Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeabridge Specific Plan - SE corner of Beach Blvd and Adams .,c �Ix H a;r omiitr Anmlysis r� !N r 1�1 . AIR CUALITY ANALYSIS Prepared By 3 Mans Giroux Air Quality Specialist 26 Sunriver Irvine, California 92714 Clilauto_ ax The climate of Huntington Beach, as with all Southern California coastal environs, is controlled by the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pocifie Ocean and the mo&rotlna effects of the massive oceanic heal' reservoir. Summers are cool while winters are mild with very limited rainfall confined to the winter months when the high Is weakest and forlhest south. The cool ocean currents cause considerable early morning cloudiness that changes hazy daytime sunshine. Moderate daytime onshore winds bring cool and usually clean air across Huntington Beach during the summer while inland valleys are hot and smoggy. Unfortunately, the high pressure creates persistent 4emperature inversions that severely limi i the capacity of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution emissions from the large population attracted by the pleasant climott.. Because of the high emission levels nnd, unfavorable portions of r-neteorology, portions of the South Coast Air Basin have the wor.3t photochemical smog levels in the Country. Temperatures in Huntington Beech average 630E vr:6h winter minima In the low 4013 and summer maxima in the low 80's. Extremes of temperature are rure with very few days over 90OF and almost no sub-freezing temperatures, In contrast to the small seasons! temperature variation, precipitation varies considerably from season to season and year-to-year. Almost all the annual rainfall of Yen Inches falls from late November to early Ar„il with many summers completely dry, fear-to-year variations are very pronounced witF rainfall in one month of a wet year often exceeding the entire. annual total during a subsequent drought condition. Winds are an important climatic parameter because they play a key role in dispersing air pollutants boi,i near the source (microscelP impacts) as well as governing their raglonal redistribution and ultimate basin vents, .,,n (mesoscale Impacts). Winds across Huntington Beach are characterized by moderate daytime onshore flow from the WSW of ,., 8-12 mph and a weak offshore flew from the NE of 2-4 mph. The daytime winds bring clean air into the area and push local emissions for inland toward Santa Ana Canyon aid beyond Into Riverside County. Unless the winds shift into the northwest where polluted air from industrialized and heavily traveled oretxs of Lai Angeles blows into KmOngton Beach (which happens very infrequently), daytime summer air quality is usually very good. As the land becomes cooler than the ocean waters, the nocturnal offshore breezes develop. These light winds bring pollutants from inland sources toward the coast and cause locally high *pressure concentrations near sources such as feeways or nwjor intersectiam, especially dkjrbwj winter nights. Figure i shows the strongly birrwdaI wind distribution of the summer/daytin-m onshore and winter/nocturnal offshore flow regimas �. near Fk mtington Beach. } BMSA C !CA (1952•-1960) VI Ff :::Lw:J4 1 11 1 it N �'�•1�,t' ,,�vl .1�\ :'�1 1�1'�1 7 , '1 (w !~ •`�t r r � �/ti. ' r r f v�'�� • �""��� 1. `r1 ti,.•, i 1 .1 ,i 1. ', l�, •' j ' X ♦� �!. .� `���, •��1ti ,.`11' ��i }'rat !.l�1 I�jrl ,f+� r� r ,/�! i/ 'yr�/` ���• .�� !. �.L.r... �..+-ram• �w•�•.'�'�_ •.._.�� i �`, W� .-{..i.._ {.. �"•��`-... �• r, I • //J. /~ � TrjY I I lw.T �'•4^� '' ,�y , \. , ',:\�♦ .t�'� ��r�` `. �/�J/j J � ' f'�••'•1'"/I,.'/Jj r 1 r • • 1 � . 1 . 1 f,.•. �1' ,\�.,t�1 .�,•` �\�t,, ' ♦ •♦.• '.f♦ • I� ' /I �I�//•/�� � I, ;titer • 7r,r1�i fl� •• ' �•w .w. ..'. �L�"' '•',,is•�.,,1 r�bl '.• `l,�` `� ,i��i ll?,� /' I /J�.'! Ja✓ ' �1`1 �.,(r /(It+ll �'r ' i'� •.,�; �• •t� 1►•r Yl� ,•r •J�t1.\ � \ ,r, ♦��� j' J Imo•, ,' . ;'.,.r �/ t If r •�. .�7- --Y, ��{. • ,�{ .. ��J, ��i•kv, 1�\ • \\\ � . �, ��� �T� • till lti 1 .t' '. >,:. ' '.�� . . r . /�/�/ /, � irk 1 ' 1 II�1 „r,�.:. ..,..; �a 1\� :.i,,t `.)•} � :.` \,\• �/ f 1 ♦ � "•i� T11 11 1 L 11 5 Mem Speed = 6.1 mph. Figure 1. Wind direction frequency distribution (wind rase) necx' Huntington Ekhxh. The two primary wind features that control horizontal dispersion are usually accompanied by two distirx-fly different temperature inversion patterns that control vertical dispersions, When; the coal summer onshore flow unaercuts a deep layer of warm, sinking air in the high pressure center, it forms a marine/subsidence inversion. t This inversion acts like a giant lid over the basin until the air reaches the mountains or deserts surrounding the basin. As the oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons from coastal sources (mainly traffic) nix and react photochemical ly, they farm the basin's infamous smoS (comprised mainly of ozone). As each source adds more "fuel" for this reaction without any corresponding vertical a►'Alon, the shallow layer (perhaps 10C,9' deep) becomes progressively more polluted, eti ecially when the brisk onshore winds s dissipate as they fan out into inland valleys. A different kind of inversion forms in conjunction with the nocturnal offshore flow as the ground cools by radiation while the air aloft remains warm. This forms shallow radiation Inversions. These inversions and the: slow offshore drift allow for a gradual build-up of primory (unreacted) vehiculor pollutants in coastal areas that reaches a maximum during 11-a early morning rush hour. This regional buildup plus local contributions from traffic sources creates carbon monoxide MO) and oxide of nitrogen 0 0x) "hat spots" that dissipate when the sun burns off these inversions during the mic'=morning and the sea breeze returns. One weather related concern in the coustal area is the high frequency of nocturnal foci, especially in an apparent "fog pocket" such as near the Beach/Adams intersection. Figure 2 shows "Nat as many as ten days per month In late fall and early winter may have foci with reduced visibility. This fog lasts from about 10:00 p.m. to 900 a.m. with several ,instances each year of extremely restricted visibility. These very restricted visibility days may lead to traffic accidents during the early morning rush hour because traffic control devices are hard to see. During the fag season from late September to January, ornber flushing lights at street level to warn of stop signs, signals or crosswalks may be helpful in alerting motorists of traffic control and placement of signals on corners as well as overhead may make them easier to see during the heavier fog episodes. Air GAmlity In order to evaluate the significance of the air quality impact of a proposed development, .hat impact, together with existing baseline levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS). These standards are the lever of air quality that "may reasonably be 1-nticipated to endanger Fr:hlic health or welfare' (Clean Air Ac' as •- amended August, 1`.l7). Standards are therefore set such that air quality poses no risk to those people must susceptible to possible respiratory distress such as asthmatics or people with emphysema, young children, the elderly, persons already. week from other disease or Illness, etc., called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to somewhat higher concentrations before adverse effects are noted. Standards are periodically reviewed as new health effects information is developed and the Clean Air Act is regularly rer-wed. In the current renewal proceedings of the Act, the Reagan Administration is proposing a revised d-.finition of AAQS that requires levels of air quality to "pose a sfgnificont risk" to health and welfare. This proposal stops short cif requiring a cost/benefit analysis for AAQS that �.. some business interests have proposed, but the use of "significant risk" versus the current no risk philosophy may lead to some relaxation of current AAQS levels. M FIGURE 2 NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY COASTAL AREA FUG DISTRIBUTION •:1 a' r,{ !f •i _ z i' .1: 11 till — -17 :i i 7-7 7-717 V :i --!• -�- JA 7-7 1' ^• „ t- s 1 '#.• � ::: is AJ . _. ..; ►jl it :M µt ! S. � - -•j- .. _ .. _ �� .. .!: r ~1-- -- .. .. .-tom, Los V a_ -- - :)' _ L. ». ILLf jp :.._ .._.r.. ..• .� :. �: �.._ There are currently seven pollution species for which AAQS have been estahished by the EPA. States retain the right to establish more stringent standards or to develop standards for other species or exposure times. Since California state standards predated the federal actor and because of unique air quality problems there is considerable diversity between the state and feder,sl stand-:rds current In effect in California as shown In Table 1. There is no long period air quality monitoring near the proposed project site by which to determine the existing baseline air quality wlih respect to the various clean air standards. The nearest South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) station is ti in Costa Mesa. while there may be small local difference. between the Costa Mesa site and the project, their similor exposure with respect to the ocean and surrounding ' pollution sources and very similar wind patterns should mc:ke these data quite representative of the project site. Table 2 summarizes the last four years of complete data. Thesn. data suggest that standards for ozone are exceeded on occasion In the summer and those for CO and NO. in winter, but not very often. The five violatiuns of the federal ozone standard of 0.11f ppm compores to 146 violations it Fontana and 132 at Riverside. The six violations of the eight hour CO startdurd compares to 70 In Lennox and 63 in Burbank. Similarly the two violations of the N0 tcndarct cornpare3 to 23 In Burbank and 17 In Anaheim. 'Thus, while there rn.ay be a 2few instances of potentially unhealthful air quality In the ` Huntington Beach area, both the frequency of violations and their magnitud's is much less than in many other portions of Southern California. The discouraging aspect of Table 2 and other regional data is that there is Ilftle evidence of any marked improvement in air quality despite reported significant reductions from both vehicular and stationary sources. There is currently a deadline , of 1987 for attainment of all eta-,.dards. To meet this deadline, in 1978 the AQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) developed an air quality management plan (AQMP) that contained the steps necessary to meet that goal. In retrospect, It has become obvious that a number of assumptions used in the AQtAP were unrealistic and it is equally obvious that the 1987 deadline can not be met. A revised AQMP is currently being prepared that will reflect current political, technical and economic realities. its t primary emphasis will be on hydrocurbon reduction to control ozone formation with less g� emphasis on NOx control as the other participant in the smog production process. Projects such as the proposed Seabridge Project relate to the AQMP .through the population and growth forecasts used :a project future emission levels. These growth forecasts are based on the General Plan In effe%t when the current growth forecast (SCAG_80) was prepared. If the proposed project represent.