. The next step was to complete the new Meadowlark Specific Plan. The Commission's action on the Small Lot Ordinance was used as a guide in preparing the plan. This process started in June with the Commission taking action. As Chairman, based on what I thought the response of the applicant and City Departments was, the Planning Commission had drafted an acceptable plan with possibly five or six minor issues. The final step was the conditional use permit, tentative tract map and negative declaration. Action on this was based on the Commission's recommended Specific Plan. There were a total of fourteen issues. Two were Planning Staff issues (the room is a bedroom and Planning Area 2 is not creative/innovative) and twelve compliance issues. The applicant agreed to revise their plan on nine of the fourteen issues. They requested the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council to revise the Specific Plan on the remaining issues. The Commission agreed to forward the recommendation. The vote changed from 7-0 to 4-3 on these issues. The Commission also took action not to require architectural revisions based on staff s recommendation and placed conditions in the conditional use permit (the room is not a bedroom). .q � � G Meadowlark Page No. Two The project was approved at a special Thursday, December 3, 1998 Planning Commission meeting by a 5-2 vote. At that meeting a detailed staff report was submitted to the Commission recommending eight changes to the Commission's Specific Plan. The report will be forwarded to the City Council. At least four of the issues, if approved, would require the project to be denied. The Planning Commission was able to get a commitment from the applicant for a $500,000 per acre mitigation fee instead of the current park development fee of$180,000 per acre. After eight months of work, ninety eight percent of the neighbors, the applicant, and the Planning Commission (five members) agree on the Specific Plan and the project. The City Departments recommended denial of the plan and the project. Attached is the Commission's recommended action to be taken, to approve the project. Also attached to this memo are supporting documents. TL:kjl Attachments xc: Planning Commission Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Ron Hagen, Director of Community Services Police Chief Lowenberg Fire Chief Dolder Duane Olson, Division Chief/Fire Marshall Dave Webb, Principal Engineer (KL9895) , 5 �G 01/20/1999 08:56 5629394059 LBCC BOOKSrOPF PAGE 05 111,E ! 1.� q,. .i' � ''��•,�r'�, �4,a`;; ' b'. V.�d, �;t�:l'`�,I:i .. .i., Fwk Issues a. Park Land Dedication,lmpprovements and In-lieu Fees sue: The City has set its park standard at five (5) acres per one-thousand (1000) people. .Under the Quimby Act, the City has the option of accepting fees in-lieu of land dedication, The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO section 254.08H) 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 smount 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. Based on Quimby Act and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the required parkland dedication obligation for the proposed 313 dwelling unit development is 5.37 acres (313 units X 3.43 persons per unit X 5 acres /1000 = 5.37 ac). As indicated above, the subject parkland dedication, at the City's discretion,may be satisfied by land dedication only,in-lieu fees or a combination thereof. It has been deten►iAned, based on a recently completed appraisal by a City retained qualified appraiser, that the current land value within the vicinity of the project area is $516,500 per acre, thus strict land dedication of 5.37 acres would have a real value of$2,773,605. Assuming that the City was to accept raw land as the park dedication requirement for the project, it would then have to fund the subject park's improvements. Current park development costs are approximaately $1,50,000 per acre. Thus the City would need to appropriate $805,500 to develop the park site. Staff evaluated the development proposal, assessed project impacts to the community and has concluded that the proposed 313 single family detached home development on small tots will have a significant impact on at least two major areas of the city's park and recreation system; youth and sports facilities and active neighborhood park uses. This conclusion is based on an analysis of the youth sports needs assessment study and the condition of the surrounding parks and school facilities that could meet the above stated needs (please.refer to Community Services memoranda dated May 29, 1998 and October 21, 1998-Attachment No. 7 and 8). The applicant proposes to dedicate and improve 2.4 acres of neighborhood parkland plus develop 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park for a total of 3.2 acres of active Neighborhood Park. The aforementioned dedication and improvements in conjunction with private recreational amenities on the project site(pool, Staff Report- 11/24/98 26 01/20/1999 08:56 5629334059 LBCC SOOKSTORF PA(_4i: 06 ��-- boundaries for the subject lot using a planimeter. Several readings were taken yielding 2.3 net acres of park area, therefore the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit documents, as proposed, are not in compliance with the minimum parkland dedication requirement. Recommendation: Ruse the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit documents to bring the proposal in compliance with the minimum parkland dedication requirements. Fences/Walls a. Interior Side and Rear Yard Fence Design Issue. The amended Meadowlark Specific Plan requires interior and rear yard fences to be of masonry construction. The submitted Wall and Fence Plans propose construction of 6 ft high wood fences at side and rear interior property line locations and are in conflict with the Specific Plan development standard. Recommendation: Revise the Wall and Fence Plans to depict masonry walls at rear and interior fence locations. 7) SUMMARY OF MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN COMPLIANCE ISSUES The CRG development proposal is not in the compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions and intend in the following areas: public park, parking requirements(minimum number of open and enclosed spaces),garage use/design,building height,front yard setbacks,exterior side yard setbacks, interior side yard setbacks,rear yard setbacks,on-street parking, open space design(SW comer of-PA-4) and fence/wall standards. Staff Report. l 112V98 POW* I .01/22/1999 08:49 5629394059 LBCC BOa(STORF PAEE 03 Planning Commission Communication F".13B Planning Department TO: Tom Livengood,Planning Commission Chairman FROM: Ed Kerins, Planning CommissioneTY ' (DATE: Ianuary 6, 1999 SUBJECT: MFADOWIL4RK TRANSMITTAL COMMENTS Listed below are comments you requested concerning the Planning Commission recommended actions transmittal to the City Council: A. Replace the words"as follows" at the end of the first paragraph with the words"as shown below." B, Insert the following as the next paragraph: These revisions are necessary because the developer refused to submit development plans that meet the specific plan requirements. You should be advised the Meadowlark Specific.Plan and development plans set new lower minimum development standards for small lots outside of the downtown area in our city. 'These new lower minimum development standards include the following: 1. Minimum lot size; 2. Minimum front yard setback; 3. Minimum rear yard setback, 4. Minimum private open space; and S. Tandem parking. C. Add the words"which include floor space" after the words"second story projections." EK:kjl xc: Planning Commission (KL"0x) p °a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Inter Office Communication 0B Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Ed Kerins, Planning Commissioner Wh Bob Biddle, Planning Commissioner DATE: January 21, 1999 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINORITY REPORT MEADOWLARK/CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT At the time of the Planning Commission's vote concerning the conditional use permit (CUP) and the tentative tract map (TTM)on December 3, 1998, there was an approved Specific Plan to which the CUP and TTM were required to conform (as all developments under specific plans similarly are to conform). Rather than submitting plans that meet the goals and criteria of the specific plan, Catellus has chosen to argue many of the conditions of the approved specific plan. We have never been a party to this type of activity or action by a developer, nor have we witnessed the Planning Department's staff apparent surrender to a developer even though they are recommending denial of the applications. The Planning Department's actions subsequently turned the Planning Commissioners into "Plan Checkers" by allowing the developer the ability to argue all the major points of the specific plan. The developer should have presented a project which met the conditions of the specific plan—or simply appealed the CUP and TTM to you. Instead, the Planning Commission was forced to spend hours reviewing compliance in such areas as garage dimensions, and projections into the setbacks. Simply put, Catellus has not presented a project which meets the minimum requirements of the specific plan as previously approved by the Planning Commission. According to the "Youth Sports Assessment," we are critically short of active, sports fields in this area of our city. The Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance requires that 5.3 acres of land be dedicated by the developer for a public park. Yet, the developer asked for and received approval for dedication of only 2.4 acres for a public park plus in lieu fees. Once the land is built upon, it is gone forever. Our future citizens need the legacy of open space that meets their needs—not"squished" together within dwelling units that can easily become less desirable in future years. le. Meadowlark Minority Report Page Two This project establishes the following new city minimum development standards outside of the downtown district: ■ Lot size, cul-de-sac width, front yard setback, rear yard setback, private open space and tandem parking. You can expect future gang, crime, and quality of life problems and costs when you approve development that does not meet our city's mini mum.development standards. These minimums will become the standard for which other future developments will be judged— and to which those future developers will again try and "whittle" away. We would ask: When is the city going to say no to the developer? The developer will prepare a plan that meets the city's minimum requirements only if you make him do so. We urge you to tell this developer that our citizens come first—not their design by denying the Specific Plan, the CUP and the TTM. Enclosed is the article, "All Development is Not Created Equal," from the Planning Commissioners Journal. The article shares our thoughts and concerns in providing quality development to a community. Enclosure EK:BB:kjl xc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL9909) • 10 LOOKING AROUND All Development Is Not Created Equal by Edward T. McMahon <'P,y1S your commission ever been development is not created equal. Too ments would be protected by strong zon- pr ssured to lower its standards many communities delude themselves ing standards. under the guise of generating into thinking that it doesn't really matter Think about your own community. economic development? Do you have whether a project is good or bad, consis- Imagine that it has developed an excel- elected officials who think all growth is tent with the local plan or inconsistent, lent comprehensive master plan, ap- good regardless of the long-range costs so long as it produces jobs and tax collec- proved by the planning commission and tion opportunities. endorsed by the governing body. The or the birth-right of future generations? zoning ordinance was also recently A few months ago, during awork-shop I conducted in Virginia, a planning reviewed and updated. ; e commissioner told me that a national But now a developer, who has INV EST• obtained an option on a large parcel at restaurant chain wanted to erect an enor- KNOWLEDGEthe edge of town, appears before your mous sign—more than double the size THAT. THEIR'.INVESTMENTS - board and tells you that he has great permitted by county ordinance—next to their proposed restaurant along the • : ' ' • news: the XYZ Company is considering interstate. The restaurant developer had ; ' • • locating there. All that is needed is a rezoning, albeit one that doesn't quite not so subtly suggested that they might mesh with the recently adopted plan's locate their business elsewhere, unless policies. they received the variance.What was my "Think of all the new jobs and tax experience with this kind of request? he asked. How often have you heard local offi- revenue this project will create," he says. I responded by saying that a commu- cials express the opinion that imposing "Your community is really fortunate," he nity's image is important to its economic standards to assure high quality growth adds, "but XYZ is also looking at sites in well-being. The best places to live,work, will scare away economic development? two other communities,so if we don't get and visit are those places that are willing The truth is just the opposite. In his a speedy rezoning, they may go else- to uphold their standards in the face of book, Planning America's Communities: Where." pressure to allow lowest common de- Paradise Found?Paradise Lost?, Herbert Scenarios like this are repeated in one nominator development. The bottom Smith, the former planning director of community after another. Herbert Smith calls this "The Fable Shop- line for most businesses is securing Albuquerque, New Mexico, examines e hard to say no to Prosperity Shop- ping Center." It can be access to profitable trade areas. They planning successes and failures in 15 devel- evaluate locations based on their eco- cities and concludes that, "quality urban opmthe promise t immediate jobs and communities nomic potential. If they are required to development, whether it is residential, and ent. But successful communities address local design, landscaping,or sig- commercial or industrial wants no part understand that when they say no to nage requirements, they will usually do of an unstable, unplanned, uncontrolled development that is contrary to the long- so. They might prefer a gaudy 100-foot environment as they know this is not a term health their community,they will tall sign, but they will settle for the place to make a long-term investment." almost alwayss get better development in its place. In the long run, all develop- 20-foot tall sign everybody else has. A case in point is Denver, Colorado's, ment is not created equal.* By chance I happened to have with Lower Downtown area.Before it was des- me several slides of a restaurant from the ignated as an historic district, it saw Edward McMahon is a _ same chain located across the border in blighted conditions and low property land use planner, attorney, and director o The Conser- vation =`. Ma land. This restaurant had a low sin values. Developers could build anythingJ Maryland. g P 'Fund's "American , F —and a full parking lot! they wanted—but there was almost no Greenways Program."He I later learned that the Virginia com- private investment because there were no is former president of .missioners denied the variance request standards. After the area was designated Scenic America,a national and that, despite its bluster, the restau- as an historic district, it boomed. Small non-profit organization rant had opened on time in the location businesses and investors were lured by devoted to protecting originally proposed. the area's historic warehouse buildings America's scenic landscapes. McMahon's column It is important to recognize that all and by the knowledge that their invest- appears in each issue of the PCJ. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 32 / FALL 1 9 9 8 A Editor's Note:In our last issue,Mike a We planners should all consider that our must feel that they are truly a part of the Chandler outlined five trends in comprehensive plans are not read by the public as much as process,and that means let them help lead it planning as we near he new century.Mike they should be,because in part we do not and work at their own pace.The plan will be spoke to plans becoming more:vision driven; write them for popular reading.We are too completed when the citizens are ready to thematic based;collaborative in nature;region- technical,we use too much planning lingo, complete it,not because it is the end of the ally focused;and reflective of information tech- and we droll on about stuff that does not fiscal year." nologies,such as computer simulations.Some interest most Americans.I'm not advocating —Jim Yarbrough,Winston-Salem,North Carolina of the responses we received are set out below plans written like daytime soaps or romance novels,but we could write comprehensive "I rather pink there is a potential for ---------� � more dramatic change in planning prac- ��� D��C� � plans that weave an interesting vision of the �° tice... driven partly by emerging technology, "The 29 st centuffy community's future using descriptive lan- and largely by changes in the development � , guage and graphics that portray a place C�o�prrc��¢���i¢ P��� industry. . where people would like to live,work,raise Just a thought on the plans of the new families,recreate,and yes,pass away.Along For instance,I think that our cherished information age.As more and more plans are he way,these plans could address the array Euclidean zoning based on land use will taking advantage of this new technology— of problems that need to be solved to reach diminish in importance,possibly to become posting on he web,use of digital mapping, this life." simply a measuring system for economic seekin input electronically this provides_ studies of urban development.The technolo- gY— P —Gus Drum,Barboursville,West Virginia �available now to capture actual land use planners and planning commission members p o „ p by location and to estimate the`fit'of pro- [with the ability] to generate so much more, , ,r and immediate,citizen input.As two income $' \ _$ posed changes in land use into a commum- �� •�.,y households are all so busy... the ability to t m m ty's plan,and the reality is that collaborative electronically review and comment on nngg _$ planning will drive the market for new emerging plans is exciting. Dt development toward sites that provide acces- Also,this process may well reduce the g� qa�. sibility to existing communities. ,,Yv a°�� time frame of our plans.With the increased � � ;p� g •., I think also that planning will become ability to update and produce plans electron- of less preoccupied with regulation and more Fe ically,we may well enter into an age of being involved in developing the capacity of 'f?,, able to produce plans more often with shod- "`' -.1 F s place-based communities to envision their er planning horizons.Such plans may be able e� ` i¢l, ' % �c F're f% own future.Mike's hits on collaborative and to have periodic updates on the implementa- r}z<s, !4� thematic planning err only by not going far 4 = h; P tion efforts of the goals,policies and objec- enough.Its at the intersection of these�.;;�#;�,,r ,a ;�;: tives contained therein.We don't want to h, _- i trends that the exciting stuff is going to lose the long range view which is an impor- '.e� Q° happen. taut guidepost to keep;but,this can allow us �4 —Jerald Powell,Portland,Oregon s>• to have fresh plans with the latest informa- "While I agree that many hi-tech strate- tion,and with the most recent citizen input. "One way comprehensive plans are gies{electronic plans,cd-rom,and so on) All this is exciting stuff for planners and changing is that they are becoming more will become more commonplace,lets not those who believe in citizen planning." directly tied to the resulting zoning and reg- forget that there are and will remain many —Mike O'Leary,Enfield,Connecticut ulations that are applied to specific parcels of low-tech'ways to be helpful and achieve land. Consistency requirements in many "Mike's article on the`look'of 21st eentu- goals.It doesn't always take lots of money or ry comprehensive plans was quite interesti states have made the connection between the ng . computer horsepower.For example:consis- and brought to mind several thoughts... comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance a tent with the`vision based'approach to cre- Each individual in the communit more direct link than in he past.This point atin plans,I believe that plans will become should(like their right to vote)consider is further reinforced by the fact that neigh- more visual in nature.Rather than ever-more their role in the planning process to be an borhood groups are becoming more sophisti- lengthy text that only,creates fodder for investment in theirs as well as their chil- cated when addressing planning issues.They arguments and legal wrangling,many of us drens'future.What could be worse than to have successfully brought litigation against are using and will improve our use of draw- sit at home watching the tube or surfing the local governments when zoning actions ings to illustrate desired outcomes.Drawings net while your neighbors are down the block which were inconsistent with the compre- are human,and easily understood,and work hensive plan were taken." planning`your'future.We are a democracy better than words at creating a common base for a good reason,lets never forget what ` —Bryan Stumpf,Indianapolis,Indiana of understanding.This works well on paper, many people have given to assure our rights "Our experience is that while citizen whether by cut and paste or scanning into to participate in our government and our involvementis the only way to do effective documents;it may also work on a cd,or on a shared`vision'.Get involved and welcome community planning,you must be prepared holographic image." that involvement. for this to lengthen the process.Citizens —Lee A.Krohn,Manchester,Vermont P�-AjNNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 32 / FALL 1998 Pool�e- C uncil/Agency Meeting Held: eus � De erred/C� onti ued to: P ElApproved ❑ Co onally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: January 25, 1999 Department ID Number: CD99-04 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director /A ot SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97- 21 (MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21. These applications represent a City initiated request to amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan document to allow for development of single family detached dwellings on small-lots within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area and to establish standards for such development. On September 22, 1998 the Planning Commission approved the request with a 5-2 vote and is recommending approval of the Specific Plan amendment (Recommended Action - A) because the small-lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing. In addition, on December 3, 1998 the Planning Commission took minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three changes to the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). The changes pertain to garage size, rear yard setback and front yard setback requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the Specific Plan amendment with revisions (Recommended Action - B) in order to address design impacts associated with development of small-lots/address site parking, emergency access, public park and community aesthetic issues and ensure its compliance with General Plan goals objectives and policies. Funding Source: Not applicable. a 1 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) with three revisions approved by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)", and 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. 3ql/ (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) with minute action changes approved on December 3, 1998 reflected below". Planning Commission Action on September 22, 1998: THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998: 1. THE MOTION MADE BY TILLOTSON, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)TO THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM GARAGE AREA OF 400 SQ. FT. TO BE PROVIDED FOR AUTOMOBILE AND GENERAL STORAGE IN PLANNING AREAS 3 AND 4. MINIMUM INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE 18 FT. BY 19 FT. DEEP. GENERAL HOUSEHOLD STORAGE AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS PRESENTED BY CRG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 3, 1998: AYES: LIVENGOOD, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER C Q� NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE, INGLEE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED 2. THE MOTION MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION TO THE DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO PERMIT SECOND STORY PROJECTIONS, NO GREATER THAN 24 INCHES, WITHIN THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN PLANNING AREA 3: AYES: INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED 3. THE MOTION MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A REVISION TO THE DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TO PERMIT SECOND STORY PROJECTIONS, NO GREATER THAN 24 INCHES, WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN PLANNING AREA 4: AYES: LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, CHAPMAN, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS ABSENT: BIDDLE (out of the room) ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED _ c B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)", and 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97- 01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to reflect staffs recommended changes" (E. Summary). 3. "Adopt Ordinance No. (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) with revisions to reflect staffs recommended changes" (E. Summary). Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01, and direct staff accordingly." 2. " Deny Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01, with findings." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: Six hundred feet (600) ft. east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue (former Meadowlark airport site). Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 represents a request to consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; to modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family detached dwellings on small-lots; to incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Specific Plan document (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 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. 97-04; to establish the boundaries for four (4) residential planning areas with net densities ranging from 9.5 dwelling units per acre (6.5 dwelling units per gross acre) and 13.8 dwelling units per acre (9 dwelling units per gross acre); and to incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). Environmental Assessment /Negative Declaration No. 97-21 represents a request to analyze environmental impacts associated with the proposed Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning and map amendments (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) . 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. The existing Development Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the Nerio Family for development proposals on the Meadowlark property will remain in effect until its stated term expiration date (July 1999), completion of the project in accordance with the agreement, or default. CD99-04 -2- 01/21/99 7:31 PM 0 -1,4 ,5 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Existing Specific Plan Development Summary The current Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 7, 1988, and allows development of approximately fifteen acres with commercial uses and a maximum of six hundred dwelling units (single family detached, multi-family medium density and multi-family medium-high density) within the remaining fifty (50) acres of the Meadowlark property. The commercial portion was developed subsequent to approval of a conditional use permit (CUP No. 90-45) allowing development of 122,665 sq. ft. shopping center in 1991 (Meadowlark Plaza). The residential portion of the property is currently vacant. The approved residential product, density and acreage distribution is as follows: Acres Typeof unit.. ity; Dens - 18 acres (min) Detached Single-family 7du/ac 20 acres (max) Attached Multi-family 12 du/ac (Medium Density) 12 acres (max) Attached Multi-family 20 du/ac (Med/High Density) Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan Development Concept Summary The proposed Meadowlark Specific Plan 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). One of the goals of the Specific Plan is to allow for development that is complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and the City of Huntington Beach. The Meadowlark residential community is intended to be designed in the form of distinct, complementary and interconnected "neighborhoods" (Planning Areas) with safe and well functioning streets and park areas. The Specific 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. The streets are proposed to be narrower, tree lined and connected to the public park, private mini-parks and community serving facilities. Landscaped parkways are proposed to be provided to enhance the pedestrian friend ly,community design concept. All four residential planning areas are proposed to be developed concurrently. The mix of housing is intended to allow a broader range of product types and includes 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 CD99-04 -3- 01/21/99 7:31 PM 6�(q t � I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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. Sections 3.2 — 3.11 of the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (EXHIBIT "A" OF ATTACHMENT NO. 1) provide detailed descriptions of each of the following document 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 B. BACKGROUND The 1988 Meadowlark Specific Plan does not address residential development on small lots within the Meadowlark property. On June 24, 1997 Catellus Residential Group submitted a draft for small-lot development standards in conjunction with a master plan layout for the development of 330 single family dwellings on small-lots on the subject site. A Planning Commission subcommittee was formed to evaluate the small-lot development concept and establish city-wide development standards. The Planning Commission small-lot subcommittee held several meetings and reviewed numerous design issues associated with the subject design concept utilizing the Meadowlark proposal as their focus of discussion and analysis. A recommendation was developed. with direction to staff to prepare an ordinance. