Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone case 78-4 - A.J. Hall Corporation - West of Goldenwest i 121 Zone Changes Seacliff Phas IV — Appeals -- w/o Goldenwest, n/o Palm -- includes ZC 78--4 & CUP 77-23 — 1979 i i 1ti THE q - 5u P onor Court ^ } 1 OF 111E STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange QQ t CITY OF HUNTINGTO.N BEACNt CITY CLERK Y 4 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ....................... ........................... ...... . ._................ . . .............. .�r.�. ..Pub I.ic..Hea.r.im%..7sr4............. ........... .. . State of California County of Orange ss �by Rita J. Richter ,cam "MY'�ofU* ............................................ .................. ....... ... .... Ie w GY.rdl Ct�eber d w A►�k t�t��{• 1swe�'-1R-.tao,t�Hf:eN is That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the 11211 -ara�paw is w'w iWf United States,over the age of t-enty-one years,and that I am not a ty party to,nor Interested In the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the +{ a e'.r.t,tlr..Ay:., ,:. Huntington Beach Independent Review •rt~.' +.gat, .. .......... ..... . �.dla. r:► tt -}. a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Cs.e N& 1.A caw;,,•d ....Hunt,irg.tan..Beach................................. o Count of Orange and which newspaper is published thor,e " ?y g pape pu sh for a dls• gemination of local news and Intelligence of a general character, �amlt s and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers,and which newspaper has been established,printed and published at regular Ao.la � � Intervals In the stJd County of Orange for a period eaceeding one V"�� year;that the notice,of which Q.-annexed is r printed copy,has *CM,d.�a been published In the regular and entire Issue of said newspaper, P and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: *Wce•�'. Wul d u d ii hevat Mdd IA 1 ...Aecemder,..21c..197.8................................ �or oR r6_ Y � ti., +�•]� !o ROBS ar 1a" ....................................................... ..... dM`oy 11,eNArii1wp1i1 ficMro ar eMWi�ira6�i'id t 11�t1.0d•twoi coa- 1 w" a`clke WlW et Di•; ................................I............................. "won'ire tiN4ii11%,'I I certify(or declare 1 under penally of perjury that the toregoing is V. true and correct. d ' Dated at err Garden" Grove. C form his..2lSt -day /� �s�..7$.... 1 .� .... . .... *'? 2.... Signature �. 7W;��p Cff, j� #f•a1�t'7 ( � I I RIEQUE T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by James W. Palin Department planning b Env. Resources Date Prepared December 22 , , �97s Backup Material Attached !J Yes ❑ No Subject ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 ALOUG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF EFEACLIFF GOLF COURSE City Administrator's Comments The Planning Comnission's action on Zone Change Number 78-4 has been appealed by the applicant; therefore, I am recornending that this item 't)--- continued until the Council can hear bath the Zone Cliange and Appeal concurrently. i 'f Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: O� U STATEMENT OF ISSUE: j Transmitted for consideration is Zone Change No. 78-4 , a request by the applicant to change fine zoning on 1 . 48 acres of property presently toned ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 and to change 1 . 669 acres of land presentiy zoned R2-PD-0 and 113-0 to ROS-0. Subject property is located along the westerly leq of Seacliff Golf Course. R:'•COMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is offering the following alternative for the City Council ' s consideration and recommends the adoption of one of the attached ordinances : I . Approve Zond Change No. 78-4 insofar as it requests boundary changes of 1 . 488 acres of ROS-0 xoni.ng to R2-PD-0 zoning and in no other respect, with the condition that a corresponding 1. 488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allc•cated to park acreage in an area to be later determined. Approve Zone Change No . 78-4 as requested, with the condition that Parcel 4 (a change of zone from ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 on 0 . 362 acres of land) be deleted from the request. ANALYSIS: Applicant: A. -T. Hall Corp. 8305 Vickers, Suite R San Diego, California 92111 Location: Abutting the westerly edge of the Seacliff Golf Course, north of Palm Avenue, approximately 3.000 feet crest of Guldenwest Street. POO MM �, 1 '.1 wi .1 y�ry i r Page Two Request: A change of zoning from R2-PD-0, Medium Density Planned Residential Development combined with oil production and R3-0, Medium High Density Residential, combined with oil production to ROS-0, Recreational Open Space combined with oil production, and RO.S-0, Racrea-cional Open Space, combined with oil production to R2-PD-0 , Medium Density Planned Residential Development combined with oil production. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECEMBER 12, 1978 : ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL, ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO ONE OF THE TWO FOLLOWING COURSES OF ACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1 . Approve Zone Change No. 78-4 insofar as it requests boundary changes of 1 . 488 acres of ROS-0 zoning to R2-PD-0 zoning and in no other respects, with the findings that a corresponding 1 . 488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined; or 2. Approve Zone Chance No. 73-4 as requested, with the consideration that Parcel 4 (a change o : zone from ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 an 0 . 