Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Seacliff Phase IV - Appeals - W of Goldenwest St, N of Palm (38)
0 14 CITY OF "UrfilaGTGN BEIACI-2 INTCIi't)INANTNILN"I' CUr.li LJN'ICA'i IUr; +tt '.IA\A.Il th If U of �i,ii I llliLto!3 To j=r1:r11 Cit, At.vortiu, !u•t il,•J �' J .1r:l, : , 111 rt t_ tc'1 suo!t;c:( SI:ACL !FF IV PROJI-XT I)tlti• 1'1.1rc:I 1 �j , I '_t 'i4) flum;tt;lnt; Lo t'Iur t.:Utivt rsfiIL: iCJA 11(Ad 011 tilt! I 3t }t () f A'1.11'01 , Lt)i 1 -A,1- i n(1 .►ru my t 1ir 1lA_IltL.-; Oil ti►e })/'t:cc:�lll rl. a rl cvi�:;a rk1 t'w" Litt: ltuiit i nt�r.L) -1 Ii0ac11 Cotllt)arly to (,I)t•llitl L�lrl {1111orir.11(IC.IL• and/lac it)1I Lo 010 it 1)r'CVicAISIy' aI)j�roV(;c1 turlLOLi.V� parcul ma,) and tellL�i1L" iVo t17aCV lilaE�:a Ion' alit' SuoCl. if f 111,A50 IV Cio Vt_ 1 0jAlWn t: I.L tJ1)U�7,I An ! I ►id i(..'.lt t 't: Lt.l joiI , 1 do 1t +L ft.,t_! 1 I"!l 1L i. Is'_ t� it `r' (-ir1111�: 1 1 .It'. t }) 1 '.' llil l lit ') a r' 1 :;+1 i.0 L.ion u't"t' i' I :,t 1t1,11+:; t:i , 1,111 _'1J.IliI. L o Su1)tliv.i :, ir)r► ')tict t•t) whII'll ..w 111 t':iA_ 1 vt t; i • (! . , ill It)0;1 1 I+'f '.:1, :i11IJt2 1 V l �!A ' 1' LL% t' l it_' I 'ti ! 11 1 .4 ,•.1.' u(Illi r•t„tt k,t..) 1)1.: : i J1,'l: '.. t.}I i11 I -, t !,i1�:: tit tA.' tI �- It: .t "' :it.1"t' .1 i�.'!..")' ( t:}t►' j �tlflll flit, t�l.Il1'�t11 :,.; 1 t;is i il; !.}tl! :;1.1:) �lli.'t. It:.s1�:i , i '!':{� ' l�lail•� l 11t t.t.' IIt ,AI . '�+ ' !,itCt't' i Ilia 1) I)l`t' lllbt' }lt! tIIIQIIt. :i }I,ad t't' 1 t: 1'll:• ! l !I' j),tl'C't' } ill,ip tt: t.11t!:t; l! I t tl I't';i l it.'t. ...I l tI :I till . 1 1 A lls:,I !''t I�' t:}Jt: } t'tl t\ 1 t 't)i111t' . j :J I Lit ! 1 L !lI It ')':' isI 1 t)',�' s11t) 1 ! I, ' ,' :i?1' 11-� l +_'ll Oi 1 !Il• !Il`.:1' : :,,1 t t � ::�:.. ! i +t':i l,l n !J l' 1 1 J j t. 11 r:.I ! ,1'�' � l l'.t t I t '1• 1 :: :, \:�.'\. ::1 .. :1 ! t )1f• 1 :I I '; Al( '�.t:.t l .) Ili ' {' I .slsl: ryl t1'I ;'t),•(Iftl .;:: . \�it 1 i.ltl 1.11 4 i , ' 1 ) , lj:lli 41 11t1}I 1 1.! .lt '1, 1 :l'1 lYr1A • I 1 All! t'I,, t.l l tl t ' ' �'� I t.l1t' sll_.l:' . !1 Nilt: i (�.):'t .. •s1t. \�t. t: , t11' .1 'Ij' t't't't)rs:: ltlt' i'.s ! . A1:1 t. ! ! Ill:i Ctt.'t� l :-�1Gtl tii.)lilt! lit t'It':•:t�. r q ll ! ill' 1 t_'\r i tI ,ll:l' I).i:.:i,!l1 .lil• i t.._' }1A1�'L.' .I%.111t. rill Ott:`'\):lt ;Itt f't!+it !t 1�1 I:"1 i� : 2.}lt_, i t1' [' ill' W 111t.1.11 t f IL' s. . .., 1 1 ' V. • .M LI 'j t . i�.t.. , t1 ,' 'I' ill' 1 i:l'.)t! ! i 1 C',i t 1tJli , ACIt Iltlltst'lti , •111t 1 .'or .1 r :1'l :il..:ll sl' ! �1. (, l I t:tl ! tall L 1 :t. :`r ! :.t'+i " ttjt,:it\ '.' , �.'ll ! ..•!t }1.1 ; ! t' .►At ' t ; 1 1 ,.. ' ' l' . A tl Lt:lt , ti I 1 Vt. i I 'At! t 111,111s t or .lit})'.'t)v.1 ' 'tt i , ., ,' , '..,t , : I. f � ' I . 12 t i.t I,t t1)t ,l f. l ,stltl.`i)t- t'}l, : tJ'O1tt.'1'I (Il•::1A.�L' r ' I' 1 '; I,, t' ...tt. l :� t ' ; :1 t�u:t•: l1) 1l� IIt. .; 1 I : A.'.s : l( +It titici,'(.)J_' A.11.2it'l: ! Oil 1; r't)fs . ' � , :.1 , 11 1,:t , IItI !).' l''It. ! t.'t� l �' (tj + t U ••,t")li2' t3•'}) :: t lJn..'ni: A ., 1 .1 t_1t' �• t I 1 l 1'' l!!. .ti'tl• l 1i1:1' (11 . 1't't it':. t 01,1i11 +.:O11 L l C:;t.., l t't' "� L ' )r1 t:tl t !1t_.t + ' I .Ir' ' IIc.III . I l' j'A)it I i fid t:}t.it 1 t. l :i to .1, 1: tt ' • ll t , 1 l(I � 11 •. + I. It: Ill JIs I:lti:it Its ' f I I t t} it:; !;It -}I i': 1 t.!I : !':� I' 1 .lil:.lit.J t )t t) IIi.il Jfill t I• lilt 1 .): i it ..t f . . ' , t.A t It,•Jjt Ilr il.,l " L11t' .Il:'.' t :;t ,!'• 1.1A•:1.',' , 1 i. , 1! .•t'ti't' l.' I • t: t • '. 1 ;', • .. �. t11,l1; t: 1 :� 1►O' .s tttv s f)11 Ill t ! :� . '•1� ,',J. ..,t . .�� "'r. f;" .):�, 't�tStU' fit.. .0.1.il:ll �':1•!II .1 '�. 1 l t 1. .'(: t'tillt_'�it ' r•- ;icytiff IIli:. -io 1V � 1.1,1 rc�h 15, 1'J ��► Paqu 2 by the dcvt.lop(:x SeL L ing forth leis reason,; for th. L-al 1110d i i ic:;J L 1Q1. . This writton request: io then reviewed by Lh(,- adVi :;o:•y aUt"IL:y at OI10 1) its regularly scheduled 1neuL.ings . The Plalnninq SL.11•f rc:viuw-.; thosw,, requests #Xid subm 1 ts their :•ecoiiunciidrl t i on:: to t.lhu advisor-,, <t(junc-y pur- suant to St.:ct: ion t, i)•15 2 . 3 of Lhe Subdivision W,J) Act: , which th,it: such report Ise served on the subdivider aL least, chl:uu ( :3) c1.1y'S prior Lo atiy iicarin(_I or acLiorl on such recluestr . As yt)u are WOII aware, our Sul)(liVision or,Jinanco %-l1Lt~,ws that: al f;.untative tract. mitt.) 1.)L in effect for 1 B moil Lho from the clatu of approval anti allows that a developer can file a final map upon this tentative man at any '_ inle during this ].g month Period If for surtie ruason , howev,,-r , a final map is not subinitLed for recordation , then a L the Lerini.nat_ion of. the 18 mo11Lh!, the 1:ffect i.veness of thc: ittap becomes null and void and all �)rocevtl i -icjs tur:ini.n�it.L' . Therefore , 1 da not Fuel that Li map can be brt)ughL tip • t': a rec oiti;iduration or aLi liew 1.-usi11uSs by tli(: City COu!lci 1' r! :" f.i ' . the 110u boon rurld rt!d ul.Orl III appC!,, l j)ursu.tnt: tc Lh,.; C1.�1j)' �` ;• 1 , At t_i1 10 3 (JLid tcra 1 1:t.!v �-w , Sl'(.tIL)i1 6i 41j9 . 37 oC tht` ,; Lat.0 ti ! 1) i;et: :; t•� 1. _:; t.li.lt: til act ioil 1:0 vi. L(Wll , t••'ViU%q, -JoL U- SI' CIL! , VOlLI , Or 1r1till LI'.•.' 1 ' ►:: ili►1 1- 1. i111 LILTV) SOr-y .agoricy (.ir 1-ta3Islativu body concurn1ntj ,l ' W .111 , proc.C.!edi-ntjs o:• dt-Ll:1`11Jn it ioflS to kon , done , ac it Adv pr 1 t to or t:G Lletcl-til i lt(' 1_L'.1:.;C)i1alJ 1U11C.:-a.; or WJ lid 1 t•J' ()f l:; 11 ;. .1t 'llUd thol-OLO , Sht-111 IIUt 1W 111;1111tAilt2d 1)j' 011y lit 'l-SUn C10111111U11COLI Wit 11 ! 11 !.ill) 11;ly.`i CJ t:L.1" E UCh t)n , ! WC)uld !;,1-1 t Ii:ir. :;uc-li doLc:r tit iiiat.i.ori ha::, ;i I r ua dy 1JL.'a_'11 t11:1(.1i.' t)-,' Ov . c-mi11ci l ;IL its s Fehru,iry 20 , 1979 muctintj .Ind ca!inol: no%., `ud 'r/ i Lhout: V io l a t ) nq I ho-st•: •ivc t jon!. of t li(,.- f`1 Ap ACL ',Vhi.-.11 1--UC1 if) th 1S MU1:10. j 1 :.i i ili I►llilllll!C;i .t:ll1 tit" uhotighl _• :;a;'t: f orLh huruLll LiS; 1 :; t. j'UU 11 j'(JUI La Lho Cit:'f Couri '_ li Lin this sLb]CL't lltaLtc'_r' . �• i>,l'�. _ . � 1' 1,,,.:� . t;�; 11i r(�l.t:c�r S. %%. schurnachur 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 9p 5l,8 Septomber 13, 1979 lion. Goorso beukrics,i Iran Attorney Gencrral Stute of California 555 ►wl ;.o1. Mall Sr•uramento, CA 958 )tt uaar Nir: For your ready reference, attached he ► eto is a copy of my letter of .June 11 , 19?9, to Mir. William Evans, Anst. District Attorney for the County of Crange, California. I have previously forwarded your office a copy of that sa(rv, letter. Next attached j.s cop, of a letter dated August 1 , 1979, from a Mr. Douglas If. t'�oodsma.11, I)eputy District Attorney, declining to prosecute alledged violationu of then co-called rubdivision Map Act ins, to quote the letter-, "Inasnuch as the office of the District Attorney only prosecutes violation:.: c: f law which aro criminal J n nature, we roust dt:cline prosecution of your report4d complaint ." If it i.s true that his office: can ' t prosecute non"criminaal" acte, then your office appc:ars to be the: lust resort, co to speak, short of civil action I ' u, oure I could taker, but am equally sure: I str►.uld not have to take. c+gardlesr; of any views I might have un development in Hcntington i3each or anywhere else., it appeoru there is a dangerous precedent being; set Isere, in apparent bold and open contempt of the legally established proce:durev within the Vap Act itself. If your office is 6worn to uphold the Statult. codes, then 1 feel you have: little choice but to prosecute ecliecially inasmuch tab all. facts :.r►volve:d in the ►natte are part of U public record . I f equal juutice under the law is a concept, certainly, equal injuot can occur ea►rd the next time it could well be: a develoi,or cretching; the: 1'.runt of such a misdeed as appears to Lave 1., cn pur."(-tratt'd by the Huntington Reach City Council ' s majority. `!'he devE:l t .pment involved, Seeacliff Phvs,: IV, is new before the South Coact l;ej:iorlal Comm. of the California Coa:;t.al Commission, as reported out of tl.e I!. P . City Council following the: alledged Map Act violation. refer.. , r rc:,,,Qctt'u11y request. OwAL ;sou avail yourself of' the facts i ri thi.; m., L Lor. �.�;tard y+.:;.; of the City At torney ' s oF;.nion t)i&t this +llud�;ed :% it;dL•(. " 1 egul , the record will show that there was so very :,rich ul Ler ia-t vc. C;Ji.(1iorl e.l thin the Council ' s own ranks certainly to li:ivu made: tnc :ue,'.InG of an outside opinion viable. That alternative opinion dealt chic fly wit) the: 1-lay Act, not with the action at hand; Lind, thus, Use t.ict ion :,1 p(a rc to have been taken with knowledge of and at vrarizince w•::th the law. Your early reply to Ohio letter will certainly be appreciated. If there i;: o'..'le Other fora this complaint should take, ploane advise or forward any form.: you mirl t feel are called for. There is a solid opportunity for your ufficu tc act in thin matter-. '.',ithout such action, it is rrly firm belief the l.;;yr will take on little more significance than a parking- ,note;r vi,31ation. ;'.'hilt there seem to be pleanty of people available to police parking meter violation!;, so far it ;oems thraL this farther- roaching Act io being administered to inure to the convenience and comfort of .t devalopme3nt ir.turest with no concern whatsoever for the impact of' either the: violation or those affected by it. ("ir►cie:;t rel"irds, �� OFFICE OF t UWAgh J. AA) k► ILFF; tiiAIITnA. %IUhitl.AL CGn/T toIAAI••+ CECIL HICKS DISTRICT ATTORNEY E0Q1%1% A orNI:EMAII DISTRICT ATTORNEY 0101CTOp, 111Mr111011 '.OVAT OMfMATi7 'f ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 041C►IAVL P. CAPI:ZI 011(C 1 0�. 10-1 C 1A l OYl 1A►10"T JAMES Cl. ENRIGHT 11. O. BOX 808 CNItF DFPUTV DISTRICT ATT04NEV SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 9270; Teleph.,ne: (714) 8`14-4600 August 1, 1979 Mr. S. W. Schumacher 6921 Law;: Maven Dr. lfwtington Beach, CA 9261,8 Dear Mr. Gohumacher: This is in response to your letter of June 11., 1979 to cur office concerning actions taken the Ilunt;.ington Beach City Council on the proposed residential ciev--: ,parent known as Seaeliff Phase IV. I have considered the infom. ,ition provided in your letter and reviewed the applicabin law. It is my opinion that the conduct of the council tns not criminal in nature. Inasmuch as the office of the Distticit Attorney only prosecutes violations of law which are criminal in nature, wa mst decline prosecution of your .reported complaint. You are , of course, free to pursue any other comedies you deem apyropriate in this iilatter. I thank you for your vigilance and cor.r-ern in referring this Mtter to our office-, even though we ware uriai)l.e to beecm involved in this instance. Plea!:c don' t hesitate to refer .Lny apparently criminal rTeisc,neuct to us in the future. I'espoct fully yours, DOUGLAS iI. ;Qj0" kLL Wput-y District Attorney CF0+Tr1AL OIFICI. NOATN d/FICt WEST ORirItE SOUTH OrIICL ►IA140001 Oi-'FICt JUV):Nlt.r' all r►CE 700 Corot t.r►Irrk DR, U. 12115 ►11. •rA1t►tT ATV. t141 11ITM s►ally )0143 CA4101♦ VAL11T P1nT. 4601 JAUNeII rILVO 301 Loft 01,V1 SOV•. SA1TA ANA, CA. 91101 rf.1.1LIA-04, CA. 017111 rrsrAAiA1�Tt11, CA. SIM LAAL'%A 413UIt, t-A. 0J14T1 -.► A/on, 11CM.. CA. 411661 oftA+at. 4 A. glee `1'O: 111:31111•:ltti l)I 'I I I L CA1.1 1•OhN ! A c OAST AI. W.M.N1I SSION IIiOM : CITIYl•:N AI1%' i :S0HY UU'i11!1 '1 '1 E1' 111INT 1 NC.TON t(1•:ACH 1.0CM. ('UA TAI. 111( M(AM HE : Ij1•:CF.%llll;l( •1 ;► II1•:Al( l N(. UN A 1l1►I•:,11. 3- :1 7 o ( SEA(:I.11. 1• I V) I AI'l•. : Nolf'FAll ER t 7 , 1 :1 7:, At the Nc►voiubur 17 , 1 :)7:1 mvo t 1 i+,; c) 1 t 1w C i t i ;�vii Advisory Cummi t I cv of I. I1u Ilu►I t i ily; t ► n Itv.:v1i Local,l Co-ast:11 l�rul;ram , u111' 1•(nnmi t t vov vc,t cal► un;ili i:►u►i,:. 1 I o t ransmi I. l U�_. ! of 1 ccµ• 1 ng ruso-- lut icon to ` �►u : WE I(E-QUEST TlIAT Avill(O% AI. 01- 6LACL I I• F IV, A10I)EA1, 34")-79 , Dh bEN ! 11, UNTIL '!'Ill: IX Al, COASTAL 1111 HA11 01• THE CITY UI• HUNT 1 NGTON IIE.ACII CAN Ill-: t'U111 i.1 ri..'li AND REV I E'WEU BY THE 11UNT I NU)'ON BEA1:11 PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE HU T I NGTON Ii1:ACII C !TY (.'OHNt' 11. , MI MI lb ANT IC I PATEU 13Y .TUNE '. hU , WE A1l1,ItMA1. OI' SEACLIF1 IV AT Tilln '1.1111: W0111.1i 1 d-.*,IU1jI('I•. 'fill•. ( l'I'Y ' b ABILITY '1'O PROPERLY 13I.AN THE 5l•:At'l.l t I Al►EA . i:UlcltISIA,N . 'I II)•. C ITN 01• IIiINT I N(i'l'UN 111:AL1I ! S PHEPARING A SLAU1, 1 1. 1 A)CY A h"1 11 N A:-, I1AWl' 01• THE' COASTAL hL.E11ENT ANI) Nt'01WORAT I fit, ANAI-Y 15 M THE 5l•;AUI.1 1• l• IV IiEVE1,011MENT WITH ,1 10..N.11 T ON TIIK AREA . THE MESWERS Ol. OUll 1.Ci) t U11111TTI.A.. ISI.A.1 Ew., 'l'lll•:S1•: C I'1'Y 5'I'Uw E5 SIiOUI.0 BE t'l)MPIA-.11-A BE' t HE' bl:A('1. 1 1 l I1 15 APPROVED. Tom Cooper ,i01111 Ilwyel' h-cu I•voelirh It11oda N:artyn 1,on 511iplcy GorLion Smi t ll I.001MI'll W'rIght Ed GSc hoe Ilex c�c JILlilt Ingto'n 11u.'1 11 City Cou11c i 1 11U11tingtoll &-a-11 V111111•► ing commission Mil . I . 11L.Is i t o Mr . .1 . Valin "W 0 CITY OF HunTmGTon BEPcH DEPART OF PLANN1 G ANC ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES :.� ! • P. 0, BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN : Floyd G. Bels'lto, City Administrator FROMn Development Services/Local Coastal Program DATE: May 31 1979 RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL ACTION, JANUARY 15, 1979 (M-2) SEACLIFF PHASE 1 ; Statement of Issue : The City Council ' s approval of the recolmnenda tion for a communica- tion to the South Coast Regional Commission regarding Seacliff Phase IV has not let been implemented. Racommendation : 40 Thp Citizens Advisory Committee recommends that the attached communication be sent . Analysts : The Local Coastal Program -• Citizen Advisory Committee at its meeting May 2, 1979 reaffirmed its previously submitted communica- tion with certain updating changes . The original committee vote on this matter on December 60 1978 was 12-0. The reaffirmation vote on May 3, 1979 was 12• 0 with 2 abstentions. R spectfull omitted , runes W. a 1 in Acting Planning Directc;r �� to 1 Mary Lynn Norby Local Coastal Prograr, JWP :MLNsdf 40 Attachment . t w , h� City of Huntington Beach + P.O. sox IN CALIFORNIA MiM OFFICE h OF THE MAXUIt May 3 , 1979 South Coast Regional Commission Captain Melvin C. Carpenter Executive Director P. O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA. 90801 RE: SEACLIFF PHASE IV DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND LCP Dear Captain Carpenter : Th,s letter is a result of the actions of the Local Coastal Program - citizen Advisory Committee on December 6 and December 20, 1978 . Minutes of these :meetings are attached. The City Council approved the request for communication of the ,,; Committee ' s concerns that the applicable Local Coastal Program studies be incorporated into the decision making for this area. The Staff Report - Request for Council Action (also attached) outlines the basis for the request. Issues identified include: 1) This 112--acre project proposal is proceeding through City processes ahead of the Local Coastal Program studies which will determine the Local Coastal Plan for this area and the total Huntington Beach coastal planning area . 2) Whether the residential use proposed is compatible with the Coastal Act Land Use Priorities is yet to be determined. 3) The effects of the proposed project upon the adjacent Balsa Chica environmental habitat area and the natural land forms (bluffs) are still being evaluated by several agencies . 4) Whether the extension of 38th Street to Pacific Coast Highway with an inland connection will benefit public acceao to coastal resources or crowd out coastal receators with commuter tripe is still beinq evaluated. 11B-LCP May 3, 1979 Page 2 5) How this project could meet the low-moderate income housing policy of ;.he Coastal Act is yet to be determined in conjunction with a comprehensive coastal housing policy . 6) The locational relationship of this property to the Huntington Peach oil field operations and to the OCS operations requires the necessary analysis before energy-related uses are precluded by this residential development. During the study sessions and hearings on the Seacliff Phase IV Project, the Planning Commission was advised that it had no authority to make a ruling based on the issue of LCP prejudice . Therefore, its ruling is based only on existing City and CEQA regulations , code provisions , and Commission procedures . The Planning Commission hearings and other sessions have brought to light the important coastal concerns known at this time to be related to this development proposal. However, the analyses of these concerns and their effects on coastal resources of this and/or alternative land uses are not available fo:r inclusion in the process at this time . The Planning Commission and City Council have approved the development in question with considerable conditioning and, pending appeals, it will be free to pursue coastal permits in the near future via your Commission . This letter emphasizes that there are coastml issues involved with the Seacliff development proposal . We urge you to take these coastal- related issues into consideration in review of this project. Our Citizen Advisiory Committee feels that approval of Seacliff IV now would prejudice the LCP and be contrary to the intent of the Coastal Act of 1976 . Sincerely, Don MacAllister Mayor DMA/MLN/dc Attachments : Minutes 12/6 12/20 Staff Report - Request for Council Action MINUTES LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE oom - F— •... Civic Center Huntington Beach California , 9 ?648 December h , 1978 ( approved Dec . 20 , 197n ' ROLL CALL Present : Bozanic , Chatterton , Dahl , Dermody , Estep , Higgins , Moshiri , Porter , Smith, Wriqht , Zschoche , Betty Kennedy ( alternate for Tom Cooper ) Absent : Andreassen, Cooper , Coulter , Dwyer , Harris , Slates Staff Present : Mary Lynn Norby , Jim Palin , John O ' Connor Others Present : Four citizens The meeting was called to order at 7 : 15 p. m . The minutes of the November 15 , 1978 meeting were approved with additions . A report of the correspondence tn the Committee was made . An acknowledgement needs to he sent . This input shall be sent to the Committee when each topic arises . Information packets for the committee meetings are requested to be available to the memhers on the Friday before the Wednesday meetings . 1L.,. l -C Coastal Activity Report 040 I -C-1 Boat Ramps - Reports of the funding of the make-up dock and city ficilities by the Council and the Council Action Request to open the boat ramp were made . The additional issue of a sewage dump permit from the County was discussed . 1-C-2 Seacliff Phase IV Project - The Committee was brought up-to-date on the prrj ec status - approved EIR and continuation of Planning Commission consideration to December 12 , 1978 . Some remaining coastal issues were delineated . A MOTION BY E . ZSCHCCHE AND SECOND BY MERLE MOSHIRI REQUESTED A TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING A COMMUNICATION WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO ASSURE THAT THE LCP-CAC HAS THE TIME TO PROCESS THE NECESSARY STUDY DATA TO • INCORPORATE COASTAL ISSUES . The task areas mentioned which may be predetermined by the approval of this development now include : Environmental Habitat Areas New Development ( Seacliff Area Study) Energy Impact Study THE MOTION WAS APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: AYES : 12 NOES : 0 ABSTAIN: LPC CAC. nocemher fi , 1978 Pave P r-- 1 -C- 3 Linear Park - The concept of the linear park and its relationships to 'I*fie eac f project and the B%Isa Chica area were explained. I-C- 4 Bolsa Chica - This report included information about the EDAW Draft May Report , the Council ' s annexation request , the State Restoration and the LCP Environmental Habitat Task . 1 -C- 5 Coastal Development Permits - A report on the City Council ' s aeterminatwion o pursue the assumption of coastal permitting by the City was reviewed . Discussion led to a consensus that assuming thr coastal permitting before 'he completion of the LCP would impedr the progress of the LCP . This would he due to the n2ressity to pay mnr(% attention to individual projects rzther than to the overall planninri and handling of issues on a comprehensive basis . Staff knnwledq(,ahlr enough of the Coastal Act to set up this option is already ocriipied with LCP , 1-C-6 Army Cor s of Engineers - A report on the Corps of Engineers recent survey of localproperties , to determine if they are wetlands , was made. The Corps regulates filling in wetlands , 1 -C- 7 Coastal Zone Boundary Changes - A study of proposed changes to the ( added coastal boundary will be made by the Coastal Commission . Proposal ! 7 at need to be submitted by December 15 , 1978 . It was agreed that area . meeting ) which are found to be wetlands ( such as areas East of Beach which the Corp visited and identified ) should also be w hin the coastal boundary. Some readjustments in the Downtown-gain Street area to include the Old Civic Center Site may be in order to fit the newer redevelopment area . i -D Public Input - Mr . T . Whaling addressed the Committee , referred t.n Fi s c orresp on dense about Downtown planning . lie recnminended that redevelopment efforts be terminated as their delay was unl ,v holding up private efforts to make something happen downtown . He suggestpri that parcels owners by the City should be made available to private developers , The redevelopment issue is scheduled to be before Council on December 18 . 2b Additional Information on Public Access Sites - Information about tots Huntington Hat our de cat ons ind pirf fees was summarized in the hand-out report . Further data about sites 1 and 1A , 2 , 3 . d and 11 also was furnished in the handout report . 2c Site Reviews Site 3 - Discussion was held about whether a general policy should esta6Tished by the City concerning acceptance of all dodicated fm recreation and access areas offered . No consensus was reacher) . i. PC CAC December 6 , 1978 P age 3 W Site 11 - The puhIIc accP ;s fvaIiires of the Sits' wrre iti5c�r�,�rr> .ss we-TT--is the Coastal Commission nrgntiatinn; which lets to thnsn requirements . Site 8 - Because of the potential traffic problems it was sirggristed that the uses of this site should not require much if any parking . Perhaps auto access could be eliminated by only allowing access from the water or pedestrian . The site is presently used for fishing and this use could be continued and enhanced . Site 5 b 19 - Discussion on these sites included the point that these sites are somewhat remote from regional access thus shoulu got be heavily emphasized. However , since these beaches are already City-owners , several changes such as improvers signing , and removal of the red curb no parking zone could improve public access . There appears to be a need to tie the sites together via bike routes , signs or wa ) k i n g routes . Site 11 (west ) - The site behind Sam ' s Seafood Restaurant northwest of s i to 11 has been Identified as an additional site to r, ons i der for public Access and recreation . Small hoat rentals to serve the puh 1 i c have been suggested a possible use of the s i tp . Sites 12 13 and 14 - Privately owned properties suggested for new parks,st—O-M�be given a low priority as their acquisition costs ar;._ high and all of them are somewhat remotely located from regional traffic arteries . Therefore , the usage expect<d would be primarily local and the expenditure of funds could serve more people at another site . Site 15 - The small public access beach being developer) on TT6616 came under considerable discussion . Additional information about the states of the dedication will be reported by Staff . The consensus was that the little beach at that location was a poor choice and also poorly designed . Perhaps a more appropriate use such as a park could be found for the site . Site 6 - It was derided that input should he made into the County plans for Sunset Aquatic Park . An important consideration is that: small hoat rentals he considered as a facility Df S .A .P . Very few other locations are available to serve all incomes of the population . Also this use would be directly related to serving the campers who use the campground of the park . The safety of these small beats , such as canoes among the large boats which are using the channel areas was discussed . It was determined that a recommenr'-; cion on how to develop safety for all sucrr uses should accompany recommendations of the use . The Edinger Road access was discussed . The problems seen were that the road is narrow and the bike trail is dangerous with no separati from the highway . Some efforts at widening are occurring - Staff tom' report . LPC CAC December fit 1978 Page 4 Sits^ 7 and 7A - Thr public ,ir.rrr„ prri;- i �; inn-. whirh .irr, rnminil Inln � Fr, ing nri-frTn Irlad Island werr% summarirrrf . The tirrin;1hr ) r park h,i% been developed . Nnwever , the hike trail I , vary narrow, '11 %0 thrry is no curb cut where t :ir trail makes a street crossing to the water view vista park . The ' uf suggested for purchase to qive parking support to the little beach park , 7A , wnuld cost over $ 200 , 000 , perhaps too high to consider for an island site which may not he easily accessible to regional demand . Are there boat docks at the vista park ? is a question t, he investigated by Staff . As the walkways are for public; access , the signing should be consistent with th is . 2d Policy Recommendat i irs et son - Since the hour for adjournment had passed ,�n the cmm t tpe me ers required mckre time to read the additional information , the remaining agenda items were deferred to the next regular meetIng , December 21? , 1978 . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p .m. AA MINUTES LOCAL COAST;L PROGRAM CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE oom - Civic Center Huntington Beach December 20, 191E (Approved January C, 197 9) ROLL CALL Present: Andreassen, Bozanic, Chatterton, Cooper, Coulter, Dwyer, Estep , Harris , Moshiri , Smith, Wright, Zsc;ioche Absent : Dahl , Dermody, Higgins, Porter, Slates Staff P re;ent: N or by Others Present: Four citizens 1 a. The meeting was called to order At 7: 15 p.m. The minutes of the December 6 , 1978 meeting here approved. I b. The ccrrespnndence procedure was explained. A MOTION 14AS 'BADE BY 14RIGHT THAT PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED WHEN FEASI43LE OF COMMITTEE NEETI'!GS WHEN THEIR INTERESTS MAY BE INVOLVED WAS APF10VED BY THE FOLLOWING. AYES: 12 NOES: 0 H MOTION WAS MADE BY COOPER THAT TRANSMITTALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF AYES AND NOES AS VOTED BY THE COMMITTEE WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : ;AYES: 12 NOES: 0 1 c. Coast4l Activity Report : 1 . The Orange County L.C.P . Wort- Progrem and the Huntington Beach L.C.P. have several areas of common concern. ON A MOTION BY COOPER WITH SECOND BY ESTEP, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AFTER AGENDA I fEM I.d. IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COASTAL COMMISSION- ON THE ORANGE COUNTY L .C.P. WORK PROGAM, THE VOTE WAS. AYES: 12 NOS. 0 2. The City procedure to be followed in order to effect annexation of the Bolsa Chica ;gas reviewed. G. Smith indicated he heard that Signal (major property owner) would be strongly opposed to any such annexation. LCP-CAC De'emlber 7.0, 1978 Page 2 3. The special meeting of the Planning Commission on January 6 , 1979 to consider thQ Seacl iff protect was announced. ON A MOTION BY MOSHIRI AND SECOND BY ZSCHOCHE THE REQUEST FOR CITY "OUNCIL ACTION ENTITLED "SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING" WAS APPROVED WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. THE VOTE WAS: AYES: 12 NOS: 0 4. The Committee' s request that the Boat Ramp be opened immediately was denied by Council on Decpmber 18. However, construction of the make-up dock and other City dock facilities are expected to be under cc,:istruction by January 25 and the openinn may be possible in March , 1979 . 