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On June 16, 1998 the Planning Commission held the first public hearing on this proposal and considered the staff recommended draft Meadowlark Specific Plan and associated issues. Additional public hearings were conducted and on September 22, 1998, the Commission approved the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan with numerous modifications (EXHIBIT "A" of ATTACHMENT NO. 1). On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission held a special meeting and considered the development by CRG (CUP No. 97-80, TTM 15469, ND No. 97-21) involving construction of 313 single family detached dwellings within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Staff recommended denial of the proposal based on non-compliance with the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998. At that meeting the project proponent requested amendments to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed product type. The Planning Commission considered the request and as part of minute action, indicated that the City Council should consider additional revisions to the Specific Plan document related to garage use/ design standards, and allowances for building projections within the front and rear yard setback areas , (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). These suggested modifications would be necessary to avoid CD99-04 -4- 01/22/99 9:43 AM 0 - lot REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 revisions to the CRG proposal and bring it in compliance with the revised Specific Plan document. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning, Fire, Public Works, Community Services and Police Department are not in support of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan and Meadowlark Development proposal. Discussion of project, General Plan compliance and analysis of outstanding Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment related issues follow: 1. General Plan Compliance The Meadowlark Specific Plan is intended to set forth the planning concept, design guidelines, development standards and administrative procedures necessary to implement the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The goal of the Specific Plan is to establish the framework for development of a high quality planned community. 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, Article 8 and 9 of the California Government Code Section 65459 et. seq. The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan has evolved to its current form and contents through a lengthy public hearing process. During the public hearing and review process a multitude of issues associated with the development of this Specific Plan to accommodate small-lot development were attempted to be addressed. Because of the interrelated impacts of one issue, and its potential solution, to other Specific Plan aspects and due to efforts to accommodate the submitted CRG development proposal/ product type, a number of issues still remain unresolved. Outstanding Specific Plan issues are discussed in detail in Sections 2-5 of the project's Analysis and include park and recreation facility needs, emergency access, planning/design and safety issues. Staff has determined, based on the significance of unresolved issues impacts, that the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan document is not in compliance with the following goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan: 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: Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the following: Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. CD99-04 -5- 01/22/99 9:43 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Objective CE 1.3 - Provide a circulation/transportation system which enhances and minimizes response time needed for emergency vehicles. Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well-designed and convenient on and off-street parking facilities throughout the City. Objective CE 5.1 Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment, the community image, or quality of life. Objective CE 6.1 Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City-wide standards. Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1 Create an integrated park system that is complementary to existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Goal RCS 3 Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. CD99-04 -6- 01/21/99 7:31 PM P -�6k I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 2. Site Parking/Emergency Access a. Private Street Curb to Curb Width The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes reductions to street section design standards for private streets within the project area, specifically, it includes; reduced curb to curb paved street widths (PA 1-4); reduced sidewalk widths (PA 3 and 4) and; reduced landscaped parkway widths (PA 1 and 2) -please refer to the diagram below for terminology application-. Street Right of Way Landscaped Curb to curb Landscaped Street Right of Way Sidewalk Parkway (Paved Street Section) Parkway Sidewalk 1 Landscaped curb to curb Landscaped Sidewalk, Parkway, (Paved Street Section) Parkway:Sidewalk > > > r Y r > > Tt > > Y Y Y Staffs position on the proposed private street curb to curb width is as follows: Issue: The Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes 32 ft wide curb to curb paved street sections for the private streets throughout the project area. The City has in the past approved projects with reduced street sections and restricted on-street parking along one side of the street. In terms of this Specific Plan proposal, staff originally supported reduced street widths in the context of an overall framework for a small-lot master planned community plan that could accommodate the necessary parking, storage and open space needs. The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan does not comply with the City's policy practice and HBZSO requirements for residential parking and park parking requirements. The Specific Plan does not address minimum park parking standards and allows for tandem parking within Planning Area 1 and 4 to satisfy minimum parking requirements (please refer to discussion below) which could negatively impact on-street parking by; forcing overflow on-site parking on streets inadequately designed to CD99-04 -7- 01/21/99 12:08 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 accommodate the additional number of automobiles and creating conditions which could prevent adequate emergency vehicle access throughout the project and impact emergency response time. The Fire Department has expressed concerns with the proposed reduced street width development standards and has indicated that development on the Meadowlark property should provide: uncompromising Fire Department access and turn-around areas on residential streets; should satisfy critical response standards (5 minute response time - 80% of the time to all areas of the community); and provide adequate emergency egress for evacuating residents from dwellings during emergency conditions while providing for emergency vehicle ingress. Fire Department staff believes that the proposed Meadowlark small-lot development standards, if implemented as proposed in the CRG development proposal, will impair fire access to emergency events. The Fire Department does not support the street width reduction proposed by the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan. Public Works staff conducted a windshield survey to determine compliance of on-street parking restrictions within small-lot projects with reduced street widths. In addition staff conducted informal interviews and obtained information regarding storage and garage space needs from property owners/ residents of small-lot development projects. Overall staff found that on-street parking restrictions were not implemented as intended. Generally on-street parking on residential streets with reduced street sections occurs on both sides regardless of imposed Fire Department limitations. Moreover staff found that residents of small-lot projects generally desired additional garage and/or storage areas. It is staffs opinion, based on emergency access, parking and storage needs and inherent enforcement issues built in small-lot development projects with limited on-street parking and reduced street widths, that the curb to curb street section proposed in the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan would not properly address project parking and emergency vehicle access needs. Staff believes the proposed Specific Plan should incorporate street section design standards, which accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the street. Staff Recommendation: A minimum of forty (40) ft curb to curb paved street sections should be provided for private streets throughout Planning Area 1-4 orthirty-six (36) ft curb to curb street sections with fire sprinkled dwelling units. b. Pearce Street Connection (Street "I" and "K") Issue: Pearce Street will be extended through Planning Area 1 and will ultimately connect Bolsa Chica Street and Heil Avenue via the Spine Road. A segment of the Pearce Street connection (Street "I" and Street "K") is proposed to be constructed in accordance with CD99-04 -8- 01/22/99 11:47 AM P-Iq t // REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 modified private street standards providing thirty-two (32) ft curb to curb paved width with parking on one side; five (5) ft landscaped parkways and; four (4) ft sidewalks on both sides of the street. Although the Pearce Street connection is proposed to be designed as a local residential street, the subject road segment (Street "I" and "K") as well as the remaining portion of Pearce Street will function as a collector once the connection between Bolsa Ghica Street and Heil Avenue is made. Based on the anticipated street use, traffic as well as on-street parking impacts, staff believes that the subject street segment should be designed as a public street, to address parking and emergency access concerns. Staff Recommendation: The Pearce Street connection should be designed based on public street standards as follows: 40 ft curb to curb paved street section with parking on both sides; 6 ft wide landscaped parkways and; 4 ft wide sidewalks (60 ft total right-of-way street width). c. Tandem Parking Issue: The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan permits tandem parking to satisfy minimum parking requirements within Planning Area 1 and 4. Historically the City has not approved residential subdivisions with tandem parking. This subdivision would be precedent setting in this regard. Staff believes the proposed tandem design solution does not provide the functional convenience and accessibility offered by side by side parking. Staff anticipates that this condition, combined with reduced street sections, will result in overflow parking along street frontages and negative impacts to on-street parking. PLAN 2 • PLAN 3 Af�091L18K �F,IOOWIePIt PA-1 PLAN 2 1 PA-1 PLAN 3 PARKING M18.11 PARKING E01111 CD99-04 -9- 01121/99 12:08 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends deletion of the tandem parking provisions from the Meadowlark Specific Plan and supports application of the current HBZSO provisions which do not allow tandem parking configurations to satisfy minimum required parking. 3. Public Park Issues a. Specific Plan Park Dedication, Improvements and in-lieu fees Issue: The Planning Commission approved draft Meadowlark Specific Plan document contains language that requires dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark community in conjunction with improvement of 0.8 acre of undeveloped Norma Gibbs Park area and payment of parkland dedication in-lieu fees equal to $500,000 per acre to satisfy the balance of the parkland dedication obligation for development on the subject site. Staff believes that inclusion of the aforementioned parkland dedication language in the Specific Plan is inappropriate and places the City at a disadvantage because; it does not adequately address park and recreation impacts; it limits the City's ability to recommend and evaluate alternate park development scenarios which do not involve placement of the park adjacent to Norma Gibbs Park; and precludes periodic adjustment of the parkland dedication in-lieu fees to reflect fair market park land value applicable at the time of project approval (CUP/TTM). The City has set its park standard at five (5) acres per one-thousand (1000) people. Under the Quimby Act, the City has the option of accepting fees in-lieu of land dedication. The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO section 254.08H) 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. Based on Quimby Act and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the required parkland dedication obligation for the permitted 345 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area is 5.92 acres (345 units X 3.43 density factor X 5 acres /1000 = 5.92 ac). As indicated above, the subject parkland dedication, at the City's discretion, may be satisfied by land dedication only, in-lieu fees or a combination thereof. CD99-04 -10- 01/21/99 7:31 PM P^ lot 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 CRG contends that the 1989 Meadowlark Development Agreement provide that the City can not require any exaction, including park dedication, that is not specifically authorized by the Agreement and the Approvals, however, the developer has agreed to satisfy parkland in-lieu requirements based on a land value of $500,000 per acre. Upon review of applicable documents the City Attorney's Office has concluded that the City can require parkland dedication for the development of the subject property. Specifically, the City Attorney has determined that parkland dedication is an allowable exaction under the Development Agreement and applicable 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. Therefore parkland dedication requirements apply to the development of the Meadowlark site and CRG's parkland dedication in-lieu fee contribution should not be viewed as voluntary. Chapter 99 of the HBOC states that the fair market value of land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser for purposes of determining in-lieu fees. The Community Services Department initiated an appraisal because the current parkland dedication land value ($181,900) per acre was based on a 1990 land appraisal. It has been determined, based on this recently completed appraisal by a City retained qualified appraiser, that the current land value within the vicinity of the project area is $516,500 per acre, thus strict land dedication of 5.92 acres would have a real value of $3,057,680. Assuming that the City was to accept raw land as the park dedication requirement for the development of the Specific Plan area, it would then have.to fund the subject park's improvements. Current park development costs are approximately $150,000 per acre. Thus the City would need to appropriate $888,000 to develop the park site. Staff evaluated the proposed Specific Plan amendment, assessed project impacts to the community and has concluded that the proposed development of single family detached homes on small lots (345 du max) will have a significant impact on at least two major areas of the city's park and recreation system; youth and sports facilities and active neighborhood park uses. This conclusion is based on an analysis of the youth sports needs assessment study and the condition of the surrounding parks and school facilities that could meet the above stated needs. Staff `s position is that a minimum of 4.2 acres of parkland should be dedicated in conjunction with payment of in-lieu fees at $516,500 per acre to satisfy the balance of the project's parkland dedication obligation, thus address project park and recreational needs and impacts of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. CRG parkland dedication, improvement and in-lieu fees proposal (313 dwelling units) The CRG development proposal includes dedication and improvement of 2.4 acres of neighborhood parkland plus development of 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park for a total of 3.2 acres of active Neighborhood Park. The aforementioned dedication and improvements in conjunction with private recreational amenities on the project site (pool, meeting room, CD99-04 -11- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 tot lot) are intended to satisfy the minimum recreational needs for the proposed development. Staff believes that a 3.2 acre active neighborhood park site will not fully address`the active neighborhood park demand impacts of the project due to its insufficient size and lack of buffer areas. The following outlines the applicant's proposal in a matrix form. 'Y PA'A Li4�ND DEDICATION,REQUIREMENT FOR 5 37 ACRES/ 313 DWELL NGS 6: . ` : ;, (C°RG PROPOSAL) $ Value Comments Park dedication of 2.4 1,200,000 Value of land is based on estimate acres (2.4 ac X $500,000/ ac) accepted by the Planning Commission ($500,000 / ac) prior to completion of land value appraisal by the City. In lieu-fees for 2.97 acres 1,485,000 (5.37 ac— 2.4 ac = 2.97 ac X $500,000/ ac) Total 5.37 ac 2,685,000 Staff and the Community Services Commission recommends a minimum of 3.4 acres of parkland dedication and improvement of 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park in order to develop a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park which could accommodate minimum practice field areas and incorporate adequate buffer zone(s) between the various sports activities (AYSO soccer, Little League baseball, etc.) as well as practice field areas and adjacent residential properties. In addition, based on the City Attorney's opinion regarding applicable parkland dedication provisions, it is recommended that park dedication in-lieu fees be paid, equal to the difference between project parkland obligation (5.37ac) and land dedicated ( 3.4ac), based on the appraised land value of$516,500 per acre. These fees will be utilized to improve the 3.4 acres dedicated by the applicant; improve 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park; reconstruct the tennis courts at Harbour View School; and construct lighting improvements at Marina High School. Staff's opinion is that these off-site improvements will mitigate project impacts on youth and adult sports facilities. The following outlines the above staff recommendation and dollar value of the project's parkland dedication obligation in a matrix form. CD99-04 -12- 01/21/99 7:31 PM p- 19 1 15 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 w, :• - PARKLA I DEDICATION REQUIREMENT'FOR 5.37%ACRES/3:13'"DWELLINGS? "'`'q STAfF PROPOSAL y,F::.< f r e $ Value Comments Park dedication of 3.4 1,756,100 Value of land is based on recent land acres (3.4 ac X $516,500/ appraisal valuation of $516,500 / acre ac) In lieu-fees for 1.7 ac 1,017,505 The amount of in lieu-fees shall be (5.37 ac— 3.4 ac = allocated as follows; 1.97 acres X $516,500) a. Park improvements of the 3.4 acre park and 0.8 acres of Norma Gibbs Park (4.2 acres total active neighborhood park —4.2 acres X $ 150,000 / ac park impr.= $630,000) and Allocation of $ 387,505 (remaining in-lieu park fee funds $1,017,505 - $630,000 = $387, 505) towards reconstruction of tennis courts at Harbour View School and lighting improvements at Marina High School. Total 5.37 ac 2,773,605 Staff believes the aforementioned parkland dedication alternative will adequately address project impacts to the City's parks and recreation system, accommodate the needs of the Meadowlark community residents, provide the necessary facilities concurrently with the development of the subject proposal and will eliminate City fiscal impacts associated with initial park improvements of the proposed neighborhood park site. Staff Recommendation: Revise the parkland dedication language contained in the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Section 3.4 - Open Space / Recreation) to reflect development of a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park and payment of in-lieu fees based on fair market park land value in accordance with HBZSO dedication requirement. CD99-04 -13- 01/21/99 7:31 PM [ 9t t )/- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 b. Public Park Parking Issue: The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan does not address minimum park parking requirements. The Public Works Department analyzed the parking needs for the future public neighborhood park. Based on a daily trip generation rate of 5.9 trips per park acre and anticipated uses for practice ball fields staff determined that a minimum of 20 parking spaces will be necessary to accommodate parking for park users. CRG asserts that a total of 16 parallel parking spaces along the easterly side of the Spine Road adjacent to the Park will adequately mitigate park parking needs for a 3.2 acre park. Staff believes that 16 parking spaces will not properly address future parking needs. Staff is concerned that parking park impacts will negatively affect circulation on private residential streets to the north and south of the park site which are proposed to only accommodate parking on one side of the street. � Staff Recommendation: Require a minimum of 20 parking spaces to be provided for public park users. c. Dwellings adjacent to the Public Park Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan includes limited language on park design issues pertaining to consideration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, but does not incorporate design standards/provisions for buffer areas between park and residential land uses/activities. The Community Services Department has expressed concerns regarding lack of adequate buffer areas between the public park and adjoining land uses and the placement of homes along the park's periphery. Moreover, Police Department staff has discouraged the placement of single family homes adjacent to the neighborhood park for safety and crime prevention reasons. Overall, from a land use planning, safety and code enforcement standpoint staff believes that provision of a buffer area between the residential and park site activities is warranted to ensure safety, preserve residential area privacy and proper land use function and additional design provisions/standards should be included in the Specific Plan to mitigate land use compatibility and safety issues. Staff Recommendation: Incorporate provisions/standards in the Specific Plan to ensure: land use compatibility between the park and adjacent residential uses; adequate surveillance of the park site; and security for adjacent properties, by prohibiting placement of residential homes immediately adjacent to the park (rear yard design condition) and maximizing park visibility, public access and land use buffering by means of aligning roadways along the park's perimeter. CD99-04 -14- 01/21/99 7:31 PM pr-1(� , r7 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 4. Community Aesthetics a. Sidewalk Design (PA3 and PA4) Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan proposes five (5) ft wide monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs, to accommodate street furniture clearances, within Planning Area 3 and 4. The subject sidewalk design is not in compliance with City Standards. Staff finds the proposed design inappropriate, particularly in the context of small-lot development proposals where narrower lot frontages, reduced setbacks and frequent driveway curb cuts limit land availability and furniture placement affects pedestrian access. In summary staff believes that the modified sidewalk design does not represent the optimum design solution and it can affect overall street appearance and function. Staff Recommendation: Require provision of six (6) ft. wide sidewalks within Planning Area 3 and 4. b. Landscape Parkway Design (PA1 and PA 2) Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan requires five (5) ft wide landscaped parkways along both sides of the proposed private streets within Planning Area 1 and 2. Staff believes that at a minimum six (6 ) ft wide landscape parkways should be provided to accommodate tree growth and achieve the desired tree canopy effect along the street frontages. Staff Recommendation: Require provision of six (6) ft. wide landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. 5. Day Care Land Use Provisions a. Day Care Limited and Day Care Large Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan does not allow small family day care uses (up to 6 children) within the residential areas of the community and limits large family day care uses (7-12 children) to the Common Open Space Area (private mini-park site) along the west side of the Spine Road. Staff finds the aforementioned land use limitation to be detrimental because it deprives individuals (property owners and residents of the Meadowlark community)of this specific'service and of the ability to engage in the business of offering small and large family day care services. CD99-04 -15- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 Staff Recommendation: Include Day Care Limited as permitted use and Day Care Large as permitted use subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator within Planning Area 1-4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. 6. Planning Commission Requested Revisions on December 3, 1998 a. Planning Area 3 - Rear Yard Setbacks Issue: Dwellings within Planning Area 3 are subject to compliance with a fifteen (15) ft minimum rear yard setback with a maximum of LIP to fifty percent (50%) of the rear building wall set at thirteen (13) ft. Fifty-one (51) dwelling units (Plan 1, 2 and 3 housing product types) of the CRG submitted development proposal within the subject planning area do not comply with the minimum rear yard setback requirements due to primarily second floor projections and first floor configurations. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan text to allow for second story projections, no greater than 24 inches, within the rear building setback (Straw Vote : 4-3) b. Planning Area 4 - Front Yard Setbacks Issue: The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a minimum of fifteen (15) ft front yard setback to be provided within Planning Area 4. The CRG development plans for said area do not comply with the applicable front yard setbacks. Specifically, Plan 4 (second floor) as designed encroaches within the minimum applicable setback. This condition affects twenty-two units within the planning area. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow for second story projections, no greater than 24 inches, within the front yard building setback (Straw Vote: 5-2) c. Planning Area 3 and 4 - Garage Use/Design Issue: - Garage dimensions and storage - The Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan establishes garage design/ use requirements for development within the project site and sets minimum interior garage dimensions of twenty (20) by twenty (20) ft as the standard (MSP sec.4.4, pg.19). In Planning Area 3 and 4 a maximum of ten percent (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. The Specific Plan states that when a reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) CD99-04 -16- 01/21/99 7:31 PM P_1c, �� REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) should be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) is to be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations) that do not impede the eighteen (18) by nineteen (19) ft automobile garage parking area. The submitted CRG development plans for Planning Area 3 and 4 do not include 20 ft wide by 20 ft deep garages (interior dimensions), thus 75% of Planning Area 3 and 4 is not in compliance with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. Planning Commission Recommendation: Revise the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow 100% in lieu of 25% of the garages to be 18 ft wide by 19 ft deep (interior dimensions) and require a total of 400 sq. ft. minimum automobile and general household storage area to be provided within each dwelling unit's garage area to satisfy parking and storage needs. (Straw Vote: 4-3) E. SUMMARY The Planning Commission approved Specific Plan document is to a great extent tailored to accommodate the CRG proposal. The Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, does not address key park, emergency access, safety and planning issues and is not in compliance with goals objectives and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, although staff supports the concept of small-lot development, staff believes that it is imperative to modify the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan to bring it in compliance with the General Plan and ensure: adequate park and recreation facilities; on- site parking compliance; on-street guest parking compliance; street section design to accommodate emergency access; and to allow small and large family day care uses within Planning Area 1-4. Staff is recommending approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment with the following development standard modifications: 1. Forty (40) ft curb to curb paved street sections for private streets throughout Planning Area 1-4 orthirty-six (36) ft curb to curb street sections with fire sprinkled dwelling units. 2. Pearce Street connection ("I" and "K" Street) shall be designed based on public street standards with 40 ft curb to curb paved street section with parking on both sides; 6 ft wide landscaped parkways and; 4 ft wide sidewalks (60 ft total right-of-way street width). 3. Eliminate tandem parking provisions. CD99-04 -17- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 4. The parkland dedication language contained in the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Section 3.4 - Open Space / Recreation) shall be revised to reflect development of a 4.2 acre active neighborhood park and payment of in-lieu fees based on fair market park land value in accordance with HBZSO dedication requirement. 4. Include park parking provisions within the Meadowlark Specific Plan and require a minimum of 20 parking spaces to be provided for public park users. 5. Incorporate provisions/standards in the Specific Plan to ensure: land use compatibility between the park and adjacent residential uses; adequate surveillance of the park site; and security for adjacent properties, by prohibiting placement of residential homes immediately adjacent to the park (rear yard design condition) and maximizing park visibility, public access and land use buffering by means of aligning roadways along the park's perimeter. 6. Six (6) ft. wide sidewalks within Planning Area 3 and 4. 8. Six (6) ft. wide landscaped parkways within Planning Area 1 and 2. 9. Include Day Care Limited as permitted use and Day Care Large as permitted use subject to approval of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator within Planning Area 1-4 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. A development issues matrix has been developed to compare the applicant's development proposal and staffs recommendation (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). CD99-04 -18- 01/21/99 7:37 PM t)49 / 2I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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.3) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department 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 City Council 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. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page • . Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1 97-1 Ordinance No. which includes Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998 Findings of Approval for Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text 2 Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 3 Environmental Assessment / Negative Declaration No. 97-21 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 5 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 1998 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 1998 7 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 8 Development Issues Matrix °RCA Author. ik CD99-04 -19- 01/21/99 7:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-04 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.3) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the Hl3ZS0 and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department 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 City Council 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. Attachmentls): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1 97-1 Ordinance No. ,3 I which includes Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan dated September 22, 1998 Findings of Approval for Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text 2 Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 3 Environmental Assessment/ Negative Declaration No. 97-21 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 5 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 22, 1998 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 1998 7 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 8 Development Issues Matrix CD99-04 -19- 01/21/99 7:31 PM p - 1q , 2.3 Was ............ g ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-04; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-01) WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01, which amends and updates the Meadowlark Specific Plan; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the Meadowlark Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as shown on the document attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which document is incorporated by this reference as thought fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk C At rney -iA,�'-6 :qy ,� I REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA ED AND APPROVED: City Administrator r ctor of Plar4tilig ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A: Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan 1 g:4:990rdinance:A97-04 RLS 98-438 �+ at EXHIBIT A REVISED MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN DATED 9/22/98 A A D 0 W LA R 1( SP � Clf IC PLAN HUNIINGTON BfAfH , CALIfORNIA MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN City of Huntington Beach SPECIFIC PLAN 8 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)536-5271 REVISED DRAFT Per 9/22/98 Planning Commission Meeting Action (11/10/98) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................1 1.2 Authority and Scope.............................................................................1 2.0 Project Area Description...............................................................................2 2.1 Location/Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................2 2.2 General Plan Designation.....................................................................2 2.3 Zoning..................................................................................................2 2.4 Planning History...................................................................................2 2.5 Legal Description.................................................................................3 3.0 Master Plan Concept.....................................................................................4 3.1 Development Concept........................................................................4 3.2 Land Use.............................................................................................5 3.3 Circulation...........................................................................................7 A. Public and Private Street System.......................................7 B. Traffic Control....................................................................8 C. Transit Facilities.................................................................8 3.4 Open Space/Recreation.....................................................................8 3.5 Landscape Concept............................................................................ 8 A. Entry Treatments................................................................9 B. Community Edge Treatments.............................................9 C. Streetscape Treatment..................................................... 10 D. Plant Material Palette.......................................................10 3.6 Public Facilities................................................................................10 A. Storm Drainage Facilities.................................................10 B. Sewer Facilities................................................................11 C. Water Facilities................................................................11 3.7 Grading ......................................................................................... 12 3.8 Geology- Soils/Seismicity..............................................................12 3.9 Potential Hazardous Materials..........................................................13 3.10 Archeology.......................................................................................13 3.11 Phasing Plan .....................................................................................14 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 4.0 Development Regulations............................................................................15 4.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................15 4.2 Establishment of Districts and Planning Areas ...............................15 A. Residential District..............................................................15 B. Commercial District............................................................16 4.3 Definitions........................................................................................16 4.4 General Provisions............................................................................17 A. Parkland Dedication............................................................17 B. Affordable Housing.............................................................17 C. Activity Center Facilities.....................................................17 D. Infill Ordinance ...................................................................18 E. Perimeter Buffers.................................................................18 F. Parking ................................................................................18 G. Garage Use/Design.............................................................19 H. Building Additions/Modifications......................................19 I. Treescape.............................................................................19 J. Product Development..........................................................19 K. Porches/Entry Elements......................................................19 L. Variable Setbacks................................................................20 M. Activities/Uses along Spine Road Promenade..................20 N. Street Furniture...................................................................20 4.5 Development Standards...................................................................21 A. Residential District.............................................................21 Planning Area I .....................................................21 Planning Area 2.....................................................26 Planning Area 3 .....................................................30 Planning Area 4.....................................................34 B. Commercial District............................................................38 4.6 General Design Criteria....................................................................39 A. Residential Subdivision Design...........................................39 B. Residential Product Design................................................40 C. Non-Residential Structure Design .....................................40 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 5.0 Implementation............................................................................................41 5.1 Procedures .......................................................................................41 5.2 Implementation................................................................................41 5.3 Hearings...........................................................................................41 5.4 Appeals............................................................................................41 5.5 Specific Plan Amendment...............................................................41 5.6 Dwelling Unit Distribution..............................................................41 5.7 Boundary Changes...........................................................................42 5.8 Homeowner's or Community Association......................................42 5.9 Approval Period...............................................................................42 6.0 Appendix A. Legal Description B. Street Sections C. Heil Avenue Project Entry D. Plaza Lane Project Entry E. Community Wall Plan F. Spine Road Expanded Parkway G. Plant Materials Palette H. Storm Drain System I. Sewer System J. Water System K. Topography L. Letter from County of Orange Environmental Health Division M. Areas of Archeological Concern N. Phasing Plan O. Commercial/Residential District Buffer Area Treatment P. Conceptual Street Scene Q. Conceptual Building Layout PA-1 Conceptual Building Layout PA-2 Conceptual Building Layout PA-3 Conceptual Building Layout PA-4 R. Wall/Fence Master Plan iii LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. TITLE FOLLOWING PAGE 1 Vicinity Map.............................................................................3 2 Existing Zoning........................................................................3 3 Conceptual Master Plan............................................................5 4 Development Summary............................................................5 5 Circulation................................................................................7 6 Public/Private Open Space Plan.............................................8 iv L MEADOWLARK SPfCIfIC PLAN INTRODUCTION CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION 1.0 v� �14 ( 33 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Intent 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. 1.2 Authority and Scope 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. The Meadowlark Specific Plan is comprised of the following six(6) sections: Introduction - Section One, describes the purpose and intent of the Plan and provides the legal basis, authority and scope of the Specific Plan. Project Area Description - Section Two, provides a general description of the Specific Plan area and its surrounding land uses, General Plan and Zoning information and a brief background and planning history summary for the site. ' Master Plan Concept - Section Three, describes the proposed master plan concept for the project area and addresses land use, circulation, public facilities, infrastructure, open space and recreation, grading, landscaping and project phasing. Development Regulations - Section Four, presents a description of the development standards and design criteria applicable to projects within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Implementation - Section Five, discusses project implementation, project review, appeal and Specific Plan amendment processes. Appendix- Section Six, contains the technical support information which has contributed to the formation of the Specific Plan. 1 o'Ict , 3y L J MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION CITY Of HUNiINGTON BEACH Sft110N 2.0 ,p- (q , 35 2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location/Surrounding Land Uses The Meadowlark Specific Plan encompasses approximately sixty-five (65) acres of land located approximately six hundred (600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue (Please refer to Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map). The property was previously used as a small craft airport (Meadowlark Airport). Surrounding land uses include detached single-family residential uses (RL-Low Density Residential) to the north, the existing Norma Gibbs Park (OS- PR— Open Space- Parks and Recreation), a church, and detached (RL-Low Density Residential) and attached single-family residential uses (RH-High Density Residential) to the east; attached single-family residential uses (RMH-Medium High Density Residential) to the south, and detached single-family residential uses (RL-Low Density Residential), attached single-family uses (RM-Medium Density Residential)and mobile home park (RMP-Manufactured Home Park) to the west. 2.2 General Plan Designation The General Plan designation for the Meadowlark property is Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp). The exact density, location, and mix of uses are governed by the Specific Plan. 2.3 Zoning The subject property is currently zoned Meadowlark Specific Plan (Please refer to Exhibit 2: Zoning/District Map). The Specific Plan was first 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 revised Specific Plan limits development within the residential portion of the Specific Plan to a maximum of three hundred forty-five (345) dwelling units and allows for improvement of the project site with detached single-family dwellings on small-lots. 2.4 Planning History On February 1, 1988, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Land Use Element of the 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: 2 � � ( Ct , 3� • 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(7)units per acre. • An internal traffic circulation plan shall be provided that will: ➢ Provide street connections between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue that would not 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. • 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. On March 7, 1988, the Meadowlark 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, the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan was submitted to the City of Huntington Beach and was subsequently approved in conjunction with the first Conditional Use Permit application for development of the commercial portion of the site. The remaining residential portion of the Specific Plan was not developed due to market conditions. 2.5 Legal Description (Please refer to Appendix A: Meadowlark Specific Plan Area Legal Description) 3 ^ 191 3�7 EDINGER AVE DELLANEAR v~i HEIL AVE a w V V) U w (n W U) U O J Q PEARCE R. Q Z Q V) o J (n W m O PROJECT LANE � SITE WARNER AVE SLATER AVE AIADOWLARK SPRIT IC PLAN VICINITY MAP CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACTI EXHIBIT 1 V ict , 3 R'' i RL 0. G. CF-E Too To E RL RL MEADOWLARK t>R tA+.rtT•LY VK;l S�t+�.any J J 2 at J J J S, t� ' nO OO u li RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL FL(7 RL VENTUN H y R j s .9 i Y p '� RL IJ V MARSHALL -T[ o s i RL G4L9NTE txt Yi00LEC0ii w CG RL FL C FL L RL yC HEILT sa..a Y TM CA FIL CG _ RL RL Rw RL RL RL Po' 08-PR RL �I RLrRLj RL RESIDENTIAL •�- . RL RL 48.4 AC. RL RL ROS-01 F RLMEADOWLARK RL SPECIFIC PLAN RL COMMERCIAL rFL _ , CG ti - .. 4A 15.0t AC. RM CG IH L . � _.. WARNER AVE /. SOURCE: = SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-11 0 CITY OF Z HUNTINGTON BEACH NTS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TONINGAISTRICI MAP CITY Of HUNTINGTON MACH W19IT 2 I) - lg t 3:� L MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN MASTER PLAN CONCEPT CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION 3.0 r,> - to t '{o 3.0 MASTER PLAN 3.1 Development Concept The 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 is 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 new growth - single-family detached residences, 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 and parks form a public focus. The plan identifies four pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, multiple recreational areas and a meandering pedestrian promenade/ Spine Road, which provides the link between the residential and commercial. segment of the Specific Plan area. The differences between the design of the Meadowlark r 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 and private mini- parks; 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 which advocate placement of garages towards the rear of residential lots. Building design is 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. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes the following components which provide the necessary development information/guidelines to create a high quality residential planned community: Land Use Grading Circulation Geology- Soils/Seismicity Open Space/Recreation Potential Hazardous Materials Landscape Concept Archeology Public Facilities Phasing 4 p -- l9 14l 3.2 Land Use The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing 16.6 acre neighborhood shopping center along its southerly boundary and provides for residential uses on the remaining 48.4 acres of vacant land. The project Spine Road divides the shopping center into two parcels and provides access through the Meadowlark residential area. The 48.4 acres of undeveloped residential land within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area is divided into four(4) Planning Areas. The proposed residential densities,range from nine and half (9.5) dwelling units per net acre to thirteen and eight tenths (13.8) dwelling units per net acre, and provide a gradual transition from the commercial and medium high density attached residential uses (RMH) to the south of the property to the existing low density detached residential uses (RL) to the north, east and west. (Please refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Master Plan.) All four (4) Planning Areas are anticipated to be developed with small lot, single-family detached homes. A summary of the proposed residential land use allocation within the four residential Planning Areas by product type, gross acreage, density and maximum number of dwelling units follows. (Please refer to Exhibit 4: Development Summary). The boundaries and acreage of each Planning Area are fixed. Minor modifications to Planning Area boundaries may be made, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. The maximum gross density within each Planning Area shall not be exceeded. 5 - [q , q2- osw CMOs sla ELT ou -:a 41EL J� s CIM PA-2 I PA-2 LAND USE: I I LAND USE: SFR SFR 4_ ,., A _.- `aG +�\ a:�plc= �tz 000- PUBUC PAFK PA-1 LAND USE: SFR myou 1L 100' BUFFER 171- W FM.T w LEGEND J----SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY F-7 J SCALE: 1'=300' AIADOWLARK SPRIT IC PLAN CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN I CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAR �--/ WIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN Acreage % of Gross Net Density No. of Planning Area Land Use (Max) Site Density (Max) Lots/Units (Max) (Max) (Max) 1 S.F.R. 10.9* 22.5 6.5 9.5 70 (Detached) 2 S.F.R. 9.3* 19.2 6.5 9.8 60 (Detached) 3 S.F.R. 14.5* 30.0 8.0 11.8 116 (Detached) 4 S.F.R. 11.0* 22.7 9.0 13.8 99 (Detached) or S.F.R. 45.7 94.4 7.5 11.3 '345 Subtotal Public Park ** ** Spine Road 0.5 0.1 ROW adjacent to Public Park TOTAL 48.4 100% 345 * NOTE: Includes proposed open space lettered lots, landscape maintenance easements, common open space areas and local streets. ** NOTE: Development shall comply with parkland dedication requirements. 6 3.3 Circulation A. Public and Private Street System The Circulation Plan illustrates the general alignment, classification and location of the proposed public and private roads within the project site. The Plan is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (Please refer to Exhibit 5: Circulation Plan.) The Spine Road shall provide access to the property from Heil Avenue and from Warner Avenue at Plaza Lane. Plaza Lane, a local collector road currently terminates at the commercial center's northerly boundary. The Spine Road meanders through the shopping center and the residential Planning Areas, separating Planning Areas 3 and 4, Planning Areas 1 and 3 and dividing Planning Area 2. The northern terminus of the Spine Road at Heil Avenue aligns with Del Mar Lane. Pearce Street, which is located west of the project site, shall be extended through Planning Area 1. Local access to the four residential Planning Areas shall be provided directly from the Spine Road. Access to Planning Area 1 and 4 shall also be provided from the Pearce Street extension and Roosevelt Lane respectively. The Pearce Street extension shall be carefully planned to minimize traffic impacts onto the existing street system. Access to Pearce Street shall be such that traffic on said street does not exceed 2500 average daily trips. Roosevelt Lane may provide t limited direct driveway access to Planning Area 4 residential lots which front on Roosevelt Lane. Roosevelt Lane shall not be a through street to Warner Avenue. The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane (approximately 500 linear feet south of Pearce Street) shall be fully dedicated and fully improved to City Standards. The design of the Spine Road shall advocate traffic calming and shall constitute an important circulation and thematic design element of the Meadowlark master plan concept. The street section for the subject roadway shall transition as it flows through the project from a sixty-six (66) ft. right-of-way with a "curb-to-curb" paved section of forty-six (46) ft. at Heil Avenue and a sixty (60) ft. right-of-way with a "curb-to-curb" paved section of forty (40) ft. at the northern terminus of Plaza Lane to a sixty (60) ft. right-of-way with a thirty-two (32) ft. paved section within the central portion of the site. The Spine Road design shall incorporate raised, landscaped medians at both project entry locations, fourteen (14) ft. wide landscaped areas and six (6) ft. wide meandering sidewalks along both sides of the road. Open space lots adjacent to the Spine Road shall contribute additional landscaping, thus enhancing its "greenbelt" design. Heil Avenue shall be improved to an ultimate right-of-way width of eighty-eight (88) ft. Street improvements along Heil Avenue shall increase the pavement width from sixty-four (64) ft. to seventy (70) ft. and will provide an eight (8) ft. sidewalk and a twelve (12) ft. landscape buffer along the northerly boundary of the Meadowlark property. With the exception of the Spine Road and the most westerly segment of the Pearce Street extension (between the western property line and the first "T" street intersection) through 7 6 .19 , q5 aaw aNa�r ru NEB. + { R z PA-2 lot PA-2 -4.. s R SCALE: 1"=300' ��►; PUBLIC ■i 'r r� r P .II/. t di F r r � R II PA-1 J�1! IR w f� w aiu-u CD COMMON 1asi OPEN I SPACE ■ 1 ' PA-3 PA-4 �1 -ou 17 `kid: _.•_ram,�, -..�,....a.� _ __.f._J 4�. r" FAD of LEGEND ; p e ._..__._.. ._._..._... I�• AIAIOR ARTERIAL MGMiWAY(136' R.O.W.) SECONDARY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (82 R.O.W.) .:.�" r,' c• err � 1 •= sy,..._r:; `�_' t•' 1 =Tson@ §ff PUBtiC COtt=OR( R .W.) wrma; a r F•t •� '� i 1 MINSIM11 Pt&C MAL (5W R.O.W.) T L ' FUMRE PRIVATE WCAI. (SO' ROM) r i .....: ice,_1• is ' ,, i it, _ ; rcexa MAJOR XC` M S� 1k�93 �. E @Ci:DR•� it ..r LF SECONDARY AS'.CiES,S AEMOWM S ROW PLAN OBLATION PLAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON RACY EXHIBIT 5 r test �q� Planning Area 1, all other interior local streets shall be private. Private street section designs for Planning Area 1 and 2 shall include four (4) ft. (min) non-monolithic sidewalks and five (5) ft. (min) landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. In Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 4 as well as along the "public street" segment of the Pearce Street extension in Planning Area 1, landscaped parkways are encouraged, however, five (5) ft. monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may also be acceptable within said areas. (Please refer to Appendix B: Street Sections). B. Traffic Control The Planning Commission,upon recommendation of the Department of Public Works at the time of project entitlement approval, shall determine the need for traffic control devices (i.e. traffic signals). Such determination shall include the appropriate time installation. The developer(s) shall pay the entire cost of installing traffic signals at Heil Avenue/Del Mar Lane, and Warner Avenue, the entrances to the project area. Installation of the traffic signal at Del Mar Heil shall be required with the first residential phase. Development of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area will require a secondary access to Bolsa Chica Street from Pearce Street. The developer(s) shall pay one-fourth of the cost for the traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and Pearce prior to issuance of building permits. Proportional share of Heil/ Graham signalization shall be paid prior to start of the final residential phase, as determined by traffic signal warrants. C. Transit Facilities Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at locations designated by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit Authority. The design of such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit Authority. 3.4 Open Space/Recreation Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with parkland dedication requirements by dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark community, improvement of 0.8 acre of undeveloped Norma Gibbs Park area and payment of parkland dedication in-lieu fees equal to $500,000 per acre, to satisfy the remaining Parkland dedication obligation for development of the site. In addition private mini- parks shall be provided to serve the residents of the Meadowlark community exclusively (Please refer to Exhibit 6: Public-Private Open Space Plan) and shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowner's Association(HOA). Although the actual amenity program for the private mini- parks has not been specifically defined, provision of a tot-lot, swimming pool/ spa and community meeting/clubhouse is encouraged. Mini-park acreage shall be based on the required common open space requirement per dwelling unit. 3.5 Landscape Concept The landscape concept for the Meadowlark project is integral to the overall character of the community. It includes a combination of landscape and hardscape features adjacent to and 8 P-IctI 7 . 6 t fl � c I COMMON � c OPEN SPACE Aw i c' t 1 11 visible from project roadways which combine to form a major design element of the community structure. Major features of the landscape concept include entry, community edge, and streetscape treatments. A. Entry Treatments • Primary Entry The primary community entry shall be located at the intersection of the Spine Road and Heil Avenue. The community entry design concept is intended to integrate project monumentation, enriched pavement treatment (subject to Planning Department and Public Works Department approval), median planting, layered shrub/turf planting and decorative community perimeter theme walls (Please refer to Appendix C: Heil Avenue Project Entry). • Secondary Entry A second project entry shall be provided at the northerly terminus of the existing Plaza Lane. The subject entry design shall reflect primary project entry design elements and shall incorporate enriched pavement treatment (subject to Planning Department and Public Works Department approval), median planting, layered shrub/turf planting and decorative community perimeter theme walls. (Please refer to Appendix D: Plaza Lane Project Entry). B. Community Edge Treatments • Community Perimeter Wall A decorative community theme wall along the public Spine Road and Heil Avenue will provide project identity, privacy and noise control (Please refer to Appendix E: Community Wall Plan). Removal and replacement of existing walls along the project site's perimeter is encouraged, so that double walls are avoided. • Heil Avenue Landscaping A twelve (12) ft. landscape buffer shall be provided along the project's northerly property line. The landscape buffer treatment along Heil Avenue shall be compatible and complimentary with the proposed landscaping along the Spine Road. • Parks The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes a public park adjacent to the existing 5-acre Norma Gibbs Park. In addition, common open space areas shall be incorporated within the overall community development concept. Park design shall take into consideration Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to ensure adequate surveillance of the park sites and address security related issues for adjacent properties. 9 lot I �� C. Streetscaae Treatment • Spine Road The Spine Road shall provide the primary access to the project. In order to enhance its appearance an expanded landscape parkway shall be incorporated as part of its design. The proposed plant palette for the Spine Road shall be complementary to the landscaping materials utilized within adjoining residential Planning Areas. Shade trees shall be incorporated in the Spine Road landscape design concept (Please refer to Appendix F: Spine Road Expanded Parkway). • Local Streets -Planning Areas 1-4 A unique landscape design theme shall be developed for each Planning Area. A neighborhood accent street tree and background trees shall be elected and used consistently within each Planning Area. Shade trees shall be incorporated in the local street landscape design concept. D. Plant Material Palette All streets shall be established with identifiable landscape materials (Please refer to Appendix G: Plant Material Palette). The proposed plant materials (shrubs, groundcovers and trees) shall be compatible and complementary to existing adjacent streetscapes. 