362 acres of land) be deleted from the request . j FINDINGS: 1 . The Planned Residential Development zoning exchange for the ROS--0 zoning in some areas and ':he corresponding exchange of ROS-0 to R2PD-0 in other areas is consistent with the City' s General Plan.. I'I 2 . The proposed uses permitted by she R2-PD-0 zoning will be com- patible with surrounding land uses . AYES: Russell Cohen Bazil Paone NOES: Stern ABSENT: Finely ABSTAIN: Higgins DISCUSSION: Zone Change No. 78-4 is a request to alter the existing westerly boundary of the Seacliff Golf Course in order to accommodate a portion of a 533 unit planned residential development. This proposed boundary change of the Seacliff Golf Course consists of approximately 3 .55 acres- of land which includes approximately 1. 5 acres of property presently zoned ROS-0 to be rezoned to R2-PD-0 in order to accommodate a portion of the proposed Seacliff Prase IV and in turn approximately1 . 7 acres I of property presently zoned R2-PD-0 and R3-0 to be rezoned to ROS-0. After lengthy discussion by the Planning Commission and several motions that failed because of lack of affirmative votes, the Planning Commission agreed on recommending to .. the Council that one of the above mentioned alternatives be considered in order to approve Zone Change No. 78-4 . The Planning Commission ' s fi-st alternative would be to have the Council approve only the property , `Y Page Thj•ee that is presently zoned ROS to R2-PD-0 which will accommodate those portions of the Seac-liff Phase TV project that encroaches into the westerly boundary of the Seacliff Golf Course and requira of the developer that an equal amount of land, 1 . 488 acres , be dedicated to the City for park developme:-.t . This additional 1 . 488 acres of land would be in addition to the park requirements required by ordinance for this project . A.1ternative two would be to approve Zone Change 78-4 as requested with the deletion of parcel 4 as depicted on the attached plat map. This would allow for and accom- modate of the proposed project tF) en#.,roach into the existing golf course except for one area consisting of 0. 362 acres that falls within one of the existing fairways. The Council ' s third alternative would be to approve Zone Change No. 78-4 in total as requested by the appli- cant. The Planning Commissi:ai feels that this alternative is the least desirable insofar as the property that is changing from R2-PD-0 and R3-0 to ROS-0 is not the most desirable for open space uses. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Seacliff Phase IV project has been reviewed for environmental iopacts by Environmental Impact Report No. 77-6 . This EIR has been posted for the prescribed amount of time and pursuant to all prc-,risions of the California Environmental Quality Act all comments , either in writing or oral have been incorporated into the final draft EIR . This final draft EIR was approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1978. Zone Change No. 78-4 has been assessed for environmental effects b• Negative Declaration No. 78-129. This � 5 i negative declaration has been posted for the prescribed length of time and no comments either oral or in writing, have been received by the Planning Department as of this date . The City Council is required to adopt Negative Declaration No. 78-119 prior to a final decision for Zone Change No. 78-4 . Attached is a copy of the initial study prepared for Negative Declaration No. 78-119 . This initial study form has; been included for. the Council ' s review and consideration . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: In addition to the previously mentioned alternatives, the City Council may deny Zone Change No. 78-.4. which would require the applicant of Seacliff, Phase IV to redesign the boundp ries of the proposed subdivision in order to develop only those areas that are presently zoned for development . SUPPORTING INFORMATION: I . Area Map for Seacliff Phase IV 2 . Plat to accommodate legal description for Zone Change dated November, 1978 3. Staff Report for .Seacliff Prase IV dated November 7, 1978 4 . Alternative Ordinances espectfu�. „�ua,nitted, 0. ames . Pa .in Acting Planning Director R3-0 r 4-018 R3-0 - -_ - �R4-0111 = ! R4-0 i R05-0 R4-01. V ROS Pla}tZisng Area A - ;R4-01 = -- 1Q059 ` r f C1-0 139 I Am 16068 R3-0 i , Planning Area trB.r ',\ `z__...---=-= ��/ - t TT 10067 RZ~-.Pb-01 C t 1 Q 1- j N - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- _ __ - - - lj Z _FrA M2-02 M2-02 b — rA c,r,c TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 � TENTATIVE TRACT IG068 TENTATIVE TRACT 10069 CONOTITIONAL USE PERMIT 77-23 zone R2-PU-0 mp 1110.10%1114CN HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING UPT. . Planning Commission James E. Gerspac •. ,.c/o, Janes Pal in, Director. Division Chief SEACLIFF PHASE 4 September 11, 1978 a "•'`'' Due to 'the'conf iguration of the proposed project, I suggest that the ' tt� �;-`,, • following information be submitted and made, a part of S:he "Final Public ;',Reportl on, this project. >R ► : , �2k� Jhe proje ft has beer, designed to the minimum acceptable street width and ' � { turning 'radius'standards. Throughout the project, there are pl aces'.where, if people park automobiles' in other than designated parking spaces, emergency .vehicular- access will be inhibited and in scene instances precluded. ' There t �r are numerous places throughout the project where, if landscaping projects r .., beyond the curb line