` a level of development that creates rnore traffic than ire current general plan or is accelerated In terms of development phasing, it represents an adverse regional air quality Impact. Any'sinyle project's inconsistency with the AQMP can by balanced by a lesser Inieruity or delay of development elsewhere in the basin, but, unless such a tradeoff can be assured, the air quality Impact from the inconsistent project represents on unimitigated air quality burden. TA13LE Ir� AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Po)h+UsM Averaging Time Cali;olnla Standards, Nati-mal Standards" �++ Concentrations Idleshod" Primary's Socondarys• Meaw, Oxidant10 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet — — 1200 ug/ms) Photometry �r Qrone 1 hour -- — 240 ug/ms Sea%o as PtimerV Chernifumintscent (L%12 ppm) Standard Method Carbon Monoxide 12 hour 10 ppm —• ;, (11 mg/m') Non-Dispersive Same as Nott•Oispetsive ) "';'hour '- Infrared 10 mg/ms Primary Infrared •Spectroscopy 19 ppm► Standards Spectroscopy r 1 hour d0 ppm 40 mg/mt (40 mg/m's) 1315 ppm) i?;1 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — 100 ug/m3 Gas Phase Saltzman Method 10 05 Cpm) Same as Primary Chemiluminescence I 1 hour 0.25(470 up%ms) — Standards Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average — 80 up/ms 10.03 ppm) k t 24 hour 0.05 ppm 365 ug/ms -- 1131 ug/mIl" Conductimctric (0.14 ppm) Poraosanitlne Method Method 3 hour — 1300 ug/ms (0.5 ppm) R 1 hour 0.5 ppm — — (1310 ug/m') Suspended Annual Geometric 60 ug/ms 75 ug/ms 60 ug/ms r Particulate Mean W)h Volume H4h Voturne r Mellor Sampling SSampling 24 hour 1tYJ up/ms p D 1G0 ug/ms 160 uy/ms Sulfa1e3 24 hour 25 ug/mr AIHL Method — --No. 61 ct Load 30 day 1.5 ug/ms AIHL Method -- — — Average No. 54 Calendar -- -- 1.5 ug/ms 1.5 ug/ms A.tomiC Quarter Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium — — -- Sulfide 142 ug/ms) Hydroxide Stracta Method srN Hydrocarbons 3 hour — -- 160 ug/ms Some as Flame Ionization (Corrected lot 16.9 a.m.) (0.24 ppm) Primary detection Using Methane) Standards Gas Chromatography Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Gas Chromatog- ~' (Chioroelhene) 120 WWI rephy (AR8 staff report 78•5.3) Ethylene a hour 0.1 ppm ._ yr 1 hour 0.5 ppm Visibility 1 obbervatlon In sufficient amount to t8) Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility Pallid" to less than 10 miles when theAL r.• relative humidity is less than 70% -- — -- APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Moo W$a a hour 6 ppm NDIR -- -- 17 mo/ml 1/isitbi ky 1 obaarvat+on In suffWant amount to 18) Ileirleinr reduce the prevailing visibikly — ►Nlieles to Nrts than 30 miles when thts relative homedity Is less than 71.1% Satxcell Califomia ARB. 4� 1 TABLE 2 + AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY FROM MONITORING SITE CLOSEST TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (COSTA MESA) i (Days Standards Were Exceeded) 1977 1978 1979 1980 Ozone 1 HR '- 0.10 ppm 31. 52. 26. 20. ` I FIR L 0.12 ppm - 25. 16. 5. I HR s 0.20 ppm 0. 3. 1. 0. Max. Hourly Ccmc. 0. 18 ppm 0.22 ppm 0.21 ppm 0.16 ppm Carbon Monoxide I HR > 35 ppm 0. 0. 0. 0. 8HR > 9 ppm 20. 9. 18. 6. Max Hourly Conc. 18. ppm 18. ppm 21. ppm 17. ppm Max 8-HR Cone. 12.4 ppm 12.8 ppm 15.9 ppm . 13.9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide I FIR it 0.25 ppm 0. 4. 4. 2. Max Howly Conc. 0.23 ppm 0.30 ppm 0.29 ppm 0.31 ppm +,a Sulfur Dioxide --------- _-----------NOT EXCEEDED--- --_-- ----Total Particulates Particulates 24HIS! 1 g/m3 13/6( 10161 26161 6/20 24HRS r 1 g/m3 3/6 I 1/617/6 I 0120 Max Daily Com. 202*g/m3 175./Ag/m3 252.�g/m3 125.�.g/m3 ►a � Lead 1 Mo.? 1.5,W/m3 5/12 3 4/12 3/12 3 0/4 3 3 Max Monthly Conc. 3.64A g/m 3. 11A g/m 1.913009/m 0.87�91m Sulfates 24HRSk 2*g/m3 3/61 3 2/610/613 0/20 3 3 Max Doily Conc. 37.8og/m 27.�g/m 24.2�►g/m 13.5O9jm Air pollution Emissions Residential developments generate air pollutants primarily from the vehicular sources that meet residents' transportation needs. Secondary sources result from project-related energy demand, from temporary construction sources and from a -wide variety of smmll miscellaneous sources. These emissions ure typically for less of a concern than the mobile sources because they are much smaller in 'magnitude. Air pollution emissions from any single residential project rarefy of themselves cause clean air standards to be violated. Rather, these emissions mix with those from thousands of similar developments throughout the basin. While the emissions from any single project are Incrementally small, the cumulative impact from many such very small sources ultimutely leads to the basin's air pollution problems. Construction Emissions Construction activities generate air pollution emissions from disturbance of the soil in clearing and grading (fugitive dust) and from combustion emissions from on-site heavy- duty equipment and from off-site trucks. These emissions vary widely depending an soil, wind or moisture characterisi ics and depend on specific equipment used. One can use some gene:alined emission estimates for construction activities, but these are generally better estimates than ony precise emission calculations, The California Air Resources Board estimates that it requires about 300,000 Brake Horsepower flours (BHP-HR) of heavy equipment and truck activity to build out one acre into a housing development. Similarly, they recommend a fugitive dust emission factor ^� of 1.2 tons/ocre/month with an intensive construction duration of six months, The ARB also estimates the effectiveness of dust suppression measures required by SCAOMD Rule ; 403 to be 50 percent. Based on these assumptions and average combustion equipment emission factors for diesel-powered equipment, the resulting construction activity emissions are as tabulated in Table 3. Depending on the: project phasing. the 500 tons or so of construction-related emissions will be released throughout project buildout In various amounts. Of these, the oxides of nitrogen from diesel exhaust and the fugitive dust from grading have the greatest potential for a significant impact while the rest are insignificantly small, especially on a regional scele. Vehicular Emissions The SM units In the proposed development are predicted to generate about 7,500 vehicle trips per day. At eight miles per average trip, the project will add about 60,000 vehicle miles gaveled (VMT) to the basin traffic burden currently of 200 million VMT. For typical Callfornia traffic mixes and driving patterns., These vehicular sources will add about orm tone of CO and 0.1 tons of iVO and hydrocarbons to the basic~ airstreorn as w shown in Table 4. A small air quality benef 1 Is obtained by delaying completion until the mid-IMs when older, polluting vehicles are retired from service, but beyond about 1985 there is little year-to-year variation in project-related vehicular emission levels. w„ it TA13LE 3 MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT C014STRUCTION EMISSIONS Emissions I (tons year) 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year Construction Construction Construction Pollutants: Phasing Phasing Phasing - 7' Hydrocarbons 211.3 10.7 7.1 Carbon Monoxide 27.8 18.5 r Oxides of Nitrogen 204.4 102.2 68.1 Particulates 17.6 8.8 5.9 Oxides of Sulfur 17.1 8.6 5.7 Fugitive Dust2 214.2 107. 1 71.4 I At 300,000 BHP-HR pet- acre developed with 59.5 acres under development. y r s 2Dust suppression efficiency of 50 percent. TABLE 4 MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VEHICULAR SOURCE EMISSIOM Emissions(tons jdar) rs Pollutants: 1984 1987 19M Carbon Monoxide 1.26 1.07 0.98 Totol Hydrocarbons 0.12 0.10 0.09 Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.10 0.09 0.08 to Oxides of Nitrogen 0.16 0.14 0.13 Sulfur Dioxide 0&1 0.01 0.01 r� Particulates 0.02 0.02 0.02 �-- __- - IYi. - -- I � VY��I.YI• _ �Aw1- ���•fir Based an 7 520 vehicle trips per day at 8 milts per trip = 60,160 vehicle mimes traveled IVMT). Emission factors from SCAQM0 EIR Handbook at average speed of 35 no. r StatiorwrySource Emissions Residential development also creates additional amesrgy demands met by the combustlon of fuel oil In power plants and natural gas in stoves, furnaces, water heaters, etc. Fe,--, typical Southern Califomia households, the 800 units will consume about five million r KWH of electricity and 50 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. If all the �. electricity Is generated by burning oil in SCE power plants, the total stationary source emissions are as shown in Table 5. Any electrical generation from non-oil resources such as mmlear, hydroelectric or coal in power plants outside the basin will reduce the project-related stationary source emissions well below the levels shown in Table 5, TABLE 5 MIOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCES Emissions (tonstdoy) Electrical Noturol Gas Generation Combustion Pollutants: Emissions Emissions Total Sulfur Dioxide 6.24 0.02 6.26 al' Hydrocarbons 0.48 0.03 0.51 t Oxides of Nitrogen 6.00 2.56 8.56 Particulates 0.72 0.26 0.98 a. Carbon Monoxide 1.20 0.51 1.71 Based on SCAQMD EIR Handbook Consumption estimates of: 4.8 million kWH electricity annually. 51.2 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. Emission: fociors supplied by SCE for electrical generation and USEPA for natural gas (domestic) combustion. Micvellewoms Emiallons More people rrm au more emissions from a variety of very small sources that are very " difficult to quantify individually, but ore significant cumulatively. Then mistAlanwus emission sources include: i :s 1 o Gasoline marketing emissi.-Ans to refine, transport, store and dispense motor fuel for residents. o Surface c aatings (paints, thirners and solvents) used during construction and by residents. a Dry cleaning at commercial and self-service facilities. o Asphalt used on streets and driveways. o Mineral processing to p►odu:e .sand, gravel ,and aggregates to construct the housing. o Pesticides (.id herbicides used by government ag ncies and residents for pest and weed control. o Structural, recrkmtional and open-flame restaurant cooking fires. o Unpaved roadway dust and paved road tire wear. o Utility equipment used by residents and landscape contractors. o Pleasure boating. o Civil aircraft. 0 Waste disposal emissions in sewage treatment and londfili solid waste disposal. Ambient Air O aiity Irr29cts While the project-related emissions can be calculated with reasmdble accuracy, the very nature of the primarily mobile source emissions ►hakes it almost impassible to translate these emissions Into o specific Incremental ambient air quality Impact. A general measure of the significance of project-related emissiom can be derived by comparing them to the overall basin emission level, but this general a;,:;;sis does not relate: to the project's specific impact at some given time and place. N.. Table 6 compares the project emissions In the current 1987 eltairnment target date with the oerall emissions that would still cause all standards to be met In the basin.. Assuming that downwind air quality is proportional to upwind source strength, the data in Table 6 Suggest that the Seabridge Project may cause an Incremental degradation of char. air standards that range from 0.005% for SO to 0.043% for CO. Since most of the pollutlon levels will apparently not be down to fheir attainment targets by 1967, the actual project regional nir quality Impact will be somewhat less than the percentages Indicated In Table M M . IA I TABLE n PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BASlNWIDE AIR L4JAL.ITY BURDEN ' Project Basin Related A,taint- nt Project Emissions l Tar?day) et Contributions Pollutants: (ions/day). tonsM Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.081 _. 506. 0.016 Oxides of Nitrogen 0.153 800. 0.019 Carbon Monoxide 1.265 2480. 0.043 Particulates 0.023 242. 0.009 Oxides of Sulfur 0.027 554. 0.005 !From vehicular and stationary sources - 1987 level. 2Frorn analysis in the current South Coast Air Basin AQMP- No matter what the actuci swc!! pc-,cen!nge is, the underl;ing premise of the regionol air quality planning process '-s that there cc-rn be both reusonable, planned growth and also steadily Improving air qualify. Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it is by definition consistent with the AQMP although the SCAG-8Q forecasts used In the current AQMP update cycle moy still reflect the previous Resource Production, Commercial and Low Density Residential dasignotion for the project site in force in 1979 when the SCAG-8;3 fcrecasta were prepared. In SCAG's next populations housing employment and land use update, the current Planned Community District land use element, adopted .tune 15, 1981, will be raf lected in those forecasts and the project will be consistent with the AQMP. While the regional impact may be srnall and somewhat mitigated by emissica controls an other basin sources of air pollution, the concentration of traffic rear the project site plus existing traffic plus nonproject growth could cause, highly localized air quality degrodotior ("hot spots"). To test for this possibility, rush hour traffic conditic+ns were combined with minimum atmospheric dispersion porometers in the CaRrans rwxhvay diaWsion computer model CALINE3. The segment of Beach Bc+ileviced just north of Adarns predicted to ultimately carry 43,900 vehicles per day was selected for micrascaie � Impact analysis with CO used as the pollution indicator. Table 7 shows the results of this worst-case analysis for wires parallel to Beach and for oblique winds at 45a across the , roadway. At worst, local traffic generated CO levels on the sidewalk next to the roadway will be less than 13ppm compared to the tx wly standard of 35pprm Since 0 t 'TABLE 7 MICROSCALE CARDIONN MONOXIDE IMPACT ANALYSIS ADJACWT TO BEACH BOULEVARD (Results from CALP,10 Model) Hourly CO Concentration (ppm) Distance From Non-Project Project Roadway (FEET) Traffic Traffic Total 0 11.86 0.95 12.81 5 1 i.84 0.95 12.79 10 11.76 0.94 12.70 20 11.41 0.91 12.32 40 9.60 0.77 10.37 00 2.03 0.16 2.19 160 0. 