5. L .C.F. Administratiu,n Requests have been made for reimbursements. $23,652 was requested against the $68, 541 Coastal Zone Management grant and $4,720 was claimed for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1978 from SO-90 State funding. Information about the t..C.P. staff was reported. 1.d Therp were no inputs from the public. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. all-ter deferring the remaining agenda items to the January 3, 1979 regular meeting. Jaynes W. Palin/Mary Lym Plaming - Local Coastal Projtarn Submitted by ty�hy, 5tafff, Ligi M — Dapartmtnt Cit11en Advisory gg=Ittee- December 13 78 Date,Prepared Re�.. r)eej% Qb"11 , 19,M Bet:kup Material AlWhed Yes No Subject SFart L_EF DEVEI 021A0,1 PIWPq& G .._ City Administrator's Comments 4 Mscret;ionary With Counci l 19 w��wr Statement of Issue, Flecommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: ►. f Statement of issue: The Seocliff Phase IV development proposal is currently under review for City approvals. This 112-oc:re project is within the coastal permit! ng zone and also the Local Coastal planning area. The Local Coastal Plan to he completed in mid-1979 will contain recommended land uses for all coastal properties ;nr:luding the subject proposal area, Until this LCP is complete, approval of a large deveicnment project such as Seacliff may predetermine actions of the LCP or be incons;stent with Coastal Act policies. Recommendation: 'Che Lnr.nl Coital Program-Citizen Advisory Committee at its meetings an December 6, 1978 and Oerernher 20, 1978, by votes of 12-0, resolved to request the City Council to communicate! with the South Coast Regional Commission about this project. The purpose of the cornmunication is to urge that the information from the Local Coastal Program studies and larxi use determinations be included in the permitting decision an this large project. To include this information in permitting c ecisions, the project permit reviews need to be scheduled subsequent to the preparation of the Huntington Beoch Coastal Element. Analysis The Sencliff area wos identified in the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program - Work Program as a coastal issue area. The issues which were identified then were described on page 30: next pope, please ,. . . . . . . . i no aft 1,� IAmpit-o for City 6mi it Actim Se•ete:tifl I fMlloprnent Processing Decrrnberr 22, 1978 �. Pngea 2 "The issuers concerning this area are the location of the varying densities of reside -tial, circulation, the integration of existing lonq-term oil facilities, and siting to preserve and provide excess to vistas and maximize onsite open space. The latter issue becomes especially critical if bluff line regional park is not pursued by the County of Orange., An additional issue is the impact of any expansion of the oil proorcticn area alonq Pacific Coast Highway in response to offshore oil development. The landfall for the existing offshares wells is in this area. it is possible that this area of they coastal zone could require significant expansion of its offshore oil processing and transportation facilities. Such a major expansion would signif icane ly affect the Sew-lif f planned community." Additional cor►sial issues which were identified in the review of Environmental Impact Report 77-6, pages 236 to 243, are included as on attachment to this request. The potentiol offshore oil activity effects in this area were again emphasized in these E IR comments. Thp removal of suclh n lunge pnrrel (112 acres) from consideration for alternative uses such as coil or rrrrrntion or visitor-serving facilities seriously reduces the options nvnilnhle in n romprehensive local coastal plan. The issue nl the pnientin) danger to habitat orc!ns from runoff inio the ©olsa Chico was 40 identified. The doterrninotion of whet'ier the propostri rnitigotion measures will be sufficient to protect coastal remwrc(.s has not be vn made by the Local Coastal Plan at this time. They extension of 38th Street to intersect wi!h Pacific Coast Highway is prelimimrily felt to he consistent with Coastnl Act policies. I-lowever, this determination awaits certain street capacity data presently being developed. How the proposal, if otherwise compatible, could he consistent with the Coastal Act policy to incre oie low. and moderate-income housing opportunities will be addressed in the Seacliff Costal Area Sfudy, not completed, arxl the i-iousing Background Study, still under review. Thai the uses and protections of a regionally significant, sensitive hahitnt and wer.tlan i area, the Bolso Chirn, immediately adjacent to the project have not been finalized by the Oi,,,jnge County Local Coastal Program, State Lnnds Commission crud the State Department of Fish and Game will tend to render a decision mode on this pro)esct premature. next page, please . . . . . . . . . rteque"st for City Council Action Seor.liff Development Processing December 22, 1978 Page 3 Some of these concerns have not been resolved even during the extensive, iterative LOMMUnications and planning which have token place on Seacliff. it would be unwise plonning to establish an Irretrievable site use without resolving these issues. Funding Source; The communication costs are negligible in relation to the issues involved. AlternativelAdditional Actions: 1. The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Committee could provide direct input at Coastal Commission hearings conceming the status of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan. 2. Local Coastal Program staffing decisions could be expedites to enable the coastal planning to proceed ai an advanced schedule. Respectfully submitted, to%%( W4 1 0 Jc�rr►r�Pa I in Acting Planning Director JWP:MLN:sh Attachments: Pages 236 - 243 of EIR 77-6 , . Y 45, �V{1 +Irlt he f lood ha rd map on sloe �134 is outdated Use the map dated Aug 28, 1916. Res se � T outdated map s been replace . 46 Cotvnent Permissio and input must a obtained from he appropriate agend s involved in uc drainage of he Seacliff de opment to the 1sa Ch ' a . es U,ISe The cuiimient s incorporated X refp"reflLe. 41. Cumieil Tire ast sentence on ag►: 133 is no,( clear. Six .s . seems low when comps ng undeveloped /deve)opedodn"off. Response Rpcalculation of the runoff increase by the applicants engineer indiCaLes the increase will be 13. 2 c. f .s . 48. Coitiitient Coastal policies intend to defer all large ( over 5 acres) prujeq�ts until after LCP certi Ncation in all coastal areas Griot just she (iul,a Chia) , This i5 to prevent prejudice of the LCP land Use Plan by un-yoiny large devc-MM)ents. I:t'; II.S_ ' The ccximen t is incorporated by reference. f 49, Wivient The factor that through-views will be excludea because of the project has more appl i cabi 1 i ty than that the interior portions of the devel - olmieoA arc not visible to the public . i RI%pu!tse The effect is the sauce. The inability to see into the project indicates that YOU cannut scar through the project . 236 50. Wivientdb The no-pruiec t a t term t i ve is described as allowing for future expanded oil uses. This is a very pertinent future planniny option not given sufficient emphasis in this report . The proposed project COL-ld preclude extensive oil /gas facility expansion in the area . This is one of the sites in California identified by recent State studies as a preferred landfall opportunity for offshore activities . Until the LCP is completed, this potential conflict of land uses will not have been thoroughly examined and additional data on resource extraction demand and support facility require- inents wi 11 not hjve► been obtained . This project proposes to proceed before these eo riphicall contingent factors are examined . 9 9 t Y 9 1te5poilsc There are a large number of potential impacts resulting from the proposed project, each requiring attention. The City believes the report present, .) balanced review of those impacts . 51 . Cumnen L. The possibility of reorienting the common open spaces for better PUUH c visual use could improve the project with respect to the Crustal policy of visual resource protection , depending on the resulting configuration. Response The possibi i ity of redesigning the project to enhance public visual use is discussed in the Mitigation Section. 52. Ccxirnent 8ec,Iuse u` the potential for damarje to the adjacent Qolsd Chita us.it ►►h , runof f 9,ho Id br r 11,inilg lerl Iwdy fr•rN4 thr. liu I S.1 Clij c,a ► wont =t'►uot) t)r . eili,rnded uS.lye of the culvert. on the north Is nut compatible with Coastal Act policies regarding the preservation of wetland areas . Res ollse Runuff cannot be gravity channeled away from polsa Chita without 1•,1 1 s +rrt, the en t i rr, proirc t ►area sever a 1 feet. (See response to continent No. 1 ) 2.17 4uhrtt t,t+t�nr 53. Conrner►t The Coastal policy to increase non-vehicular access to the beach areas would find consistency with bike routes along Palm Avenue and connecting to Goldenwest and 38th Streets, thus to Pacific Coast highway. The 38th j Street bikeway location should be integrated into the Aluffline Regional Park so that separation from the roadway can be effected . Le.�ponsq The cowiiient is incorporated by reference. 54 . Comrnrnt The extension of 38th Street to PCH in addition to the northerly extension to Edwards Street would provide additional , inuch-needed access to coastal resources , perhaps relieving the PCH intersections at Goldenwest, 17tn Street , and Main Street , and would provide a scenic vehicle route along an open space corridor from Central Park . However , this easier access to PCH may encourage north- or south-bound commuters to choose the coastal route. The UP will analyze the need for the PCH intertie as well as the circulation «; ! needs for the entire area . Res onse No response necessary. 55. Convient The 924 4 acre site is proposed for State. acquisition for ecological preservation. The Orange County Linear Regional Park is to include a much smaller area , approximately 100-200 acres . Kesp_o►lse The conment is incorporated by reference. 56 , C011111crt t The Coastal Policy referred to is aimed at increasing lower cost huusin(i availability sn the coastal zone. This project does not contribute to this qual . ftwever , it does not displace any lower cost homes, since the site is unpopulated. Therefore, only an alternate project providing lower cost housing mould be an improvement in this respect. �e�orlse The comment is incorporated by reference. 238 57 . Commit As a general comment , it should be clarified that the Coastal Act of 1976, net the Coastal Plan , is the basis for Coastal Cornnission judgments . Chapter 3 of that Act contains the adopted policies . Many of these are lased on Lhe Cuustai Plan; however , the Coastal Plan itself is not the policy ducumenrt. RC:s}�OnS�' T he cowmen t is incorporated by reference . 1hc? f irsL mi(j secono paragraphs on lia-le, 109 could be more accurately rewritten to redo as follows : "Ihe prujeu s i to l i e s wi thi n the coas La i rune t,oundary whi,-h de ines Lhe ,jurisdiction of the Cal ifornia Coastal Cornnission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 was based on the 1975 California Coastal Plan which resu%ed from the statewide CoaStal Initiative of 1912 . The California Coastal Commission ,rrid six Reg iorr,ll Comp ,siuns have the (jeneraI mspomF,i 6 i I i ty for protecting t1,e ii,i turn 1 , Were iL , and other resources of the California Coastal Zone . the OffiCial bUurrcldr'y , which averacles a 1 ,000 yard wide band along the coast- line of the State , is depicted in the Coastline Boundary Map of 1976. 4'rojeas proposed for anywhere shoreward of this buundary are required to obtain Coastal pennits . "Pruiects within, the Huntington Beach Coastal Zone ( arid this projoc.t is within tt,e zone) ,rust apply 1 for permi Ls from the South Coast Regional Commission aiter• reLeiviny necessary City approvals , until such time as (i Leal CU,lstal c'ldn is Certified. The Comnission currently bases its decisions on intr.rpreLive Guidelines , upon the research and mapped data of the California Coistol Plan and the permitting experience of the previous CoasLa1 zone Con- servation Cuivnission. When the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan with SPCLifrr. )and use yo,ris and designations is certified , this permitting process will become a CiLy process ." it es nunsc The suggested changes are incorporated by reference, 239 '�li 1 ii�hini�r r . 59. Ccxluuerit Since the guidelines listed are frwi the California Coastal Plain , 1975, they do not represent the latest policies in each map area . They do represent the best planning recoxirnendations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Comirissiun for its 1915 plan , lhay were interim determinations which were r + considered in the California Coastai Act of 19/6 . + No response necessary. i � G0. Coiw«ent ! Considering the above , (co<<rilerrt no . 59) the Bolsa Chica section 1 is not tliv only concern in the project area . Within those guidelines , how- ever, under- Pacific Coast Highwdy is a mention of "upland parking areas" 1 which could apply in the project` area. Also, the project area is a part of the Huntington Beach oft field, which was not mentioned liere. The groundwater aquifers and the water- injection lr lasts directly to the south of the site j nued to be evaluated for interactive impacts . 0 Res Pulls v The interactive impacts are discussed in the Sections that apply Lo those impacts ( soils and geology , noise , air quality , etc . ) . 61 . Cowmen t r Due to the policy provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976; that the Codsul Plan guidelines quoted exclude the project site is irrelevant. Areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas must dlso be evdluated in terms of their impacts to the resources. f ' N.L';�lUrlsE' See response to conment no. 60. 62. Corivient Rewrite page ill , last paragraph to update: f "I lie Work grogram for the Local Coastal program dated October 17, r 19l1, has been prepirvd. 