into the street below a minimum height of 13160, emergency- vehicular access, will be inhibited. Product C has large buildings y zwhtch .require ,a. large fire flow. This means longer hose lays•, than typical •4 .. +kin residential ,areas ,because of•, travel dist;,nces to enough hydrants to providethe required fire flow. The result wili' he a longer time necessary . •�^ 1�7r• jto 'set' up''ftrefighting operations than one •rtould find in most typical s 't. ,•; � '4xrasi dential occupancies. �•r,e-k -*The result of 'the foregoing will be, that'the Fire Department- may not be able to provide the some level of service that it currently provides the { ma'ority of the remainder of the City. The level of service will be less in that response times will be langer to both. fires and medical emer encies. =JEG:cw . - ,4,1lf2 i i • , � A�. ;'+ j. / t.F . Fj�..1,,, ,,.. � r.{. ,..2J (R•' 1 .y�r,ter: ' , ,yalh+.,. '+.t.. t i'r' J" fit �;�(a-' ,, -, .+ •1 \ ,{t. \ (. L• ` 2 ,! 1 �y l 1., � ,2, .. ,. , ' gyp• + ••Slll...; q I.1 Y �'!t•�►d'�,� /'Star•� ,� �,. � 0.0 #rPro B fit?r 1V/7•IT •w �iYf'�'3V"N� 7p?./' ��"•l., t•w �, 1r tsar'--- - �re�r'�'�e•w �s P,�ti'tl s- ,aim l0ON-10d larva' FLAG 9y�f• ~- ��'A/'7!'Qb'E d�ys' �. 9bt.00 N/.t•�•oa•�rr exff'... -•fit'J* A/+,r' MT A'6'X�lV•'X dl.tf'.•; .A",r!i'!tf"X'AM.IV' l�'33411t r W NAP07'Mor MAP P•0E'�'�17• ,P?-PGtDJO,�p�'•d Nk•�'''�s'w• �orac� P,G.�I`�L �•.SDP-0TD�Pt>��. -A A9*404 '••NrG �/Jh'E frA7/' � ,V?lO3YT li' l.KQ?�: N/tYP•t IN A/-Cl/' ki•����r tj.�•.• D 55P �Ot� P.?? & G" ACY-1 dl9).P'D?,0 Nw•t/';s'd >l.Gt• \ . .,rrj�'�r�' rtJv�. n.pis w� ;�r•�e•��' r<.�'�• �., I �,.-,Vf?•ss'r.*�v /god' X s:'AFOPw ssrt':. HI•:Yx/•1V I�7/t'<< �'W/0-dAO,J' /1wlf' i I'.'/ w• /o t E6' � Nir'3i le W 7�ER1'.;; N�s•w-,•e-w �szar �-:. 1• yo•,�'td•'w law• S• Ir�•3�• , �.r DEC P. 0. lAwAf n . OW I -y • huntington bed,") planning J"rtrnent } t[if f --.report _...r......__..__..�... TO: Planning Commission F:ZOM: Planning Department DATE: November. 7 , 1978 S UBU'"":CT: SFACLIF>: PHASE IV ZONL•' Cli_ANGF: NO. i 8�4, COND i TIONAL U S 1E PEi?141'1' 140 . 77-2 31- 'I'Mi'ATIVE PARCEL fiAP NO. 78-37, TENTATIVE TRACT No. 10067a- TENTATIVE TR?tCT NO. 14(36___, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 , ENVIRONMENTAL iMPAL'T REPORT NO. 77 -6 PLI CANT: A . J. Hall Corp. ZONE : R' -F'D-0 , R2-I�u-01 , 8305 Vickers , Suite "R" ROS-G , R3-0 Sinn Diego, California 92111 ENGINEER : Walden and Associates, Inc . GENERAL PLAN : 125 E . Baker Street, Suit.-2 1.25 Planned Community Costa Mesa, Calif . 92626 EXTSTIPiG USE. LOCATION: West of Go.ldenwest, north of Vacant and Oil Production 1 P31m ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: Dt�:TI; i CCEPTED: Jan. 1.6, 197 Change of zone From R0S_0 r-V%IID1�TORY PROCESSING DATE: to R2-PD-0 - - Continued by Consent !; ACREAGE: 2. 8 acres i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -REQUEST: DATE ACCEPTED: Nov. 11, 197 533 single Family and MANDATORY PR0CI SSTNG DATE: !townhouse residential units Continued by Consent T j ACRF4GE: 114 acres • TENTATIVE PARCEL _?OAP r,:IUEs,r: i���7,I: 11CC�:I�'1'L'D: Oct. 5, 1978 'I MANDATIMY PROCESSING N SSING DATE : ok,cmber 24 , 1•978 ACREAGE: 300 aci �II WA 1 Page Two TENTATIVE TRACT W . 10067 DATE ACCEPTED: Nov. 11, 1977 190 lots; one lettered lot t•utNDATORY PRUCESSING D.;TE: E (Product B) Continued by Consent ACREAGE: 41 gross acres TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 DINE ACCEPTED: Nov. 11, 1977 one lot (Product C) MA[___�DATO Y PROCESSING DATE: ACREAGE: 19. 9 cross acres Continued by Consent ` TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 E - _DATE ACCEPTED : ?;Qv. 11, 1977 l I 147 lots , one lettered lot MANDATORY PRCCESSING DATE: (Product A) Continued by 'Consent ACREAGE: 53 . 6 gross acres ,t . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: If the Planning Commission finds that the project is not prejudicial to the Local Coastal Plan , staff recommends approval of the subject ap- plicationswith findings and conditions as suggested . Staff further recommends approval of Resolution of Intent No. 1231, initiating a precise plan of street: alignment for 38th Street from Pal.. to Garfield. 2 .0 GENERAL INFORMATION: The subject applications were processed in conjunction at the request ` of staff so that all issues could be discussed at one time . Specifically the proposals are as follows : 2. 1 ?.ONE CHANGE 78-4 This is a request to rezone 2.8 acres along the western edge of Seacliff Golf Course from ROS--0 to R2-.PD-0 thereby adjusting the boundary between the course and the proposed development. 2 . 2CGNDITIONAL USE PERMIT 77-.23 This is a request for a three--part planned development consisting of 533 single family and townhouse units on 114 gross acres of land at an overall density of 4 .67 units per gross acre. i i } AM Page Three 2.3 TENTLTIVC PARCEL IMP 78-37 This proposed parcel map would divide two existing 300 acre parcels into 3 parcels and a residual parcel to allow for furtlier subdivision ,Ls a planned development . 2 . 4 TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 , 10068 , 10069 These tentative tracts constitute and subdivide the three product areas of the planned development . 3 . 0 suiriM RY OF I3sUES As a result of extensive staff, Ccmmission and public review, the following significant issues have surfaced regarding this project. � 1 . impact of the proposed development on the Local Coastal Plan. P 2 . Feasibilityand acceptability of proposed drains a system. !� Y P P 5 .� 3. Availability of adequate sewerage capacity . 