18 0.01 0.19 320 0.00 0.00 0100 640 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3.01 0.24 3.25 5 3.65 0.29 3.94 10 3.92 0.31 4.23 20 3.84 0.31 4,:5 40 3.64 0.29 3.93 80 3.55 0.28 3.83 160 2.31 U.18 2.49 320 1.61 0.13 1.74 640 1 .11 0.09 1.20 Based on 4000 VPH non-project troffie, 320 VPH Mola Development Project. hiean Speed = 25 mph. Year = 1982. neither the rush hour traffic nor the restrictive dispersion conditims last for eight hours, tt* eight-lvu standard of 9ppm will not be threatened near the project site unless regioml b t­kground levels approach the standard and the small local contribution Is ei)ovgh to cause a standard violation. Based c"; available bockgrou;nd data and the foregoing analysis, the project site apears to be In on area of good air quality and the proposed project will not significantly alter that situation. N1i�rcyn With most of the project impact resulting from the automobile P j i� 9 whos+r emission charocteristics are beyond the control of local regulatory agencies or the developer, there is little potential for effective mitigation. Certain "standard" measures such as supporting transit use or building bicycle paths are to be encouraged, but they contribute only minimally in reducing the project air pollution burden. W&&Ile any potential for mitigation is indeed small, those reasures chat can be incorporated into project dftign and planning should be seriously considered and Include: Construction Source o in eo ' •Minimize r s�a.� and runoff to beep slit from washing into traveled streets. a Perform major grading in spring when soil rnoisture is high. o Pave streets after major grading is finished to minimize travel un unpaved roadways. o Enforce o 15 mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces. Mobile Sources o Construct attractive and covered transit stops on Beach and Adams. o Encourage bike or pedestrian use to nearby commercial areas. o incorporate recreational arcs into the project to reduce out-of-project travel. Stationary Sources o Build project usirxj conservation design criteria beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements. o Provide solar osaisied heating and hot water systems as a built-,in option. o Use energy caiserving fluorescent lighting in interiors and high-pressure sodium for street lighting. ■ Ir w COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR r INTRODUCTION A Notice of Preparation, indicating an EIR would be prepared for the Seabridge Project, was filed on July 27, 1981. The Notice of Completion and Draft EIR were published on November 19, 1981, and the EIR was subsequently filed with the State Clearir4wse (SCH No. 81080664). The formal review period required under the C:EOA guidelines erfded on Jumary 4, 1982. Comments were received from fhe following agencles and par ti es: o U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. o California Department of Fish and Game. p� a California Department of Water Resources. o Cal trans. o SLAG. 4 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. r o Orange County Transit District. 13 o City of Huntington Beach. o MOLA Development Corporation. Id A summary of each comment received and the City's response to each comment is contained below. The written correspondence received during the review is Included following the Summary Comments and Responses. SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment: Letter from Ralph C. Pisopla, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 12/7/81 (attached). o They are unob!e to respond at this time due to funding and manpower constraints, hrwever, this does not preclude input at a later date. Response: There is no response required at this time. 4 Comment. Letter from E.C. Fullerton, Director, California Department of Fish and Game, 12/28/81 (attached). o The EIR provides a generally adequate analysis of the roject's Impact upon biological resources . . . The prepared plan directly contradicts the Department's efforts to preserve this wetland and Is inconsistent with the Resource Agency's Basic Wetlands Protection Policy Thc• Department does not believe a smaller freshwater marsh would adequately compensate for the loss of the existing wetlands and has no idea of when the saltwater marsh would be constructed . . . Due to S-hese constraints, the Department recommends that the existing wetland area be retained -md developed into a functional saltwater marsh ecosystem. v Any diversion of the natural flow or alteration of the bed, channel or banks of any river, stream or lake, will require notificrtion to the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to Section 1601-16 3 of the Fish and Gore Code. ,. Response: it should first be noted that Fish and Game does not challencje the analysis of biological impacts contained within the EIR, but questions the acceptability of the mitigative action proposed within the Specific Plan. The mitigation (for temporary loss of the ponding area and corresponding habitat) contained within the Specific Plan and noted In the EIR, entails development of a smaller freshwater marsh in the Initial phase of the project with eventual development of a functional saltwater marsh in the resource production area, once oil production ceases. Funds for the creation of the saltwater marsh would be provided by the developer in a special interest bearing account in the name of the Homeowner's Association. o d r The Department f Fish an Gam: suggests that the panding area and corresponding vegetation be retained and developed into a more functional saltwater marsh. The implications of the suggestions require direct deletion of approximately 150 residkentlOI units In area B, west of the channel, with the possible prohibition of most d+e�.rlopment west of the channel if the access road adjacent to the pending area were to be restricted. As the morsh area is currently in a degraded state, its visual character would also detract from adjacent housing. As the City has previously icxlicated roo interest in the site as open space (refer to page 7 of the Draft EiR texts,there is no Indication of the availability or source of public funds frx enhancement of the existing marsh. Further, as the marsh orea is currently in a degraded state, Its usual character would • detract from :adjacent housing. it is therefore unlikely any enharwennent of the biological resources would be achieved without funding provided by the applicant. The Department of Fish and Game also suggests the possibility of deferring production of some of the housing until resource production stops. The City Housing clement to the General Plan, however, stresses the current need for increasing the housing stock, and a recent proposed amendment to the State EIR guidelines recognizes the need to balance resource values with current housing nerds. Both the Specific Plan and the Fish aid Game suggestions provide mitigation for disruption of biotic resources. The decision on the appropriateness of each with respect to this site rests with the Planning Commission and City Council of Huntington Beach. Comment: Letter from Y. Chun, Chief Planning Branch, Southern District, California Department of Water Resources, 12/8181 (attached). o Standard water conservation and flood protection measures (as indicated In the letter) are recommended . . . consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program for use of reclaimed water for irrigation. Response: Flood protection methods are being incorporated into the project as required by the Orange Count-,- Flood Control District. Water conservation and use of reclaimed water will be considered at a more detailed design stage. Comment: Letter from K.D. Steele, Chief, Environmental Planning Branch, District 07, Cal trans. o Caltrans encroachment permits will be required for signals and improvements on Beach Boulevard . . . All necessary permits should be available when applying for Caltrans permits. Response: There is no response required. Comment: Letter from W.O. Ackerman, Jr., Director of Programming and Evaluation, SCAG, 12/30/81 (attached). o Although population projections for RSA 38 are increasing faster than the SCAG-78 forecasts, staff agrees that the project will probably be consistent with the SCAG-82 forecasts now in preparc,tion. c ere ' o response required. Bps There is n r p Comment: Letter from Kenneth E. Smith, Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, 12/14/81 (attached). a The proposed bridge crossing will require access to the levee for OCF•CD maintenance. a Specific drainage criteria, as indicated In the letter, should be met. Re se: As more detailed plans are prepared, further coordination with OCFCD will be accomplished to ensure thetir dralnoge and access requirements are Incorporated, into the project design. M Comment: Letter from Dick Hsu, Environmental Coordinator, Orange County Transit District, n.d. (attached), o OuTD requests provisions be made for a bus stop on Beach Boulevard . . . there should be a discussion of existing transit service and description of Dial-a-Ride service. ,.. Response: As indicated in the Di 41 ► ,ri (page 22) bus shelters and turnouts will be provided at location- suggested by OCTD and the City Department of Public Works. This p.,ttern is noted in the Specific Plan (page 8). As noted in OCTD's letter, transit service Is available, adjacent to the <<' site (Route 29) and the area is served by Dial-a-Ride. Comment: Memorandum from Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director, Community Services, City of Huntington Beach, 11/24/81 (attached). • o There is no pedestrion access easterly into Seaport Drive which leads directly to the new neighborhood Drew Park . . . this could be accompl;%hed by a locked gate through which Seabridge residents could pass. Response; The subject of access to Seaport Drive is being considered In the Seabridge Pedestrian Circulation Plan now in preparation. The applicant will include this feature in the project if requested to do so by the City. Comment: Memorandum from Don Noble, Engineering Planner, Public Works Department, City of Huntington Beach, 1/6/81 (attached). o -Drainage: as the natural contours of the site indicates that the site generally drains south, but the storm drains of the project drain north, extensive landfill will be required. How would the landfill affect surrounding residential areas? d Traffic: to what degree will the southerly entrance affect Beach -,. ou evard traffic . . . there appears to be a discrepancy between this project ADT noted In the text and in the figures . . . traffic distribution percentages for Beach Boulevard ore questionable. Re nse: Drainage: the landfill indicated in the Specfic Plan is for the purpose of elevaiing residential units above the 100-year flood level. Roadways and other areas would be constructed at approximately the some elevation as found within adjacent properties. The drainage plan calls for stream flows to be Intercepted by the road system aml then discharged directly ` to the storm system. Extensive fill will not be required to drain the property to the north. Srxrounding properties will not be affected, as all storm flows will be van contained on site and directed to the project storm drains. Traffic: In response to the ques'lions on the traffic study, the traffic canaufant, Boamaciyan-Darnell, Inc, will provide supplemental informotlon to the City Department of Public Works. This rest for supplemental information is for clorificaiton pur s, and will not potentially alter the design of the project as detailed In the Specific Plan (Don Noble, Engineering Planner, Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, 1/8/8 1). Cornment: Letter from Frank J. Molo, President, Mola Development Corporation, 114/81 %attached). o A revised Figure 2 has been submitted to clarify the information presented. o T4e area Identifying Sub-Area A i on Exhibit A in the Specific Plan waft left off. A substitute map is attached to show the location of Sub Area Al. o Not enough emphasis has been placed on the fact that If it were not for the flapgate in the flood control channel being forced open, the saltwater ponding area would not have existed . . . the pond dried up after the flapgate was fixed . . . the value of the year-round freshwater pond and eventual creation of a saltwater marsh for exceed the value as it would exist in the future. Response: The two figures submitted (clarifying Figure 2 In the EIR and Exhibit A of the Specific Plan) are attached to the accompanying letters. The relationship of the flopgate to the temporary fonding and existing vegetation is discussed on pages 10 and 12 in the Draft EIR. The contribution of the tidal flows toward the maintenance of the pond and ' current health of the marsh vegetation is acknowledged. 