1t sets out the tasks and schedule for the + preparation of the Local Coastal Plan. The land use designations resulting from this plan are scheduled to be completed by March , 1979. The LCP will MOude definitive development and resource policies as well as specific r t i land usu, designations." r 240 ftt,�S�onSc,! The suggested update is incorporated by reference. 63 . Countent Chanr try Uraft. LCP to LCP Work Pro ran). Figure 28 shows the location of issue areas to be studied in the Local Coastal Program process , No land use designations are prop,)sere by the Work Program. R-esP-OnSC The corrtnenL is incorporated ay reference. 64 . Cuimien t lwo other issues cited in Lite UP Word; Program are - ( I) the consideration of other than residential uses . and (2) the consideration of plans for offshore oil and gas support facilities possibly locatable in this area. Iles onse Incorporated by reference. (� 65. C_ootient The Interpretive Guidelines are required by the Coastal Act of 1976 , Section 30620, not the California Coastal Plan, These interpretive guidelines are general statements of Caiimission findings of consistency with the Coastal Act . Response The correction is incorporated by reference. 66. Conutien L That "The project site is adjacent to a sensitive planning area whose Ultimate development plans are undetermined at this time." is a significant comment . Response No response necessary. . Imo►► .q r � 241 , .�hnlr�frnr� Gl . Crnuur�nt The report corrVL1ly -o!Ls out that 00% project represents an irretrievdblu use of the site, eliminating suture planning options . The project appears to be inconsistent wi tci the Coasts 1 Act . .RCI sp o r?s Y No respunse necessary. Gd. Cannit�n t The Luca 1 Coastal Vrogram--Wur•k Program has made r:o planning desigmitions whatever , only detmili►ied what issues must be resolved in particular The project , however , is consisten . with the City' s Generd) Plan and current zoning. Response The reference to Work Program planning designation has been I deleted from page 146 . 1 . I Gg. Convuc_n t Further e:va luatiin of the need for increased facilities to support offshore (005) oil anc r.)as operatiuns is one things that needs to occur beture this proae:t can be said not to prejedice the LCP. . ! � Response jThe report does not state that approval of the project will } not, prejudice the LCP. j 70. Coirviiviit tic land uses have yet been envisioned for the Huntington beach c oa s to I zotic by the Local Coas to 1 Program. i Rcasjrvnsc • Incorporated by reference. 71 . CeN►nient IThe following coiirnents refer to the Initial Study: in the water Quality Declaration 2 .9(a) : The project site abuts the liolsa Chica , a tideland and fa mer• bay. ? . 11 (c) : Ifuw will the project reduce existing noise levels , con- siderinij the increased traffic induced? < <p 242 �' The Initial Stud is an informational document designed to help P determine if an EIR is necessary. Comments cn the lnitiai Study are not appropriate in the Draft EIR review period . 72. Cairnent "The Ci ty' s five-year capital improvement program" referred to in this section is not an approved document, but the Public Works Department's plan for improvement it sees as necessary. Response See response to comm,int no. 31 . T11 . f OLLOWING COMMENT 'WERE RECC 1V ' FROM TIIL CAL I WNIA OEPARTMENT Of I f1ANS1' ITATION CALTRANS . 173 . Conmen t S rila r The tr fic and circ atien secti did not con/ergeneration 1 of dditiunal traf tc on Pacifi Coast Highw f. s nnse The report es estima the amount of roject generated traffic th would use acific Coa highway. Spe fic mitigation m sures were no suggested b cause the oject is such small percentage f the regio 1 traffic at infIue es P CH and req . res a regional s ution. 74 . uyviient Sui ary Cal Gran feels that 5 to miles per trip ouid be more reasunabi than th 0 miles pet- tri used in the rep t . R once Tell mi Ies per tr 'p ..is consi%:-2re reasonable b ause with th exci,ption the Sedcliff S pping Center, a project is airly remot 1 rtxlr wor� xid shopping ar- as . 75. Ccmiment uImnjr- Caitr s ayrees thrt nnectiun of pth Street o PCH shoul not he done until ometime in the uture. � tl 243 City of Huntington Beach P.O. box 0* GA1.WOMr.lA 04 M OFFICE OF THE CITY A1hMIN15TRATOR South Coast Regional Commissior. January, 30, 1919 Captain Melvin C. Carpenter xecutive Director P. G. Box 145D Long Beach, California 90801 Captain Carpenter: Rc : Seacliff Phase IV Development Proposal and LCP This letter is a result of the actions of the Local Coastal Program Citizen Advisory Committee on December E at id December 20 , 1978. Minutes of these meetings are attached. The City Council approved the request for cotrm, iic, tion of the com- mittee ' s concerns that the applicable Local Coastal Program studies be incorporated into the decision milking for this area. The staff report -- Request for Ccuncil Action . (dlso attached) outlines the basis for the request . Issues identified include: 1. This 112--acre project proposr,l is pruceedinc through City pro- cesses ahead of the Local Coastal Program studies which will determine the Local Coastal Plan for this area and the total fluntington Reach coastal planning area . r 2 . Whether the residential use proposed is compatible with the Coastal Act land use priorities is yet to be determined. 3 . The effects of the proposed project upon the e0jacent Solsa Chica environmental habitat area and the natural land forms (bluffs) are !till being evaluated by several agencies 4 . Whether the extension of 38th Straet to Pacific Coast Highway with an inland connection will benefit public access to coastal resources or crowd cut coastal recreators with commuter trips is still being evaluated. 5 . How this project could meet: the low-moderate income housing policy of the Coastal. Act is yet to be determined in nad junction with a comprehensive coastal housing policy. 6. The locational relationship of this property to the Huntington Beach oil f field opeeratione and to GCS operations rmpl;ri3■ the necessary ai3lysis before energy- related uses are, precluded by this residential development. re4pbbow (71#) $36.5201 Captain Carpenter ' January 30 , 1979 Page 2 During the study sessions and heraringn on the Seacliff Phase IV pz'-o-- Ject, the Planning Commission was advised that it had no authority to make a ruling bayed on the issue of I.CP prejudice. Therefore its ruling is based only on misting city and CEQA regulations , cone pro- visions, and Comission procedures . The Planning Comission hearings and other sessions have brought to light the important coastal concern3 known at this time to be related to this development proposal . However , the analyses of there concerns and their effects on cuastal resources of this and/or alternatives land uses are not available for inclusion in the process at this time.. The Planning Commission his approved the development in question with considerable conditioning and, pending appeals , it will be free -to pursue coastal permits in the rear future via your Commission. This lettar emphasizes that there are coastal issues involved with the Seacliff development proposal.. lie urge you to take these constasl•- related isslues into consideration in review of this project. Our Citizen Advisory Committee feels that approval of. Seacliff IV now would prejudice the Lf' and be contrary to the intent of the Coastal ,Act of 1976 . Very since--ely yours , Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator FGB :MLN: df Attachments : Minutes - 12,16 and 12/20 Staff Report -- Request for Council Action City of Huntington Beach No-P.O. box NM CAI.W0"NI4k OFFICES OF THE CITY CLERK May 1 , 1979 SEACLIFF PHASE IV Mr. Dave Eadie Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Eadie : I hereby certify that: 1 ) Zone Change No. 78-4, a zoning boundary adjustment between the existing Hunt'Ington Seacl i'rf Country Club and the Phase IV project area was passed and adopted on January 15, 1979. 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 Tentative Tract has . 10067, 1058 and 10069, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 8-37 were approve by the City CouRil on •earuary 20, 197F,and modified on April 16, 1979. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and Ex-0fficio Clerk of the City Council FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PHASE IV TENTATIVE PARCEL 14AP NO. 78-37 1 . The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department on October 5, 1978, shall be the approved layout, subject to condition of approval and adjustment to reflect boundary line changes resulting from the final adoption of Zcne Change No. 78-4 . 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Depart- ment of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Copies of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department and with the Department of Public works. 4 . Water supply and sewage disposal shall be through the City of Hunt?ngton Beach at the time of development . 5. The boundaries of Parcels 1 and 3 shall be extended to include the full rights-of-way of 38th Street and Palm Avenue. The boundary of Parcel 2 shall be extended to include the total .right--of-way of Palm Avenue. b . App!_ ,aval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change No. 78-4 does not become effective. * 1 . The City will precise plan 38th Street within a period of on-2 year. Said precise_ plan shall terminate at Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the north . Dedication of 38th Street to its full ultimate precise-planned width shall be made by the developer from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. Fu1I street improvements shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, and improvements of at least two ( 2 ) 12-foot travel lanes shall be provided in 38th Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue . Improvements of the two (2 ) 12--foot travel lanes From the project north to Garfield Avenue shall be made upon tho completion of 50 percent of the units within t:e project. Interim emergency access shall be available and maintained northerly on 38th Street during the cc ^struction of the first 50 percent of the units within the project. 6 . Original Condition No . 8 deleted by the City Council at il's hearing of the appeal on February 20, 1979 . (See following page for new Condition 8 . ) T is s Condition f7 as modified and imposed by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20, 1979 Tentative Parcel NqO44o. 78-37 ' Final Conditions o .pproval Paces 2 g. 'rhe landowner or his designee shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the berming , landscaping , and wall for noise attenuation treatment along the southwesterly vide of Palm Avenue between the existing tennis court facility and the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 16 , 1979 Reconsideration of conditions on Seacliff Phase IV: Condition No. 7 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 (Subject to acquiescence of app : cant and a written agreement between the developer and the City of. Huntington Beach) 7. Thirty-eighth Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way from at least its northernmost boundary within TPM 78--37 southwesterly to at least its inter- section with Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way width from its .intersection with Thirty-eight Street southeasterly to its intersection with Goldenwe:st Street. FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SEAOLIFF PHASE IV Tentative Tract Maps 10067, 10068 , and 10069t 1 . A revised composite site plan incorporating all requirements of the Planning Commission shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the recordation of any final map. Said re- vised composite site plan shall then become the approved layout for development of Tentative Tracts 10060,', 100680, and 10069. 2 . Prior to construction of the Seacliff Phase IV project, a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The costs of such installation shall be borne on a 50/50 ratio between the developer and the City of Huntington Breach. *3. The City will precise plan 38th Street within a period of one year. Said precise plan shall terminate at Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the north. Dedication of 18th Street to its full ultimate precise-planned width shall be made by the developer From Pacific Coast High- way to Garfield Avenue. Full street improvements shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, and im- provements of at least two ( 2 ) 12-foot travel lanes shall be provided in 38th Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue . Improvements of the two 12-foot travel lanes from the project north to Garfield Avenue shall be made upon the completion of 50 percent of the units within the project. Interim emergency aceers shall be available and maintained northerly on 38th Street during the construction or the first 50 percent of the units within the project. 4 . Palm Avenue shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way width from its intersection with A Street within Tentative Tract 10069 southeasterly to its intersection with Goldenwest Street. 5. Revised tentative tract maps shall be submitted to reflect the chance in the boundary of the total project as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Siad revised maps shall be submitted prior to the recordation of any final map. 6 . Palm Avenue, A and B Streets , and 38th Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to ultimat right-of-w:ay within the blue border of Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 . T is is Condition i3 as mc>dified and imposed by the City Council at its Dearing of the appeal on February 20, 1979 Tentative Tract :'Uo 10067, 10068, 10069 Final Conditions Ct Approval Page 2 7. The borders of Tentative Tracts 10069 And 10068 shall be ex- panded to include the full rights-of-way of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The borders of Tentative Tract IDD67 shall be expanded to include the full right-of- way of Palm Avenue. * S. Final design of the drainage system, the retention basins, and the channel improvements shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Worker the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to recordation of any final map. These systems shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the project. If for some reason the developer is unable to construct the drainage facilities as proposed in the information he has submitted to the Planning Commission for drainage into the Solna Chica, the drainage system shall be redesigned and remain flexible to allow for alternative solutions. 