4 . Acceptability of proposed circulation system including 38th Street alignment, interior access, and parking . 5. Park requirement implementation . I 6 . Treatment of scenic highway and special street landscaping . 7 . Location of Product C 8 . Applicant' s request for special permit to deviate from certain code requirements . 4 .0 E,:dVIRONMENTAI, STATUS: Environmental Impact Report 771-E was prepared by the consulting firm of Ultrasystems, Inc. in co4junctiort with the Planning Department . A draft EIR was distributed to governmental agencies and interested members of the public during a 45-day review period from December 1, 1977, to January 16. 1978, to solicit comments regarding the project. The public review period was extended for an additional 137 days a;`. the request of the applicant so that discussions could be held with agencies objecting to certain aspects of the project . During the course of the review period, project design modifications were made by the applicant- to mitigate Impacts identified through the EIR. Major areas of probable impact that were identified in the EIR include consistency with the Local Coaatol Plan, project drainage and its effect on the eolsa Chica, traffic impacts from a projected 5; 130 additional vehicle trips per day, sewage system capacity, archaeological resources, and compatib'li.ty with the County linear park and the Eolsa China wildlife area . Comments were received from public agencies and private individuals on all of these areas of concern. - • Page Four , toil, The Final EIR is composed of the Draft EIR as it was circulated for review, the comments and project changes received dur.Ln l tbe review period, and the Ci ty ' s response to the comments . This document was transmitted to t)- Planning Commission on August 2.1 , 1978 . for final consideration. A supplementary Ptudy of the feasibility of the proposed drainage system wan, conducted subsequently . Than study, Geologic and Itvdrooeolonic Assegsc ment: by Geotc:chni _al Consultants is proposed as amendment to the EIR. Appropriate mi.tigat-io:i measures suggested by the EIR are incorporated as conditions of approval . i 5 . 0 PRESENT LAND USE ZQNINQz LD CLNERAL FI.A.N I7ESI TO : The :14 acre project area is currently t,acant: or in oil. production. It is :zoned R2--PP-0 , R2-PD-01 , R3- 0, and 110S-0 and General. Planned as Planned Community . To the nortb and northwest, the area is General Planned as Planned Community and Planning Reserve in un-- incorporates territory. The zoning of this inixed vacant and oil production area is R3-0. To the: west and south, the area is General Planned Planned Community and Resource Production. Existing zoning is R2-PD-0 , R4-0, R4- 01, M2-02, F3--t , R3-01, and C1-0 ; an3 existing use is vacant and oil production. To the east, the area is General Planned Open Space, ''Manned Community, and Low Density Residential . It is zoned ROS-0, R4-01 , R4-0, R1, and R1-0; 'i and it is utilized for a golf course, oil production, and single family development . A portion of the area is also vacant. 6. 0 STATISTICAL INFORMATION: 6 . 1 Number. of Units 533 6. 2 Area of Project 114 gr. ac. ; 99 . 8 net ac . 6 . 3 Density 4 . 67 du/gac; 5 . 3 du/nac 6 . 4 Unit Type 2 Bedrooms 145 un. 1 3 Bedrocros 224 un. 4 Bedrooms 138 un. 5 Bedrooms 26 un. Bedrooms per gross acre 14 . 42 uedroosro 6. 5 Site Coverage (allowable 45%) 2G% 6. 6 Cow-mon Open Space Provided 1, 050 , 474 square feet r: Required 561, 200 square feet 6 . Private (.)Pen Space Provided 1 , 062, 864 square feet Required 170, 050 square feet maximum r 1 a I Page Five 5 . 8 Par. kincT: F�rnduc:t i, ''rod_uct: t3 Product C_ Provided . 825 5� 57 .� q37 Required : -1 ;8 61B 490 ` An individual sLatisLical scr►nm«ry for each Product Area is incl-rded with project plans sub;ritted to the Planning Commission . 7 . 0 �SUBUIVTSTON CQPNITTEE : The Subdivision Coj,imittee riot three times the project . At the first session on December 9 , 3 917 , C'orrdnissioners r'i.nley, Newman, and Slates I listened as staff representatives reviewed street layouts, sewer capacity , and special landscape, treatment . Generall , tha- Committee concluded more information was necessary . On Janlla.7 f 20, 1978 , the ComrrrittOO including Commissioners Finley and Newman reviewed proposed revisions to the 3Sth Street alignment and parking previsions i i,. Product Areas A and B . The Subdivision Committee , consisting of Commissioners Finley, Bazil, and Stern, met again an AugusL 18, 1978 to consider revised plans . At that time , major issues discussed included the proposed drainage system and its .��ffect on E?olsu Chica and LxisL. .1 and proposed sewer capaciti:3s . The Committee asked that involved agencies be contacted again for updated information on these projects . The C a=ittee directed star-` to find a sui.t.ablc. way to insure that special landscape treatments and meandering sidewalks are incorporated into the proj3c. t . The Committee discussed generally the issues outlined in Section 3 . 