1NG P.71 BEACH United States Department of the Interior i , 4,NNiNG DEPT. FISH AND WILDLIFE. SERVICE DEC 'f 1981 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road P. 0. Box I go Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 flufllrCtOn BM , L.1% ",e ill December 2, 1981 City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: DEIR 8I•.1 , Scabridge Specific Platt, Beach Boulevard & Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach, California Dear Sirs; This responds to your request dated November 18, 1981 in regards to the above referenced project. We are unable at this time to respond to this request due to funding and manpower constraints. 11is does not preclude input at a later date should significant impacts to public fish and wildlife resources be identified, and funding and manpower resources be increased. Sincerely yours, Ralph C. Pieapia Field Supervisor Sfate of Uifortin oovs"Not1•s oFpica IMUTINGTtr'I BEAOi OFFICE OF PL^NNING ANq RESEARCH j ( i 1400 T1:NTH STRE" P`-AN141H G •' tsAC1iAMSNTO 013�14 s JAN - 6 1982 awe"hf°" Jarivary 4, 198 P, O. gox190 ~` James Barnes Hut*row 9wh,CA 926" F . Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach ►.+ 2000 Main Street Huntington Reach, CA 92648 RE: SCH #81080664 - Seabridge Specific Flan EIR 81-3 + , , • Dear Mr. Barnes: State agencies have commented on your draft environmental impact report (see attached) . if you would like to discuss their concerns and recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate agencieo. When preparing the final EZR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146) . The certified EIR crust be considered in the decision-making process for the project . In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies ' comments by writing to them, including the Stata Clearinghouse number on all correspondence. A recent Appellate Court decision in Cleary y. Count} of Stanislaus clarified requirements or responding :o review comments. specifically, the court indicated that co=ents must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions weve not accepted and factors of overriding lrnportance warranting an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be -� conclusory statements but must be supported by empirical or expeririental data, scientific authority or explanatory in-om.ation of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. w. Section 15002(:) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency take caxtain actions if an EIR shows substantial adverse environmental impacts could result from a project. These actions include changing the project, imposing MY conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disapproving the project. In the event thAt the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency crust make written findings for each significant effect (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overridinq' considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (Section 15099) . If the project requires discretionary approval frcm any state agency, the Notice ' of Determination must- be filed with tae Secretary for Resources, as well ass with +•. the County Clerk. please contact ' Terry Roberts st (916) 445-0613 if you have any gaosltions. Sir�e.r.ly, RECEIVED M6 JAN - s 19Q �a tat* C .a�inghous►e S�• EDAW INC '� a: Ken r.11owoo M ►a r rm Igloo .r{ Cililornke the gaNwNre Agars Memorandum . 10 ,l , Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator HUM`NGTQ'q)4eAW 23, 1981 Resources Agereey PLANNING DEPT. 2 . City of Huntington bench A � � 198 , 2000 Hain Street z Huntington Beach, California 92648 P. 0. Flax 190 ► , �u � Oc", CA 92648 From : Deparlmenl of Fish and Game swbitoI SCH-81080664 - Seabridge Specific Fltcn, F I K 81-3 - Ocang;e County We have reviewed the subject Plan describing the proposed development of 800 residential units,, recreational facilities, private open space and parks; and retention of existing oil production facilities unt i 1 the. fie tcls rye abandoned within the 60 :sere project site in the City of ;iuntinpton Her,cli, We have the following conniepts . The EIk provides a g;enecally adequate analysis of the project impacts upon . biolog;icAl resources. However, we contend that npproximately 67% of- California 's original estuaries And coastal wetlands have been destroyed instead of the 402 described in tlee document. In rmithern California approximate'-- 75Z of coastal wetlands have been destroyed. This stresses the need to preserve the remaining wetlands in order to perpotunte the wildlife dependent upon this resource. Accoordiug; to the proposed residential development plan, the wrtlands Area t1 will be filled and pe.manently lost; eliminating habitat for migratory water- fowl raid for the endangered Belding;s savannah sparrow. In our comments to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft MR for LUE 81-1, we st resaed the need to pre- serve the aquatic %#et lands and that residential development should be set bark to provide an effective buffc tone to protect wetland resources. The proposed plan directly contradicts our e`'fort s to preserve this wetland rind is inconsis- tent with the Re-source Agency's Basic Wetlands Protection Policy. Because of the sensitivi:v and rarity of the wetlands involved, we do not believe that A smaller frer,hwater marsh, as the development plan proposes , would adequately compensate for loss of the existing; wr•tInnd . The proposal to del,elop a saltwater marsh within the oil production area sometime in the future when these operations cease is unacceptable to us an there are no guarantees ,oil production will not continua for a great number of years yet . We have no idea of when the proposed saltwater marsh would be constructed. w" Due to these constraints, we recommend that the existing wetland and wren defi- ned by coastal -altmarsh vegetation be retained and developed into a functioning saltwater m. n ah ecosystem now instead of postponing the development of the saltwater marsh project until termination of oil extraction. Residen- tial development could then proceed within the all production areas when the wells are abandoned. In this manner, approximately the anme total acreage of ... urban development could be provided while avoiding unnecesrertrr destruction of these important natural resources. Also, we believe public access roads lead- ing from Meath Boulevard into Area A should be allowed only if wetland raaources vnuld not be adversely affected. 4 � ' AP�• . ' . ��� Any diversion of the natural f low or niteratiim of the bed, chanuel or bank of � any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Departincsnt of FLO and Came pursuant to SecLleons 1601-03 of the Fish and Came Code. This notification and any subsequent agreement must be completed prior co � commencement of the diversion or alteration. Thank you for the opp�rtuni.ty to review a►id comment on this project. If you P have any questions, please contact Fred A. Worthley Jr. , Regional Manager, � Regin 5, 350 Golden Shore , Long Reach, Californin 90802; ( 213) 590-5113. IN Director N �t i 1 ft Vt Y 1 , • 1 ttat� 4�Cn;ii•srnia uai4cr,:3, transt,ortolian C114 liaysins Age" Ail'enicrcnc.1uan TO : lyl: UAZiI:I.>rY, Division Chief - I11)2'F` Da:�: Uo�=::tr.Lt:r 24, 1'�S1 Department it-95 Coordinator 1120 N Street File s A -95 11. iEW Sacramento, CA 95814 HLttITINGTON 13EACH Attention: 1)Ait►tl:Lt. HUSIr1 PLANNING DEFT, K. D. STEMS -- Distrtc_ 01 JAN " G 1992 ream : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. C. Box 190 NwOWOn Etch, CA 92648 N 5ub�ec�: Project xuv:e:r Curailetirs SCti HUMMER Seahrjdl,e Specific Plan llvacl; Duuleva d and t.t ams Avenue Opt 81080664 .. ItuntirtEiton Reach As stated in both the rorrir en'..:; on Ow Land 1h;e Elcment AtrendmF:nt 131-2 crd the Notice of Preparation respotu:e. Caltrans is a Rcaponsiblc Agsr!ncy an tills proposal for 800 residential units . Caltrans Encroachment Perm:_ts will be required for the }reposed signal. at Duach Boulevard and tlernphia Avenue n:; well na for any vtrnet improvements on Dvach Boulevard . N 1.11 ttcces.ary perrni t:; required by orher Renpor;_,ible Agenci r.:; nhould he available. then app.lying for the Caltt ans permits. in tlr's regard, notnr. clrtrification may be necessary itt the final document on the- Depar.t.ment: ref Fisit and Caneta rol.e in revieving wetland rr.i.tlg.ttic+rt. Any outer comrent; the: D.F.G. has should also be specifically addre:;::rc! In the final clocumcnt. As fer the traffic inforiautlnn Irrc:-ented in thu dve:cr:c�:rt, C.zltrans bas no comment. I+ Your proposal to include hw; :,helters ana hays ,as a part: of the prnJect is a positive aspect in the encouragement of transit service. aver the single-occupant home-to-work trip and should be cornplonented . K. D. STF'I:1..E , Chief Environmental planaint; llranch Transportatlun DiFtrict 07 Cienringhouse Coordinator For inforwation, conLact Darrell Wood (ATSS) 640-2246 nr (2.13) 6.0-224G AttachmetiL ii0,41rx 30 " of Coos-via Tim Itssowaw A@enq M M * r'cin d u m 1. James W. Burns p,ah � 99c 9 ISO Asetstant Secretary for Resourcea �. 2. City of Huntington Beach file Mo.8 2(t)0 lialn Street Huntington Reach, CA 92648 suf4sclj Seabridge Specific po Attention: Mr. James Barnes Plan 91K E1-3 Associate Planner SCH BlOW664 FO w a d+porfinent of Weter Resources Loa Angeles, CA 90055 The Department of Water Resources ' recommendations xelated to water conserva- tion and f lood damage prevention on the subj a:t document nr+e attached. Consideration should also be biven to a couprehenvive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in ordr_r to free: fresh waiter supplies for belie-- ficial uses requiring high quality ►.fitter. 7' Robert Y. U. Chun, Chief Planning Branch Southern Vistrlct (233) 620-4135 Attactunents 4 ' • HU^!"rINGTO�a BEACH PLANNING DEPT. JAN « U 1982 P. 0. Box 190 �L,ii►/lt ,to OWN CA,9264$ w~ w .... r.M'.YrwlA. F.�a .w�..r•I. ���1A.WF•�•�. +�•.a.wiw +w.� .4..r.. ..�.;�. . . . ... To rvducs wstar demand, the following water conservation woasuries *hould be 4 i"le"entedt r■ Muir,ed br law: AI 1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921. 3 of the Health and Safety Code) . o, 2. Low-floe showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 241, ' � Part 6, tirticle 1, T20-1406F) . ` 3. Insulation of hot Water lines in water recirculating systems (California � . Rnergy Commission regulations) . Lacoosend be iM21emented where applicable: laterlor: I . 1. SuUjj line pressure: recommend water pressure greater t!tan 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a � pressure reducing valve. � 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per fluah. 3. Drinkifountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. M' 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot Water lines in dwelling be :insulated Di •iyr�r;�:; to provide hot water faster with lens Water waste, and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. • 5. Hotel rooms : recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms*. Recommends thermostatically-controlled mixing -valve for � bath/shower. k4 6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers. 