9 . Sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be subject to City standard plans and specifications as adopted by tho City Council. 10 . Except where private entry drives intersect with Palm Avenue, 38th Street, and A and B Streets, vehicular access rights to said streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. (11 . Original Condition No. 11 deleted by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20 , 1979. ) 11 . All main entryways from public streets shall have a minimum 30-foot curb radius at locations as specified by the Department of Public Works pursuant to Public Works standards. 12. Alk inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum of 17 Beet and outer curb radii shall be 45 feet , excep•,: in Product t, which shall have a minimum outside curb radius of 40 feet. 13. Median breaks and left turn lanes in both directions shall be provided in Palm Avenue at locations and to the specifications of the Department of Public Works . 14 . Prior to recordation of the final maps, the developer shall file with the City an irrevocable letter of agreement to accept drainage from the public streets into the private drainage system. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy submitted to the City of the recorded document. T i ,3 is Condition 18 as modified and imposed by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20, 1979 1 Tentative Tract Ma► 0067, 10068 , 10069 Final Conditions o�proval 40 Page 3 19. Approval of Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068 , and 10069 shall became null and void if Lone Change No. 18-4 does not become effective. 16 . Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall pxo vide two (2) minimum travel lanes of 12 feet frkwrn curb face to median curb face. *17 . City Council accepted the offer of dedication of 7 .8 acres from A. J. Hall Corporation for :l :rksite purposed, said property located in the linear park concept area . ( 19 . Condition of Approval i19 deleted by City Council on Feb. 20, 1979) CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 160 1979 Reconsideration of conditions on Seacliff Phase IV: Condition No. 3 for Tentative Tracts 100670 10068 and 10069 (S5531FC t3 acqu escence of app ! ant and a written agreement between the developer and the City of Huntington Beach. ) Al. Interim emergency access shall be available northerly on 38th Street to the extension, of Garfield Avenue and from that point easterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the inter- aection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Such emergency access shall remain in force until public access is available from Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to a dedicated and improved 38th Street having at least two (2) 12-foot travel lanes. A2 . The interim emergency .access shall be subjeot to Fire Department approval as to proper grading, alignment , identification, illumination, and security method. In addition , the emergency access shall be paved to a full twenty-four (24 ) foot width and shall be maintained by the Huntington Beach Company. TRIs Condition 917 is as imposed bx the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20 , 1979 , and constituteu a replace- ment of the origii:al Condition 618 , parks dedication, as imposed by the Planning Commission. FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SEACLIrP PHASE" IV Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23: The appeal to Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 was denied by the City Council at its public hearing on February 20 , 1979; therefore, the original conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commis- sion still apply. No Action on the conditional use permit was taken by the City Council when it reconsidered the project on April 16, 1979 . -�� City of Huntington Beach .N.... ( j 10.0. Box 1f0 CALWORNIA Mo t� OFFICE OF TifE CITY CLERK spy CC/ ?le May 1 , 1979 SEACLIFF PHASE IV 01 4 Mr. Dave E:adie Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Lompany 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Eadie: I hereby certify that: 1 ) Zone Cha a No. 78-4, a zoning boundary adjustiaent between the ex st ng Huntington Seacliff Country Club and the Phase IV project area was passed and adopted on January 15, 10979. 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 Tentative Tract Nos. 10067w, 68 and 15069. an Tentative PaRei Map No. 7-37 were approved by the City Council on February 20, 1979t and modified on April 16, 19719. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and Ex-Off i ci o Clerk of the City Council :J1if May 3 , 1979 SEACLIFF PHASE IV Mr. Dave Eadie Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mr. Eadie: I hereby certify that : 1 ) Zone Change No. 78-4, a zoning boundary adjustment between the existing Huntington Seacliff Country Club and the Phase IV p.•oject area was passed and adopter' on� 15r, 1919, 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 Tentative Tract Nos. 10067 ,, 16068 and 100 9, and Tentative Parcel Map No. -37 were approved by the City Council on February 20, .07.• ATTEST: ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk and Ex-Officlo Clerk of the City Council r. Motion by Yoder , second by Thomas : Yoder: Motion that we accept and impose Recommendation No. 1 and partsof Al and A2 of Recommendation No. 2 as suggested in RCA 7h-21 . AYES: Pattinson, MacAllister, Thomas, Yoder NOES: Bailey ABSENT; None ABSTAIN: Mandic 0 RCA 70-27 F iQMST FOR CITY COLVOL AUCTION S+i mnittetl by .- Floyd C_ 6 a 1„s i to Dqwlnwg Adm i h istra t ion We lop read Agri., 10 . , 1 O 7 9 dW*wp M*W141 AttsdrMd E] ya [] No Subject , SEA_I ,F ,a - 38TH STREET CONDITION 3 OF TENTATIVE TRACTS 10067 , w .. �+wrwr•.r l n n6A F.-Laug A Nri (_A xn 1 T s aN 7�S1��?�.�'w"Lt.�`��A City Administrator's Coronmts 7� �..�...,.�..,_._ ..,....�r.._..�..,.Y....�..�._......� ,..........�. Slratbtwmt of Issua, fteaammsn&tion, Analysis, Funding Sourol,AttwWke Actions: STATES ENT OF ISSUE: Conditions. 3 and 7 pertaining to 38th Street in SeacliffjV were returned to staff to preview and report; to City Council for any recommended changes . Conditions 3 and 7 are identical except that Condition 3 relates to the Tentative. Tract maps and Condition 7 relates to the Tentative Parcel Map . RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation NI does not relate to Conditions : or 7 but W' as added because it was inadvertently omitted during Planning Commission and City Council reviews ., Recommendation N1I presents two possible amended versions of. Conditions 3 and 7 . RECOMMENDATION N I With the acquiescence of the applicant , an additional r:ond,ition must We added to Tentative Parcel Map 78 -37 in order to :insure that no parcel within TPM 78•-37 is landlocked . The condition should read as follows : , Thirty-Eighth Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way width from at least its northernmost boundary within TPM 78 -37 southwesterly to at least its intersection with Palm Avenue. Palm Avenue shall be dedicated and fully imr:•roved to its ultimate right-of-way width from its intersection with Thirty-Eighth Street southeasterly to its intersection with Goldenwest Street . RECOWENDATICN NI : (naxt page) no a" ,� f RCA 79- 27 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION II The City and the Huntington B ach Company shall enter into an agreement binding on any existing or future owner of the affected property modifying condition:; 3 and 7 . `1 ::% nature of the modi flcat ion Will depend on clarification of several issues . The issues are : (1) whether the extension of farfield Avenue is a publicly dedicated and' iiproved rigRht-of-,way , (2) whether the City can restrict public access; on a public right -of-way , and (3) i.f the City cannot restrict public access , whethor -the City would choose to abandon the right-of-way. The following proposed Modification A is the staff recommendation in all circumstances except if it is determined that : (1 ) the extension of Garfield Avenue is a publicly dedicated and improved right -of-way , ( 2) the City Cannot restrict public access on same and (3) the City Council is unwilling to abandon the right -of-way , Modification A : Al Interim emergency access shall he available northerly on 38th Street to the extension of Guri'ield Avenue and from that pdint easterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street . Such emergency access shall remain in force until public access is available from Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to a dedicated and improved 38th Street having at least two (2) 12 - foot travel lanes , A2 The interim emergency access shall be subject to Fire Department approval as to prober grading , alignment , identification , illumination and security method . Tn addition , the emergency access shall be paved to a full twenty- four (24 ) foot width and shall be maintained by the Huntington Beach Company . A3 The City trill precise plan 38th Street within a period of one year and the City may precise plan Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue or portions thereof within a similar period. The Huntington Beach Company shall provide engineering services for the precise plans for at least those portions of 38th Street , Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue on Huntington Reach Company land , but the company need not limit its services to those properties . Modification B is only necessary for consideration in the one case where the following three statements are true : (1) the extension of Garfield Avenue is a publicly dedicated and improved right-of-way , (2) the City cannot restrict public access on same , and (3) the City Council is unwilling to abandon the right -of- way . If the City Council expresses its willingness to abandon the right-of-way , if necessary, then regardless Of circumstances Modification A is the appropriate direction to pursue. In reviewing the pros and cons of abandonment , staff has concluded that abandonment of the right-of-way (if it is right -of-WAY) would he appropriate and reasonable. The inherent leverage of holding onto L e right-of-way in terms of being able to trade properties for alternative right-of-ways is insignificant in this case since through the subdivision-- map process all future developments in the area will be required to dedicate and improve right -of-way in compliance with City precise plans of street alignment in the area . M RCA 79-21 Page 3 RECOMMENDATI ON I 1 Continued However; if the City Council chooses not * to' expo ass' 'a willingness to obandon' possible right-of-way; thou Modificalion A cannot be overlooked. A final determination between Modification- A or 3 cannot be made until clarification on the ' ri ht -of=war status of the extension of Garfield Avenue and on whether public access can be restricted on a public right -of-way. Modification B: 81 interim emergency access shall be available northerly can 38th Street to the extension, of Garfield Avenue. Such emergency access shall retrain in force until dedication and improvement of Uth Street with at least two (2 ) 12 foot travel lanes . 82 Same as Modification A2 . 83 .Same os Modification A3 B4 The Huntington Reach Company shall place a six foot chain link fence on the southern, northern and western boundary of the Garfield Avenue Extension . ANALYSrS: Recommendation 11 : Recommendation #I is technical clean up which insures access to the area in Tentative Parcel Map 75-37 by requiring full dedication and improvement for that portion of loth Street adjacent to the blue border and the same for Pals Avenue from the intersection. of 38th Street to Goldenwest Avenue . This condition is in compliance with conditions already affixed to the Tentative Tract Maps . Recommendation #' II : This analysis summarizes the many issues related to Condition 3 of Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , 10069 and Condition 7 of Tentative Parcel Map 78- 37 . Conditions 3 and 7 permit the City to precisely align. 38th Street from Pacific Coast Highway on the south to the ultimate alignments of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the north , (the: langus a in the condition: is misleading in that the description of the nortlern boundary as Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street makes no mention that the intended boundary is to the ultimate alignment of those streets) . Upon precise alignment of 38th Street , full street improvements shall be installed by the developer within the blue border of the map . Upon completion of 504 of the units within the project , at least two fully improved 12 foot travel lanes shall be provided on 38th Street from northerly boundary of the map to the ultimate alignments of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street . Precise alignment of 38th Street CA to Pacific Coast Highway has not been a point of contention. The issue of the viability of Conditions 3 and 7 surfaced because of an opinion provided by the City Attorney on March 15 , 1979 . In the opinion of the City Attorney , the City may not require dedication and imt .