0 and concluded that further review or the project be conducted by the Commission as a whole. A Planning Commission Study Session was scheduled to review Phase 7:V. As a result of its discussion and the presentation by the applicant, the Commission concluded that a Resolution of Intention defining a Precise Plan of Street Alicgnnient for. 38th Street be auopt:ed in conjunction with any projectapproval . The Coimnission reviewed the applicant ' s request for special permit . In general , no opposition was voiced to reduction of minimum side vards and -ali.mination o:: trash enclosures in Products A and B or reduction of building separation roquir. ement and waiver of building bulk provisions in Product C. Commissioners were concerned, however, about parking shortages in Products B and C, and elimination of recreation area requirements in Products A and D. The Planning Commission met again on September 12, 1978 , to discuss this project . In joint sesi.iart with the Recreation and Parks Commission, the: Commissioners concluded that action on Phase: IV cannot be postponed for development of a comprehensive parks plan, tha,. determination of. 38th Street alignment could be a major. City contribution to progress on %--he linear bluff parr., and that the linear park can assist in filling neighborhood park needs but not replace individual neighborhood parks. Meeting independently , t.ne- Commissioners suggested that full dedici:tion and improveTent, of 36th Street be required and voted to in- VestigLt:e means of securing additional bluff top properties to contribute to the .linear park, k0l Page Six If 8 - 0 ANALYSIS : `- _-ior to action on the various applications constituting Seacliff Phase, IV, the following areas of concern must bo thoroughly addressed: 8 . 1 -Impact on the Local Coastal. Plan The proposed development is generally compatible with the General Plan and existing zoning. However, because the nroject site lies entirely within the Coastal :done, it will be affected by the local coasl:al planning efforts underway at the direction of the Coastal Act of 1976 . Upon certification by the Coastal Coiivnission, the Local Coastal. Man will supercede all previous plans for this aL•ea . Though work on the Local Coastal Plan is underway , 3 coastal element to ! the Gcneral Plan .is not acitici.pated prior to April, 1979 . Several coastal issues are being invest .gated as part of the LCP for this area : protection of new potentials , potential for low- and moderate.-income housing, :impact on adjacent sensitive areas, potential for visitor serving facilities including parking , and potential for oil/gas facilities expansion. The: development proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. Considerable provision has been made for aesthetics , open space, bluff setback., and scenic highway treatment ; and residential use is not per se prohibited . Because the ultimate coastal Plan is not complete, however, a key .issue becomes the impact of decisionmaking now on future planning options . The commitment of 114 acres to a particular use at this time may preclude planning decisions (when the results of coastal rescaLch is known) and, therefore, prejudice the LCP . While literally any decision could be said to in some way limit future planning options , certain specific facts are important in this case: 1 . The, size of the project area . 2 . Its Location adjacent to a sensitive area whose ultimate utilization has not yet been determined , and 3 . The uncertainty of future needC for this area for natural resource production and/or processing . on the other hand, this project guarantees continued options for bluff nark planning , does not L•estri.ct public access to any waterway or public resource arras, and provides a desirable aesthetic environment in an area planned for residential use for some time . Prior to determination on the project itself, the Commission should conclude whether the project is prejudicial to the preparation of the LCP . 8 . 2 Drainace Considerable discussion has taken place regarding the feasibility and desirability of the proposed drainage system for the Project . The main issues are immediate and long-ter;rr capacity, impacts on water quality , and impacts on the Dolsa Chica . "'lie final drainage propo!ial arrived at by the applicant in conjunction wi tii the Department of Public Works, Water Quality Control District, and c'alifornia Department of Fish and Game involves utilization of the natural dr'<iinage course enhanced by threr Page Seven retention/percolation ponds , new culverts at 3801 Street, improvement of the channel from the culvert to the Bolso Cbica , creation of a drop structure to slow water velocities , and reconstruction, of the road below the bluffs. A special geologic and hydr.ogeologic assess- ment of the. proposed system was conducted by Geotechnical Consultants , Inc . This s0idy found the proposal technically feasible and the Public Works Der, zanent has concluded that it is adequate for the proposed develop:;4ent and can be expanded in the future to accommodate additional projects in the area. The Regional Water Quality Control Board twas granted clearance of the proposal , and the State Department of Fish and Game has concluded that the revised proposal adequately addresses its concerns regarding Impact on the Bol.sa Chica provided adequate maintenance of the system is insured. 8 . 3 Sewer Capacity Two alternative sewering proposals have been considered for this project: either incorporation of reaches 3 (Portion) , 4 and 5 (Eurticn) of the ` Sanitation District Master Plan urr3er reimbursement with the District or can-- �l struction of parallel lines to the existing City system. For overall I economy , the .Sanitation District recommends participation in the Master Plan facilities . In either instance, adequate seweri.ng dt:.;i4nds on approval and completion of Reaches 1 and 2 of the PCN trunk line now pending on appeal before the State Coastal Commission . Because the nature of the development and its sewerage options are consistent with the Sanitation District Master Plan, the District is not recommending any de) ay in project approval . Consistent: with previous Planning Commission actions on similar projects , the sewer .issue is addressed asarecommended condition of approval , prohibiting recordation of Final. maps until the coast trunk sewer or acceptable alternative is approved . 