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of disliwashers or retra itting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon regnest �I only*. Exterior: M 1. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. e + 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting It to lawn dependent uset., such an playing fields. 3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of a,• soil will improve the eater-holding capacity of the soil by reducing • evaporation and soil compaction. Ei l *The Department of Water Resources or local water district away aid in1 developing these materials. ` �. I,s r o sad protect existing tress and shrubs. Established plants are st%M 4UPted to low rater conditioar and their use saver rater Ra Wed to Establish repl,aciewsat vegetation. S. Install efficie at irrigation systems •which siniwize runoff and evaporation and u*xLeeize th,k water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systeaw are a few methods of Lacreasirl irrigation efficiency. G. Vae pervious paving materieil whenever feasible to reduce surface rater vmwff and aid in ground waiter recharge. 7. Crsding of slopes should m1nimize surface water funoff. �. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or household gray water for irrigation. 9. Encourages cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of Impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. la. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporatiou of natural drainage systems in new developments. Thiu would aid in ground water recharge. � 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the beaL sites for ground water recharge should be preenrved as open space. AMrtmat of Water Rat ._urces Recooaendatichs for Flood Aasfase Prevention Is flood-prosa areas, flood deaage prevention measures required to protect a proposed davelopment should be based on the following guidelines: • 1. 111 building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. . .It Is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential losarto ground P w4ter should be mitigated. Z. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and Floodway Nap, issued by the Federal Emersency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elavation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental _ Iapact Report. ea r es d es the development shout be �. At least one rout.. of ingress and egress to h d pm d available during a 100--year flood. N 4. The slope and foundation designs for all astructures should be based on /1 detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. P 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as required. .t 7. Grading should be limited to dry months tc- minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. p' 04 6L i� • r r . r 1 • A AX IOUTNION CIrIJFORAIN w w aM2C1 aTiOt10F i0MM"MFAV 600 J"h Co_ h Avrnw •Mte KM• for Ange4a`• CQUftmia 90005.MIUS-9m I 6.4 December 30, 1981 .» • . Mr. James R. Barnes , Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services •• Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Seabridge Specific Plan DEIR. Staff has reviewed this report and offers the follo,4ing comments. SCAG's Executive Committee has not taken a position on this project. As documented in SCAG' s 1980 and draft 1981 Development Monitoring Reports, the population in Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 38 is increasing faster than anticipated in the SCAG-78 growth forecasts. Since SCAG's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) uses the growth forecasts to estimate future emissions in the AQMP, population which exceeds the forecast may be inconsistent with the AQMP. In spite of the inconsistency with SCAG-78, staff agrees that this development will probably be consistent with SCAG-82. Both develop- ment monitoring reports recommend changes in RSA 38 to reflect 1980 census data and increased household size. If these recomimendations •- are approved, SCAG-82 should forecast significantly more population in RSA 38. �,. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Alpers, Program Manager, Management Coordination, at (213) 385-1000. Sincerely, M.O. ACKERMANN, JR. BEAM Director of programming I'i A+yN�iti:� DEPT• and Evaluation VGA-.KA:wp DEC 3 i TAI r P. O• 0CM 190 Nftwe ` 1 ' +ruaw►r� DIONCTOR,sM amity a.Pam ® U NYY C:)F= n+a�tcT�+r o�♦LAMMiM MAILWO ADMIM ` ^N I O E •ANTA ANA,CA 02 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEM€NT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH 9110ADWAY SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA. FILE 1714)9J44"3 ' December 14, 1981 r, V4'IMINn DEFT Mr. James R. Barnes DEC 18. Iffi1 rCity of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Department of Development Services Hun&gtoa SWh,CA 'N, P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: DEIII for Seabridge Specific Plan 81-3 located on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach. Dear M;. J. Barnes, The Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the subject document and has the following comment to relate: The proposed bridge crossing will require access to levee for OCPCD maintenance and could be incorporated in the design. For drainage purposen, a ten-year system should be provided wit-it J'rect access Into the channel wherever possible. It is understood by O.C.E.C.D. that 100 year flows would be directed to the pump station with the except- ion of gravity flows in which a secondary system for low flaws may be required. Only the areas shown in the hydrology report should drain to the pump station. If the Channel protection is adequate it may be poo-, Bible to incorporate a trail system into the maintenance roadway with landscaping a lowing for an over all improved project. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this environmental document. . Please forward .a copy of the Drafc/Final EIR when it becomes available. Very truly yours, I ENVIRONMENTAL MANACEKE T AGENCY Kenneth E. Smith, Mana6 e Environmental Analysis divisti.on prier" P.1" ;IUG'' N BEACH RAMMING DEEM . DEC 2 1, W 1 P. J. o Ig OPIAN43K COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT r�� �=--4a Mr. James Barnes Associate Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Mr. Barnes . SUBJECT: EIR 81-3 SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN Thank you for forwarding a copy of F.IR 81-3 Seab ridge Specific Plan for onr review and comments. Since the project Consists of 800 residential units and is located adjacent to an existing bus route (Line 29) , we request that provisions be made for a bus story on the farside of beach Boulevard and the entrance of the development. This stop could be on-street, provided the ultimate width of Beach Boulevard will accomodate the bus . If on-street stop is not possible, a bus turnout will be necessary. Appurtenant sidewalks for pedestrian access and passenger shelters should also be provided to make using transit convenient. There should also be additional discussion relative to existing transit services at the project site. It should include a descrip- tion of the Dial-A-Ride service since one option to be considered in the land use plan is elderly housing. If there axe any questions or concerns relative to our comments, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405. rSincerely, . Di'cA Dick Hsu Envfronoental Coordinator I IM ACACIA PARK'WAY + P.O. BOX 3M + GARDEN GROVE CALIFORNIA E2642 + PNONE (714)E714M . CITY OFHUNTINGTO ' U�sBEACHN�! ;STY,' • '� • a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ' ~ ' '' t• •{r"" M1N�M�i'1*OM MAGI, • '' '� ' : ., - � ' !'•. "' •'•t '' ;;! �' i M is \1 •I'��. �l,a.;{ 1, t.,`i� .N .1'• r , �,� r ,��'{�,` 1 To T#..NWJY&nee- R. Barnes. ' ' ,f ', From ,Vincent G . Moorhouee Aaeoeiate Planner ;~ ' ''�_' • ',=' : '.:'Director , ,Community,`3erviaees Subject: Draft• EIR '�Seabrid P Specific ~:: Date November :'PSI ''1 8� ` ' +T'' �:.-1O ' Plan"• —„Kola Development .. :, : •f .. L '• .^9.�r fit.. �, •, 1: ' 1 1, r. a; •' '.� �• -f..�'�'a. .:��= [; •'�i. a,i ;t l-l.! ,a .� 'r ''-Community Services staff 'has perused the 'LIR for the'oixty u'•'••;• -.r acre "Seabridge residential project" • and expressed concern " • 1 that there is no pedestrian access from the project easterly �`•�. t; 'into Southport Drive which leads directly to the new w neighborhood "Drew Park" which. serves the quarter section . w. • "�.;,:;: Xf the developer wants privacy, I would suggest that the exit be a locked gate with residents only allowed a key {'z�*�'ppp•iii.NN!!l�.+•••t^ ,1 ' rVt3 M: c s it DEC 1 198 P. 0 D 190 , •r ,�;; n ; '•:,.;.;;.t:. Beach Q .� •l NiL� y.r• 1•• r !'•" •. :f'1►f ; �� '' rru• ,''•" •T '•4�•`S•I`',• •f fir`•..~,�..�. .) '' .. rf',a/ ,yN� �.+• .• •� . •I" IAA. 11 ;`; • �� �:�' • J. j., . .�•u�. /�,1`'.�� 'rye, ., j;'�,��•I• r '� y t;,�"''t; ••a yr, 1,'!{lr • A. 'OF , HUNTINGT N faEACN �'�, �I 'II,J. so :. 14 ` ;',';; INTER-DEPARTMENT=MMUNICATION w ` w tl�►r!r�1{.��,.'f '�♦ t•• rJ wrr.j/, ••'#` _•• N 144 •1.•���'♦��1.'f'•�y t'ya%�, i�l �'jrR� Ii l/N� .•' hy•, �yif'1,• .A,,a .�J'7�.<<• �� a /M �. ,!•' i ( {. } t + t� • , �• •,•�; •.} ►t� •"•T },�, �f 'f � �'T;1. •, .1 ; ` j • ,,+ •Y , �'!�.•, :':•rlft' r V•L' � � S��y�r.�r�' 1�r7�','j. ''��'S't'�' ��` 4r t .. ► f,�:;i. ,.•..r ��' . � r v,j( fi 7•h=fit 4a yt •_"`f �•t �s!•' �� Jim Barnes.'"' t� . , �.. : .� t't ,� ,�romis;, ,'Don 'Noble •e '•�' �'; .�.t o gt p a': ;' �,Y' ' ';��r., V,s Y;i r�,,.' 11 , s cyi•��,,, •1lanner!--,1.,�� ,,. ,,, .�,� �,�•• t h,]E .'`Planners, -7''i '�/�"�j•'h(,�., '�'Iw i' �)".�; .�,?���w Y. r► }�� �i; ' r�'lt -r• j ko,j- i1•�' �'�jr4 set'' Environmental Impact ,Report .tDate,r, :.,Jan 6 t+1982 ''\ r� 1 w 3 •• r'r. •S'jI� ;)ors I4 rye' �ji �, '�"� •tj �t J ��► 7 Lj i •• ! �'�� ,t •. •WM Mayl /r1• •d % '} •'Y j *�• �. _ •;.,,.'�,_ ,:t• •t.t (+ •I��..!��`s!!!„�t�!r� ,,.;`•�'•-'fr'.'u,••.�„�• }r``•f; j,+ ,�.�I1'.iVIA f',i.t✓• , `•��•+ _�' •�•, / '►,•►ir is t~v • ���r�y�.+11':� i'i-�"b ji/�r. _' G��'n Lr�'�iy�}'+1•� ��al�r. .•rf.1. ; • `I� , .t• j'.t-..=;! ,1_ •.4' .l • r!; �..,rf'n.i•'•�. y. b J•�=' !.��,� IM A he' Public- Works Department' has` the 'following comments '.rand,''; concerns regarding' the 'Environmental•'•rmpact ,Report,;;(81. 3 �U ' 'for the SeaUridge Development : :..•r , ��' `'�"r"''t, . �\f� i/. 1. `` Jam: • 'i' •+. ,-1'= ' •/�.=�:•r:�+• ::••���;•y= ,♦•:.'. �i,l,.a►�)•,r'Lti7: �-'� �Z"•�J,,:`�'�1! �y //�a ., 1• •J•v•.. t. I 1 •; ,(►.A.�.,,,�.j:'.r•, •7 3'••a�-q,✓ i� ^�w�l;�. ... ' •DIIA�NAt= .. : ` r ,1- ;M���••(: !'�: �%'��.,��.�. J••7.K��-- G'l,d;.i•r fir.•• r t , •�1. 1, �'�•www�.�--.-�••. •J ,• y��,t"►1� ,�i '1 •�j��(��•'.1••,L'y♦••� '��9r'.,►�'''' •` �f'` ♦ +1•i:' r •��t• �t+ •�-�_,P~ ••Y! r.. ` r �•\'�t, 1 .•`' A'► 1i 'L -r fir' .1�`{i '�t:'hry�. ,r♦,'�,t+. •.'^i. ••= J ►="�1.1;,'...'': �_•:•!�t v. •M• , ♦ . _S 'r•,-:� 1 :=►j1.,Seotion ' 3 . 3 . 5 '`(nrz ina fie rConceP t) indica tes''the 'project .'' ' '�`- " . , c.: :, � wi11 •drain north by' overland 'fIow� and bstorm ' ''H � i� 1 ravi ty 7;� t: r;,,drain systems ; yet the '-natural ' contours of -the 'land :, . ':': ;:;�, •»� c � i1.rrY :f'r�r•S'ti",r�!�indicate ' that the south. Tn r `~ ;t• �f, .,,.1 t site generally drnins • � . ''�, �'• � � r °:.,order for the site to drain north , extensive land fill; , %� �►; :;�A. ing would be ire ef . • How would the land fill affect the surrounding residential homes , etc',' 4yy h j.." • TRAFFIC ' ' . : . ' . .•,�;f• 11, Tod what , degree will the most ;southerly entrance/exit`''t•• :` 't' r�,•. ��•onto ; Aeach _Rlvd , ' impact ' tlie,;traffic on Beach 'Blvd • ? ;.`'', , '' ' �j:;, i:, A2,"I'The E. I .R. ' indicates"that ;approximately 1 ,128 trips.''` t. :=,}��:'�' '��` •' will be directed to Adams Avenue and 6 , 392 trips ' `. '-'��' •�:;�' �',,:r'�;•r,}'�' ; ti} j.►. d i r e c ted to Reach Blvd. (nage 21) . When reviewing • ;:'t f.' �•�f;� the illustrations (i . e . ;'figures ) that reflect this data , there appears to be a' discrepancy (i , e , totals r � �;• , '�'�' ;''�' '%! :don ' t correspond) . ' • * :` ,', ►,'• ' 3` ,4';Stuciies conducted by the City of 1luntington Reach ! • • indieate that traffic distribution patterns for - t , •• ► .. ,, rr-, , '. iAdams Avenue and Reach Blvd . ' should be' rc-evaluated , ' M: ►(i .e, ' studies indicate that trips' will' be generated �'rlr=,±►� ''to/from the proposed site by' way of Adams Avenue,' west • '. �'' =} U E' Of Reach* Blvd . and that the distribution percentages ' .. '4t-a". r eac vim. are questionable : ' , _ `..