•ovement as contained in Conditions 3 and 7 unless the developer agree;, by contract to such conditions . Conditions 3 and 7 provide for public access through properties outside the blue border to the subject area within the blue border after 504 of the units in the project are built . However , the requirement for public access is excessive in light of the fiAdings in the related environmental impact report that Palm Avenue will be adequate to handle the traffic generated by the project. However, there is a substantiated need for alternate emergency access , but the requirement of Conditions 3 and 7 for public access go beyond the more limited need of emergency access . In developing a recommendation the following issues were considered : type of access needed , status of the extension of Garfield Avenue , whether public access can be restricted on a public right -of-way, abandonment of public right -of-way and the need for precise alignment . A. Type of access needed : The traffic section of the environmental impact report pointed out that Palm Avenue widened to its ultimate width will have adequate capacity to handle the add i t i onu l t ru rric genc ra t ed by Phase IV. The requirement imposed by Conditions 3 and I for public access northward along 38th Street to Garfield :Avenue is based on considerations for improving access . to the subject site , but most importantly for provision of alternate emergency access to the subject site . y . The problems associated with the provision , of public access on 38th Street after S01 of units are complate ' as required , by Conditions 3 and 7 are threefold : (1) It is difficult to defend in view of the fact that Palm Avenue can handle the traffic generated by Seacliff IV. It can be defended to an extent based on the need for emergency access , however emergency access can be provided without creating a public right -of-way. In this particular instance the Huntington Beach Company can point to several potential alternative emergency access routes , some south to Pacific Coast Highway , (2) Public access on 38th Street would add to City costs in terms of maintaining additional right-of-way, upgrading Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue ' costing as much as $100 ,000 in order to handle additional traffic, ' and possibly the cost of signalizing the intersection of 38th Street and Garfield Avenue since Conditions 3 and 7 did not account for the possiMility , (3) The normal phasing of the dedication and improve- ment of right-of-way may be upset to the point of . inefficient use of public funds . Because of the oil encumbersnces in the area it is unrealistic to expect dedication and improvement from land owners along the ultimate alignments of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to occur coincident with the availability of public access -on 38th Street . Therefore , the City will have to upgrade Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue along existing alignments to handle the traffic generated by Seacliff even though the existing alignments may not be the ultieate ' alignments . Although the Fire Department remains firm in its conclusion that it is still best from an emergency management standpoint to have open public access to Garfield Street , a reasonable alternative solution is acceptable to the Fire Department provided : 1 . A Fire Department approved emergency access road , paved to a full twenty- four (24) foot width with proper grading , alignment , identification , illumination and security method of traffic control and private maintenance is guaranteed . 2 . An agreement is made between the property owner of the emergency access route and the City with regard to conditions in Item 01 . Also , that this agreement shall be binding on any future property owner , until such time as 38th Street is improved and open to the public through to Garfield . 3 . That there be no change of condition as to the precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street and dedication . Conclusion : too In view of the problems associated with providing public right -of-way on. 38th Street northerly from the Seacliff IV and the availability of a reasonable alternative for emergency access , pursuit of public access on 38th Street at this time is not in the City ' s best interest . 0 0 f3, staitu:s of the extension of Courfield Avenue: The wosterly - oxtonsion of Garfield Avenuo from fidwards Street running approximately 1 ,950 foot with a tviA t h - va eying between 20 feet and 60 feet (depending on :source of . information and interpretation) maybe publicly dedicated right-of=way. , Or it stttty an easement or tho City may have fee to the property' (depending on source of information and interpretation) . The "right-of-wsyl' may be improved if the existing roadway is within the "tight-of-way" . There is , .however , a possibility the roadway is adjacent to the "right-of-way", running the length of the southern boundary. Therefore , even if there is public right-of-way it may not be: improved . Conclusion : Staff is unable at this time to determine the exact legal status of the Garfield Avenue extension. However , the legal status of Garfield avenue bears no relationship to the questions of type of access needed . The legal status of the Garfield Avenue extension will , however , effect the manner in which appropriate access is attained . The following two sections deal with this problem. C. Restriction of public Access on Public Right-of- Way : The City Attorney ' s office is reviewing the possibility of restricting public access on public right-of-way . This may be a means of limiting access on the Garfield Avenue extension for emergency use if the extensiori proves to btu public '* ght--of-way. The Ay can cul -de-sac right-of-ways , however in this case the practical effect of such an effort at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street would be to reserves the extension of Garfield Avenue for private use . This probably would be contrary to the intended purpose of providing a cul -de-sac . The City can restrict public access on a public right-of-wary for a short time for public safety purposes . Whether this concept can be extended to a period of years is yet to be verified . Conclusion : Staff i -i ataatehle at this time to ascertain .+ specific method for It-; I a If I HIM 1+u111 1 , iv 4 h :.: .tat 1 11141, 1 I - a igha oaf Way fol Jeiaktb of time potentially needed . D. Abandonment of public right-of-way : The power to vacate a City street is vested solely in the munici- pality, and act of vacating can be done only upon finding that property in question is unnecessary for present or future uses as a public street . In the potential case before the City , a finding that the extension of Garfield Avenue is unnecessary for present use as a public street could be made . Future use would be unknown at this time and would depend on determination of the ultimate alignment of Garfield Avenue . A municipality can not vacate a"portion of public street for sole benefit of private individuals or corporations , but can do so in interest of safety , convenience and public welfare . Since abandonment of the Garfield Avenue extension would insure a separation of the public from oil extraction activities , and save the City street maintenance and improvement costs the City would be justified in pursuing such a rniirse . The major argument against Abandonment is that tWCity may lose some bargaining leverage. The inherent )+eveirage of holding onto the right-of-way in terms of being, able to trade properties for alternative right -of-ways is insiinificant in this case since through the subdivision map process all future developments in the area will be required to dedicate and improve right-of-way in compliance with City precise plans of street alignment in the area . Conclusion : If it becomes necessary to vacate the extension of Garfield Avenue in order to limit public access , then proceed accordingly . E. precise Alignment : Precise alignment of 38th Street as well as Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street should proceed without hesitation . The precise alignments will aid in determining the eastern boundary of the linear park as well as the dedication requirements of future development . Furthermore it would seem advantageous to both the City and the Huntington Beach Company if the engineering services necessary for determining precise alignments were provided by the Huntington Beach Company. The City will save the cost of, such services , and the Huntington Beach Company which is most familiar with its property will have an opportunity to be involved in the planning of the precise alignments . Conclusion : Precise alignment of 38th Street , Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue should proceed without hesitation and with the aid of engineering services from the Huntington Beach Company. FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Amended recommended modifications to include public access . ATTACHMENTS : 1) Area Map 1) March 15 , 1979 City Attorney Opinion 3) April 9 , 1979 Memo from Assistant City Attorney �-•' l�lM M�O� 17�ui 1[i�M�Qlpf ,,,,,� I �� �. t� r �_• ,�. • _��• � �: l +�� .ram•'�!..��. .�� ,, �. �. _ � � • ,. � � S _� �t .- .,._.___._ _ l I u `, ,' � ...... ... t. � ��� .ii. .,..i �� � .�:. .` � '. �/ '�; �. • i � +• `� '�� / /' �`�_ _. .. . .. •J . l..... ... . .;� t' � i � L.. �� { ,: r • / ��� • w � - � ♦p� • . � // � FWfl.... Ci CW H&M�IT1-10-M H INTEA-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION "1;%1�f,NIw NM M Gail llutton James W. Pa 1 in To City Attorney From Acting Planning Director Subject SEACLIFF IV PROJECT Data March 15, 1979 Pursuant to our conversation held on Tuesday, the 13th of March, follow- Ing are my thoughts on the procedures necessary for the Huntington Beach Company to obtain an amendment and/or modification to their previously approved tentative parcel map and tentative tract maps for the seacliff Phase IV development proposal. As I indicated to you, I do not feel that the City Council at this point in time has any further jurisdiction over the maps as, pursuant to Section 66452. 5 (a) of the subdivision Map Act , the subject to which we had addressed ourselves (i.e. , appeal by the subdivider to the legisla- tive body) is required to be filed within 15 days after action of the advisory agency (the Planning Commission) on the subject maps. (The Com- mission was the advisory body on the tentative parcel map because the Board of Zoning Adjustments had referred the parcel map to them for action.) The Map Act then requires that said appeal be heard by the legislative body (the City Council) within 30 days after filing of such appeal and requites that within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing the legislative body shall ( "shall." being mandatory) render its decision on the appeal. Therefore, as the developer filed his appeal to the Planning Commission , action of January 16 , 1979 on January 31 , 1979, and a public hearing was held thereon by the ,City Council on February 20, 1979 , the hearing was held and the decision was rendered within the specified time as set forth by the Government Code , and any reconsideration of this decision would have to be made at the same or next regular legislative session of the City Council . As this date has passed and we have gone far beyond the 30 days for the public hearing and/or the 10 days for rendering of the decision , the maps no longer lie within the jurisdiction of the City Council. In the past, any request for a modification, amendment, and/or a revision to tentative tracts has been filed with the advisory agency, which has been granted the power to review tentative tract maps for approval within the City of Huntington ©each. If the proponent and/or the property owner at this point wants to discuss a possible modification and/or deletion of any conditions of approval , it would be entirely up to your department to make the determination on whether his request would constitute a revision to a tentative tract map. If you find that it is in fact a revision to a map, then the map must be filed as such with the Planning Department and one-quarter of the original filing fee paid for the processing of said revised map before the advisory agency. If, however, you make the determination that it is not a revision to the mar, then previously we have been reviewing amendments based upon a written tree a-not i reacliff phase lv ' March 15, 1979 Page 2 by the developer setting forth his reasons for the requested m ` This written request is then reviewed b the adt� Deification. its regularly scheduled meetings, y isory agency at one of requests and submits their recOmendationsPlantonthetadvi�or agency these euant to Section 66452. 3 of the Subdivision Ma Act Y agency requires th such report be served on the subdivider at least threeh(3) ayspr that any hearing or action on such request , days prior to As you are well aware, our Subdivision Ordinance allows tract map be in effect for 18 Months from the date ofa that a tentative. allows that a developer can file a final ma u t'p tali and P any time during this 18 month Pon this tentative map at final map is not submitted for recordation# then matrthe tsoeason m i bonato, a the 18 months the effectiveness of the map becomes null and void an of P all proceedings terminate. Therefore, I do not feel that a ma cane brought up an a reconsideration or as new business by the city n be after the decision has been rendered upon an a t Council appeal pursuant t provisions of the Map Act. o the Chapter 7, Article 3 (Judicial Review) , Section 66499. 37 of the State Map Act states that an action to attach, review, set aside, void or annul the decision of an advisory agency or legislative body concerning e subdivision or any proceedings or determinations taken, done, or made prior to such decision or to determine reasonableness or validity of any conditions attached thoreto, shall not be mailitained b an unless such action is commenced within 180 days after such by any From this section, I would say that such determination has alreadybe matte by the City Council at its February 20, 1979 meeting and cannot nn be reconsidered without violating those sections of the Map Act whic ow I have previous:.y Cited in this memo. h I hope these section numbers and my thoughts set forth her ein you in your recommendation to the City Council on this subjectdssist matter. dames W. a n Acting Planning Director JWP:df 0 0 r .W11M INTER-IEFAATMINT COMMUNICATION ID G, 8►Isifo ' �+ From Raymond C. plcar To ��City Adrrinistrator Fir Chief 1 .p: . . LL Subje ct SEAL LIFT PHASE IV j•��� 5, 1979 COMITIOM ON 36TH STREET ISSUES It is my urxlerstanding that the develaper has extenuating public access, design and precise street plan alIrment problems with the aim accss condition an the Seacliff Phase IV development project as approved by ttre City Council. Also, it is fhe desife of the developer to have this condition reconsidered by the Council. ANALYSIS: This Departnw t has mast with the developer, and even though it is still beat frorn an ernergency management sturx%x Ant, to home open public access to Garfield Street when the project is 50 percent cornplete, a reasonable alternative solution Is acceptable to tM Fire DeWiment if: 1. A Fire Department approved er»ergenay occeas rood, paved to a full twenty-four (24) foot width with proper grading, alignment, identification, illurrdrwtlw% security, ,method of traffic o mtrol and private molOomnce is guaranteed. 