8 . 4 38th Street Alignment The proposed ali:_:!-.ment of 38th Stree' through the project: areas repre- sents the culmination of negotiations among City Staff, Coastal Com- mission Staff , and the County I:nv.ironmental Management Agency . According to county and city staff analysis , the alignment Is a minimum of 100 to 200 feet to the east of top of bluff as defined by EMA, and the County staff has concluded that the alignment is sufficiently set back from bluff_ ' s edge to not interfere with the proposed linear park. Analysis of the alignment by Planning and Public works Departments as well as Planning Commission Study Session concluded that it does not preclude future street options either north or south of the project area . As requested by the Planning Cotmmission, Resolution of. Intention No . 1237 is included for adoption • :3 initiate a Precise Plan of Street Alignments for 38-th Street -front Palm Avenue north to Garfield . 8 . 5 Interior Circulation In the EIR and throughout staff analysis considerable attention has been focussed at street widths , turning radil , entry drives, and emergency access . The proposed Plans constitute revisions to original proposals designed to address the impacts identified and are acceptable to staff . Product A incorporates 32 foot wide streets with parking permitted on one aside only. All turning radii will be designed to Fire Department- I Page Eight standards , entry drives have been expanded to allow additional stacking, and all driveways will be a minimum of 20 feet to .o] ieve on street, parking pressures . To improve circulation and access, Product D interior streets were revised to include median planters to discourage illegal parking in areas where parking bays did not exist . Entry drives along Palm Avenue were lengthened and widened to expand holding capacity and facilitate turning movements . Interior circulation in Product. C was revised to incorporate minimum and exterior turning radii and added exits and emergency access . With these changes, all Product areas meet minimum street width and turning radius standards . However, the Fire Department is still concerned with emergency access to the project and is reconunendind (by memo of Sept . 11, 1978 attached) that its concern for reduced response times I be noted in the Final Public Report on the project . B . " Parkina Products B and C do not meet minimum parking requirements . Product B is technically 43 spaces short though all driveways are at least 01.0 feet to accomnodate parking needs not usually possible in planned developments. On the other hand , availability of guest parking is restricted by the street configuration and cluster nature of they development . Product C is approximately 53 spacez, below code requirement: . The applicant designed the project in this manner to comply with Coastal Commission staff direction . Because of the greater density of this project, its typical PD design, and the minimum access provided , parking for this Product may be a critical issue. Despite the apparent differences in coastal staff and City parking standards , the Coastal Commission has not officially required any parking reduction in projects approved to date. The applicant: has requested a special permit to vary parking requirements for these two product areas . 8 . 7 Park Requi.reme}nts The Phase IV project will generate approximately 8 acres of park dedication. Because no park is currently planned within or adjacent to the project, the land dedication will be: taken at a later data to be used as designated by the City Council . The Planning Commission and Recreation and Parks Commission have opened discussions regarding harks in the Sencliff area . 8 . 8 Scenic Highways 38th Street along the northwestern edge of the project appears in the Scenic 11ghways E1erent as an extension of Edwards Avenue and is designated an a local scenic route . 'though a specific implementaiCion plan for the .;ceni.c route proposal has not been prepared, the intent of the program J .. to beautify certain streets with in;ensified landscaping, medians , increased building setbacks, height- requirements , etc. The Seacliff IV proposal along 3P ' h Street iIncorporates these. features to great degree : Landscape buffer- are provided, landscaped berms instead of perimeter walls are props :.:d , building setback is considerable, parking areas are adequately screened, 38th is being designed to include 'Landscape medians , ;trf c landscaping is intensified. i I Page Nine 8,. 9 Street Landscani.no The applicant is proposing intensified landscape treatment. including meanderinq sidewalks along all public streets . Though staff recognized the aesthetic attributes of the proposal , the Public Works Department rejected the idea in view of maintenance costs involved . The Sub- division Committee directed staff to pursue the special treatment, however, and the applicant has agreed to assume all landscape maintenance if the City will accept dedication, maintenance , and liability for the meandering sidewalk . The City Attorney ' s Office has determined that such an arrangement is possible, though cumbersome, and perhaps unnecessary since the City can leave both sidewalk and landscaping in private ownership and require public access to the sidewalk without liability or maintenance responsibility. This is staff recormnendation through conditions of approval on the tentative tracts . 