3.6 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 (s) of the Specific Plan area shall be responsible for the construction of all public facilities/ improvements concurrent with individual project development. Improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works. A. Storm Drainage Facilities 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 exist along Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. The property's proposed storm drain system shall provide drainage for the site as follows: Runoff from the property shall be conveyed to the Sunset Channel, approximately 2,500 feet from the project site. A portion of storm water runoff shall be detained on-site. The proposed storm drain system will consist of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a minimum pipe size of eighteen(18) inches. All interior local streets shall carry the property's storm runoff into catch basins which shall connect to a backbone storm drain line located within the Spine Road. Based upon preliminary hydrology studies it is anticipated that the backbone storm drain 10 � � �q , 50 RCP system shall range in size from thirty-six (36) to sixty (60) inches. (Please refer to Appendix H: Storm Drain System.) The proposed storm drain system exits the site at the intersection of Heil Avenue and the Spine Road and is conveyed to the Sunset Channel, within a 66-inch RCP. B. Sewer Facilities The City of Huntington Beach is responsible for the review and approval of waste water collection within the project area, and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) is responsible for the treatment of waste water. The existing sewer system is comprised of several lines, including a fifteen (15) inch in Heil Avenue, an eight (8) inch in Pearce Street and an eight (8) inch in Plaza Lane. The proposed sewer system for the Meadowlark property shall connect to the fifteen (15) inch existing sewer main on Heil Avenue. (Please refer to Appendix I: Sewer System). The property's backbone sewer line will be located within the Spine Road. All "in-tract" local sewer laterals shall gravity flow to the backbone sewer line within the Spine Road. The sewer lines within the property shall be contained in public and private streets or easements which will ultimately be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. All proposed sewer lines within the Specific Plan are tentatively established at eight(8)inches. C. Water Facilities {. Domestic water for the property will be provided by the Public Works Water Division of the City of Huntington Beach. The existing and proposed water supply systems are shown on Appendix J: Water System. On-site water lines shall connect to the existing external system at three locations, thus providing a looped water system of adequate water pressure. The proposed water system shall connect to an existing eight (8) inch line in Pearce Street, an eight (8) inch line in Plaza Lane and a twelve(12) inch in Heil Avenue. The backbone water facility shall consist of a twelve (12)inch line which follows the Spine Road alignment and connects to the existing twelve (12) inch water line in Heil Avenue and the eight (8) inch water line in Plaza Lane. All other project water lines shall be eight(8) inches and shall follow the proposed street alignments, creating loop systems and connecting to the twelve (12) inch line in the Spine Road. Prior to the issuance of building permits within any of the area designated as a separate phase of development in the Phasing Plan, clearance shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works and the Orange County Sanitation District stating that such development will not adversely impact the sewer system. Such clearance shall be in the form of a letter to the Planning Director. 11 � � (C( 3.7 Grading The Meadowlark property is generally flat. A 15-foot grade differential exists between the highest elevation at the southwest portion of the property and the lowest elevation adjacent to Heil Avenue. (Please refer to Appendix K: Topography). The topography is entirely manmade as a result of farming practices and the previous airport land use. Grading will be required to construct streets, infrastructure and other site improvements and to create properly drained development areas. All grading within the Specific Plan area will require a grading permit and shall be governed by soils, foundation and other geotechnical reports prepared by registered civil and geotechnical engineers, building codes, established engineering practices and City ordinances. Reasonable efforts shall be taken in the design of improvements and building pads to minimize the amount of grading required. The maximum slope ratio, horizontal to vertical, will be 2:1 unless otherwise recommended by a Geotechnical engineering report and approved by the City. 3.8 Geology- Soils/Seismicity 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. Information obtained from soils investigations indicate 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 grade. The subject site 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 project site. Although this fault is closer to the Meadowlark Specific Plan area than the Newport-Inglewood it is assumed to be less of a threat to the 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. The following geology, soils and seismicity measures shall be employed prior to the issuance of building permits: Submittal of a structural engineering study evaluating proposed foundation designs and respect the ground shaking and liquefaction hazards on the property. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works and Building Department. Foundations and structural components of the buildings shall be designed according to recommendations contained within the structural engineering study. 12 Submittal of a soils study detailing grading and site preparation recommendations. This study shall be subject to the approval by the Public Works and Building Department. Grading and site preparation shall be accomplished in accordance with recommendations presented in the soils study. Submittal of a soils analysis identifying the absence or presence of methane gas and/or contamination by hazard 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 the City and other appropriate agencies. 3.9 Potential Hazardous Materials An on-site 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, determined that gasoline contaminated soils exist on site (Please refer to Appendix L: Letter from the Environmental Health Division dated June 20, 1990). Investigative measures have been carried out to the satisfaction of that agency for the commercial site and closure has been granted by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for the soil and groundwater cases. The potential for future impact to the area north of the commercial site is considered to 'be minimal, however, investigative and remediation measures shall be required for the residential area of the Meadowlark Specific Plan to ensure compliance with the Orange County Health Division, requirements. Verification of clearance by the OCHCA shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of building permits. Specific development proposals within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with any/all applicable environmental mitigation measures pertinent to hazardous materials. 3.10 Archeology The Meadowlark Specific Plan area is situated on Bolsa Chica Mesa, an area of higher land mostly above the twenty-five (25) contour line, overlooking the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The lowlands were formerly an embayment which provided a diverse floral and faunal resource for local prehistoric Native American populations. Archeological surveys and test programs have identified nine (9) archeological sites on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Conclusions reached by these studies indicate that all of the sites were shellfish processing camps situated within 600 ft of the edge of the bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica lowlands. One of the Bolsa Chica Mesa archeological sites, Ora-368, was situated on the southeast corner of the Meadowlark property. The site was professionally excavated from 1986 to 1994 and has now been replaced by commercial development. Based on the results of the original property survey conducted in 1986, additional work was recommended in four areas along the southeastern portion of the property. Area 1, which contained archeological site Ora-368, was mitigated from 1990 to 1994. Areas 2, 3 and 4 (Please refer to Appendix M: Meadowlark Areas of Archeological Concern) were investigated in 1996 and found that no intact cultural 13 6, (ct , S3 materials (prehistoric or historic) remain on the property. No further mitigation measures are necessary for archeology. The property is cleared for development regarding cultural resources. 3.11 Phasing Plan The Meadowlark community may be developed in several phases. In order to accommodate the anticipated development of each Planning Area, major circulation, infrastructure and community improvements within the Meadowlark property should be completed prior to occupancy of the first residential unit, exclusive of models. (Please refer to Appendix N: Phasing Plan). The first phase of project development shall include widening of Heil Avenue, construction of the Spine Road and adjoining landscaping improvements and development of the public park site adjacent to the existing Norma Gibbs Park, as required when entitlements are granted. 14 �9 , s� L � MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SECTION 4.0 I? - lws� 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1 Purpose and Intent The provisions contained herein shall govern the design and development of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. Development standards and/or design criteria and activities not specifically addressed in this Specific Plan shall be addressed in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Municipal Code and City policies. 4.2 Establishment of District Areas and Planning Areas The Meadowlark property is comprised of a 48.4 acre residential and a 16.6 acre commercial district. (Please refer to Exhibit 2: Zoning/ District Map). The commercial portion of the Specific Plan 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 residential segment is currently vacant and is divided into four Planning Areas. A description of each planning area and corresponding development standards for each planning area follows. A. Residential District Planning Area I Planning Area 1 is centrally located within the Meadowlark project with direct access to the project's Spine Road and Pearce Street. This Planning Area is proposed to be developed with single-family detached homes, accommodating up to seventy (70) lots (9.5 du/ net ac). The majority of the streets within Planning Area 1 shall be private, with the portion of the Pearce Street extension from the west property line to the first "T" street intersection being the exception. Private roads shall be designed to provide a minimum of thirty-two (32) ft. of pavement width allowing parking on one side of the street in conjunction with four (4) ft. sidewalks and five (5) ft. landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. The "public segment" of the Pearce Street extension shall be designed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 is located within the northern area of the Meadowlark project, adjacent to Heil Avenue. Up to sixty (60) single family detached homes may be provided within the subject Planning Area (9.8 du/ net ac). Local streets within Planning Area 2 shall be private, with a thirty-two (32) ft. (min.) pavement width accommodating parking on one side of the street in conjunction with four (4) ft. sidewalks and five (5) ft. landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. 15 Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 includes that area east of the proposed Spine Road and south of the proposed public park. This Planning Area is intended to accommodate up to one hundred sixteen (116) single-family lots (11.8 du/ net ac). All private streets within this Planning Area shall have a thirty-two (32) ft. pavement width which would allow for on-street parking on one side of the street. Five (5) ft. wide landscaped parkways and four(4) ft. wide non-monolithic sidewalks are encouraged, however five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may be provided on both sides of the street for pedestrian access. Planning Area 4 Planning Area 4 is located west of the proposed Spine Road, north of the existing Meadowlark shopping center and east of Roosevelt Lane. This Planning Area can be developed with single- family residential detached product types. A maximum number of ninety-nine (99) lots may be developed(13.8 du/net ac). All local streets within Planning Area 4 shall be private. The single-family detached development concept shall accommodate a thirty-two (32) ft. paved street section width, allowing for parking on one side only. Five (5) ft. wide landscaped parkways and four (4) ft. wide non-monolithic sidewalks are encouraged, however five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks with flare-outs around street furniture may be provided on both sides of the street for pedestrian access. B. Commercial District Development within the commercial district shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excluding hotels and motels) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (HBOC) and pertinent conditions of approval for the commercial center. 4.3 Definitions Words, phrases and terms referenced in the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall have the same application and meaning as described in the HBZSO. When inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words used in the singular number include the plural number; and words of the masculine gender include the feminine gender. The word "shall" is always mandatory and the word"may"is permissive. 16 � � (ct1s7 4.4 General Provisions A. Parkland Dedication Public Park 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 HBZSO. B. Affordable Housing Prior to recordation of any final maps the subdivider(s) shall submit an affordable housing plan . The plan shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. The contents of the affordable housing plan shall include the following: 1. Ten percent(10%) of the total units proposed shall be affordable to low and moderate income level households (maximum 100%of the Orange County Median Income) for a period of thirty (30)years. 2. A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the units being built. The estimated applicable sales price and rental rate of the units. 3. If rental units are used to satisfy this condition,then the units shall be for households earning between 50%-80%of the Orange County Median Income. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall execute a thirty (30) year agreement that maintains the appropriate level of affordability for units in accordance with the Orange County Median Income. If rental units are used to satisfy affordable housing requirements off-site ,prior to issuance of building permits the subdivider shall: 1. Identify the location of the rental units and time they will become available for use. 2. Execute a covenant describing the terms of affordable housing/rental unit provisions. C. Activity Center Facilities Child care facilities or similar community serving building for Meadowlark Specific Plan area residents shall be made available within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. 17 D. Infill Ordinance Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Residential Infill Lot development requirements, in accordance with the HBZSO. E. Perimeter Buffers An one-hundred(100)ft. wide perimeter buffer shall be provided between existing single family development adjacent to the project site and any proposed attached or detached residential development at greater than seven(7) dwelling units per gross acre as follows; fifty(50)percent of that width may be driveway or drive aisle (excluding open or enclosed parking), or seventy- five (75)percent may include attached low density residential units, or one hundred(100)percent may include detached single family residential units at a density not to exceed seven(7)dwelling units per acre. In all cases the landscaped area shall be the outer portion of the buffer area. The maximum building height of all structures within the one-hundred(100) ft. perimeter buffer area shall not exceed twenty-five (25)ft. The building height within said area shall be determined based on HBOC provisions. A twenty (20) ft(average) landscaped buffer shall be provided along the entire length of the Spine Road. Said buffer may include landscaped parkway areas within the street right-of-way. Residential setbacks shall not be included in meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirement., A twelve (12) ft.(min) landscaped buffer area shall be provided along the northerly property line (Heil Avenue). Residential setbacks shall not be included in meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirement. Buffer areas shall be provided between the commercial and residential district to limit the height of any required noise attenuation barriers to a maximum of eight(8)ft. for the majority of the wall length. (Please refer to Appendix O: Commercial/Residential District Buffer Area Treatment). Noise attenuation barrier design solutions may include wall,berm or a combination thereof and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. F. Parking The number of off-street parking spaces for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall be provided in accordance with HBZSO requirements. Open off-street parking requirements for a maximum of forty (40) dwelling units in Planning Area 1 and forty-five (45) dwelling units in Planning Area 4 may be satisfied by on-site tandem parking. 18 G. Garage Use/Design Garages shall be utilized for automobile storage. The interior garage dimension shall be a minimum of twenty (20) ft. by twenty(20) ft. In Planning Areas 3 and 4 a maximum of ten percent(10%) garage area reduction(up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area)will be permitted for a non-cumulative up to twenty-five percent(25%)of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. When a reduction of garage area is proposed a minimum area of eighteen(18) ft. (width)by nineteen(19) ft. (depth) shall be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required(400 sq. ft.) shall be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations)that do not impede the minimum eighteen(18) ft. by nineteen(19) ft. automobile parking area within the garage. Automatic roll-up garage doors shall be provided in all dwellings with driveways twenty (20) ft. or less in length. Twenty-five percent(25%) of all single-family detached dwellings shall incorporate garages within the rear half of the lot. H. Building Additions/ Modifications All dwellings within Planning Area 1-4 shall be constructed in accordance with approved conditional use permit(s)and building construction permit plan(s). Additions and exterior modifications shall be permitted on a limited basis and shall be subject to approval by the Meadowlark HOA and Planning Director. Interior and exterior modifications shall be subject to building permit review/processing requirements. I. Treescane Street trees shall be provided in parkways located between the curb and sidewalk, as required when entitlements are granted. Tree species and spacing shall be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective continuous tree canopy, avoid sidewalk damage, and minimize water consumption. J. Product Development Three different floor plans (min) and two (2) alternate elevations for each floor plan shall be required to be developed within each Planning Area. Reversed floor plans/elevations shall not be considered as additional/different floor plans/elevations. K. Porches/E=elements Porches and/or single story entry elements shall be provided on a minimum of 1/3 of the total number of dwellings within each residential planning area. 19 6C) L. Variable Setbacks Front yard setbacks shall be varied to avoid a monotonous pattern of houses and create an interesting street-scene. Side and rear yard setbacks shall be varied to allow for improved solar access and provide useful private open space areas (Please refer to Appendix P: Conceptual Street Scene). M. Activities/Uses along Spine Road Pedestrian Promenade Points of interest(architectural, landscaping,recreational and/or sculptural), seating areas, and functional pavilions shall be incorporated within the overall Spine Road buffer design theme. N. Street Furniture Decorative street furniture,and light fixtures shall be incorporated within the residential portion of Meadowlark Specific Plan area. 20 { 4.5 Development Standards A. Residential District Planning Area I 1. Purpose Planning Area 1 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-1). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional small-lot homes) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. • Day Care, Large Family, within the Common Open Space Area/ Activity Center, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be four thousand six hundred (4,600) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty-five (55) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty (30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty(20) ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 9.5 dwelling units per net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) feet and a maximum of two (2) stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent. An additional five percent (5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 21 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen (15)ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18) ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10) ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve (12) ft.* * Front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) aggregate of lot frontage at any point of the structure; with minimum three (3) ft. on any interior yard but need not exceed five (5) ft. (or aggregate of 10 ft. for both yards). An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between dwelling units on adjacent, residential lots. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch (30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; but need not exceed ten(10) ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch (30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. 22 ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30)inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13) ft. • Garage(s)without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5)ft. for garage and ten (10)ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five (5)ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: ` • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten (10) ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 23 Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-lots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with a four (4) ft. (min) side yard setback, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan) . • A four(4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty (40) ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred (100) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with forty(40) ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25) ft. b) Private Open Space Four hundred (400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 24 10. Building Separation Four(4) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. 25 Planning Area 2 1. Purpose Planning Area 2 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-2). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional small-lot homes) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be four thousand (4,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty (50) ft. however, the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty (30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty (20)ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 9.8 dwelling units per net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) ft. and a maximum of two stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50)percent. An additional five percent (5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen(15) ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18) ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10) ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve (12) ft.** 26 ,� � 1a ,C7 * Front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) aggregate of lot frontage at any point of the structure; with minimum three (3) ft. on any interior yard but need not exceed five (5) ft. (or aggregate of 10 ft. for both yards). An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between dwelling units on adjacent residential lots. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; but need not exceed ten(10) ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13) ft. • Garage(s) without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5) ft. for garage and ten(10) ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five 27 — cq , �?, percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch (30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) feet. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten(10) ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot-line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-lots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with four (4) ft. (min) side yard setback, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 28 0 -- 1910 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community(Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan). • A four(4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty (40) ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred (100) sq. ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty (40)ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand(3,000 ) sq. ft. The total common open space area required 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25)ft. b) Private Open Space ' Four hundred (400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 10. Building Separation Four(4) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. M -1 n 29 Planning Area 3 1. Purpose Planning Area 3 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development(Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-3). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (including zero lot-line, Z-lot and conventional small-lot homes) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a Community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be forty (40) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty(30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty (20) ft. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 11.8 dwelling units per net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) ft. and a maximum of two stories with the exception of the one-hundred (100) ft. buffer area where the maximum building height shall be limited to twenty-five (25) ft. The building height within the buffer area shall be determined in accordance with HBOC provisions. (Please refer to Section 4.4E, p.18) 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50)percent. An additional five percent (5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. aZ Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows_ • Dwellings: fifteen (15) ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen(18)ft. • Side entry garages: ten(10) ft. 30 � � ICI ? 1 • Patios/Entry elements: twelve(12) ft.* * The above setback requirements are applicable when five (5) ft. wide monolithic sidewalks and no landscape parkways are provided along street frontages. If five (5)ft. (min.) wide landscape parkways are provided,front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings: Three (3) ft. (min) on one side and five (5) ft. (min) on the other side. An eight (8) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. c) Exterior Side Yard Setback The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent (20%) of lot frontage; with minimum of six(6) ft. on any exterior yard but need not exceed eight(8) ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty(30) inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13) ft. • Garage(s) without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. 31 ( a , `7�-- • Garages with habitable area above: five (5) ft. for garage and ten(10) ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch(30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Zero Lot Line A zero side and rear setback shall be permitted subject to the following requirements: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min) setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line. For a total of ten(10)ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Exceptions For Z-lots Z-lots may be developed subject to the following requirements: • An eight (8) ft. (min) building separation, in conjunction with four (4) ft. (min) side yard setbacks, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. 32 0 - !mot , -73 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan). • A four(4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty (40) ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred (100) sq. ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty (40)ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand(3,000) sq. ft. The total common open space area required 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 shall be _ designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five (25) ft. b) Private Open Space Four hundred (400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 10. Building Separation Four(4) ft. (min)building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. 33 � rlC� t-?q Planning Area 4 1. Purpose Planning Area 4 is intended to provide for single-family detached residential development (Please refer to Appendix Q: Conceptual Building Layout PA-4). 2. Permitted Uses • Single-family detached dwelling units (on zero lot-line and Z-lots) and their associated accessory buildings, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. • Private recreational facilities owned and maintained by a community or Homeowners' Association, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 3. Minimum Lot Size/Frontage • The minimum lot size shall be three thousand (3,000) sq. ft. • The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty-five (35) ft; however the minimum lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be thirty (30) ft. Flag lots may be permitted on a limited basis, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The minimum required lot frontage for flag lots shall be twenty (20) feet. 4. Maximum Density • The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per residential lot. Second units are not permitted. The overall planning area density shall not exceed 13.8 dwelling units per net acre. 5. Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height shall be thirty (30) ft. and a maximum of two stories. 6. Maximum Site Coverage • The maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent. An additional five percent (5%) is permitted for porches and/or single story covered entry areas along street frontages. 7. a) Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows: • Dwellings: fifteen(15) ft.* • Front entry garages: eighteen (18)ft. • Side entry garages: ten (10) ft. • Patios/Entry elements: twelve (12) ft.