•: _�:•' I.It cc AA George Tinda l l-Tract 11673 _ :`,��,�'• ' I 1 it L.i,•}Y,., '; :. ♦ •'. ti•r,..•• , ,,-. '�,• • r r 1,1, S v.j ►- ,�; • ►►. �� ~',r.� r .•,�'t • .• T.. 'i•t• �i•r .F•• •'• .�..` ' .�► '�` •J { l'a. 1 r� ..�r' :�r• 7o VA do ri► • '•w •Y 1 /'.'t J ♦• ,1•• • .'•t .f At i.'"� ,• '„�• + .. �� •" . • ,� 'i'w�c..i.• ►. wtv • x•� ._..1MWDEVELCCPWN1COf?I'ORATION/KXADAMSAVE.HUNTWGTON BEACIL CALF 92640/(714) 536-2W7 . . .. .. ;• }• 1994 EL CAMINO RM SU1E 211 CML fe .CA 42006/(7M)47b•T157 HAND DELIVERED January 4, 19 8 2 _ .... HOPMNGMN BEACH. As. ,Tames R. Barnes PLA NNING DEPT Associate Plannerrdp �*� ��� ~ department of Development Services .- "' �• . CITY •OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JAN ' ��ez a,t:��*:r•:;7. .,: P.0. Box 19 0 - . " '- Huntington beach, CA 92648 P. Q. Box Y9D Hurtirdton Beech, CA 9260 �•: ;,._ Dear Mr. Barnes• •-�,• We have reviewed EI R 81-3 and offer the following commen,ts3 for. ,' VC your. consideration : - :' ' 1 . Some of the detail on Figure 2 is unclear . We have therefore attached a substitute -page that will more ac- curately present this detail . 2 . The arrow identifying Sub-area Al on the Refer- • u ence Map (Exhibit A) of the Specific Plan was left off the original map. A substitute page has been attached to prop- .Orly indicate the location of Sub-area Al 3 . As additional information, we would like to state -'•°•'_ ;. -that we do not feel enough emphasis has been placed on the fact -that if it were not for the flapgate in the flood control chat �- " nel being forced open , the saltwater ponding area would not .- have existed. The damaged flapgate permitted saltwater from : ,the flood control channel to flow onto the site and create :w =~ a ponding situation. .._., When the flapgate was being fixed by the Flood Control Dis- trict in October, 1981, the pond drained into the channel and the site was to dry. Future on--site ponding will. only "" `ram` !' .• . be from surface runoff during the rainy season. The remain- _,.: - • � der of the year; the site will be dry and unsightly . `"` ''' • water amenities provided in this project including the The `• • ' re-establishment of a year round freshwater pond and the - eventual creation of a permanent saltwater marsh , by far ' - exceed the value of the ponding area as' it would exist in the future . its•,. /y . •' , ; \ , _. - »,...M:,�• R• Barnes Nw CITY OF HUNTING•TON. SEA( January 41 1982 , •,,�t �. •# �Page. two AM .. '' ••«• '• � ^ you for providing us •this opportunity to comment on f,; -• w. , this t•� 1lLL truly 1 ... •.. -"••.• ..r/,'.-,. �...r w•�`\• .. r:.�.r^r :..ti:,' rti`�.,�,-,e.,Z. .��`�• •t , t 'yours, ^ '. 1 1. �r'•wl` Wy+•.. •� I ..,•. _ .. ... . .,.. .. :'..,'ram.•-rri. AID . CORPORATION. p�"i�y ident enclosures _ . .�•..:- w . t♦♦. ♦' •.• • �• PIN 21. - 1 •^ �� • ram- 1 . ..,.� � . , . • . , . ♦ ''• •• • s � � _ ___....._..--w-AdAMS AVE 4,20 jF' w ' 4 4. ' •' Subarea B 1 I . Reduced Building Y i 0 +" ' Height Envelope�' • -------------- !WIN Ole ' '' RESCXJRCE PROPUCTIOP ,%j RESOURCE j { j I Subarea A 1AREA A 30 ' RESOURCE PRODUCTION ------------- 'r- ENTRY t ' ' Ott ' RESC,URi`;E`` ' PRODUCTION15 Uj � t I 1 ml t �' Reduced Building a Height Envelope ' .r •E ` Neigh p , r • perimeter Setback. t- EXHIBIT A REFERENCE MAP . - ~ DAMS AVE CdMY�ACIA� 1 `. Subaros $ '1 Reduced Building > Height Envelope , .J •� _�_, ---------------- �. • • ' RESOURCE " . . . ' ARC�DUCTMON 1 f ' RESOURCE• o' i ! PRODUOTION 1 , a Subarea Al ' t 1 AREA A 130 ---------- AREA B %' RESOURCr P hODUCTION •___-________ww_ ' -20 i ! ENTRYIT r RESOURCE a`�' PRODUCTION � 1 ,r Reduced Building Heggh: Envelope 1 , I .e Perimeter Setback r- : HUN ING ON . B ACH fr ':. ORANGE ' COUNTY , CALIFORNIA . BT RM OR IN FACILITIES TAP - x - � !D 1 Ip ADA449 AVE ; _ t=_. .. 840THBAY CR. . . �- • '! !Z wo MILLBHIpt3E GR. r j 0 � Iw.. tart - �� r I jr i �� �(� }- .f NOIi-OLK tiR WE NOV vvi � GIN CF -R .00 �'�• • SUUf ItNOH'T Uf t W -• 1)N. • , .• . o Ii ••_ "JITT 1 ! 1`y-•- ., ..-..�. .T SEAPORT r D1« ' • '_ -- - „` ' i trtlNStiR + ► ;Q 11111 f 1 I 1 i I t { Ll tip 1 w 1f to 1-0 931 • i 44 MALLOY f 'c . � 1 LJ —•i / l INUIJINAPOLIS` yc 1 • :: I p + I DIICR{ 1r ' t1J pit i • I •` INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ►.t YIIW.M%NM To C. W. Thompson From Pa•Iu3 F. Cook% City Aci.n' nistratar Director of P..; lic Vork Subject Sally %lexanda.: - rlooding Date July 13 , 1983 Cnmmit-ee r►y men;c,::,ndusn of Ju]y 11 1983 tc you, Counc .:al.ionian F.•:t-h Finley asked uI; to resoor,!3 to a 1i.st Gf questions ni..; ;inall- intrnd..r_+ for Chriz, Christy , Director of r'onstruction Tian{ Scabridge Project . lfor-e arc '_ . ,cise ansvers ►:he •-uestions <<e sec! them: 1 . Mr-w will the ;,ro`-ect be: yin :rec'? The cri,; inal co:.tou:-,,: 0 ti.t: propr• . t:y sl opeJ to tl:,. :south . tic.?c;!uL 't. -, tlIlI :'_i: :ICE rvc:: ired Lo raise pact elevE.-_ions twelve . ,_ct abov,_ -e:►., So:& lc -.1 , Lt,c site: now drains '-:o internal which :o a- ne:-od tc an underground :turni drain sl - ii a;l.i.ch c :rics dl ;inage to the_< rinrth . IT, --o shoals' h! I - c ver±'la�-, to :-aj,. :f Ifl. will preveni•. t:ho ' 01 . hannel `r-lnn o­-�_ i. 1 ­,ti i,;. '?L;,- t:o I' .A. f f:ror., hri Pt. ,;-'act' %ccor inq / _ %t :'�i:L -t: ..1C �1C.:: Cf �'illL. .IC Prir ri :' . _ _ �' ilerdtr .:;. _ '.. .ic. 0 F. ., . no penni , l♦J been 1..:. t: .•rJ for �_1<<� .\, � _ a , - _ c. is1.. tO t 11C DO i I,::1,-1r_ t nl jton ta_'.I . r ) Channe— :rCa._'r i_:) 'bt-t I n .: pt-.-r tit , M, 'a r"us - Provide C nn ' .. _7r . I', I'd 6t .r:r, f Iot::- Turin'! : _Ill t: c:: .-.:�. ►.� a i :: - . an_ the cl,annc_' h,,:: .1 is Jf ! 'i >,.. ,nd G r,. ` ., :u. : t_crri C- n_. : 'a-zi :ion? 'dole, is `t, : : . 1linq c .iiL : c ...h ,nP(_ by �' r t !'• . �c r ti : .. .�-, . c_,, .�.� c� . .ha; ir.c.E. r�i to r%�: •e cti� t ..;ln:i�; - , Pi:r t•,:: . L' r/i l l p: '., nt 1.i qu-:c r ! `.ion and di - till" E�oiJ ? Ti.c dt. poF: . ts 1.' . rerro% .:d ni-ith all sl.r;:.. ..ures any: r -.dwa7:, i.i D-A-I ,-a sibil.i Il will p-,nding he t_hr����� tl..i:d? 'i'lI_ l.� .op,•. , y :•:il '. -c: r,'«C; . i sc ch%L ponding wi.l i not t ..ke vla ico . Th._ :Kr�c�• r ; .:i�:!. w � t.�l ft ,,;; ;>nc:_ : i.n ; t.hip- lr•c�a . Still 1 pn:t.•E_'rht G<'CT1rJ :: . ..cj rif ,:11C: e:1_ .r. 54:1% Mtn: ':'lrc. coject 3E3t•; _ w:. :. i t S _ �• ti. GI••':u.c County Sanitatien stric-. trt;I; L^:• . t., ti }7"^il.ji:ltiri are IL tF.: C .t;,;t}� issue: �� ;� . i t� �.;'..r••l+.� .� �a:"i. "' ? 1�1+'� LO 1''Sa• . :.aU.'_ ��►: .�G�4.lT Lii�: �'. .1C• 'JL'j . �.: 0 Memo to C. W. Thompson Sally Alexander-Flooding Committee July 13, 1993 Page- 2 8. How will flood waters be handled in your. , tract and where will the water drain when it leaves your development? See the answer to question number 2 . 9 . Does Beach Blvd. drain easterly on Indianapolis to the Sever: Sees area? The southbound lane of Beach Blvd, from a point 660 feet north of Indianapolis drains to Indianapolis b,:t not into the Seven Seas tract. PEC:LE:jy lit 1. 41 Tl7 Charles a-li l.insoj 1•.:C7!� 11:! : 1! � i yt.N E CT FOLLOW VP UN !:'LCOD INME:'_'L:'a:; - 1" Alt' tho, " flood" xnu,:-t•inc; Ili;t,;- at 13Gc' ch a i cl ..r.',i ms c-n our `r11erc_ :.S C(11", Zir. i. no .n,.*n-.i,, Z•. ! 1ii t•('CL.:J .. i:f.C_ ]T~i(y L. t:l ar:t. i.11�:i1 '!!J'1'_ :j . con. ..(..1_ .... projP.. r} f u.;,1 . }. 1•. 1.11 :1: 11.i1i1'.11 (.t thOU(111; C,l:t: . i i-C)LA Lc, :11 j_ •i... ..1. .: .. 1 .. :iliil:u: i 'lL.'. :'..''. 1.• `' �- • K June: 29 , 1983 Foll jr:i ng ar;: 0 :�( _; ! ia-,.. ;arDe '.'c• Nment C�' rl TeSI: _ h i _'uad ! rt(, .he !'or th Sc 1 _ Jan ? �• : . .., r „ - r we might o.ffic u n e 1. 7 . �r�cl .. •�a ~r r.(3on on the 2u t;`j nncl ;;�► i d :l y �ul:r, . ' • i'1:•Z � it i f land hom Iocc Gh,��in;. UG "11. 3 . U a rri�� r .. .)�:yl I ( , ! 'J•j , i.LI (, ,. l t. 1) • `.is % �F'(•iz►ill' i I .. 1 � � y • $:J. ..i r ..� +.. 1. �•• •f I l'W(t,' C � :; f ►KEPT. QFr pU!gt lC V,',nI- MUIRAY S7 O.. tltS DIRECTOR, WA "`•t �` FJ,1,KRfIAN M i '"Y JUL 11 3 c3 /�► 1� f t-• �• 1`1W&"nNdToN ElCACH � .c lr. r n :,., c �{a�1! ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGE?:G' q?,+� ill \\�.'`` REGULATION 400 CIVIC CENTE►i DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA,CAL(FORNIA 1714) 834•7620 JUL 05 1983 AMr. haul E. Cook, Director of Public Works CI.1'y oi. I`IUNTINGTON BEACH . 2000 Main ,Stroot Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Cook: The Huntington Bc!wc-h, Talbert, and Fountain Valley �. 1;3n;;r.�l: ",!N- �,_ri;►z� '. deficietit in capacity as rv_,dencod b�• their overflo%,. .,t a nunib.-r o :�catia.: during the storm and high ti( e:• o. A-larch I, 111"-83. L- o< 04`:st-: thL• ar-, leveed, if the over,•Iow p�-rsisfs for -,lore than a fvw , -.inute's ". .ore is danp,- of levee breaching a►:d cscal)o of :he major portioi, oi' ' 1:e stortA and in the channets and eons,--q tent :•idespread (1:i:111119 ', The cli,.rmoli woro origin,.-ilk- c_mistructed as intr•r1m, :.: of (i;7°rr, of tllc 25—�Coal' Storm llhich w ns t1 ell 0)1: :>t•..J!i,t,'t�. �� ...1� �.� 11 a :; that ►,ends would be arailable for upgrarjIlig of 01(( ei:_ to ul ilwl`e c k-i:)• eurr+:nt %.,ith ad•jac+�t)t lans Jr_•�•e lopr:l+ant. 'I'hc� lark c '..)ter ape: r,••.•al - "..n fioo" c'311trol bolid issues toj;cther %% ith the pussat;e c. seriow1y impacted the flood control .district's -ib!IIt� ,o fund Never;ht.,.,toss progress is being n-wide, 1tiitachc-d is :i : , corill. n .'i+lU • discusc;cs recent and forthcoming projects. In adclit : . ,, thc, I..'o...rd o-A', Su (c visors on Jiln,- 1+1, 11-1113 requested that the Corps of :.tii itico :, study iv.b; x. choc:J;cls (cop;• of Chnirman :!onton's letter to tl ('•+.• > is encic)Fod). Becaus., of the sc rious deficit-ne in enpacitS• ar:r1 !.c•' ;sc the cll��nn,�:� �:�•�. 1e•veC(. .m0i1 the r1r,•riciency is rumnedie•d. the- :lood cot. .•ol dist :•ic— will is�,eu acklitiotint pol-mitS for storn. drai:i ur laluz:11ing Mat_u' ic)lots t..) t:lt: cunditi(med upon thc! l;e r.:►itee providing sufficient of: -C.-Itannol scut-age to retard store) fiaw5 aJ:tii tho I1igh lido recudes a1;f: th -hannui l.::s ca pin CltS'. Director o 110gulatioll, I.#MA ` - ., 1. i t•T I'; '•T 1` '�'t`;fi1' 1 '•zc;io�l1 .'�.•S r AW RESOLUTION NO. 1282 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SEABRIDGE (BEACH/ADAMS) SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, Sections 65500-65507of the California Government Code provide procedures for adoption of specific plans and regulations; and WHEREAS, a specific plan herein referred to as the "Seabridge Specific Plan" has been prepared containing the recommended contents of the above mentioned code sections; and WHEREAS , the Seabridge Specific Plan provides for development within a 60 i acre site located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard which is consistent with the City 's General Plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, an& convenience of persons working or residing in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of • Huntington Beach, California has held a public hearing in com- pliance with the State Government Code to review said Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Seabridge Specific Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Specific Plan is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 19th day of January, 1982, by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ;ATTEST: James W. Palin, Secretary Grace H . W nc elf,CCFia 17rill 1M TMt Supea 11 Court ' t t� M7"It1 RTATf:taF CALIFORNIA In and fat Uw County of(hang+ CITY OF MATINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK PRtYflf)1+PU Public Hearing 81-16 81-15 EIR 81-3 State of Califomie ! County of Orange lsa Rita J. Rich ter That I am and at ell times,herein mentioned war a cititen of ' the United Staten,twof the ace of twonty•nne �,rars. and that 1 am not a party in.nor internted in the ahnve entitled matter; that l am the principal clerk of the printer of the Huntington SeUh Ind. Review a newspaper of generel riwulat ion,published in the city(if Huntington Heaeh County of Orange and which newspaper i% published for the diarminatinn or local trews and intelligence of a general charac- ter, and which newspaper it all time+ herein mentioned had and still has a hens fide auhacription lift of pavintt auhserillM. and which newspaper has been ewtahliabed, printed and pub- lished at titular intervals in the said CuAintv of Orange for a period eaceedint nnr year; t?ut the n.itice. #if which the annextd is a printed ropy, has been published in the, rewular and entire issue vif said ne "per,and not in any aupplement therenf,on the fr4limirw dater,u wit; February 251 1962 1 certify for declare!uudrr peneih of peljun• that the fnrrwn• f inR is•t ru•and rnrtert. I>wtrdat .... .. . .. .. .. . . .G.6rden Arore . 