8 . 10 Location of Product C Some concern has been raised about locating the nigher density procluct close to the linear park and the Dolsa Chica . This issue, however, involves conflicting principles . on the one hand . the proposed location conforms to General Plan locational. criteria in terms of arterial access and recreational facilities . It also overlaps the R3-0 zoning area originally intended for even higher density use. On the other hand , it conflicts with General Plan criteria calling i for lower density buffer - near sensitive areas and proximity to business and institutional uses . In an area where urban uses could. be made inconspicuous , this product offers the greatest building :.ulk and highest density of the three product types . A decision to relocate this product araa could necessitate major overhaul of: the entire project . Some imnacts can be mitigated by the suggested condition to fence the wet side of 38th Street to restrict access to the sensitive areas . - 8 . 11 Request For Special,ne,__1� 1. Permit City Planning Department standards contain ,provisions for deviation from code requirements in order to promote better living environ- ments , facilitate innovative design and site planning, and create an aesthetic environment. The applicant has forwarded a request for seven special permit items which he feels are necessary to achieve his design concept . In summary, staff recommends the following action on those items : _l. Approve reduction of minimum side yard from 15 to 10 feet in Products A and B because the zero side yard concept is used and adequate average separation between units is provided. 2 . Approve elimination of trash enclosures in Products A and B because each single family unit can adequately be served individually . 1; y� , Page Tan 3. Approve 43 sparse parking reduction. in Product B because driveway design is greater than typical Planning Department projects , guest parking is located throughout the project and a true ratio of 4 . 5 spaces per unit is provided vilich exceeds nornal standards. 4 . Approve redaction of building separation requirement to 10 feet. at corners of buildings in Product C beca'.:se of building offset, adequate average Leparation, and architectural features . 5 . Deny reduction in parking requirements for Product C because of project density, design, limited on-sight guest parking potentials , and minimum accessibility of units from ors-street parking . 6 . Approve elimination of recreation area requirements for Products A and B because of compensating private open space provisions as well as excess comnon open space . 7 . Approve waiver of building bulk provision f.o�r Product C to allow 8 units per building and two story end uni.-s because the intent of ' the code is met by building design, varying elevation and offsets . 9. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS: If the Planning Commission finds that the project is not prejudicial to ' the Local Coastal Plan, staff recomriends approval of the subject appli- cations with findings and conditions . 1 . Approve Environmental Impact Repo,.•t 77-6 as amended to include the Ge(ZIrriic and t • a 'ss:sa�nont .letter frorn Fish aril G ir. of October ?'I , 1978, an letter err ran Region-aI Water Qualit� Contrc; of Septerrb-_r 7. 2 . Approve Zone Change 78-4 with the following findings : 1. The planned residential development zoning is consistent with the City ' s General Plan . 2 . The proposed uses permitted by the R2-PD-0 zoning will be compatible with surrounding land uses . 3 . Approve Conditional Use Permit 77•-23 with the Eoliowing f-indirc;s and conditions . FINDINGS: ; 1 . The proposea use of property is consistent with the General Plan. 2. All design and improvement features are proposed in compliance- with Citv Ordinances, standards, and special permits granted by the Planning Commission. CONDITIONS : 1 . The site plan received and dated October 18, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . , 2 . All details and amenities of the development as shown on the site plan and supplementary plans shall be constructed as indicated Page Eleven I' within the deveInpment, including but not limited to open srace and water areas, textured pavements, fencing, schematic elevations , materials and colors, recreation facilities, pedestrian walkways , oil island treatments, etc . 3 . Prior to issuance of building permits, all ester! rr• building elevations shall be reviewed and '---,proved b- the Planning Department. 4 . The CC:&R' s and association rules shall set forth provisions for restriction on the storage of recreational vehicles in open parking spaces . 5 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments . 6 . Prior to start of construction, the developer shall install a traffic signal ac the intersection of Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street in accordance with the specifications of the Director of Public Works . I 7 . Prior to issuance of c(�rtif.icate of accunancv , a oavea, temporary emergency access such as that existing no,..: - shall be a-Vailable in a manner satisfactor-v to the f.Fire chie From t;t,e termination of 3Bth Street improvements north to Garfield Street. S . All garages within Product C shall be equipped with automatic garage .aor openers. 9. 