* 34 * The above setback requirements are applicable when five (5)ft. wide monolithic sidewalks and no landscape parkways are provided along street frontages. If five (S)ft. (min.) wide landscape parkways are provided,front yard setbacks may 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. Reductions to building setbacks shall be considered only for high quality, innovative development concepts which promote pedestrian-oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene. The front yard setback average calculations shall exclude garage frontages. b) Interior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from interior side property lines shall be as follows: Zero lot-line: • The lot adjacent to the zero setback side shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application • A six (6) ft. (min) separation shall be provided between dwelling units along the zero lot-line. • A five (5) ft. (min)setback shall be provided along the non-zero lot-line for a total of ten(10) ft. separation between dwellings. • The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access easement shall be provided, on the lot next to the zero lot line for the benefit of the lot with the zero lot line in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. Z-lots: • A eight (8)ft. (min)building separation, in conjunction with four (4) ft. (min) side yard setbacks, shall be provided between dwelling units. • Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Department. • A four (4) ft. (min) drainage and maintenance access/use easement shall be provided in accordance with an approved plan and CC&Rs. Open and clear access to this easement shall be maintained. • All architectural projections shall comply with the Uniform Building Code. The following projections into the interior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch(30")clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: eighteen(18) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. 35 c) Exterior Side Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from exterior side property lines shall be as follows: • Dwellings garages and accessory buildings: Twenty percent(20%) of lot frontage; with minimum of six(6) ft. on any exterior yard but need not exceed eight(8) ft. • Side entry garages or carports: ten(10) ft. The following projections into the exterior sideyard setback are permitted provided that a thirty-inch (30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30) inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2)ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. d) Rear Yard Setbacks The minimum setback from the rear property line shall be as follows: • Dwelling: fifteen (15) ft. except that up to 50% of the rear building wall may be setback thirteen(13) ft. • Garage(s) without habitable area above: zero (0) ft. • Garages with habitable area above: five (5) ft. for garage and ten(10) ft. for habitable area. However, habitable area(s) above garages may be at five (5) ft. for twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units within the subject planning area, provided there is a minimum fifteen (15) ft. separation between habitable areas on adjacent lots and windows along rear building elevations are placed five (5) ft. (min) above the finished floor. • Patio cover(s) or accessory building(s): five (5) ft. The following projections into the rear yard setback are permitted provided that a thirty- inch (30") clearance from the property line is maintained: ➢ Eaves: thirty (30)inches. ➢ Fireplaces/media center: two (2) ft. ➢ Bay windows, unroofed balconies, open stairways, and architectural features: thirty (30) inches. 8. Fences • Fences shall be constructed in accordance with an approved fence/wall plan for the Meadowlark community (Please refer to Appendix R: Wall/Fence Master Plan). • A four (4) ft. (min) landscape buffer shall be provided between fences located on exterior side and rear yards and the back of sidewalks. Said landscape buffer areas shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. • All interior and rear yard fences shall be of masonry construction. • The design of fences visible from public right-of-ways shall be enhanced. 36 b _ f ct . —17 • Fences within front yard setback areas shall be limited to open view fences with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. 9. Open Space a) Common Open Space Common open space area shall be provided as follows: • One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. per residential lot for residential lots with less than forty (40) ft. of lot frontage. • One hundred (100) sq. ft per residential lot for residential lots with forty (40) ft. or more of lot frontage. The common open space area shall not be less than three thousand (3,000) sq. ft. The total common open space area required 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 shall be designed with a minimum dimension of twenty-five)25 ft. b) Private Open Space Four hundred (400) sq. ft. of private usable open space shall be provided 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 shall 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. 10. Building Separation Four (4) ft. (min) building separation shall be provided between structures on the same lot. 37 B. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Development within this district shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District (excluding hotels and motels) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (HBOC) and pertinent conditions of approval for the commercial center. 38 4.3 General Design Criteria A. Residential Subdivision Design Residential subdivisions should be configured to establish a pedestrian friendly environment and a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity by providing the following: • Street configurations involving interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of "blocks" rather than cul-de-sacs. Streets must be pedestrian friendly: sidewalks, street trees, building entries and parallel parking must shelter and enhance the walking environment. • Public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. Park and plazas should provide public focus and should not be formed from residual areas. • A common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child-care, public meeting rooms and/or recreational facilities. • Common facilities in proximity to a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. • A continuous network of sidewalks, bike, pedestrian paths and/ or other elements to link parts of the community and provide connections to land uses in adjacent areas. • Reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures without compromising auto safety and emergency access requirements. • Landscaped parkways, especially where reduced street widths are being proposed. • Shade trees along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage, and minimize water consumption. • Alleys or other design solutions to minimize the dominance of garages along street frontages. • Increased setbacks and/ or design elements that buffer residential units from impacts of abutting commercial development. • Decorative street furniture and light fixtures along pedestrian paths. • Architectural, landscape, sculptural and/or recreational points of interest and activities along pedestrian paths. �� 39 B. Residential Product Design Residential units shall be designed to convey a high level of quality and character by: • Modulating building massing and articulating building elevations. • Avoiding building materials, colors and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of the neighborhood. • Minimizing the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. • Incorporating elements, such as porches, in the design of dwellings to emphasize the front yard as an activity area and"outdoor living room". • Locating and designing garages so that they do not dominate the street scene. • Including separate and well defined entries to visually convey the individual identity for each residential unit. • Providing open space amenities accessible and of sufficient size to be usable by residents. C. Non-Residential Structure Design within Residential Planning Areas • Non-residential structure design shall be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. 40 V� MEADOWLARK SPfClfl[ PLAN IMPLfMfNiATION [I OF NUNTINGiON BEACH SECTION 5.0 �� a ,8a 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Procedures The methods and procedures for the implementation of the Meadowlark Specific Plan shall be in conformance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). If an issue, condition or situation arises or occurs that is not sufficiently covered or provided for, or is not clearly understandable, those regulations of the HBZSO that are applicable to the most similar issue, condition or situation shall be used by the Planning Director as guidelines to resolve it. This provision shall not be used to permit uses or procedures not specifically authorized by this Specific Plan or the HBZSO. 5.2 Implementation Notwithstanding provisions/regulations applicable to the commercial portion and the one- hundred (100) ft. perimeter buffer area of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area, development of the Specific Plan area shall be implemented in accordance with procedures set forth in this Specific Plan and HBZSO. 5.3 Hearings All public hearings held relative to this Specific Plan shall be administered per the applicable provisions of the HBZSO. 5.4 Appeals Any decision, determination or requirements may be appealed in accordance with applicable provisions of the HBZSO. 5.5 Specific Plan Amendment Requests for amendments to the Meadowlark Specific Plan may be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Each amendment shall include all sections of the Specific Plan that are affected by the change. Specific Plan Amendment(s) may require concurrent General Plan Amendment(s),unless it is determined by the Planning Director that the proposed Amendment would not substantively affect the General Plan goals, objective, policies or programs. 5.6 Dwelling Unit Distribution The Meadowlark Specific Plan does not allow dwelling units to be redistributed between the four (4) Planning Areas. The maximum density shown on Exhibit 4: Development Summary for each planning area and the total number of dwelling units allocated to the Specific Plan shall not be exceeded. 41 �p � lq , C�7 5.7 Boundary Changes Acreage figures shown on Exhibit 4: Development Summary are indicated to the nearest fractional acre. Minor modifications to Planning Area boundaries may be permitted, subject to approval by the Planning Director. 5.8 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, recreational 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 Planning Director as to suitability for the proposed use of the open space areas. If the common open spaces are to be conveyed to a homeowner's association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. • The Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. • Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. • The open space restrictions shall be permanent. • Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the covenants, conditions and restrictions for each project. • If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps, reciprocal covenants, conditions, and restrictions or reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowner's association with common areas for the total development. 5.9 Approval Period Not withstanding the provisions of Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, Conditional Use Permits authorized under Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance shall become null and void within two (2) years unless a final tract map has been recorded with the County Recorder's 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. 42 I� � la R4 L J MEADOWLARK SPfCIfIC PLAN APPENDIX CITY Of HUNTINGiON BEACH � i,, �,SECTION 6.0 MEADOWLARK SPECIfIf PLAN ,n CITY %HUNTINGTON BEAN APPENDIX A YJ 'Ice t LEGAL DESCRIPTION (MEADOWLARK) ALL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 90-268 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK 280, PAGES 29 TO 32 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 90- 268; THENCE IN A GENERAL EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 90-268 AS FOLLOWS: NORTH 89035'03" EAST 662.81 FEET; SOUTH 0°45'33" EAST 1301.41 FEET; NORTH 89036'05" EAST 333.38 FEET; SOUTH 0047'03" EAST 419.00 FEET; SOUTH 89035'57" WEST 153.25 FEET; SOUTH 72057'27" WEST 69.53 FEET; SOUTH 0047'03" EAST 221.80 FEET; SOUTH 89036'35" WEST 445.50 FEET; SOUTH 0044'48" EAST 660.65 FEET; SOUTH 89037'06" WEST 331.98 FEET; NORTH 0044'03" WEST 30.00 FEET; SOUTH 89037'06" WEST 663.95 FEET; NORTH 0042'33" WEST 1291.01 FEET; NORTH 89036'05" EAST 331.69 FEET; NORTH 0043'18" WEST 660.56 FEET; NORTH 89035'34" EAST 331.55 FEET; AND NORTH 0044'03"WEST 640.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 63.459 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS WITHIN PARCEL MAP NO. 92-228 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 280, PAGES 33 TO 35 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY AND A PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS WITHIN HEIL AVENUE, PLAZA LANE, WARNER AVENUE, AIRPORT CIRCLE AND ROOSEVELT LANE. AEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH r) #- 1p i e7 � - 7 ,'a ; spy ��f 3 v+n�•'uK J�,l u� li'a�'! a ':Y rY �? f � � 1r§ct•-.t� . are 1 p,21 iP,MRyrMyp! #• ,. �yA.y1 `i.ai,�,a' .. ` per'f x+'+I�ie•. -,riJ.yr1 1 •�� •1y���� ` .I t .�',fir � t � <t"i�•��r!r�tr,'fi'. , • 4 In i�"��t:"'"'�.a:� i'1:�'+�".w1t �'LW •�. � �'C r � ` h w ' y���,,.y��y� �'I���i�'�r�:A'IT�a•'1T'r11f M 'Mr� 'r _ r '�+y��r vf•;y:+�� I��f trams:� '� `, , 14 AF [ AU r�. -�,,�. ,,j ` 1^ ;,\�L.'r+ • t Ap JAL Ity Sit 4 A �•� a �� �/ ha�..�:7.. '`�� : �t .,i T it ''_ ,.1 •�•' � , l ,�.a-.w � - - '\ IL p goo — / ' r`•� Y ,�1�+, �.'f T�a Y � .•�f5 i �i }� �� f r' ,r. �,,.� �,+,\ .n.•. �/ r 7�► r�~� �wr^ �' r r ', �•,w �� �: _r✓ i �.~Y' , �i' ; ��.��, f►� ,f�!..L�;! �' '.A f .�I J ��I•. .,.w I,#YrM�.^w�11�Y '.��' .• ���� "1 ,.�r N;^],.•.�..��,F' � ��' � !t•'l �ki� MEADOWLARK SP[CIfIC PLAN CITY Of HUNIINGTON BEACH D -W APPENDIX B R/W R/W 42' 32' 5' 16' 16' 5' SIDEWALK 90EWALK 5>t 3tv a`1 27. 2% 1� 42' STREET (PRIVATE) (N.T.S.) R/W R/W 50' 9' 32'4' 5' 16' 16' 5' 4- 1DEWALV PARKWAY PARKWAY IDEW 50' STREET (PRIVATE) (N.T.S.) N'LY S'LY 59' I 10' 40' 9' 6' 4' 20' 20' 5' 1 4' IDEWAL PARKWAY PARKWAY PIDEW41 59' STREET (PUBLIC) (PEARCE DRIVE EXTENSION) (N.T.S.) R/W R/W 60' 30' 30' 14' 1 16' 16' 1 14' 4 6 4 MEANDERING SIDEWALK 4 �. a i ' �%R;•, 1 ,�, \sty .� r.. f ,•t,, ! SPINE ROAD (PUBLIC) AIADOWIARK SPECIf IC PLAN (N.T.S.) STREET SECTIONS CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH fD .- to � Ro MIADOWLARK SPRIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX C V�f9. ay. � '�'I =der., " ... �_ i :�� y ��; j�• -#� r`! ELEVATION SIDEYARD FENCE _ r RESIDENCE may. + :r '�• RESIDENCE =.ARK, A`/ -BEES :�RCjECT ?ERAIE-ER ,- PARKWAY PLAN-I�VG 0RCJECT,.IONuP,iENTA-l0N - TURF - 7--vCRE-E Si!DE'r;ALK .'1 ENRICHED D.A/ING __- -AIR RA`:IPS NORTH k� va-=i-o• o s v a. ea MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN TICIL AVENUE PROJECT ENTRY CITY Of WNTINGTON BE0 9 - tom ,`1 , MIADOWIARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPCNDI3 D � 4 . 1 '.a ♦ .. may.; .� ELEVATION C NCRE`c 310E:11A_K \ J .�.• LAYERED SHRUB PL-44'r'QG AV SIDEYARD =ENCE J RESIdENCE r �� RESIDENCE 0= MASONRY :li, .AS-cq ;. ON INT=R.OP, _ CO%*AUN T`� �VA_L J j ONLY l COiJNANII-iNi'Y PER;METER- / PAR:K`iVA, TREES bi ASONRv'NAL• �. �. RETAIL CEN'ER �- NORTH --= _ - MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN PLAZA IM PROJET ENTRY CITY Of WNTINGTON BEACH p —tc , �'� MfADOWIARK SPfCif IC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH AP NDIX f ; A 45 EUM WA= I saEFA LY a �r r FEIL r AMWE r r a� I WWWIIUWIIIIIIWWI r oum ?Cozr PA-2 II II PA-2 r SCALE: 1"=300' • rC.�.! L—r r * r r PUBLIC - ' I PARK �d r � r PA-1 i / r r r0 ` •p a* FALLT ou sm / C r COMMON OPEN PA-3 ' 1, r PA-4 \ r >I IU O WWi91 ipp- la-al W f01i1-ai " r r 11-FNLTNI Wis rriM rust Mao aan a Man I F�I+F`Nyl=1 X — ENHANCED PERIMETER WALL °p A A vp p r° °p m 'p 'p (TYPE TO BE DETERMINED • • • • • • AT TRACT MAP STAGE) • • • • • 9 .����� PERIMETER WALL ® co ne ci oe ci d d �0- THEME WALL I � IIIIIAiliilllllllllllltllllltl SOUND / ATTENUATION WALL �� reeu r � I �n I Mrrq • L_J PROJECT MONUMENTATION WALL rw / f 77 / FTI / MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN COMMUNITY WALL PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH 0-- (at 19� MCADOWIARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH ���� ?7APKNDIX f � ELK• Z '1"NC f - 'rIT ACCcS3 T- BARK' .'A' :f f J , . f• -,lIE.�NCER;Ni �:CNCR=Tc 'NALK /AY _ z GROUND /ERTICAL s OPY TREE ENHANCED PAVING + SIDEYARD PENCE } COMMUNITY MASONRY NALL ACCENT CANOPY TREE -. WITH PILASTERS RESIDENCE r� �. SLOPE PLANTINGS RESIDENCECONCRETE SIDE:`IALK �C.10MUNI7Y .vASONR, .YAU_ f �' :`/1—�4 0ILaS-ERS PARK NAv -REES RESIDENCE 6 � NORTH r MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN SPINE ROAD EXPANDED PARKWAY CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH p--(q I tp 1 MEADOWIARK SPfCIfIC PIAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX G ^ d r SPINE STREET TREE: CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES - CARROTWOOD JACKARANDA ACUTIFOLIA - JACARANDA SPINE BACKGROUND TREE: BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS - BOTTLE TREE LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA - AMERICAN SWEET GUM TRISTANIA CONFERTA - BRISBANE BOX NEIGHBORHOOD THEME ACCENT STREET TREE: PLANNING AREA 1 : *AGONIA FLEXUDSA - PEPPERMENT TREE *PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD' - EVERGREEN PEAR *STENOCARPUS SINUATUS - FIREWHEEL TREE PLANNING AREA 2: *BAUHINIA BLAKEANA - HONG KONG ORCHID TREE *RHUS LANCEA - AFRICAN SUMMAC *ULMUS PARVIFOLIA - EVERGREEN ELM PLANNING AREA 3: *GEIJERA PARVIFLORA - AUSTRALIAN WILLOW *METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS - NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE PINUS CANARIENSIS - CANARY ISLAND PINE PLANNING AREA 4: *CALLISTEMON CITRINUS - LEMON BOTTL.EBRUSH *LAGERSTROEMIA FAUREI - CRAPE MYRTLE MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA - SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA NEIGHBORHOOD THEME BACKGROUND TREE: PLANNING AREA 1 : LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA - AMERICAN SWEET'GUM PINUS ELDARICA - MONDELL PINE PRUNUS CERASIFERA - PURPLE-LEAF PLUM PLANNING AREA 2: *ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA - BRONZE LOQUAT PYRUS KAWAKAMI - EVERGREEN PEAR *TRISTANIA CONFERTA - BRISBANE BOX PLANNING AREA 3: *BRACHICHYTON POPULNEUS - BOTTLE TREE CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS - rrALIAN CYPRESS FICUS NITIDA - INDIAN LAUREL FIG PLANNING AREA 4: *MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA - CAJEPUT TREE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR - FERN PINE PRUNUS CERASIFERA - PURPLE-LEAF PLUM TREE REQUIREMENT NOTE: -LOTS LESS THAN 45' WIDE TO RECEIVE ONE (1) 24" BOX TREE MIN. -LOTS GREATER THAN 45' WIDE TO RECEIVE ONE (1) 36" BOX TREE MIN. *TREES SUITABLE FOR 4'-6' WIDE PARKWAY MEADOWLARK SPHIFIC PLAN PLANT MATERIAL PALETTE CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAU ID , fat (00 ARDOWIARK SPfCif IC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH �D �q,,o, APPINDIX H 72" RCP-\._, OMM OEM= WaffmLy fu HEIL r AVENUE 'j. CONNECTS TO THE—rf---, 48" RCP COUNTY'S SUNSET / ! aum CHANNEL (C07) 0 z PA-2 PA-2 a SCALE: 1"=300' CONNECTS TO EXIST. 48" RCP STORM DRAIN IN BOLSA CHICA x 48" RCP I on 3 PUBLIC x PARK 48" RCP (DETENTION PA-1 BASIN) WAM —18-RCP 48" RCP Low FMLY flu TM a mm V135-m WMM MrA= sm COMMON OPEN SPACE —48" RCP PA-3 o PA-4 L4 --9mg--- 141-4 WA Min-n ....................... r, FIALY so ---------- LEGEN .................... ............ . ..................... ........ PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ---------............. ........ .... 7T 4- t,dl ...........ji NOTE: SPECIFIC STORM DRAIN DESIGN FOR ............ EACH PLANNING AREA SUBJECT TO C.U.P. PROCESS. AEADOWLARK SPICIFIC PLAN STORA DRAIN SYS CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH ARDOWLARK SPECIFIC RAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX I am=orrAom +IRMALr A) r Q1r101 Z PA-2 j I PA-2 SCALE: 1"=300' `� 1 } C> rrt PUBLIC i PARK r r. PA-1 / 8" r > A M w Ifor-m SUM WAM COMMON -. .� SPACE ;a j I $ 1 PA-3 PA-4 �� \ , E W f0 f 01 i = .................._ j f ...._ et:P,it to LEGEN s; i �! E i.......... t t .....� i _ ..........__. . ..._. _ = 0— PROPOSED SEWER y - ----(}---- EXISTING SEWER Al v i SPEC FIC SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN FOR — � ',_ --- EACH PLANNING AREA SUBJECT TO q- Wo I C.U.P. PROCESS AfADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN S]W IL:R S Y S T E A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH D lot t l©q AEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX y me M A M stufALY Ou PROPOSED 12" WATER I rl = = LINE TO CONNECT TO / om EXISTING 12 WATER 12" LINE IN HEIL AVENUEA z PA-2 PA-2 - r#' SCALE: 1"=300' _ 1r , _� r J PUBLIC PARK m , - PA-1 / / r - MY ou / W tlls•ti COMMON , OPEN SPACE 8" t�g 1 PA-3 ' \ \ 12„ 4 PA-4 \ r \ \ .ou wtir 90 f i AvIp ° ; ; if at 1 f 'E 5...: _.... LEGEN PROPOSED WATER UN E EXISTING WATER UNE PROPOSED 12" WATER LINE TO CONNECT TO j .. t L._.... .. EXISTING 8" WATER � ,-_-,t -+e•ie:i'1 4.. i � ..,, ..fit. 2 Q j LINEN PLAZA LANE " Yi_ NOTE: SPECIFIC LINE DESIGN SUBJECT TWO C.U.P. PROCESS. MEADOWLARK SPiECIf IC PLAN WATER SYS1fM CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH � � ��, , I 0 7 APPENDIX K r ' i -,qTl MUM . r q /1 ' itll I i , i s Mf ADOWIARK SPECif IC PIAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH � ^ fq , (09 APPENDIX L TOM URj DIRECT L REX EHL1Nr U N'Y""Y O F HEALTn( INVIRONNENTAL HEALTH DIM. ROBERT E.MERRYMAN,REH8 MI DEPUTY DIRECT, s 3 RANG E MAILIN13 ADDRESS:P.O.BOX SANTA MA.CA 92; HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIV181ON 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 9 2649 O.C.H.C.A. Site #90UT110 Dear Mr. Nar:o: 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) (Q t <10 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 MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX M t^cQ< uZ 0 200 loot I y --- T—J < 0 SO metes z i AREA X % ASP:ANE PA.gK:NG AREA 3 AREA 2 /\ j \ AREA 1 a �. •: -420 motor grid � JF� c 4Cc C WARNER AVENUE MEADOWLARK AREA Of MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS CITY Of TIUNTINGTON BEACH ID - (.� , t(-? MCADQWIARK SPECIFIC PLAN CITY Of HUNTI�TON BEACH APPENDIX N eta. << P _ . E1611q w xm NaafmLy A) ! r fbl r AVM t i f r _ * owm Z PA-2 PA-2 t SCALE: 1"=300' ig tL tr r t r _ ! t t PA-1 �4 r COMMON ' OPEN SPACE PA-3 t PA-4 r .+ :. LEGENLl „. ALL OTHER PLANNING AREA PH t: V ASING SUBJECT i TO C.U.P. PROCESS. i 3�", t..,� S1kiP5.....: k. �` @CBrR+U �" OPEN SPACE LOTS ADJACENT TO N SPINE ROAD WILL BE INCLUDED Y ' — WITHIN PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS. Afmo n SP�EC1f IC PLAIN PHASING PION CITY Of HUNTINGTON RED LAEORLARK SPECIFIC PLAN Cify OF ININTON BEACH APPENDIX 0 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING .� , COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TO MAIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 5' IN. DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE W� W SPA IfIC Pl�N cir NCI ToN BEACH � 1 17 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING 5' MIN. LANDSCAPING DRIVEWAY EMPLOYEE PARKING OPEN PARKING Ll I (OR .DF.IfVEWAY) -•S� 'r�eew + i i COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL. EDGE TREATMENT FOR OPEN PARKING/DRIVEWAY LAWA01ASPE(If IC PLAIN CITY Ar HIRITIN TON CH 0- rct , it? r LAEAADIARK SPKIFIC LLAN tI1Y OF fANiTIN6TON BEEA[[N p - (� � ((y ARMY P v w.r. Y ' ' ,� .��t,L,2'�si-.'� ,IdM,nw' irty� "ir'� •..-�,i�cssi{`4�,.' j��„�?;"� ter, '1 ; ,s � .�:.,� :r' t HUNTINGTON &&Q"u SLEc P CITY OF UTIM6TOi BEACH fl_ (a , 121 i1PPENDI)! Q I I• 15' (MIN) I : O' OR 5'(MIN)tn � W Ll000 I C!� I W 1- 10' I (MIN) (MIN) I ui Un I' I 5 Y E� 931 -- I Ho I �4' 5' 16 16' 5' 4' . r� 15' (MIN)I (MIN)UJ i z o' OR ,5'(MIN) oLn tn --- , I 4 Iff PA I I Pifsowm SpEcif K PUX CITY T KINGTO" KKR NOT To SCAIE 15' I (MIN) I z 10' I • MIN �----. 6i J 18' I � . c/) �08 I � 15' i C 1-1 (MIN) r I 0 13, I (MIN) I a-•. 10' I ., r ' 5,01 r ' 32' 10' 14 S' 16' 16' S' 4' 13' MIN I ' (MIN) I � I o H _ I "' 18' I 15, �' I {MIN) a: I t. . ...r. _......__............._..... ... ._.__........ t AD 0m A(lific PLm CKIPTUAL MIN L 1T: Ply CITY Of HUNTINGTON BCACH HOT TO SCALE �- 19 , 123 � � I 18' z 13' + g (MIN) 15' i 42' Q 15, I + (MIN) 12' + 16' 16' S' MIN) I CO "' 12' + (MIN)- ' 15' + z 15' MIN (MIN) H + W Zb �+ 1 , +, W taOT:m LZ 181 + .Q � 15' (MIN) i . � � MIN H + : rl 15' 1 (MIN) •: ao MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 3 CITY Of HLIKINGTON BEACH NOT TO SCAM A t 12.4 L......_ ....._ # I . . _......--__...__.._..___.._... _....._.............._._........ .fit tea• -v- I : i-- 15, I w z MIN {MIN)I ui 1 13' MIN t `Ln M Ln (MIN) En u, 18' 42 E„ 0 OR 5 (MIN) MIN I T 16' 16' 5' ui z 15' t w 15 MIN (MIN) � I a z 13' 15', I �— a (MIN) I I W 15' W (MIN) 181�I t cn 1 L.L.. 0' OR 5'(MIN) Q 12' t L 15, H 15, t L'L.. MIN LMADOWLARK 'Srarr-Of IC PLAN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT: PA 4 CITY Of HUMINGTON BEACH NOT TO SCALE AEADOWLARK ECK RM CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH APPENDIX R t (�.6 � . — �a � f2 7 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 97-1/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL -ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 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 incorporate development standards for such development within the revised Specific Plan; and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 to revise/update the 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 and establish the boundaries for four(4) residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5du/net ac and 13.8du/net ac are consistent with the following objectives,policies, general land uses and policies specified in the General Plan. Goal L U 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. Obiective L U 9.1 Provide for the development of single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods. Policy L U 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. Obiective 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. (PCCL0922-1) Policy L U 9.3.2 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. 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 LU 9.3.3 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. 2. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed project will reduce the previously approved map density for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area from six hundred (600) dwelling units to three hundred forty -five (345) dwelling units. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The compact lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single-family detached homes at more affordable prices. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. D - (Qt 1;04 (PCCL0922-2) 5. The proposed residential densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area, range from 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net 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. 6. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) which permits development of commercial and residential uses and allows the Specific Plan to govern the exact density, location and mix of uses. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing commercial center and incorporates single family residential development at densities ranging between 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net acre 7. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring 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 in order to address land use compatibility issues related to compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. 8. The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. 9. The revised Specific Plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. 10. 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. 11. Grading within the Specific Plan area 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 . FINDINGS OF APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. (PCCL0922-3) 2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s)the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring ten percent(10%) of proposed units to be affordable by entering into an affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the 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 will 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 Planning 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 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 are non-hazardous, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. 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 Geotechnical 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 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. - iq , l-�z (PCCL09224) 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, that 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. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,that 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 barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with the 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 may be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for the 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(8) ft. 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) are 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. Q4r- 13-3 (PCCL0922-5) ATTACHMENT 3 D ,._ Ict ( ( ILI N U M, -T-T,-E F 1�_11��,X�'1100 im MWAI ON _ M , "WK p . .... "M IN _n ' 10 'all n R i TTYi, --N ,, 'BEA ANN I TOY V­fli now, pa, MN� c ,4- N,2, I': Qg. .4ING2131VISION"I'TT Mpf­ 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: Project 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 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATADOC (C , /3.� r' • 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 50f-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, it has been concluded that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) referencing Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 2 04/24/98 GAW OLFEWEADO WLATA.DOC Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines (incorporation by reference the prior certified EIR) is the appropriate environmental review process for the proposed project. Two 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 GAWOUZMEADOWLATA.DOC 0 —(a, , 13 7 • 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 GAWOLMN EADOWLATA.DOC �'�C- < t 3j I Grading Grading 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-SO/Tentative Tract May 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. 7. 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. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 5 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC / l ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 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. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will .not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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 ad ress t April 24, 1998 /8i ature Date 7my Wolfe Project Planner Printed Name Title Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 6 04/24/98 GAWOrLFEWEA DO WLATA.DOC D " \q r t ` L( 0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a fording 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 Mud/lows?(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 GAWOLFEW EADOWLA\EA.DOC 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 ❑ ❑ IN ❑ zoning? (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental ❑ ❑ p ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEWEADOW AALME DOC r [Psk , t/4 (�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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IN local population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC 0 _ 11qt /q 3 entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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) ❑ ❑ ❑ N b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 6) ❑ ❑ Im ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ IN ❑ liquefaction? (Sources: 6, 7,8) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Sources: 3, 6, 8) e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Source: 3, 6) I❑ ❑ ❑ 0 fl Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 6,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 3, 6, 8) ❑ ❑ 91 ❑ Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (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 GAWOLFE NEADOWLATA.DOC u .__entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEW EADOWLATA.DOC �� r� , I 's I j ._.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, ❑ 0 ❑ IN 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC '._.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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 development 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 10, 15) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Source: 1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 temperature? (Source: 2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLAIEA.DOC P - 19 1 [q7 rucentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (Sources: 2, 11, 16,17) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2, 16,17) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 14 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEA.DOC � -lct t f qk i —entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ site? (Sources: 2, 16,17) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ bicyclists? (Sources: 2, 16,17) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC (9 1 /qo�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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IN trees)? (Source: 5) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GA W OLFEUEADO W LATA.DOC .'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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 plans? (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 and inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 6) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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 ❑ 191 ❑ ❑ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 2, 6, 18) b) Possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 2, 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 17 04/24/98 GAWOLFE%ffiADOWLA\EA.DOC `� I VLentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 hazards? (Source: 2, 18) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADO WLA\EA.DOC -4entially 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: ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ 2,6,12, 19) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ (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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEA.DOC r,rentially 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 ❑ ❑ 191 ❑ Fire Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Source: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ O ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Source: School Districts) ❑ ❑ p ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ 91 ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Source: City of ❑ ❑ 91 ❑ 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) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ IN ❑ distribution facilities? (Sources: 5, 6) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ fl Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 21 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADO WLATA.DOC —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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 (Sources: 1,3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ effect? (Sources: 1,2) c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEW EADOWLATA.DOC 6 , 6t (57� .-'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: ❑ ❑ ❑ O 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IN 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 ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 2) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (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 GAWOLFEWEADO WLAEA.DOC p [CO /s 7 .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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (Sources: 3) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 24 04/24/98 GAW OLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC ,•centially 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 GAWOLFEMEADO W LATA.DOC (Ce 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 6 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 G:\W OLFE\MEADO W LA\EA.DOC �> , kq , ( 60 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 GAWOLFEVMEADOWLATA.DOC f /& I ^ l4 � Attachment No. 1 Project Vicinity Map EDINGER AVE. DEL MAR . - LANE HEIL AVE 77 _ PEARCE aco z ¢ r Cn PROJECT - °- PL�,ZA SATE '• ' : NE WARNER AVE SLATER AVE �:s �i. 5��.c.lF►c.?,..ham A .A. Cz-rt.�zrta.� ' F111 I \I �h,;.,1 l,li`iT ,k: Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 28 04/24/98 G:\WOLFENMADO WLATA.DOC �� 5 ' . a : �✓��I � � it i. - I�,i;-np-� 4�fz�-. --�'�=.+.� � b�..�r_ ��- •��.�CGS• �c.ti� w�, `[�J,-��_ t+E��c-a-c����.t"r�r.���''•y�—�.-. ¢.�7Y�•�� .-'�'�?2�" ,�`>.-i.�..h,�* �a1`�L C►i: +--'3�,'��,d--r+F--¢=�-�-i�.S....�v�r�G s'r-a� •`sz"-,- �" -mot �.,-•.�.�t '` "3 V sit f � filth"' , r�►�s���_�" ': o s 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 GA W OLFE\UEADO W LA\EA.DOC P - kk < ( 9 q 5. The proposed residential densities within the `feadowlark Specific Plan area, range from 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net 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. 6. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) which permits development of commercial and residential uses and allows the Specific Plan to govern the exact density, location and mix of uses. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing commercial center and incorporates single family residential development at densities ranging between 9.5 to 13.8 dwelling units per net acre 7. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring 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 in order to address land use compatibility issues related to compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. 8. The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. 9. The revised Specific Plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. 10. 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. 11. Grading within the Specific Plan area 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 . FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. (PCCL0922-3) 2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s) the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring ten percent (10%) of proposed units to be affordable by entering into an affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the 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 will 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 Planning 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 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 are non-hazardous, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. 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 Geotechnical 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 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 /rapproval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. (PCCL09224) 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, that 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. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, that 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 barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with the 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 may be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for the 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 (8) ft. 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) are 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. ( C6k , f� ? (PCCL0922-5) ATTACHMENT 3 ,ENVIRONMENTAL`Q ST,-FORMA,,,o'� WIRONMENT HECKLI PLANNIN' 'G—DIVISION ASSESSM'ENVIRONMENTAL ENY«NO.' ­5 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: Project 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 GAWOLFEVYMADOWLATADOC P - Ict 16T • 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, it has been concluded that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) referencing Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 2 04/24/98 GAWOLMNEADO WLATA.DOC Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines (incorporation by reference the prior certified EIR) is the appropriate environmental review process for the proposed project. Two 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 Pro%ct 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 GAWOLFEW EADOWLATA.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 G:\WOLFE\NT_kDOWLA\EA.DOC D ^ �4t (7Z Grading Grading 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. 7. 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. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 5 04/24/98 GA W OLFEWEEADO W LA\EA.DOC ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 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. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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 a4dresseX. klViL,--� ho April 24, 1998 �Si ature Date y Wolfe Project Planner Printed Name Title Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 6 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEEADOWLAEA.DOC rJ -- (q , 1 "7y EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 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 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 G:\W0LFE\NffiAD0WLA\EA.D0C _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 ❑ ❑ O ❑ zoning? (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source: 3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ the vicinity? (Sources: 1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Source: 3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEIMEADOWLA\EA.DOC �-- �ct [ � � _.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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 local population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 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 GAWOLFEUMEADOWLA\EA.DOC entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (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) ❑ ❑ p ❑ 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) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑p fl Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 6,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 3, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 3, 6, 8) ❑ ❑ p ❑ Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (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 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA,DOC 6 (Ct c R ? . __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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 ❑ IR ❑ ❑ patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ related hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other ❑ ❑ ❑ IN alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 any water body? (Sources: 1,6) e) Changes in currents, or the course or ❑ ❑ ❑ IN direction of water movement? (Sources: 1,6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 11 04/24/98 G.XWOLFE\NtEADOWLA\EA.DOC � ��9 � ( 79 -.entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact fl Change in the quantity of ground waters, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 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 GAW0LFE\NMAD0 W LA\EA.DOC ;� - ta , I -Fe __entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(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 development 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 ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 10, 15) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ O (Source: 1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 temperature? (Source: 2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 GAWOLFEWEADOWLATA.DOC r tucentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES (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? ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ (Sources: 2, 11, 16,17) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 access to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2, 16,17) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 14 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC -'entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ © ❑ site? (Sources: 2, 16,17) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ bicyclists? (Sources: 2, 16,17) fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2, 16,17) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ (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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEA.DOC /0 ._.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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source: 5) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ trees)? (Source: 5) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source: 5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool)? (Source: 5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Source: 5) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 16 04/24/98 G:\WOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC A_,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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plans? (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 6) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 2, 6, 18) b) Possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 2, 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 17 04/24/98 GAWOLFE\MEADOWLA\EA.DOC lei �,4 r f„lentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑ IN hazards? (Source: 2, 18) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLA\EA.DOC b � tq , A ....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: ❑ N ❑ ❑ 2,6,12, 19) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ © ❑ ❑ (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 04/24/98 GAWOU&NMADOWLATA.DOC / 27 ._.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 04/24/98 GA W OUSNMADO W LMEA.DOC r- 'q �da '..centiaily 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Fire Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Source: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Source: School Districts) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ O ❑ distribution facilities? (Sources: 5, 6) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 6) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 6) Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 21 04/24/98 GAW0LFE1A EADOWLA\EA.DOC tet _'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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Sources: 1,3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 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 04/24/98 GAWOLFEWEADOWLMEA.DOC .—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 cr.\WOLFE\MEADowtA\FA.noc , 1 ctr .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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 MEA GAWOLFE` DOWLAXEAOC b � t .D (9 .•centially 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ © ❑ 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 GAWOLFEMEADOWLATA.DOC r 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 K 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 6 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 c\wo[.FE1AEAwoWLA\EA.noc D '�Q t laq 13 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedures Handbook Community Development Dept., Planning/Zoning r 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 GA W OLFEIMEADO W LA\EA.DOC 64, 117-5 Attachment No. 1 Project Vicinity Map EDINGER AVE . DEL MAR - - LANE = HEIL AVE U O � O Vl PEARCE a z aOR r • . • ' J �.: -- - -� � •- ate., . __. � - � -�. n - •-- ._• _- o PROJECT - cz PIZZA SATE Cr 11 :7 NE WARNER AVE - - SLATER AVE r:.�r'' S?�.G-iF►G�i-l.�1 Iti.'�-cl•� �ZTJ4/21'iA Y..Lr� ?•+'�tDc.�1'TIAL ?�Sz:IOTL �GUP f►'•L�7 }il L i'i l T, Environmental Assessment No 97-21 28 04/24/98 G\WOLFE\MEaDO(WLAA\\EA DOC t — \a I "�" 1 NI ZIP •�'"���_-�" _ r `l ���� _�._.ter,'' �i�.- � VIP �- 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 GA WOLFEUVMADO WLA\EA.DOC 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 04/24/9,8q G:\WOLFfi�MEADOWLA\EA.DOC 1 /g / 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. 5. 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 crAWOLFENMADOWLANEADOC t� - k J? 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 GAWOLFF%ffiAWWLA\EA.DOC ,f 2 0 ATTACHMENT 4 piq , zoz CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood and Planning Commissioners DATE: December 10, 1998 SUBJECT: MINUTE ACTION DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN On December 3, 1998,the Planning Commission discussed changes to their previous recommendation on September 22, 1998 relative to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 974/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1). They voted by minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three(3)revisions as follows: ♦ Garage Use/Design (Planning Areas 3 and 4) -require a minimum garage area of 400 square feet to be provided for automobile and general household storage in Planning Area 3 and 4. Minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. General household storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (Vote: 4-3). • Rear yard setbacks(Planning Area 3) -permit second story projections, no greater than 24 inches within the rear yard setback(Vote: 4-3). ♦ Front yard setbacks(Planning Area 4) -permit second story projections no greater than 24 inches within the front yard setback(Vote: 5-2). The Planning Commission hopes that you will take these revisions into consideration when acting upon the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. xc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL990') ^ (cl ATTACHMENT 5 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION -5:00 PM (Room B-8) HB MALL SPECIFIC PLAN/CUP STATUS (5:00-5:45 PM)—Jane Madera DOWNTOWN DINING WITH ALCOHOL ORDINANCE (5:45-6:15 PM)—Peter Vanek AGENDA REVIEW (6:15-6:30 PM)—Scott Hess REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Inglee, Chapman, Tillotson, Livengood, Kerins, Biddle, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to spear No action can betaken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless the item is agendized Any one wishing to speak on items not on tonight's agenda or on non-public hearing items may do so during ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Speakers on items scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING will be invited to speak during the public hearing (4 MINUTES PER PERSON,NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-la ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97 - VNEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14,AND AUGUST 25, 1998 MEETING) (Revised Meadowlark Specific Plan): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Bruce D'Eliscu LOCATION: Six hundred(600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA)No. 97-1 represent requests to modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The zoning text amendment is intended to update the Meadowlark Specific Plan to allow the development of 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 reduce the maximum allowable 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 reductions of residential densities within the project area. The revised Meadowlark Specific Plan is consistent with goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and will supercede the current Specific Plan document. On June 16, and July 14, 1998 the Planning Commission took straw votes on"key issues" relating to the Meadowlark Specific Plan text and map amendment and the development proposal for the residential portion of the Meadowlark site in order to provide Catellus Residential Group(CRG),the project applicant for the residential portion of the Specific Plan area,with adequate direction to finalize the tract map and site plans of the subject residential development. A key issues matrix was provided in conjunction with the August 25, 1998, Planning Commission staff report which summarized issues,staff and applicant positions and Planning Commission straw votes to that date. Staff has revised the July 14, 1998 draft Specific Plan to reflect the Planning Commission's direction(straw vote action)and few minor editing modifications to the document. Please note that the Specific Plan which is being forwarded to you includes the same text which was previously provided on September 9, 1998,and new exhibits/appendices only. On September 9, 1998,John P.Erskine,representing CRG, submitted a letter requesting additional revisions to the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. Commissioner Biddle has responded to the CGR letter which has been included. STAFF RECOMN ENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ZTA and ZMA for the following reasons: • The proposed project will not have any significant environmental impacts. With standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures all concerns are mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed zoning text and zoning map amendment are consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay(M-sp),with surrounding . zoning, and the existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. • The proposed project is consistent with the goals,objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed revisions to the Meadowlark Specific Plan will foster development of housing that addresses the City's diverse economic,physical, affordable housing and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. • The proposed reduction and distribution of densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area is suitable and properly adapts to the terrain of the project site and surrounding land uses. ` PC Minutes—9/22/98 2 (98PCM922) p .- tot , 2o6 • The proposed regulations for compact lot, single f&hily detached residential development advocate high level of design quality and character and will not be detrimental to the general health,welfare and safety,value of property, improvements,the neighborhood or the City in General. • The compact lot, single family detached design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single family detached homes at more affordable prices. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dick Harlow, 211 Main Street,representing applicant, stated that he wished to clarify issues and straw votes from the previous Planning Commission meeting. He referred the letter submitted September 9, 1998 from John P. Erskine. The Commission discussed with Mr. Harlow the request for tandem parking to meet code requirements. The Commission was concerned about The size of the cars,the visual aesthetics and which planning areas this would affect. Fred Schmidt, 16851 Stonehaven Circle, stated that he wished the Planning Commission to consider his previous request to locate Lots 224-228 to the interior of the site and amend the ten (10)foot landscape requirement to eight(8)foot minimum in the parkway area. Gregg Neff, 5421 Meadow Circle, stated that he had been notified that changed plans at Stonehaven and Meadow Circle would negatively impact his backyard and asked the Commission to consider this. Jerry Rich, 5452 Meadow Circle, stated concern that the size of the lots,the garages and driveways are too small. He stated that this was an opportunity to develop decent size lots instead of creating an affect like the downtown area. Mr. Rich also stated that more consideration should be given to the existing homes and residents. Sally Graham, 5161 Gelding Circle, stated that there should be a moratorium on building on small lots until the Small Lot Ordinance has been adopted. She also stated that Pearce Street would be too narrow. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission took straw votes on additional revisions to the Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan that were submitted in a letter from John P. Erskine,dated September 9, 1998. Commissioner Kerins stated that he would be voting against the Specific Plan because he feels the parking requirements are too low,the applicant cannot meet the garage and open space requirements for Planning Area No. 4,the lots are too small and the Small Lot Ordinance has not yet been adopted by the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER,SECONDED BY TILLOTSON,TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 WITH MITIGATION MEASURES,ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.97-4,ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 97-1 WITH PC Minutes—9/22/98 3 (98PCM922) 0A (a , Zo7 FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Speaker - NOES: Kerins,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN: 1. Pane 8. Section 3.4 Oven Space/Recreation Development within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area shall comply with parkland dedication requirements by dedication and improvement of a minimum 2.4 acre neighborhood park to serve the Meadowlark Community,improvement of 0.8 acres of undeveloped Norma Gibbs park area and payment of parkland in-lieu fees equal to$500,000 per acre to satisfy the remaining Public parkland dedication obligation for development of the site. In addition,private mini-parks shall be provided to serve the Meadowlark Community exclusively and shall be maintained by a Community or Homeowners Association. Although the actual amenity program for the private mini-parks has not been specifically defined,provision of a tot-lot,swimming pool/spa and community meeting/clubhouse is encouraged. Mini-park acreage shall be based on the required common open space requirement per dwelling unit. 2. 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 square feet) shall be provided in the form of storage areas in overhead,recessed or other storage configurations that do not impede the minimum 18 feet by 19 feet automobile parking area within the garage. 3. Page 21,26, 31, 36 Planning Areas 1-4 Delete references to Day Care Limited and Day Care,Large Family land uses from the "Permitted Uses"sections of PA 1-4 and replace with language to allow Day Care Large Family, within the proposed Homeowners Association owned Activity Center areas. 4. Page 18. Section 4.4 General Provisions Paragrraph F. Parking Add provision to allow tandem parking to satisfy parking requirements within PA-1 (maximum 40 dwelling units)and PA-4(maximum 45 dwelling units). PC Minutes—9/22/98 4 (98PCM922) tct (i-09b 5. Page 24, 29, 34, 38 Section 4.5 Development Standards, Planning Areas 1-4 Modify standards on fences to allow open view fences up to 42 inches in height within front yard setback areas. 6. Multi-Family Residential Alternative,Planning Area 4 Delete references of multi-family alternative provisions from all Specific Plan sections. No modifications were directed to be made on the following requests by Catellus: a. Revise"bedroom"definition so less on-site parking would be required. Currently,there are several rooms that meet the definition of a bedroom which requires more on—site parking than the plans depict. All definitions are referenced in the HBZSO. b. Reduce primary private open space area requirement from minimum 300 square feet to minimum 225 square feet. c. Allow portion of the private open space area(minimum 400 square feet)to be provided in driveway areas when garage is-located at the rear of the site. Private open space typically is in the rear half of the lot,not in the front setback or on garage driveways. d. Permit all garages in Planning Areas 3 and 4 to be less than minimum 20 feet by 20 feet interior dimensions. Currently up to 25%of units may have garages less than 20 feet by 20 feet with additional storage areas. e. Specify type of public park improvements. Current language is general. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL-ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 97-4/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO.97-1: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 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 incorporate development standards for such development within the revised Specific Plan; and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 to revise/update the 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 and establish the boundaries for four(4) residential planning areas with densities ranging between nine and half dwelling units per net acre(9.5du/ac)and twenty-seven and half dwelling units per net acre(27.5du/ac)are consistent with the following objectives,policies, general land uses and policies specified in the General Plan, Goal L U 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. PC Minutes—9/22/98 5 7 PCM9_22Z Obiective L U 9.1 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 L U 9.3.2 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 j 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. 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. PC Minutes—9/22/98 6 (98PCM922) Policy L U 9.3.3 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. 2. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the Meadowlark Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed project will reduce the previously approved map density for development within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area from six hundred(600)dwelling units to four hundred forty-four(444)dwelling units. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The compact lot design concept will provide a viable alternative to attached housing, allowing for fee-simple ownership of single-family detached homes at more affordable prices. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. 5. The proposed residential densities within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area,range from nine and half(9.5)to twenty-seven and half(27.5)dwelling units per net 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. 6. Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Specific Plan Overlay(M-sp) which permits development of commercial and residential uses and allows the Specific Plan to govern the exact density,location and mix of uses. The Meadowlark Specific Plan includes an existing commercial center and incorporates single family residential development at densities ranging between nine and half(9.5)to twenty-seven and half(27.5) dwelling units per net acre 7. The revised Specific Plan text incorporates a provision requiring 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 in order to address land use compatibility issues related to compact lot development onto existing adjoining RL zoning districts. 8. The revised Specific Plan includes provisions for the application of the City's Infill Ordinance to ensure land use compatibility between land uses. 9. The revised Specific Plan incorporates product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high quality development that would not be detrimental to the values of adjacent properties. PC Minutes—9/22/98 7 (98PCM922) 10. 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. 11. Grading within the Specific Plan area 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 . FINDINGS OF APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. , 2. Mitigation measures incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Prior to recordation of Final Tract Map(s)the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring ten percent(10%) of proposed units to be affordable by entering into an affordable Housing Agreement. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be subject to approval by the 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 will 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 Planning 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 approval by the Public Works Department. PC Minutes—9/22/98 8 (98PCM922) 4. During grading/construction,if a sump pit is encountered, drilling mud present must be sampled and tested to ensure that the material are non-hazardous, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. 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 Geotechnical 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 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,that 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. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,that 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 barriers along Heil Avenue. This wall height is relative to the pad elevation. Location of this wall shall be in conformance with the 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 may be necessary may be constructed of 5/8-inch Plexiglas,any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Plans for the 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(8) ft. 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. f PC Minutes—9/22/98 9 (98PCM922) P -- [4 oz 3 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)are 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. B-1b CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 14 AND AUGUST 25, 1998 MEETING) (Meadowlark Subdivision—325 Small Lot,Single Family Residential Units): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach and Bruce D'Eliscu LOCATION: Six hundred(600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Amy Wolfe Due to the time necessary to complete the review of revised plans,staff is requesting continuance of the discretionary applications associated with the subject development proposal (Tentative Tract Map 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80)to the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. This request for continuance falls within the anticipated project processing time frame outlined in the City letter to CRG dated August 31, 1998. In addition,on September 11, 1998 the applicant was informed that the submitted hydrology study.should be revised to address project drainage/hydrology issues and should be resubmitted by September 18, 1998 in order for the City to analyze its adequacy for the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 to the October 27, 1998 conditions based upon the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan. t w � PC Mmi 'u s—9/22/98 10 (98PCM922) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER,SECONDED BY KERINS,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.97-80 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 98-2(East Garden Grove—Wintersburg Channel,Reach 2): APPLICANT: Orange County Flood Control District, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702- LOCATION: East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel from 1,047 feet upstream of Goldenwest Street to 300 feet upstream from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge including the confluence with Oceanview Channel(Facility no. _. Cob) PROJECT PLANNER: Wendy Nowak General Plan Conformance No. 98-2 is a request by the Orange County Flood Control District to determine if new improvements to a segment of the East Garden-Grove Wintersburg Channel are in compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of General Plan Conformance No. 98-2 for the following reasons: • The proposed project is consistent with the zoning code requirements of Public Land Use. • The proposed improvements are necessary to provide adequate I 00-year flood service to surrounding developments that will prevent flooding of the surrounding properties. • Any construction will occur during permitted hours to ensure minimal noise and construction impacts on surrounding properties. • No listed endangered species will be affected by the construction of the channel improvements. • The proposed project will be consistent with the City's Land Use,Environmental Resources/Conservation,Noise and Utilities Elements of the General Plan. 4 PC Minutes—9/22/98 11 (98PCM922) A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE,SECONDED BY INGLEE,TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1537 APPROVING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO.98-2 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 25, 1998 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE,SECONDED BY INGLEE,TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 25,1998,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee,Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NONE E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS [NONE] E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES/COMMENTS Commissioner Inglee—requested that staff review the procedures used to process the Meadowlark application in order to avoid the same types of problems with future applications. Commissioner Livengood—requested that staff check the condition requiring staff review of landscape screening across Edwards Avenue for the Fire Station and Water Reservoir approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1998. Commissioner Kerins—stated that he wanted a written report distributed to the Planning Commission covering the issues discussed at the meeting that occurred between Wal*Mart staff,Commissioner Livengood and Planning staff. PC Minutes—9/22/99 12 (98PCM922) F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS IF-1 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Howard Zelefsbv Planning Director—reviewed items from the previous and future Council meeting. F-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Senior Planer-reviewed items for the October 13 1998 meeting. G. ADJOURNMENT—Adjourn to the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER,SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD,TO ADJOURN TO A 5:00 PM STUDY SESSION ON OCTOBER 13, 1998,AND THEN TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Chapman,Tillotson,Livengood,Kerins,Biddle,Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kjl APPROVED BY: Ho and Zelef , Secretary Planning dommis ion Cb&rpers6n i PC Minutes—9/22/98 13 (98PCM922) ATTACHMEN T 6 PLEASE REFER TO MEADOWLARK PROJECT DATA REFERENCE BINDER INDEX ITEM # 16 ATTACHME-N- - T 7 � ia .Zzo Wolfe, Amy From: Legg, John Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 9:05 PM To: Wolfe,Amy Subject: Meadowlark Developement Dear Ms Wolfe, My name is John Legg and I live at 5102 Sisson Drive. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my opposition to the proposed development. I was aware that, at some time,the Meadowlark Airport property would be developed ,but thought that the homeowners surrounding the area to be developed would have been notified. I only became aware of the development by reading about the planning commission's meeting in the paper. I then called city hall to leave a message for the commission members, but was unable to do so. My opposition to the development is in regards to the lot sizes. If the average lot size in Huntington Beach is 60x100(6000 sq.ft.),then I feel that any new homes should at least meet this standard.The proposed lot size is smaller, 3800 sq.ft.to 4500 sq, ft.. I think that any new homes should exceed existing standards, rather than fail to meet the average. My suggestion is that the lot sizes should be 75x125(9375 sq. ft.)This is only an increase of 25% in lot size. Another concern is of increasing the number of people per square mile in an already densely populated area. If you or any of the commission members were to drive the surrounding area, you would notice the number of multi-family homes, condos, and apartments. If 300 homes were added to this area, you would increase the number of automobiles by at least 300. In reality that number is probably closer to 600 based upon every home being a 2 car family, like my own.Add to that number the number of people and vehicles that would result from any development on the Bolsa Chica, and you can see the reason for my concern. In an ideal world, 1 acre lots with ranch style homes like the ones in Rancho Palos Verde would be perfect for either the Meadowlark or Bolsa Chica(if that ever happens) Development projects.This would raise the status of Huntington Beach as the premier place to live and raise a family. Smaller lot sizes only take away from and lower our reputation. Finally, if nothing else,there needs to be a way to reach and communicate with all commission members other than at their meetings. I would have liked to at least been able to speak with them or been able to leave a voice mail for them and have them call me back and not feel like I was ignored. Please feel free to call me at home 840.7949 or at work 536.5474 Thank you John Legg ps. please foward a copy of this letter to all the commission members. ATTACHMENT 8 fl _ �o , zZZ MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Jan. 22, 1999) ISSUE CATELLUS PLANNING STAFF REC. STAFF STAFF PROPOSAL COMM. REC. ALTERNATIVE ##1 1 ALTERNATIVE#2 1. Site Parking/ Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all res units all res units b) Private Street 32' — parking on one Same as 40' 36' — parking on 32' — parking on one Width (Curb to side Catellus both sides side curb) c) Spine Road Width 32' — no parking on Same as 32' — no parking 32' — no parking on 32' — no parking on (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus on both sides both sides both sides d) Pearce Street 32' — parking on one Same as 40' — parking on 36' — parking on 36' — parking on Width via "I" and side Catellus both sides both sides both sides "K" (Curb to curb) e) Distribution of Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional guest parking adequate guest Catellus distributed distributed "pocket" guest spaces parking space throughout project throughout project parking spaces distribution throughout project f) Tandem Parking 79 units have tandem 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted spaces acceptable approved by PC g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20', Amend Min 20' x 20' for Min 18' x 19' with Min 18' x 19' with Dimensions (PA 3 200 units @ min M S P to all units min 400 sq ft as min 400 sq ft as & 4) 18'x19' w/400 sq ft permit approved by the PC approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3 2 ac (2 4 ac Same as 4 2 ac (3 4 ac 4 2 ac (3 4 ac 4 2 ac (3 4 ac dedication & Catellus dedication & dedication & dedication & improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus $1 0 million in-lieu in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of fees) $387,500) $387,500) $387,500) r b) Park Use Neighborhood Park Same as Neighborhood park Neighborhood park Neighborhood park w/o multi-use field Catellus w/ multi-use field w/ multi-use field w/ multi-use field c) Park Parking 10 spaces 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses AdI to 7 units next to park Same as None None None N Park Catellus \.a A MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Cont.) ---[— N ISSUE CATELLUS PLANNING STAFF REC. STAFF STAFF PROPOSAL COMM. REC. ALTERNATIVE#1 ALTERNATIVE #2 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths 5' (PA 1 & 2) Same Min 6' (PA 1&2) Min 6' (PA 1&2) Min 6' (PA 1&2) b) Sidewalk Widths 5' (PA 3 & 4) Same Min 6' (PA 3&4) Min 6' (PA 3&4) Min 6' (PA 3&4) c) Front Setbacks Min 15', Amend Maintain min 15' Same as PC Same as PC (PA4) allow 2' 2nd story M S P to setback without projections permit 2' projections projections d) Rear Setbacks Min 13' & 15', Amend Maintain min 13' Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2' 2nd story M S P to & 15' setback s projections permit 2' without projections projections LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP WALTER L NOSSAMAN SUITE 1800 JOHN T KNOX (1836-1984) 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE WARREN G ELLIOTT P 0 BOX 19772 OF COUNSEL IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92623-9772 SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON,D C THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR TELEPHONE (949) 833-7800 SUITE 370-S 50 CALIFORNIA STREET FACSIMILE (949) 833-7878 $01 13TH STREET N W SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4799 WASHINGTON, 0 C 20005 (41S)398-3600 January 25, 1999 (202)783-7272 LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO THIRTY-FIRST FLOORII� rC FROM�.,..._ SUITE 1000 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STR 915 L STREET h,AOL APART OF THE REC( LOS ANGELES CA 90071-1 SACRAMENTO,CA 958/4-3701 �I\s,.;,i m,,ETINQOF (213)812-7800 .� (918)442-8888 'M �+..E OFTHE CITY CU- L OMN '-BROCKWAY,OJT, �JhN �fn+'.oc��P 6ZmF-IVED FROM / REFER TO FILE NUMBER C CILDMEETINgp'THE RIEpoFpATTHE 140268-001 OFFICE:OF THE CITY CLERK99�9 CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK Mayor Peter Green and Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Catellus Protest of Excessive Park Fees Imposed Pursuant to Recommended Tentative Tract Map Condition of Approval No. 2/Appeal of TTM No. 15469/CUP 97-80 Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers: Catellus Residential Group,pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1), hereby objects to and protests the imposition of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 Condition of Approval No. 2 requiring the payment of excessive park fees for the Meadowlark project. If such Condition of Approval is imposed by the City Council,then pursuant to Government Code section 66020(a)(1), Catellus will tender the park fees in full when due or otherwise provide satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay such fee,which payment, however, shall be under protest. Pursuant to Government Code section 66020(a)(2)(b),the reasons for the protest by Catellus of excessive park fees are as follows: 1. City Zoning Ordinance section 254.08 H,which sets forth the procedure for establishing and adjusting park"in-lieu" fees in the City of Huntington Beach,had not been complied with or initiated at the time the application for the Tentative Tract Map was deemed complete, and the in-lieu fee per acre assessment of$500,000 per acre is in excess of the City's established fee of$182,000 per acre; 2. The amount of the fees sought to be imposed does not comply with the procedural requirements of Government Code section 66477 in that the City has improperly included state beaches within its calculation of existing neighborhood and community parks; 00990250010 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Peter Green and Councilmembers January 25, 1999 Page 2 3. A valid ordinance imposing in-lieu fees at the amount proposed to be assessed in Condition of Approval No. 2 had not been adopted 30 days prior to the filing of Tentative Map No. 15469, as required by Government Code section 66477(a). Catellus reserves the right,pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1),to set forth additional factual elements or legal theories concerning this protest within 90 days after the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map. Submitted by, Jo . Erskine NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER,KNOX&ELLIOTT,LLP RUM cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator Melanie Silver,Deputy City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney .ECEIVED FROM r,NND MADE A PART OF THE REC RD AT TH l COUNCIL MEETING OF -�j-0 January 25, 1999 CONNIE BROC WAY,CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor and Distinguished Council Members: My name is John Legg and I live at 5102 Sisson Drive. I'm here to express my concern over the Meadowlark Development Project. I am not opposed to the development, just the parameters of the development. I sent a letter to Amy Wolfe in Planning and asked that a copy be forwarded to you. To summarize that letter, my main point of concern was the lot sizes in the proposed development. The average lot size in Huntington Beach is 6000 square feet (60 by 100) The proposed lot size is from 3500 to 4800 square feet.. If the average lot size is 6000 square feet, any new development should at least meet or exceed this size. I would hope that as the city grows and advances into the 21 st century :that any new development would at least meet the existing average rather than be below par and not meet the existing lot size for homes in that area. would hope that the vote would be delayed until further review and information to the citizens of the affected area can be distributed. Thank you for your time and consideration: W44 : P CfAD WPA Traffic Engineering Inc. * A g g, TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING January 25, 1999 RECEIVED FROM C a� 6�2 ` AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT Ty .,S COUNCIL MEETING OF Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Catellus Residential Group CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 SUBJECT.• MEADORMAMRESIDENTIAL PROJECT - HUNTINGTONBEACH Dear Mr. D'Eliscu: As requested by Catellus, we contacted several cities surrounding Huntington Beach to determine their requirements for private residential/local street widths. A 32 foot street width, with parking allowed on one side, is planned for the private residential streets within the Meadowlark development in Huntington Beach. Five cities immediately surrounding Huntington Beach confirmed to use and indicated the adequacy of a 32 foot wide private residential street with parking on one side. These cities are: Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Westminster, and Garden Grove. It should be noted that Garden Grove's street dimension for parking on one side is 33 feet, rather than 32 feet. While none of the five cities have formal "standards" which apply to private streets; they do, however, follow generally accepted guidelines / requirements. The City of Newport Beach does have written requirements for private streets that have been adopted by their City Council. (Newport Beach, City Council Policy L4, "Private Streets".) With regard to the design width of private residential streets, most of the cities will work with the client/developer(on an individual case-by- case basis) to design a private residential street that meets good engineering judgement. 23421 South Pointe Drive * Suite 190 9 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 • (949) 460-0110 • FAX: (949) 460-0113 . -2- Table 1 shows the private street width requirements obtained from the contacted cities. Review of Table 1 indicates that a private residential street of 32 feet in width, with parking on only one side, would be acceptable in most jurisdictions. It is also noted that, in our previous letter to you (dated November 13, 1998),we completed a survey of some North Orange County cities which found that they allow private street widths of 30 feet and 32 feet with parking on one side. (See attached Table 1 from our previous letter.) This indicates that the Meadowlark development's planned use of a 32 foot wide, private residential street with parking on one side would be consistent with requirements in various other jurisdictions. We trust that this letter will be of assistance to you and the City of Huntington Beach. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, "A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, ING Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. Senior Engineer SSS:CC #961191.privsts.wpd WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Private Street Width Requirements Job#961191.privsts wpd Meadowlark Residential Project-Huntington Beach -3— TABLE 1 PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL STREET WIDTH REQUIREMENTS 32 feet No Parking / Parking-One Side NEWPORT BEACH 36 feet Parking-Both Sides See Attached - Newport Beach,City Council Policy L-4, "Private Streets". 28 feet Parking-One Side COSTA MESA 36 feet Parking-Both Sides Based on City's generally accepted minimums: 10 foot travel lanes,8 feet for parking on one side,and 16 feet for parking on both sides. 25 feet No Parking 32 feet Parking-One Side FOUNTAIN VALLEY 36 feet Cul-De-Sac/Parking-Both Sides Generally,use 12 feet for a travel lane and 8 feet for a parking lane. Cul-de-sac uses 10 foot travel lanes and 8 feet for parking. 32 feet Parking- One Side 36 feet Parking-Both Sides WESTMINSTER Very difficult to get 32 foot width approved,but has been done; they prefer 36 foot width. Also,a residential street with no parking(public or private)is never approved. 25 feet No Parking 33 feet Parking-One Side GARDEN GROVE Parking on one side is the most common scenario for private residential streets. Based on Public Street Standards-generally, 12 foot travel lanes and 8 foot parking lanes. Municipal Code states that private streets should try to meet Public Standards. (1) Minimum,curb-to-curb widths. TABLE 1 of November 13, 1998 Letter from WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. to Catellus Residential Group -5- TABLE 1 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 HABRA 30' Parking- One Side 38' Parkin -Both Sides YORBA LINDA 20' No Parkin Prepared on November 9, 1998. • Curb to curb. #961191.tbl PTA Traffic Engineering,Inc. Review of Parking/Circulation Issues Job#961191.1tr.stv.wpd Meadowlark Residential Project - PA-4 4rr4rA9STWV-F0Z(ST A4SSOCIATES, /NC, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705-7827 - TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Bruce Delisque, Catellus Residential Group FROM: Joe Foust, P.E. DATE: January 25, 1999 SUBJECT: CURBSIDE PARKING—TT 15469 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH INTRODUCTION Catellus Residential Group is proposing on-street parking on one side only of 32-foot wide streets in a single family residential development in Huntington Beach (TT 15469). AFA has been asked to review the plans and render an independent opinion regarding the acceptability of on-street parking, and specifically the standards proposed for use in TT 15469. ANALYSIS The first question that must be examined in addressing this issue is"What is the classification (and purpose) of the street? Is it a local, collector or arterial street?" For the case in point, the streets are local,private residential streets and the purpose of which is to provide access,circulation and parking o abutting residential properties. Therefore, the answer to the first question is "residential"which carries with it the connotation of on-street parking. The issue then boils down to a matter of adequate standards. The proposed standard is for a 9-foot wide parking lane on one side of a 32-foot wide street. The 32-foot street width is a commonly used standard throughout the region, including the County of Orange, to support parking on one side of the street. The most common standard for parking on only one side is 32-feet of width with 8-foot curbside parking, leaving 24 feet(two 12-foot wide travel lanes)for motorists. The specification of a 9-foot wide parking space instead of 8-feet seems to be to satisfy a city's standard requirement for 9-foot wide parking spaces. From a practical standpoint,the width of a curbside space is limited to the width of a vehicle plus the 18 inches offset legally permitted by the California Vehicle Code. Given the actual width of most vehicles is 5.5 to 6 feet, a legal curbside space is more like 7 to 8 feet rather than 9 feet. Nevertheless, even if a 9-foot curbside space is marked, the remaining 23 feet of travel width is entirely adequate for local two-way traffic. 340003mm.wpd Catellus Residential Group Page 2 January 25, 1999 For example, the most common residential street standard is a 36-foot width which allows parking on both sides. This produces a two-way travelway width of only 20 feet,substantially less than is being proposed by TT 15469. The only"problem"the restriction of parking to one side introduces is potential enforcement. Frankly,32 feet of street width will appear to many motorists as sufficient to allow parking on both sides. The travelway would be 16-18 feet wide and satisfy most residents need for traffic flow. Such a width would also have a tendency to reduce speeding,which is one of the most common complaints heard from residents. Given that residents themselves will probably feel that their street is wide enough for parking on both sides,the only concern I have is that if anything, the 32-foot street width is almost too wide. I might rather see a 28 to 30 foot width which would tend to be self-policing and reduce speeding, at least more so than a 32-foot width would do. A question regarding the number of guest parking spaces has also arisen. The project has identified about 265 on-street spaces where guests can park,compared to a City requirement of 157 spaces (based on 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit). This represents a parking supply 68 percent greater than the code requires. A survey of guest parking required by other cities in Orange County reveals an average of 0.4 spaces per unit within a range of 0.2 to 1.0 per unit. These figures indicate that the guest parking provided in TT 15469 are well above the average for similar developments elsewhere in the County and that more than adequate guest parking is provided. Finally,all of the residential streets involved in the tract are short, many of which are cul-de- sacs, and serve only the homes in a localized area. As a result, I do not expect more than a few hundred ADT on any of these private streets and virtually all of these motorists are residents who drive the streets daily. The parking of cars along one side of these otherwise wide,short streets does not represent unique or unsafe conditions for these motorists to encounter. CONCLUSION In summary, permitting parking on one side only of short private, low volume 32-foot wide residential streets will not,in my professional opinion,disrupt the flow of traffic,including emergency access into and out of the local residential enclaves. One of the primary functions of local residential streets is to provide curbside parking. Lastly,one simply has to ask oneself that,"Why,if 36-feet of width is adequate (and is, in fact,the standard)for parking on two sides,can 32-feet of width not be adequate for parking on one side?" 340003mm.wpd COVERINGNEWURBANNEWS 1 . • NAL TOWN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT VOLUME 2 - NUMBER 6 NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 1997 `New Urbanism premium' STUDY CONCLUDES- identified in Kentlands Narrow streets are Researchers determine that good urban design is the reason why consumers the safest are willing to pay more to live in the Gaithersburg neotraditional project. The wenty-four foot wide streets are safest,according to a study by j Arecent George Washington University study shows that consumers are � Swift and Associates and the City of willing to pay$30,000 to$40,000 more for houses in Kentlands,a neotradi- Longmont,Colorado.The study,Res- tional development in Gaithersburg, Maryland, compared to similar housing idential Street Typology and Injury Ac- nearby. "While a portion of that premium may be attributable to factors other cident Frequency,looked at 20,000 au- than neotraditional planning," says associate professor of finance Mark Eppli, tomobile accident reports over an "we believe the majority of the premium is attributable to the New Urbanism." eight year period in Longmont, and The study uses the hedonic price model,commonly used to assess housing examined fire department records. values nationwide.It examines all single home sales on lots one acre or smaller This data was correlated by street and in the 20878 zip code(where Kentlands is located)from 1994 through 1996—a 13 variables. total of 1,850 transactions. "It is clear that these results could have a significant "The most significant causal rela- impact," says Eppli,who authored the paper with doctoral candidate Charles i tionships to injury and accident were Tu "It is risky to do neotraditional developments. If this shows that the risk is found to be street width and street � paid for, then it could affect ghat is built in the future." curvature," according to the report. The study looks at such characteristics as lot size, home size, number of "The analysis illustrates that as street baths,parking,age of dwelling,number of stories and whether the home has a width widens,accidents per mile per � basement.Not all construction materials can be included,so indicators are used year increases exponentially,and that ' to measure overall quality In this study, wood shingle roofs, which are used the safest residential street width is extensively in Kentlands,are a primary house quality indicator.All of the home I CONTINUED ON PAGE 9 sales in the study are located in the same school district and taxing authority Tu and Eppli obtained lot size and price information for Kentlands and 13 CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 How car. a b,g box sto-a . . zin. a tfc: a '" s' °ei, id 5 C c', -" ;S C,"c" LS3r iG 00 Coii mentary 5 y PAGE 2 i t It For.Tore deta!lS See 7aCe 4 ' Events I I I PAGES 3 I New designs for big box stores ' PAGES 4& 5 f \� Redmond Town Center 1 O i PAGES 6&7 New Urban Update,Resources, Business Deals &Finance, a 11 i I �••` Public Policy iI 1 111 , '°� i PAGES 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 Annual Index PAGE 11 Congress for the I l' R J', �� rue"T•MODEL New Urbanism Update 1rI3 a,aBntn shows.ao 000>q n � PAGES 12 & 13 anchor wisird wnh liner chop,and I \� Ihreton.streaentnnees Book review PAGE 14 \ I DRAWING By GIBBS PLANNING GROUP 3� PLAN COURTESY OF THAOANI HETZEL PARTNERSHIP S�,� U. Narrow streets According to the curve plotted by the study,0.32 automotive injury ac- cidents can be anticipated per year per ?1:n1 24 feet (measured from curb face)" mile on a 24-foot-wide street, com- Swift,principal of the Long- pared to 1.21 on a 36-foot-wide street. 