25th Fesi - Califiirr+' is .... .. ..day of .,el..J.� 19. .. . Siwnatur� per M W•w7M REQUES i FOR CITY COUNT ACTION _February 16, 1902 &AWAMW to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat &ibnritMd by. � . hapa by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services l�tilim: ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16/E IR0NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 (SEABRIUGE SPECIFIC PLAN) . On * ?#-cS*2f2 9aamsnt of Imn, fteonownde w,Arwlysk, Fwtdi%Saura, Al nstiw Aadm,Atteabo rrb: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration are code amendment anti zone change applications which would establish a specific plan on 60_ acres of property located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard . RECCNPWNDATION: r The planning Commission and staff, recommend that the City Council certify EIR. 81-3, approve Code Amendment 81-16- by resolution and Zone Change 81-15 pursuant to the attached ordinance. Applicant: Mola Development Corporatiun 808 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, Califon:::: 92648 Location : The subject site is located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. Request: A zone change and code amendment which would establish a specific plan on the subject site. Planning Commission Action on February 2 , 1982 : ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 WAS CERTIFIED AS BEING ADEQUATE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell , porter, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Action on February 171 1982: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KSNEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15 WAS APPROVED FOR REC()MENDATIoN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION "0 40 Page 2 0% 0% BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell , Porter, Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION (RES'v:.''TION NO. 1282) , BY T11E FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter , Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None C,ISCUSS ION: In June , 1981, the City Council adopted Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-1 changing the General Plan designation on the subject property from Resource Production, General Commercial, and Low Density Residen- tial to Planned Community and directed that this designation be im- plemented through the development of a specific plan . The City Council approved the General Plan Amendment subject to five policies intended to guide development of the specific plan. The five policies are stated in the attached January 19, 1982 Planning Commission staff re- port. The Seabridge Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Development Services for review. City staff pro- vided to the applicant general guidelines pertaining to the development of the specific: plan prior to the commencement of work on the document . An environmental impact report (EIR B1-3; was prepared, assessing the draft specific Flan document and a site plan For development of the property (see environmental &-'Atus) . The EIR presents a detailed assess- ment of the existing environmental setting , the project, project-- related impacts , alterna ttves , and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impact . Hearings were held by the Planning Conr,:ission on the project. at its January 19, February 2, and February 171 1982 regular meetings . At the February 2 meeting , the EIR was recommended for certification and the gpLcifis document was given an in-depth review by the Planning Commis- sion. A list of 29 concerns was compiled from the Planning Commission ' s testimony . These concerns are addressed by the applicant in the attached letter dated February 10, 1982 . At the February I? Flanning Commission meeting, the applicant 's re- sponses to the issues identified by the Planning Commission at the February 2 meeting were presented. The Commission concurred with the revisions suggested by the applicant And stated some additional con- cerns which have been responded to in the attached letter submitted by the applicant dated February 181 1982. The applicant has also sub- Page 3 400 mitted a revised specific plan document which incorporates all of the revisions previously suggested by staff and the Planning Com- mission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental Impact Report No . 81-3 provides an assessment of the proposed specific plan and development plans for a 744-unit residen- tial project on the site. The residential project is subject to the approval of tentative tract and conditional use permit applications by the Planning Commission. Prior to taking action, on the code amendment (Seabridge Specific Plan) and zone change applications , the City Council must determine that the environmental impact report is adequate and conforms with the re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR guidelines. The Planning Commission , at its February 2, 198-4 hearing, recommended that the c"ity Council find the EIR as being adequate and in conformance with CEQA. In the attached letter dated February 16, 1982 the State Department of Fish and Game claims that the City' s response to their comments expressed in a letter dated December 28 , 1981 is inadequate by stand- ards of CEQA. Sl_�_.:ifically, the Department of Fish and Game cites a recent court decision (Cleary vs . County of Stanislaus) which requires that comments received by a Lead Agency be responded to in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and stating facLa re of importance warranting an override of the suggestions. On February 25 , 1982 City staff met with representatives of the State Department of Fish and Game and State Office of Planning dnd Research to discuss the City ' s response to Fish and Game' s comments . It was agreed that the City would reorganize and expand its response to emphasize more clearly the reason why specific suggestions con- tained in the Department of Fish and Game' s comments were not accepted . The City ' s revised reapr-ise to Fish and Ga:me ' s comments is attached. FUNDING SOURCE: : Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION : Alternatives available to the City Council regarding the proposed specific plan are to deny the applications or modify provisions con- tained within this specific plan document in any manner deemod appropriate by the Council . SUPPORTIIV; INFORMATION: 1 . Krea Map 2. Planning Commission Feb. 17, 1982 staff report and minutes 3. planning Conaission Feb. 2, 1982 staff report and minutes 4 . planning Commission Jan. 19, 1962 staff report and minutes 5 . Ordinance (Zone Change. 81--15) 6 . Resolution no. 1282 (Seabridge Specific Plan) 7 . Letters from Kola Development Corporation dated January 8, February 10, and February 18 , 1982 S . EIR 81-3 9 . Letter received and dated Feb. 18, 1982 10 . Letter from State Department of Fish and Game dated Yeb. 16, 1982 11 . City' s response to State Departnent of Fish and Game ' s comments 12 . Final EIR 81-3 JWP:JRB:d f do • `` �� I HMI i ` y �+ c II - •...• ' / i ' R' RlR2 Re R I wa. . .�J AO TTiido ' • La�tjl ;—�.• Ri Ri = R! RI i`.�� 1�]-� � RlRI _ .��.__ ti � a01+!3 .a �a���,�i►_ �j!ai a-_ t-_ .��! Rt R�1 �^^ Fit � s•-- •d ,oR►�cT :, — ' /� ' RI-0 RI Rt I�r R1 Rt R} Ott y 1 �R re•o 3� _d _ MG RI RI -a s "aP" t � =1 1 Rs�LJ •� L RT Ri � Rl R! 2 Y 1 4 n �9 I_lT +r+a /r- 1= ! • :s. RI Rt � TRjiCTanon. Re Re Re 1 Ri • {{ � ca'C ^' l3f RI t:F-R; RI �. RI U3 RFO ; -w Rewl j Rl Rl l OL IT I i j ' G2 �r �• t C Ri R.......� i Ri R' c CF R! r'i toy .� Rt x Rl iw.x•aRl cl 1 Re Rl 77 , i I r v, E It RA_0• RA_0" R' -O.hl'QI,C? TO SFACRIDU SPECIFIC f MYNTNM'C N MACM PLANNING DIV ISM ►R•w.•c*.aft O CI* j 06untMatm preach developarl services departmot ff REPORT- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: J'anuAry 19, 1982 ZQNECHA+I F. 0 . 8, ;15 fr�C)!] AME DMEj T- No. 61-16 /ENV I RONj++1ENr,AL -IMPACT .PORT NUJ 2 81^3 AP,1?LICANT: Mola Development Corp. DATE ACCEPTED: 808 ".,dams Avenue Hun'16-ington Beach, CA 92648 December 1, 1981 RE UE To permit a chanan in t NDATO_RY PROCESSING DATE: zone From R1-0, R1-01, RA-0, 60 days from certification RA-01 and C2 to Seabridge of the final EIR. specific Plan . ZONE: R1-0, R1-01 , RA-0, LOCATION: Subject properties are RA-01 and CZ locates: on the southeast GENERAL PLAN: corner of Adams Avenue Planned Conununity and Beach Boulevard . EXISTI140 USE: ACREAGE: 60+ acres Vacant/Resource Production 1 .0 §gGGESIED ACT ION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Code Amendment No . 81-16 (Seabridge Specific Plan) be adopted by Resolution and Zone Change No. 81-15 be approved subject to the findings contained in Section 7 . 0. Staff further recommends that the Commission recommend to the Council that EIR No . 81--3 be certified as adequate and An conformance with the State EIR GuidelineR. 20G.ENERAL INE9&M4TIQN: Code Amendment No. 18-16 and Zone Change No. 81-15 would establish a Specific Flan on 60+ acres of property located south of Adams AM& "Z' CA 81-16 i EC 81--15 4 January 19, 1962 Page 2 Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. In June, -1981, the City Council adopted band Use Element Amendment No. 81-1 changing the General Plan designation on the property from Resource Production, General Cormercial and Low Density Residential. to Planned Community, and directed that thin designation, be implemented through the development of a specific ?' plain. The City Council approved the General Plan ,Amendment subject to the following policies intended to guide development of the specific plan. 1 . The area east of the flood control channel adjacent to the: existing single family residential tracts be of a low density residential design with an adequate: setback to buffer the two projects. 2. The area east of and invnediately adjacent to the flood control channel be of a medium density residential design. 3. All units east of the flood control channel be clustered to allow for a maximum amount o1' open space, total units not to exceed 400 east of the Channel . 4 . The area west of the flood control channel be of a high density residential design. This concept should take advantage of the natural topography for development and simultaneously preserve the ponding area in a natural state. 5 . Residential units be clustered throughout the project area which would also accommodate the continuation of resource production activities. Total units for the overall project not to exceed 800. The 5eabridge Specific Plan (distrihmted previoualy) was prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review. City staff pro- vided to the applicant general guidelines pertaining to the development of a Specific Plan prior to commencement of work. on the document. An Environmental Impact Report MIR 81-3) was prepared assessing the draft Specific Plan document and a site plan for development of the site (see Section 4 .0 Environmental Status) . The EIR presents a detailed assessment of the existing environmental setting, the: project, project-related Impacts, alternatives and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The major issues of concern regarding Code Amendment No. 81-16 (Sea. bridge Specific Plan) and Zone Chanqe No. 81-15 are as follows: 1 . whether -the proposed project is in conformace with the City' s General Plan. • 1 CA 81-16 i ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page i 2. Whether the proposed project is consistent with the policies • adopted by the City Council to provide guidedance for the de- velopnvnt of a specific plan. 3 . Whether the proposal incorporates mitigation measures presented in EIR 01-3 . 