2. An agreement is made between the property owner of the emergency access route and ft:t City with regard to conditl&,w in Item I. Also, that this amen troll be binding an any future property owner, until such time as 39th Street Is Improved and open to the public through to Croy fi-'d. 3. That there be no change of ovneltion as to the precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street and dedication. RCp:cw cc: Jim PoIlN planning Department "1 0", Fire Dq* tment A C1"1'V tW M i INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To FLDYD G. BELSITO From EARLS W. ROBITAILLE City Administrator Chief of. Police HuNect 38th STREET EXTENSION Date MARCH 5, 1979 As I stated at the Council m.etin8 of Tuesday, February 20, I can forsee no major problems with the proposal for the 38th Stxeet alignment . EWR:fl IV, Y 114TER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION W. To Bud bee s ito From H. E. Hartge Fwlb ect Seaclif f IV Date March 29, 1979 1 note that conditions 3 and 7 imposed on Seacliff IV in on the Council agenda of April 2, 1979 under item L-7a. item 3 would require the Construction of 38th Street as a public street from the north tract boundary to Garfield Ave./Edwards Street. I wish to point out several things concerning this requirement. 1. The traffic section of the EIR pointed out that Palm Avenue widened to its ultimate width will have adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic developed from Phase Iv. 2. Even if 38th Street were constructed at no cost to the City , the cost of maintaining it as a public street must be borne by the City. 3 . Additional traffic moving to and from Phase IV via 38th Street will necessitate an expenditure of money to reconstruct those two streets soon after 38th Street is completed . To patch and cap Edwards Street from Garfield to Talbert and Garfield from Edwards to Goldenwest could cost as much as $100, 000. 00 . 1 . artge Director of Public Works H$H: jy fAo i 067 , 10068 , 1006,4 ary 16, 1979 ` e 2 to t:h':' I*Peorclrltion cif any fi.rl;11 111-11) . Saicl t'eviSOd c0171I 'sit0 si to plan sh,111 then heconio the approvrcl Myotlt for clevc► lop:nent of Ten- t.•ltivc 'I'1•rlcts .10067 , i 00G8 , and 10000 . 1 . Prior to consl. ruct:ion of the Svacliff Phiisv 1V project , a t:rs-Affic Si(IM11 Sh.111. 130 insl.I11ed rit the int.ol•so t• ion of Palm avenue and Goldenwrst Str. rr. t-. The costs of such installation s1will be borne on in 50/5G ratio between the developer and the City of Huntington Deach. 3 . if the City precise plans 3f;th Street tic-tween Pacific Coast Iligll ay on the south and Garf ir.ld 1lvenuo/Pdwards Street on the north w,:a thin , a perind of one year alter recordation of the first final Map- of this project, the developer shell dedicato 38t.h Street to its full. precise-planned width from Pacific coast tlighwt-av to Garfield Avenue. Full street improvements shf-1 l l be installed wi t.h i n the b l-ae Forder of the subject maps and , in the event thrlt 38th Street is !3o pre- cise planned , the developer shall. provide in-Vrovo.ment of one ( 1 ) 12• (oot travel lane in each direction on 38th Street from the north- erly boundary of the map to Garfield 1lventac and from the sol) therl:' houndar.y of the map to Pacific Coast Hiclhway . S:iid dedication and improvements shall he comlaloted prior to issuance, of .n Cert i f irtIte of Occupancy for any phase of the projects to I)e constructed upon the subject site . 4 . Palm 1lvcnur- shall be &,dicatecl clod fully itzlproved to its ul . jr,lato right-of: -way width from its intorser• tion with A within Tentative Tract 10069 southeasterly to its intersect- ion with Goldor)•- west. Street . 5 . Revised tentt'ative tract m.lp(s shill I p)(? subinittod 1:0 reflrc't: 1.11e r.hnncpo it; the boundary of ttt.' total pro, or•t :is c.nllilitiorlorl by the r1annin() Commissic)n . Said revised inap)s shrill he submitted, prior to the rorordat. ion ref any final map. li . Pa Ira A,.,onuf, , is Owl it Strt�ef !; , t,lt(1 34t h !4tr•r(' ' ': 1.1 11 bo do,i ic',1'. t•d .111d ful I .), to u It. i ;-I,it a r i (flit -•c):'-:.•n}• w i thifl the blue border of Tract-s 10067 , 10009 , :111(1 10069 . 7 . The hni-dor , ttf Tr,a(• t s 1 0061) on!! 100t► ,ct !',' c':;pt.atl lyd . ,) Owiu•Ir th" full 1 1" i -111t!:-W -lt; ►y O'' 11.tlt1 AN,, ,r111• • lilt! 18th Strort . Th,• ( of '�','r1t ,It. it�t ' Tr ilct 10067 s11,11 1 ht' ONIJ.111LIOd to if2CIM11' t ht' t tt l l r tc)tit •-Ot -t�•,1y• c)f }'.1 I m p\ti'��11f)+:'. !1 . : : '1.1 � :! ' '• 1 .i:1 ,�r � 11,• !�! ,l ln.t,,,. .,�• ; � t.r.l � ( 11, 1•�, '. t"!'. . ' . :•,i . : fifi , ,�1;1 1 ' h,• !"! ! tl! t' } l 'p`! ,�\'!':"t`11 'i !1 11 1 i l` `:Ilk' ! i`.• ' :i );'; '! t ;1' ' :Ii` D : I C. r ht- I i ! !�1 11 i .l f`i 1l" t 'tt"1 , •71,C1 !it• }il''1 1 !'11.11 1�,'1 t ! .il 1 t ,•(1:1�. 1 �.1 1�O,'lr' 1 :)1' 1�,1 t".(` '' �cr)ri, 1', ) (;': ril Ina 1",1 T.,I,'Nt' :% ti`;I, ;l111 t�(•l: : de fc)r si Itot' l(�rl ,1111I ot-w: lttfl c(Itit t'C11 1)t11 h (1!tr ltt't .111d ,11 t,, 1 von::tt'llotion 06 the = roliect. . i r t !•! !' 1 !:. .!! 1 !,, ,! •\•t' } tt1t, �1 i tlrl.l}) 1•_' f (• ,•t,t! •: t ru-.•t t ht• ,h.-a inane �'.►� : .11' 1 1 1 t. It':: .t': p'I't)lut�:t'!} l I1 111t'• ) fit rtl'I!1;1f 1 t'fl 11, ' !1,1!; ::ttt);�11 1 1 t`tl ( ,t t llc` JA, switington act) comp^. '1110 MAiN STREET,HUNTiNC,r0N BEACH.CALIFORNIA 91"4A 1714) DIJW 351 �/ICEPgESIpE ST•YOUNG GENERAL MANAGCii March 2, 1979 CA City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648 Dear Council Persons; As a result of your action taken on February Sear_ ilff Phase iV, we have been investigatin 2t lt regarding alalternatives to Condition No. 9 With city staff and 1069 and Conditfon No. � °f Tentative Tracts No. 1067, 106$ 7 IMF Tentative Parcel No. 7$-37, We initiated this action as a result of our discovery or several problems which may result from the proposed condition reiatingt the alignment of 38th Street . Specifically, b ttng to access through the oil y allowing public substantial security, access and safetyor�ob;f the Protect presents problems associated with underground oil pfacilities .ems as weglso, Physical eventual precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street mayhn correspond to the emergency c1ccess route; therefore, Providing of Improvements along this route., for every day public use is Ing street or reasonable. not timely Our conversation wlth staff i,as indicated that a suitable alternative can be worked out. We would , therefore, request that the City i take action at the parch 5 im!eting to reconsider the matter on arch i 19. This should allow time for you to analyze our n March proposal . ai , Very truly y urs , SAY/h 0 40 Page 02 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 MINUTES - Approved and adopted minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of January 29, TM aswritten and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. r PARCEL MAP 78-17 - FRANK CRACCHIOLO - Approved Fi/dJ cel 14ap No. 78-1 and accepted offer o ca on pursuantto mandatory finet forth by Board of Zoning Adjustments on property lracated on the souof Main St t east of Florida Street and instructed the City Clerk to esame and release for pro- cessing by the County. PARCEL MAP 78-27 - W JACKSON BRANSFORD - Approvedar Map No. 78-27 pursuant o t man a ary findings set or y the Board d,�ustments on property located south of Ellis Avenue and east of the Southernci fi c Rai 1 raad and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release forsing by the County.SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - TRACT 10172 - GRAGE WILI.S - Accepted Letter of Credit o. - - (Bank 6TWHEal—and approve au orized execution of the Sub- division Agreement on property located northeI of Alabama Street and Portland Avenue. LIFEGUARD ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT - Approved authorized execution of an agreement weep the City and Bin y BY Orange pro ding for the County to pay the City S54y,120 to provide lifeguard service to the uni or area of Sunset Beach. TRACT 9286 - NOTICE Of COMPLETION - D DOLLAR - Accepted improvements dedicated for FuSl ic use in Tiract Tro. /,0, nor west of Yorktown Avenue and Florida Street and authorized the release ithful Performance Bond, Monument Bond and termina- tion of the Subdivision Agr TRACT 9404 - NOTICE OF COMPTHE JANES CO - Accepted improvements dedicated for public use in Tract No. locatedt on e west side of Bolsa Chica , south of Heil Avenue and authorized th release of the Faithful Performance Bond, Monument Bond and termination of the Su vision Agreement. FINAL TRACT 10485 - L OF TT 10485 - MAHMOUD KAAVIANI - Adopted Negative Declaration No. • , approv map pursuant tote man atory'T`Tndings set forth in Section:: r►b464 of the governmen Code and accepted offer of dedication and improvement as shown on Final Tract No 9689, tieing all of Tentative Tract No. 10485, located on the south side of Cypr Avenue west of Ash Street, examined and certified by the Director of Public !Mork and the Secretary to the Planning Commission as being substantially in accordanc ith the tentative map as filed with, amended and approved !jy the planning Commissi Acreage: 1 .64 ; Lots : 6; Developer: Mahmoud Kaviani , Fountain Halley; adopt map subject to stipulations as follows : Deposit of fees for water, sewer, drain P, engineering , and inspections , certificate of insurance, suW vision agree- ment, Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map, the' final map shall be recorded prior to the ey.piration of Tentative Tract No. 10485 on April 17, 1980, and further instructed the City Clerk that she shall not affix her signature to the ma nor release such map for preliminary processing by the County or for recordation until the aforemention conditions have been net. SEACLIFF PHASE IV WEALS - PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Pattinson announced that this was the day and hour set for the continuance from January 15, 1979 of an appeal filed by the Huntington Beach Company on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporation to the Planning Camission' s approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 to permit the division of approximately 300 acres of land located west of Golden- west Street and north of Palm Avenue into four separate parcels. 0 0 Page 13 - Council Miiwtes - 2/20/79 He also stated that this was the day and hour set to consider appeals to the Planning Coaenission's approval on January 16, 1979 of Tentative Tracts No. 10067, 10068 and 10069 and (:nnditional Use Permit No. 77-23. These three tracts and the conditional use permit are for the development of a 531 unit planned residential development on a 114 acre site located west of Goldenwest Street, north of Palm Avenue and southwest of the Seacliff Golf Course. The applicant's appeal to the three tracts is based on special conditions of approval pertaining to the required dedication and improvement of 38th Street, drainage de- sign, required sewering system, and the requirement for the dedication of a park site on the North side of Palm Avenue. The specific conditions of approval that were appealed are Number 3,6,8,11 ,18 and 19. The Amigos de Solsa Chica appeal of Tentative Tracts No. IW68 and 10069 and con- ditional Use Permit No. 77-23 is based on urban runoff into the Bolsa Chica, the approved alignment of 38th Street being too close to the edge of the bluff, Product Area "C" being too close to the Bolsa Chica lowlands, and the approval of this over- all project should be delayed until after the completion of the Local Coastal Program. The Mayor announced that the appeals would be heard in conjunction with an appeal of Tentative parcel Map No. 78-38. This tentative parcel map is in conjunction with the above mentioned tracts and was appealed by the applicant because of the conditions of approval that requ i red the dedication and improvement of 38th Street. Mayor Pattinson declared the concurrent hearings opened. The City Clerk infonted Council that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and other than the letters of appeal , she hPJ received no communication or written protests to the matter. The Acting Planning Director presented a review of the appeals filed on Seacliff Phase IV. Mr. Herb Chatterton Co-President of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed Council And state at Bey prepared a written summary of the reasons for their appeal . He stated that he believed Product Area "C" - Condominums was of too high a density. He stated that their group agreed with staff relative to the 38th Street aligrvient. He spoke regarding Wilding in the fill area and the drainage runoff with pollutants to the Salsa Chica. Mr. A. J. Hall representing A. J. Hall Cor oration, addressed Council and stated TF ,� t e drainage been planned o nree a approval or various agencies such as the City, State Department of Fish and Game, etc. He gave reasons why he believed the conditions of approval relative to 38th Street were unwarranted. Mr. Dave 'Malden Engineer for A. J. Hall Cor ration, dddressied Council and neroonded to C57unc woman Bailey's questions relative to storm drainage capacity and the 38th Street 0 ignment. Mrs. Pbyllis