22Vmont town planning and engineering Even if narrow streets did create a firm, says a literature search yielded moderately greater fire injury risk, - - )no previous studies correlating street still they would be saferthan wide width and other characteristics to gen- streets—because the risk of automo- i eral public safety. "This study is not tive injuries is so much greater than _� I definitive," the authors conclude. fire injuries. III ,�!ran , "Additional research must be accom- The study looked only at streets plished to build the body of knowl- defined by the city as local(less than • — , edge related to such an important 2,500 average daily trips,or ADT) Ar- r=� � safety issue."In addition to Swift,au- terial streets were excluded ADT was { i��" thors are Dan Painter, transportation estimated for each local street,but,in- *!W= planner for the City of Longmont,and tereshngly,was not found to be a ma- � ��� Matthew Goldstein, intern for Swift jor factor in the accident rate of a and Associates. The study, currently street. Some of the most dangerous Base map for a section of D.C. in draft form,is undergoing peer re- streets turned out to be wide thor- view and has not been published. oughfares,36 feet to 44 feet,with rel- plan helped to bring about a better, One of the more remarkable find- atively light traffic (less than 500 more precise understanding of the re- ings is relative importance of automo- ADT).A future study would do well lationship between the public and tive to fire injuries. One of the most to correlate ADT more closely to street private realm, according to Dhiru common difficulties of gaining ap- widths and accident rates. Thadani,architect with Thadani Het- proval for narrow streets is objections On the narrowest streets(20 and 22 zel Partnership in Washington,D C. from fire officials, who often predict foot),the report found a slight rise in Thadani Hetzel Partnership has dire consequences.There was one se- injury accidents,compared to the 24- partly completed a "Nolli plan" for rious fire and a number of smaller foot street. However, many of these a 7.5 square mile area of the nation's fires during the study period.No in- very narrow streets in Longmont re- capital,which comprises the area laid juries were reported.The serious fire sult from anomalies, such as "half out in the 1791 L'Enfant plan The I was in an older section of the city with streets,"where funding was not avail- monumental effort began 15 years 28-foot street width and rear alley. able to complete an entire street.Such ago, with the intent to publish the There was no access problem, nor j anomalies may result in unsafe con- work in the form of 18 panels, each j were there any other fire truck access 1 ditions independent of street width. 15 inches wide by 20 inches high. To problems reported during the eight- These streets, nevertheless, had fair- date, base maps (a portion is shown I year period The report therefore i ly low actual numbers of injury acci- here)are complete for the entire area. found no increased fire injury risk due dents(about 0.25/mile/year),and the More detailed individual building to narrow streets By contrast, there study results are therefore somewhat maps have been created for 250 ' -were 227automotiveaccidentsresult- inconclusive concerning very narrow blocks, and these will be superim- ing in injuries streets. posed on the base maps The effort bogged down in recent i 10 years due to lack of time and money, Injury accidents per mile, per year but Thadani says that the drawings are "incredibly useful" to the firm in 8 Source Swift&Associates, evaluating new buildings designed in City of Longmont,CO the city. "It's such a quick, easy, way 6 to know whether the space is too big, or just right." In recent vears, the I Regression curve Thadani Hetzel Partnership began a i 4 similar project in Bombay, India. Thadani hired two architects out of school and had them both work for 2 more than a vear to create the Nolli plan for Bombay The firm has an office, and has been hired to design i 0 20 22 24 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 new towns, in India ♦ Street width ' I NOVEMBER • OECEMBER 1997 9 City of Huntington Beach RECEIVED FROM J�� ���o� ( '1"� AND MADE A PART OF THE R CORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF -9 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK MEADOWLARK Staff Report Huntington Beach City Council January 25, 1999 MEADOWLARK • Project Components • Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment • Meadowlark Development Proposal - Catellus Residential Group Shde2 MEADOWLARK 1 City of Huntington Beach a 7 7Taro t�-- --— E <.. d L �FL FL I �L NT IL L�V/l/ AC YIf 3.i,?,�. � .t!'.J'}` �`<'r':'�J a�✓s'+"»°�T�a' v�"A'�3�t'a"� �' i��� yam. ��ty`�>>�H�3 E.:•��t�,, k�,� o.r • � �° � tea+ va ,'�tt..a •� �"� MEADOWLARK 2 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK • Specific Plan Amendment • Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 ■ Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 • Negative Declaration No. 97-21 Shde5 MEADOWLARK • Specific Plan Amendment (cont.) • Purpose: To create standards to allow and regulate the development of small lot, detached residential units Shde6 MEADOWLARK 3 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK • Specific Plan Amendment (cont.) . Suggested by staff to process a specific plan amendment because: ✓ Proposed housing product type did not meet any existing City development standards ✓Size of project (48 acres) ✓Compliance with General Plan Shde7 MEADOWLARK • Development Proposal ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 . Conditional Use Permit No 97-80 . Negative Declaration No. 97-21 . Appeal Slide8 MEADOWLARK 4 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK .ti� • Background ■ Meadowlark Specific Plan (1988) • Development Agreement (1989) • Conceptual Master Plan (1991 ) • Commercial Development • Initial Discussions with applicant (1996) Slide9 MEADOWLARK • Background (cont.) • Formal submittal by applicant (1997) • Planning Commission begins review of project (1998) • Planning Commission approves Specific Plan (Sep `98) • Planning Commission approves Development Plan (Dec `98) • Applicant Appeals Development Plamo MEADOWLARK 5 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK • Planning Commission Recommendation . Approve Specific Plan (ZTA-ZMA-ND) with three Minute Actions . Approve Development Plan (TTM-CUP- ND) with conditions Slide11 MEADOWLARK • Planning Commission Recommendations (cont.) ■ Approve both components because ✓ Project achieves a range of housing types and creates a sense of neighborhood and identity for small-lot, detached residences ✓ Reduces allowable units from 600 d.u. to 345 d.u. Slidel2 MEADOWLARK 6 City of Huntington Beach ffi= a . MEADOWLARK • Planning Commission Recommendations (cont.) • Compatible with surrounding neighborhoods • Consistent with General Plan • Supplemental Communications Slide13 .a . MEADOWLARK • Outstanding Issues O Site Parking / Emergency Access © Public Park © Community Aesthetics l. : � � w Slide14 MEADOWLARK 7 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK ` Fire Department ,,_ Fa�_ - • Outstanding Issue -#1 . Site Parking / Emergency Access Slidel5 { MEADOWLARK Fire Department • Outstanding Issue -#1 • Site Parking / Emergency Access Private Street curb to curb width (32') Pearce Street connection ("I" UK) Inadequate distribution of on-street parking Credit for tandem parking - PA-1/40 p.s. & PA-4/45 p s -max per Specific Plan Garage sizes Slide16 MEADOWLARK 8 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Fire Department . Critical Response Standards Include: • Uncompromising Fire Department emergency access and turn-around on residential streets • Critical Response Standards . 5 minutes / 80% of the Time to ALL areas of the community • Emergency egress for evacuating persons from their homes during emergency conditions while providing for emergency vehicle ingress Slidell MEADOWLARK Fire Department T,e-ft • Current City Standards: • 40' wide streets with parking both sides of street • Provides Fire Department with twenty-four feet of unobstructed street width for fire access • Twenty-four feet provides fire apparatus room to pass forward, from behind, maneuver, and set-up for fire operations • 32' wide streets • May be permitted on a case by case basis if the development provides adequate parking on one side of the street and meets other conditions Slide18 MEADOWLARK 9 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Fire Department ! Beach Walk o Single family development with various street widths . 40-foot collector street e Provides Fire Department access from either direction with parking on one or both sides Slide19 Beach Walk 40-feet Wide Bills MEADOWLARK 10 City of Huntington Beach a4 OMftr� � W", Forty-Foot street Beach Walk allows Fire Department ,, , T t' y ; apparatus to pass rd forward or from �s , '- behinds <+ a 40-feet WideOft Beach Walk � Forty-foot interior Y streets permit Provides r. , � emergency emergency ingress evacuation of :g for responding - neighborhoods Fire Department apparatus U 40-feet Wide 8e, I MEADOWLARK 11 I City of Huntington Beach _ ;M MEADOWLARK Fire Department • Greystone ->Similar to proposed Meadowlark development has 32' interior streets -> Meets City standards for fire access provided the development has met other City standards regarding parking, circulation and site design criteria Slide23 MEADOWLARK Fire Department - i . Greystone . Response can be delayed, impaired, or restricted altogether if there is: 4 Congestion ->Illegal Parking 4 Poor Traffic Circulation Slide24 MEADOWLARK 12 City of Huntington Beach GI'e�/StOt1e <m° r ar3, Illegal Street 3g� Parking 4 w .1 -47171 32-Feet Wide MEADOWLARK Fire Department . Fire access problems with small lot developments similar to proposed Meadowlark project: ✓ 32 foot streets ✓ Poor or inadequate emergency response and operational circulation ✓ Inadequate street parking Slide26 MEADOWLARK 13 City of Huntington Beach St. Augustine _ Illegal IM- ga Limited Off Street Parking Street Parking h T " . 32-Feet Wide K ; prr4.. , E> ask2,� �',�r� "�,� i'"A✓w Ae° c°�`k��^.��<,�` ��ixsX+�';�;�s H��s�& St. Augustine Limited Off S reet Parking t ,��r� Illegal „ , p . g , Street µ = Y Parking by Vendors 7 �NY�'i lilllllllllllllrlllllllllli/�P 32-Feet Wideqdl ° � � 6 Ton F y g MEADOWLARK 14 City of Huntington Beach Fire Truck tries to access 32' street with illegal parking and limited off street parking 32-Feet Wider`° hL x 6„Oy.. p;% < Fire Engine passing another with illegal parking and limited additional off street parking 32-Feet Wide w� A ' y SIide30 MEADOWLARK 15 City of Huntington Beach Ch•��111at Side pockets fi v ers�d t p Pr o ide ° ° ° �� � for additional parking that does NOT _l� ,a� s compromise Fire Department access 2 4-F e e t Wide mgg N u Beach Walk Off street or Waterside Street side pocket parking Multiple Engine Access P Allows Fire Engines to ; pass forward or fromP`' _ behind k Off street or side pocket parking ' ; siioe32 MEADOWLARK 16 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Fire Department 0� . Meadowlark Development proposed by Catellus will impair fire access to emergency events due to: + Overall Street Width 4 Circulation Issues 4 Pearce Street Connector for Egress 4 On and Off Street Parking Limitations Slide33 Case Stu y Actual Fire In Sead ff Area , . Mo , . 4:5 . Scenc F 3' � Aw : u Ue "°ids •,;<.c: ' :,, - _;ss,` ,h.sr�a�'i%3 � y' � il MEADOWLARK 17 City of Huntington Beach Street Width Sufficient Room to Distribute Fire Hose and Provide Safe + Working Distance for Personnel and Apparatus ��r aIt i i%u M 40-Feet Wide " ""gib„ m� �<� �°` •�= � �«�« `� �'��� x� Street Width Sufficient Room to r > ' Maneuver Apparatus ��,=` y z;'=z ,',`z i �"���"'�,�.�',f,-m��:�r.✓���"� �' �''���i _.`�=a" ram:=��a.�:;�a�=°__`.,��a�h{ �` s.;a:.�&.au �� :��.;stia».�..:�:.......�s'stz"�s�+a x,i' n:.. ,��r�i..-�.as ,k� \�x,...«.u«`ay:3Mv«� �..�will �V •�F MEADOWLARK 18 City of Huntington Beach Street Width ! ' ate 43" "fzz \x.W, .. ^y',, ��Y�Si%�✓d�i`��. - =�� Sufficient Room to Access Water Supply ` °" Z.77 3 Palm Street ! Sufficient Room to Stage 76-Feet Across Second Alarm Equipment Nearby 34 - Feet Wide y, «One Way" ,�,w, F_ ^n MEADOWLARK 19 City of Huntington Beach Fire Creates Difficult Neighborhood Large Diameter Evacuation Hose Blocks Access and Exit ; -T From Area £r y 40-Feet Widey „ Scenic Bay , Connector Street Blocked �- Secondary Access Needed streets can Become Blocked by Equipment tl 4 71 MEADOWLARK 20 City of Huntington Beach . Delayed Access r.., Caused by fy Parking and v Circulation Conditions Can Result in the y Spread of Fire to Nearby Buildings Slide41 MEADOWLARK Public Works Typical Residential Street Section or 52' 26' 26' 6' 20' TYP 20'(TYP ti 6' ;, t7. 0.17' t 1 ic, YEL LINE 2 Shde42 MEADOWLARK 21 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Public Works R Meadowlark Prop[ sed Street Sect! 42' sz` 5` 16' 16` 5` z% , „ 42' STREET SECTION PRI'�ATE P.A. 3 AND 4 Shde43 MEADOWLARK Public Works Meadowlark Proposed Street Section R/W R/W I 50' 32' 9' 4' S' I6' 16, S' 1 4` 0EWALI PARKWAY I NIIKWAY TDIJ ''.,��'s-,"y,Y,r,r'_'i •'•y+' :•y��'..r'}.A\,s. .;,✓y,•,,+�.. ��L� ���r�S� ,k,S�',,t+�w��.�,°s��,� . 50' STREET SECTION (PRIVATE) P.A. 1 AND P.A. 2 Shde44 MEADOWLARK 22 City of Huntington Beach Typical on-street parking for residential w subdivision 601xIO09 6,000 sq. ft- 40' curb width (spaces 8'x231) � r J • 8 Homes •12 Spaces 1 r.: 1 ••r••. ........ • • 3�{de45 Csty of Huntmaton Beach w � Co 1 6 a •spaces If - id 23 MEADOWLARK City of Huntington Beach Typical on-street parking for residential subdivision 601x100' 6,000 sq. ft. 40' curb width (spaces 8'x231) .. .�. 1 r J • 8 Homes •12 Spaces - Gtv of Huntinaten Beach MEADOWLARK Public Works Sample of Street Parking in PA 3 L44 - - STREET• 13 Homes, " }n 3 Spaces . 24 MEADOWLARK City of Huntington Beach Typical on-street parking for residential subdivision 601xIO01 6,000 sq. ft. 6O' 40' curb width (spaces 81x231) I 1 ; 1 • 8 Homes •12 Spaces I 8 i . i �._.�. -------- ------- Qtv of Huntinaton Beach 3IIde49 �a IN MR Greys one,-qXZ-fo t:.`�;,, SU11'tmelvieW\,Call@ Thu day, Novemb'e` 5;z1�9$ °'i`a:4'S AM. ' `'tiY we bl0 ks'coverea 'ca 'l d :tv .way " _' C7i1,"stains cie�y sho ciright s" .parking o vsted side y °_`= >7 :ray'r `^-�' �m�a 4\�',c:�ZE�-y �.,^`s �p<•W � _.,�_�.�\v'il�s � "` ems`>'^�` .� ./ 3�a�`,NO" `D'an al mo de'JQ _ < �`.g..y= MEADOWLARK 25 City of Huntington Beach AT A P--MIA w rl a_b 21, 9 -10" Ell S., -AM I y MR!- 4.1-arKIng I, 'pf,pat king, NICK I'll, t V� 001, ttrre is MEADOWLARK 26 City of Huntington Beach �Ixl a. 01, 1 -Z "Am St. Augustine - 32-foot wide stree -+Jasmine I Al PwWd- Ad Pa 7N 14' Clearance MEADOWLARK 27 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK... lR r parr c»s i�iOwS`&1 Y:.3'S RSm� GC h mi ga; 010 'FIN" .a n d IMAM Surrounding A a LI N• ar LA, p�Mim A — Area ; II � dt A � � Flo Slide55 Approved 1991 Conceptual Master Plan Pearce St. .' ,f Connector A, „° w�. •54' Row . � �Iz, °���� � � �` •40' Curb to _ a. Curb tl 'f( , � CONCEPTUAL MASTERPLAN SIIde56 MEADOWLARK 28 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Proposed "I" and "K" Street Section I g' ar 50" STREE MATE) Slide57 r.t r e- 3, KP, vj ' y MEADOWLARK •n � <.�q.,��_ �i741 t .Q.r r x. 3 m .-.. ..xW,M��Nt,, V Parking is Poorly '_ Distributed . ..., ♦Y�s`!„�'S•L:J��c„,z v �µ'�f5 Y. �t���r�.r�,�,.r :;�,., u T✓ •...m Ff '. .� 4 E � Slide58 MEADOWLARK 29 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK • Trinidad Island +Approximately 325 homes with 504 spaces • Beachwalk +Approximately 449 homes with 449 spaces • Greenbriar ->Approximately 70 homes with 65 spaces Slide59 Typical Tandem Parking PLAN 2 fPLAN 3 � PANG EXf�086 2 PA-1XNMIBI Shde60 MEADOWLARK 30 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK • Outstanding Issue #1 • Summary of Impacts Emergency response time Emergency access Emergency evacuation Illegal parking Vehicles obstructing driveways Reduced resident parking adjacent to homes Inconvenient/ uneven distribution of on-street parking Siide6l MEADOWLARK Staff Recommendation: • Street Width 40-Feet • Spine Road Width 32-Feet + No Parking on Both Sides • 40-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" + Parking on Both Sides • Evenly Distributed Guest Parking • No Tandem Parking • Interior Garage Dimensions + Minimum 20' X 20' for all units Slide62 MEADOWLARK 31 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Staff Alternative #1 . Fire Sprinklers Throughout . Street Width 36-Feet - Parking on Both Sides . Spine Road Width 32-Feet -> No Parking on Both Sides • 36-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" 4 Parking on Both Sides . Evenly Distributed Guest Parking . Tandem Parking as Approved by PC . Interior Garage Dimensions Minimum 18' X 19' (400) as Approved by PCShde63 MEADOWLARK Staff Alternative #2 . Fire Sprinklers Throughout • Street Width 32-Feet - Parking on One Side . Spine Road Width 32-Feet -> No Parking on Both Sides . 36-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" + Parking on Both Sides . Create Added "Pocket" Guest Parking Spaces . No Tandem Parking . Interior Garage Dimensions Minimum 18' X 19' (400') as Approved by PCShde64 MEADOWLARK 32 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK AN- Community Services • Outstanding Issue #2 m Public Park Slide65 MEADOWLARK lie Community Services 0 Outstanding Issue # 2 Public Park v Park size (Required dedication = 5.37 acres) Park use (Neighborhood uses/ Sports fields) Park parking (How many spaces?) Houses adjacent to the park (Police issue) Slide66 MEADOWLARK 33 City of Huntington Beach =' MEADOWLARK k Community Services ■ Public Park Issue Related Impacts 300 children in neighborhood -� Need for facilities Picnic Tot lot Basketball court Field space Slides? - :i�L�C 3l4 Mile . 1/2 Mile '= l _o» a �.� 1/4 Mile MEADOWLARK 34 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park . Developer Proposal +2.4A + .8A (Gibbs) = 3.2 Acres Park ->Neighborhood Park w/o Sports Field . Staff and Community Services Commission Recommendation 43.4A + .8A (Gibbs) = 4.2 Acres Park ->Neighborhood Park with Multi-Use Sports Field Slide69 MEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park . Developer Proposal + 3.2 AC Developed Park 2.4 Dedicated 0 8 Gibbs 3 2 Developed 4 $1,005,000 Park In-Lieu Fees (Total Due Less Cost for Development) ✓Light Manna High School Fields ✓Improve Fields Village View School ✓Reconfigure & Improve Murdy Park Fields Slide70 MEADOWLARK 35 City of Huntington Beach VAMEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park . Staff and Community Services Commission Recommendation ->4.2 AC Developed Park 4$387,500 Park In-Lieu Fees ,,"Light Marina High School Fields Slide71 44 MEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park . Issue: Should a multi-use field be included in the neighborhood park at meadowlark, or should sports fields needs be met by off-site improvements at surrounding schools and community parks? Slide72 MEADOWLARK 36 City of Huntington Beach 4 MEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park • Staff and Community Services Commission Recommendation: ✓ 4.2 AC Neighborhood Park With a Multi-Use Sports Field ✓ $385,000 offsite improvements to Marina High School Slide73 MEADOWLARK Community Services Meadowlark Neighborhood Park e Reasons for Staff and Community Services Recommendation: 4 Youth sports needs study recommends sports fields in future neighborhood parks 4 The closing & reuse of school sites 4 Fields need buffer zones around them to avoid noise complaints and balls flying into adjacent residences 4 Over 300 children will need a place to play sports both informally and in organized programs Slide74 MEADOWLARK 37 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Public Works . Park Parking Issues +General Traffic Planning is 10 spaces/acre for neighborhood parks + Either Size Park will require 20 spaces minimum +All other neighborhood parks in City are adjacent to 40-foot or greater public streets with parking on both sides Slide75 MEADOWLARK Public Works • Outstanding Issue # 2 • Summary of Impacts . Public Park Park size Park use Park parking Houses adjacent to the park Slide76 MEADOWLARK 38 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Planning • Outstanding Issue #3 . Community Aesthetics Slide77 MEADOWLARK Planning • Outstanding Issue # 3 • Community Aesthetics •Minimal Parkway width (PA-1 & PA-2) • Minimal Sidewalk width (PA3 & PA-4) Front yard setback reduction (PA-4) Rear yard setback reduction (PA-3) Slide78 MEADOWLARK 39 City of Huntington Beach 7 w "INQ"I JV',13% y St. Augustine Project Xlsffik F� -114 \`V ,- ,Y' , ,, s 4-Foot . > A Sidewalk x s„ a 3N bM m& - 5-Foot Parkway _ (less room for future root growth) � � �_ S1 e79 6-Foot Parkway 31idOP4 MEADOWLARK 40 City of Huntington Beach Sidewalk Next to Curb With Fence u[ID, �- Slide81 a - � s 1. xamp e o Story Projections Slide82 MEADOWLARK 41 City of Huntington Beach , f aw u+2t9t�° t'3si7� N„6T'. ide MEADOWLARK Planning • Outstanding Issue # 3 • Staff Recommendation (If approved) 6-Foot wide parkways - necessary to accommodate tree growth f 6-Foot wide sidewalks - to be consistent with City Standards for adequate pedestrian access Maintain consistent front and rear yard setbacks throughout all planning areas Narrower streets warrant greater building setbacks Slide84 MEADOWLARK 42 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Planning Conclusion • Planning Commission recommends approval of both Meadowlark Specific Plan and Development Proposal with revisions and minute actions • Staff recommends approval of Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to address outstanding issues and denial of Development Proposal Slide85 MEADOWLARK Planning Conclusion (cont.) Staff believes the Development Proposal (CUP-TTM) will be ✓Detrimental to surrounding properties due to . Emergency access problems . Insufficient distribution of guest parking spaces . Minimal buffer adjacent to park . Reduced development and public improvement standards Slide86 MEADOWLARK 43 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Planning Conclusion (cont.) ✓Inconsistent with General Plan ✓Inconsistent with Planning Commission's recommended small lot development ordinance Shde87 VAMEADOWLARK Planning Two staff alternatives are provided for City Council Consideration Slide88 MEADOWLARK 44 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Ii,mifj4 'p Irr s r Staff Report Huntington Beach City Council fa, January 25, 1999 ., MEADOWLARK Staff Recommendation (If approved, deny Developer's proposal unless modified as follows) . Street Width 40-Feet . Spine Road Width 32-Feet + No Parking on Both Sides . 40-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" + Parking on Both Sides . Evenly Distributed Guest Parking . No Tandem Parking . Interior Garage Dimensions + Minimum 20' X 20' for all units Shde90 MEADOWLARK 45 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK Staff Alternative #1 . Fire Sprinklers Throughout . Street Width 36-Feet - Parking on Both Sides . Spine Road Width 32-Feet + No Parking on Both Sides . 36-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" 4 Parking on Both Sides . Evenly Distributed Guest Parking . Tandem Parking as Approved by PC . Interior Garage Dimensions Minimum 18' X 19' (400') as Approved by PCShde91 MEADOWLARK Staff Alternative #2 . Fire Sprinklers Throughout . Street Width 32-Feet - Parking on One Side . Spine Road Width 32-Feet -> No Parking on Both Sides . 36-Foot Pearce Street Width via "I" & "K" -> Parking on Both Sides . Create Added "Pocket" Guest Parking Spaces . No Tandem Parking . Interior Garage Dimensions Minimum 18' X 19' (400) as Approved by PCShde92 MEADOWLARK 46 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK �J Huntington Beach City Council January 25, 1999 L MEADOWLARK 47 Meadowlark Development Proposal (January 25, 1999) PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA-4 Area 11 ac 9 3 ac 14 5 ac 11 ac. Residential Units 62 51 113 87 Bedrooms 4 & 5 3 & 5 4 3 & 4 Floor Area 3,100-3,800 SF 3,000-3,300 SF 2,400-2,700 SF 2,000-2,400 SF Min. Lot Size 4,600 SF 4,000 SF 3,000 SF 3,000 SF MSP Lot Size Range 4,680-9,730 SF 4,000-9,760 SF 3,140-5,600 SF 3,120-5,360 SF Av . Lot Size 5,320 SF 5,037 SF 3,561 SF 3,486 SF Min. Lot Width 55 feet 50 feet 40 feet 35 feet MSP -Density 8 2 u/nac 7 8 u/nac 11 5 u/nac 10 9 u/nac e C—) (g kim vardoc 99 KL9 C / ,/ MOTIONS FOR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS L Planning Commission Recommendation: (SPECIFIC PLAN) Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS 2 and 3), to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 2. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999 with three revisions approved by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 3. "Approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3411 (ATTACHMENT NO.1) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999 — "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by amending the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04; Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01)" with minute action changes approved on December 3, 1998 as set forth in the Request for Council Action." ca rn L# ILkTIVE TRACT MAP 15469 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80) ca 44 Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures `-' (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)"to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." z cr x 5. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO.1) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." IL Staff Recommendation (SPECIFIC PLAN) Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to reflect staff s recommended changes (E. Summary)." 3. "Approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3411 (ATTACHMENT NO.1) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999 — "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by amending the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04; Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01) with revisions to reflect staff s recommended changes (E. Summary)." (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15469 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80) 4. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)" to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 5. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings of denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 2 III. Alternative Action (SPECIFIC PLAN) Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 and 3)" to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999." 2. "Approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions to reflect staff's recommended changes"(E. Summary)." 3. "Approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3411 (ATTACHMENT NO.1) to the Request for Council Action dated January 25, 1999 — "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by amending the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04; Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01)" with revisions to reflect staffs recommended changes (E. Summary)." (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15469 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80) To Approve Staff recommended Alternative 1 OR Alternative 2 Plan: 4. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 5. "Approve Alternative 1 Plan OR Alternative 2 Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 9) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval." c� MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Jan. 22, 1999) ISSUE CATELLUS v PLANNING = STAFF REC. "' STAFF =STAF ,tr" - PROPOSAL COMM. REC. `"ALTERNATIVET#1 ALTERNATIVE #2 1. Site Parking/ Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all res. units all res. units b) Private Street 32' — parking on one Same as 40' 36' — parking on 32' — parking on one Width (Curb to side Catellus both sides side curb) c) Spine Road Width 32' — no parking on Same as 32' — no parking 32' — no parking on 32' — no parking on (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus on both sides both sides both sides d) Pearce Street 32' — parking on one Same as 40' — parking on 36' — parking on 36' — parking on Width via "I" and side Catellus both sides both sides both sides "K" (Curb to curb) e) Distribution of Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional guest parking adequate guest Catellus distributed distributed "pocket" guest spaces parking space throughout project throughout project parking spaces distribution throughout project f) Tandem Parking 79 units have tandem 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted spaces acceptable approved by PC g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20'; Amend Min. 20' x 20' for Min. 18' x 19' with Min. 18' x 19' with Dimensions (PA 3 200 units @ min. M.S.P. to all units min. 400 sq. ft. as min. 400 sq. ft. as & 4) 18'x19' w/400 sq. ft. permit 1 approved by the PC I approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3 2 ac. (2.4 ac. Same as 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication & Catellus dedication & dedication & dedication & improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus improvements plus $1.0 million in-lieu in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of in-lieu fee of fees) $387,500) $387,500) $387,500) b ( � � hi- F ark Same as Nghborhood park Neighborhood park Neighborhood kr -Ald � Neighborhood multi-use field Catellus w/ multiuse field w/ multiuse field w/ multiuse field c till 10 spaces 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d us40 3to 7 units next to park Same as None None None Park _.113 113 Catellus MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (Cont.) ISSUE CATELLUS PLANNING STAFF REC. STAFF STAFF PROPOSAL COMM. REC." = ALTERNATIVE1 ALTERNATIVE# 2 3. Community Aesthetics A Parkway Widths 5' (PA 1 & 2) Same Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) b) Sidewalk Widths 5' (PA 3 & 4) Same Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) c) Front Setbacks Min 15'; Amend Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC (PA4) allow 2' 2"d story M.S.P. to setback without projections permit 2' projections projections d) Rear Setbacks Min 13' & 15'; Amend Maintain min. 13' Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2' 2"d story M.S.P. to & 15' setback s projections permit 2' without projections projections