4 .0 Ell UNLIII'wLANb USES. ;_,1Q 1ING ANC• GENERAL_ PLM DESIGNATION: ,Subig2t.Pj 2r yI GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Community ZONE: RA-011 R1-=0, R1-01, -2 LAND USE: Vacant/oil production fAciliti.es South __of Subic RLWertY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial/Low Density Residential ZONE: C:2/R1. LAND USE: Commercial/single family residential west,gf S, b t gct- Pr er : GF .FERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residenti,.- I ZONE: Old Town Specific Plan LAND USE: Single family homes art gf i biect Pr,Qoe__�rty: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercia' D,,nsity Residential ZONE: C2/R 1 LAND USE: Commercial/single Tamil; residential BABI of AM12jact Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single family homes .§.Q .EKY.1RgNKEdJAL §r1sTS: in July, 1981, the Development Services Department was requested by the Mola Development Corporation to waive the Snit3aa. study procers and proceed directly to the preparation of an EIR for the project. The environmental consulting firm of EDAM, Incorporat*d was enraq*d to prepare the EIR. EIR 51-3 provided an assessment of the proposed specific plan and development planes for a 744-unit residential project on ttse site. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and indi- viduals for a 45--day review period ending January 4 , 1962. CA 81-16 4 ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 4 The enclosed final EIR which consists of the draft EIR: comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR, a list of persona, organi- zations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR, hnd the City' s responses to the significant environmental. points raised during the review and consultation process . Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Seabridge Specific plan) and Zone Change applications, the Planning Commission must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. ,§ .0 AUAL SIS: The Seabridge Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant with consul- tation from Development Services Department eta Ef and the EIR consul- tant. The Specific Plan contains regulations which will implement policies applied specifically to this site by the City Council during the General Plan amendment process. The Specific Plan combines stan- dard zoning regulations, special site development standards and measures intended to eliminate adverse environmental effects , into one document tailored to the needs of this particular site. The Specific Plan divides the site into two areas - Area A located east of the flood control channel and Area B located west of the flood control channel . The development standards for Area A provide for the construction of up to 400 attached residential units of medium and low density design. Sub-area Al as delineated on Exhibit A of the Specific Plan, contains provisions for %a reduced building height envelope requiring a lower building height (maximum 25 feet) and greater setback from adjacent aingle family homes For all units located along the south and east property lines. The applicant plans to de- velop Area A in its entirity with 400 one and two-story attached units over tuck-under parking arranged in individual building clusters of 4-6 units . Area B located west: of the flood control channel provides for the con- struction of up to 400 residential units of high density design. Sub- area 81 located at the northwest corner of the site , provides the op- tion of including commercial uses a, elderly housing within the project . If Sub-area 81 is developed commercial , the Specific Plan requires that the total number of residential units allowed in Area B be reduced to 350 , Presently, the applicant plans to develop Area B (exclusive of Sub-iren A1 ) with 344 units located in several structures up tr four stories in height over parking garages . The Specific Plan regulations provide for an open space concept which includes extensive landscaping with specimen trees and ponds located throughout the interior of the devolopmttnt. Exhibits providing for srjeci f,�c treatment of setbacks: and vi nual screening are contained CA91-.164ZC81-15 January 19, 1962 Page 5 , within the Specific Plan text. A natural salt water marsh designed to the standards delineated in Exhibit D of the Specific Plan will be developed on the site to mitigate the immediate loss of a degraded coastal marsh habitat area within and surrounding an existing pond. The Specific Flan provides that existing resource production areas be deeded to the homeowners association and developed as part of their permanent common open space when all oil production activity has ceased. A special interest bearing account with funds initially deposited by the applicant, will be established in the name of the homeowners asso- ciation for eventual improvement of the resource production areas. The staff has conducted a detailed review of the draft Specific Plan document and is recommending the following changes, many of which have been agreed to by the applicant (see attached letter from 14ola De- velopment Corporation dated January 8, 1982) . 1 . Page 1, Section 'A, Int nt ind Bgpgose . Change title from " Intent and Purpose" to "Purpose" . 2. Add a definition section to the Specific Plan text. 3. Page 2, Section A4 . The portion of this section which is in paren thesis shall be placed as a footnote at the bottom of the page. 4 , Page 3, Section C, Cn-virooMen_tal Asg2ssment. This section shall be deleted from the report:. 5 . Exhibit A, Reference Map. The map shall be revised to include Via following: a . The streets opposite the main entrie. will be shown on the map. b. The drilling islands and the main off-island wells will be shown on the map. c. The reduced building height envelope shall be clarified. b . Page 7, Section E, Fl-rwQd Arn actiQO. This section shall be re- written as follows : till development within the Specific plan area shall conform to all federal emergency management agencies (FEMA) flood protection requirements subject to approval of the City Director of Public Works. 7. Page 8, Section G, Traffic Control , Ae second paragraph shall ba revised to read ass o owl: THe developer shall pro-ide for the future installation of any such improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 . Pago Be Section 8, lanaLl ,E4c17.iti!. Provisions within Ois section shall be revised to include review by both the Department i CA 81-16 i $C 81-15 January 19, 1982 Pages 6 of Public Works and the Orange County Transit District. 9. Page 9, Section J, Uyd&oloay. Provisions in this section shall be revised to include review by both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Development Services. 10 . Page 9, Section L, EgrJ#me&er,.,Juffer. The last sentence shall be revised to read as follows: The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Department of Development Services. 11 . Page 10, Section M. Rego,Urce PrWgctign Areal . Sub-section 1 shall be revised to read as follows: The areas presently desig- nated fpr resource production shall be deeded to the Homeowners Association as part of the: permanent common open space when all oil production activity has ceased. Sub-section 3 ahall be revised to read as follows: Oil production activity shall be in compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Sub-section 5E shall be revised as follows: The area east of the flood control channel (Area A) shall be approved according to the preliminary landscape plans submitted with the application for development. 12. Page 11, Section O, Drve1ooZM & Standards. a . Sub-section 1 (uses permitted) shall be revised as follows: • A footnote shall be added to Sub-sections A and B to indicate that oil production within the oil drilling islands shown on Exhibit A shall comply with provisions of the . 01 district (Article 968) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code: and" that areas designated an off-island well sites shall be subject to the requirements of the "0" district (Article 968) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Sub-section 3 (Building Height) ; this section shall be revised as follows: Area B - five stories or 60 feet. c. Sub-section 4 (Site Coverage) ; this section shall be revised an follows: Area A - 45% of net acreage; Area H - 50% of net acreage. d. Sub-section 5 (Perimeter Setback) ; the last sentence shall be revised to read as follows: This requirement shall not apply to entry monuments, landscape features, and structures intended for safety or public use. e . Sub-section 6 (Building Separation and Setback) s this section shall be revised as follows: Sub-section D; between buildings side-to-side, 20 feet. Area B : The minimum neperation be. tween buildings shall be 35 feet . f . Sub-section 8 (Common Open Space) ; this section shall be re- vised as follows : Area A: The area not aside for common open space shall be equivalent to 40% of the gross habitable area CA 81-16 i ZC 81.15 January 19, 1982 Paqe 7 ,ram of the residential units . q. Exhibit St This exhibit shall be revised to include a 10 foot planter area along the property line. 7_0 R9C=02 T,1O,9: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval, to the City Council of Code Amendment No . 81-.16 (Seabridge Specific Plan) by Resolution and subsequently by Ordinance subject to the following findings and with the revisions in the Specific Plan text as stated in Section 6.0. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission re- commend approval to the City Council of Zone Change No. 81.-15 subject to the following findings. 1 . The Specific Plan is in conformance with the City 's General Plan. 2 . The Specific Plan contains regulations necessary to implement specific policies set forth by the City Council for development of thi9 site. 3 . The Specific Plan contains regulations which effectively mitigate adverse environmental impacts identified in EIR 81-3 . ATTCNTS: 1 . Area Map 2. Seabridge Specific Plan (distributed previously) 3 . Environmental Impact Report No . 81-3 4 . Letter from Mola Development Corporation dated January 8, 1982 5 . ordinance (Zone Change No. 81-15 ) 6 . Resolution No . 1282 (Seabridge Specific Plan) JRB s jlm Minutes, H. H. Planning Commission January 19, 1982 Page 2 The Commissioners discussed the need For, at least, a seven foot apron for the front-entry garage for safety reasons . Commissioners did agree that the property owner should be entitled to the game advantages of the newer residences being built. Commissioner Kenefick stated that with the cost of housing, we need to make it possible for people to stay in their homes and remodel . A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAHAFFEY AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO OVERRULE THE BZA DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-49 AND APPROVE SAME. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Mahaffey, Bannister NOES : Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN : None A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO OVERRULE THE HZA DENIAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81.-49 WITH THE. FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINNDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . Based on testimony presented to the Planning Conunission at the public hearing, the Commission has determined that exceptional circumstances do exist that would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No . 81-49 would not con- stitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. CONDITIONS QF &eEROVAL : 1 . The site plan received and dated January 14, 1982, shall be the approved layout, except that the addition at the rear of the dwelling shall be permitted to encroach only to within eight (8) feet of the rear property line. 2 . The now garage addition will be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Said opener shall be installed and opera- ting prior to final inspection . AYES: Porter, Mahaffey, Bannister, Yenefick NOES: Winchell , Schumacher ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN : None ZONE CHANGE NO. B 1- 15/CODE AMENDMENT NO , 81--1 R NQ, U L-1 1 ) ti.7i.ir-1 d !)(-� C 1�.txQ t CoKl2or. t n -w- 1- 19-02 - P.C.