Sa__r__i__e__go representina the League of Women Voters;, addressed Council regar rig the Final nv r-amwnta impact Report as t 'ems Wed tos d f1�a��#city. She stated the importance of ensuring that the tax monies are not e these services. She urged that 38th Street be aligned as recowwnded by the Planning Connission. Page 04 - CtwK i l Minutes - 200179 Mr. Mirk Porter addressed Council and stated that he believed the developer should e ay eve opment until the future steer reach is built. Mr. Herb Chatterton, again addressed Cousrcil and stated that the precise planning of 38thStreet had not yet been through the public process. Mr. Dave Hall addressed Council and stated that he believed a cost-benefit study as suMsted by the League of Women Voters was a good idea and that an environmental cost-benefit study should be grade. He stated that he belived the project shoulci be delayed until the Local Coastal Program is cmpieted. Mr. Ed Zschoche addnessed Council and stated that he believed the project would limit thoe a ttrnat vrs for the coastal zone. Mrs. Susie Newman addressed Council and stated that he believed the project would 'fat t t e alternatives for the coastal zone and spoke in favor of the project. Staff Comments Fire Chief Picard spoke regarding the need for dual access. Mr. Moorhouse, Director of Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks stated the reasons for his reluctance to recorratend a 1 .5 acre parks citing wintenance factors . Discussion was held by Council and staff. Mr. Walden again addressed Council and responded to questions regarding sewer capacity st it oast g that they were willing to cox"te with other developers who may be coaxing in with plans during the tires: period of their development. There being no one further present to speak on the matter, and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. TPM 78-37 - APPEAL SUSTAINED - CONDITIONS MODIFIED - APPROVED On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas, Cot 7 overruled the Planning Commission and sustained the appeal of A. J. hall Cot- ion to conditions 7 and 8 of Tentative Parcel Mal) 78-37, with modified conditions AYES: Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: P'andic, Yoder ABSENT: None TPM CONDITION UO. 7 • 38TH 'STREET - MODIFIED On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas= Council directed the Clerk to strike out "and from the southerly boundar of the wap to Pacific Coast Hi h " and add "and maintained in qood condition with aftr2l"Sy ava ab ', to parparagraph k off' to—Of on"moo t on -Sea-Cliffppea s , page .; 2/�119. " RECESS___RE'CONNVENEDD The Mayor called a recess of the Council . Following a ten minute recess the motion fa__ilod by the following vote: AYES: Thomas, MacAllister, Pattinson NOES: Yoder, Bailey, McWic, Siebert ABSENT. Hone Peg! 15 - Council Nirwtes - 2120/79 A motion was made by Msndic, seconded by Bailey, to delete reference to the southerly boundary to Pacific Coast Highway and adding reference to Interim eeergency access being available and maintained until the northerly portion of 38th Street is developed. On motion by Siebert, second Bailey, Council amended the motion to add to the wain notion "and to be unproved upon cMIstion of 50% of the how& in the development". The nation to amend the original motion. carried by thtr following vote: AYES: Yoder, MacAllister Bailey, Mandic, Siebert NOES: Thomas, Pattinson ABSENT: None The note taken on the amended original motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Yoder, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert NOES: Thomas, MacAllister, Pattinson ABSENT: None CONDITION 7 - AS MODIFIED The City will precise plan 38th Street within a period of one year. Said precise plan shall terminate at Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the north. fr'.dication of 38th Street to its full utlimate precise-planned width shall be nade by the developer from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. Full street improve- ments shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, and improvements of at least two (2) 12-foot travel lanes shall be provided in 38th Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue. Improvements of the two (2) 12-foot travel lanes from the project north to Garfield Avenue shall be made upon the comple- tion of 60% of the units within the project. Interim emergency access shall be available and maintained northerly on 38th Street during the construction of the first 50% of the units within the project. TPM CONDITION 8 - APPEAL UPHELD - SIGNALS A motion was made by Bailey, second Mandic, to overrule the appeal and allow Condition 8 to stand as recownended by the Planning Commission, regarding traffic signal AYES: Yoder , Bailey, Mandi NOES: Thomas,, MacAllister, Siebert, Pattinson ABSENT: None TPM ALTERNATE CONDITION 9 ADDED - BEIMS - LANDSCAPING - HALLS On motion by MacAllister, second Mandic, Council added Alternative Condition 9 to the conditions of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, to read as follows: The land owner or his designee shall be responsible for the installation and main- tenance of the berming, landscaping, and wail for noise attenuation treatment along the southwesterly side of Palm Avenue between the existing tennis court facility and the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. 1 0 Page 06 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 The notion carried by the following rail call vote: AYES: Yoder, Thus, MacAllister, Bailey,, Mandicr Siebert, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. IW67r 10068 10069 - APPEAL SUSTAINED - APPROVED WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS On motion by MacAllister, second Thous, Council overruled the Planning Commission and sustained the appeal of A. J. Hall Corporation to conditions imposed oo Tenta- tiave Tracts No. 100671 10068 and 100690 with modified conditions. The motion carri&J by the following vote: AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: Mandic ABSENT: None CONDITION 3 - 38TH STREET IMPROVEMENT On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas, Council modified Condition 3 to read as follows: The City will precise plan 38th Street within a period of one year. Said precise plan shall terminate at Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the north. Dedication of 38th Street to its full ultimate precise-planned width shall be made by the developer from Pacific: Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. Full street improve- ments shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, and improvements of at least two (2) 12-foot travel lanes shall be proveded in 38th Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue. Improvements of the two (2) 12-foot travel lanes form the project north to Garfield Avenue shall be made upon the comple- tion of 50% of the units within the project. Interim emergency access shall be available and maintained northerly on 38th Street during the copstructi o; of the first 50% of the units within the project. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Stabert NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Pattinson CONDITION 6 - PALM Us A 8 B ST, 38TH ST DEDICATION NO MODIFICATION On nation by Bailey, second Mandic, Council opted to allow Condition 6 to remain as submitted by the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously. CONDITION 8 - DRAINAGE SYSTEM - APPROVED AS MODIFIED A motion made by Councilwoman Bailey to alloy,, Condition 8 to stand as submitted by the Planning Commission, died for lack of a second. a►Pe 7 - C+oMi l Mi motes - 2/20/7g On Motion by llrcAl l i stem, second Thomas, COUnc i l approved Condition 8 to as follows: read "Final design of the drainage systea, the retention basins, and the channel improve_ meets sha11 be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, the Cali- forni a Departant of Fish and Game, and the prior to recordation of any final wr Regional Water Quality Control Board vide for siltation and erosion control bothsduringt� Shall b*designed to pro pro f eet, construction of the If for same reason the developer is unable to construct the drainage facilities proposed in the information he has submitted to the Planning Comission for drain age into the Bois& Chica, the drainage system shall be redesigned and remain flexible to a110w for alternative solutions . The motion carried unanimously. CONDITION 7T - REACH 3 - SEWER TRUNK LINE - FAILED A motion made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, t4 allow Condition 3 to stand as submitted by the Planning Cowanission, failed by the followed vote: AYES: Bailey, Mandic NUES: 'coder, Themes, MacAllister, Siebert, Pattinson ASSENT: Hone CONDITION 18 - PARK DEDICATION OFFER ACCEPTED On 'Mtfon by MacAl l is ter, second Yoder, Council accepted the offer of dedication of 7.8 acres from A. J. Hall Corp. for parksite purposes, said property located in the linear park concept area. Notion carried unanimously. Mayor Pattinson stated that the Condition 19 appeal was sustained by original Mots on. APPEAL - CUP 77-23 - TT 10068 b TT 10069 - DENIED On motion by MacAllister, second Yoder, Council denied the appeal Cam+is s 1on approval Of CUP 77-23 and Tentative Tract Mos. 10068ndo1 the 00669,Planning by Arni9as de BOW Chica. Notion carried unanimously. CUP 77-23 TT 100b8 AND TT 10069 - APPROVAL SUSTAINED Dn motion by MacAllister, seCond Yoder, Council sustained the Planning Commission and approved CUP 77-23 and Tentative Tract Nos. 10068 and 10069, with tions do Tentative Tract 10068 and 10069 as previously stated in its a Modified COW- maps. on Such +naps. The notion carried unanimously. PWC NEARING - ZONE CASE 78 19 —DENIED Mayor tinsan announced that this was day and hour set a on a peti n filed by CIr. Joseph Noble for hangs of zor�t from public 'Oaring Comercial G rictj to R2-Q (Nedium Density Re tiallQualified C g Lion District) on pro ty generally located on the Hart a of Pacific Coo ighwa�y approxfn�ate7y 200 f west of Anderson Street. The Cit until also cons tiegativ,e Declaration No. 18-i09 In con,�unction with said zone ase. �QTR IN THE Superior Court �' r or THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAM CITY CLERK ................ ................. ...................................... .......................... PROOF OF PUBLICATION ..................................,......................................... .... ... . ... . ...... P.ua.tic..HearirK�App�Bl.s. .Qn..S.eaiwl�ff .......... ...... .. . ,re a c�uro�nt, Its. y d or,nge RitaJ.._Richter............. ....................... .... ................... nNt I am and at 811 tlm"herein nmiloned was a cltlran of the United Satee,over the she of twenty-one years.and that I am not a PAM to,nor interested In the above entitled matter;that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Hy.n in�tan,Heach Ind<Zatndtnt Review........ ....... a newspaper of general circulatWo. pubildied in the City of Hunt i ton.SeaCh............................. COWIY of Or�a.�tgs and which newspaper Is published for the dis- swsolaatton of local newt and Inkatlgence of a pneral character, and wbieh newspaper at all times heroin n1entloned had and still has a ban[be subscription fiat of Paying subscribers.and which newspaper had been ataWMW,printed and publlahed at regular tntervak In the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one ►ear; Wee the wk,*.of which the anive:ed is a printed copy, has been pu Udod In the regular and entire I:due of Said newspaper, and not 10 any wpplenftt thereof,on the following dates.to wit v F.a hrluarr..8s..19.7. ............. I certify(or declare)under penalty of perhrry that the forepitV is uwe and COMM. Doted at ..................Garden„6t-ore .. Cali a, .... 8th�yot..Ff r... y ..:T9..` .. ..:. .. . .. . .... cu,:...... Signature r«� cAli�ar� e AMALS ON SEACL I FF M"E TV y r, rIf37YCt >j$ MivMM t"t a pA11c !► MINS will be bell by the City Camcil of tlwr City of Wmtifttdn 1W"11, in the Ccuroeil ChooMr of the Civic emtor, Mirre1att0d Meech, aft tb& hour of 7130 1 !,M, . or r eaan themetter so prtIble, an d"I - --Mae 20_ t,�h day of February r 19 79, for the pAr"Me or caflaidetrLM appeals of the Planning Co mission's approval -m January 16, 1979 of Tentative Tracts No. 10067, 10068, IM69 and Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23. These three (3) tracts and the conditional use permit are for the developmont of a 531 unit planned residential development on a 114 acre site located west of Goldenwest Street, north of Palm Avenue and southwest Of the SeaclIff Golf Course. The applicantk appeal of the three (3) tracts is based on specific conditions of approval pertaining to the required dedication and improvement of 38th Street, drainage sign, required severing system, and the requirweent for the dedication of a park site on the north side of Palm Avenue. The specific conditions of approval that were appealed Ere Numbers 3, 60 8, 11, 18 and 19. The Amigos de Bolsa Chica appeal of Tentative Tracts No. 10068 and l(W9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 17-23 is based on urban runoff Into the BOW Chita, the approved ' alignment of 38th Street is too close to edge of the bluff, product area "C" is too close to the Bolsa Chica lowlands, and the approval of this overall project should be delayed until after the completion of the Local Coastal Program. These appeals will he heard in conjunction with an appeal of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-38. This tentative parcel reap is in conjunction with the abova mentioned tracts and was appealed by the applicant because of the conditions of approval that required the � dedication and irpmvement of 38th Street. A legal description is on file in the Planning Departmen! Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their Opinions for or against srid Appeal=, Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, M Main Street, Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648. - (714) 536-5226 Dated: February S. 1979 CITY OF W(T IN6iTON OE.1CN By: Alicia M. Mentworth ri w rlark