7f the developer proposes to provide air conditioning, the insulation in ceilings and exterior wa113 shall be a minimum of R-19 and R--11 respectively . ;f no air conditioning is to be provided , the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-.13 and R-7 , respectively . 10. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unuseble materials shall be: dinpvsed of at, an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11 . A chemical analysis as well as tests for physical properties of the soil on the subject property shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building pe-rnnits . 12 . The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached-, shall be constructed in compliance with the State Acoustical Standards set forth for all units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property . 13. Energy saving lighting , such as high-pressure sodium vZ'ipor lamps, shall be used in recreation areas . 14 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. Page Twelve `; 1 5 . Crime prevention tochniques shall be applied to the design of the project (e . g. single-cylinder locks , etc . ) . 16. Construction tectirvislues reconnonded in thr_ clootechnicsl invosti-- cation shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Cornmunity Development . 17 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , the developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval , a fully dimensioned cite plan for all lots withi.r the subdivision . 18 . Prior t-o the is;,uancu of building permits £cr lots within the subdivision, detailed calculation. based oi. . _nal building � plan.i shall be submit;tect to the Planning Department and Iuilding Department for revie%•r and approval , insuring that interior noise levvls for all Structures Shall not exceed tht California Noise Insulation Standar,'.s of •15 cab CNEL . 19 . -Provisions shall be contained within the CC&R ' s authorizing the Board of Directors of -he Homeowners Association to impose fines on violators of the parking restrictions . 20 . Approval of conditional t,';;e herinit No . ? /-? 3 shall be null and void if None change 78 -4 does not become effective . 21 . Prior to recordation of Final Maps , CC&I2' s shall be submitted to the Planning Department for Approval . 22. Prior to issuance of ccrt.if i.cate of �-%ccupw.cy, fer:cing shall be installed on the wrt}r,•x,st side of 38th Street: to pmhibi.t access to tln surrounding oil operations, bluffs, and marsh area unless the are- is lvld in co-ne'rshin by a public agency. 23 . Produc-'t C shall be revised to meet minimum harking requirements as set forth in Section 9362 . 16 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The revised site Ilan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prier to recordation of 'Tract 10068 . 4 . Approve Tentative Parcel flap 78-37 with the following findings and I conditions : ! FINDINGS • 1 . The proposed parcel map is consistent, with the General Plan . 2. The proposed parcel ina . is i n compliance with standard] plans and A r n P F specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the .State Mal; Act and Supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance . CONDITIONS : 1 . The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department on October a, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . Page Thirteen 2 . A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange Ccunty Recorder. 3 . Water supply and sewage disposal shal .. be through the City of Huntington, Beach at the time of development . 4 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department . 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 botndary of Parcel 2 shall be extended t:o include to total right-of-way of Palm Avenue . 6 . Approval of Tentative Parc`1 Map 78-- 37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 76--4 does not become effective . i 5 . Approve Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 with the following findings and conditions . 'The Following findings and conditions shall apply separately to each tract but are listed jointly here for case of: reference) FINDINGS : 1 . The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Gent:ral and Specific Plans applicable to this property . 2 . The design and im.?rovement features of the proposed subdivision is in compliance with ,standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. 3 . The site is physically suitable: for the type and density of the development proposal 4 . The design of the subdivision and its improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems . 5 . The design of the subdivision and its improvements do not conflict with public easement-; . CONDITIONS: 1 . The tentative maps received dc•toher 18, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . 2 . Palm Avenue, A and R Streets, and 38th Streets Shall be dedicated and fully improved to ultimate right-of-way. 3 . The borders of Tentative Tract 10069 and Tentative Tract :0066 � shall be expanded to include the full rights-of--way of palm Avenue and 38th Street . The borders of Tentative Tract No. 10067 shall be expanded to include the full right-of-way of Palm Avenue. F4 � Pane Fourteen 4 . The c:eveloper shall. submit a 2`- -year 1,ydr.•olo'g1► and hydraulic_ study and 100-year calculations for the protection of structures per the Orange County Flood Control District requirements . 5 . Final design of drainage system, retention basins , and channel improvements shall. be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and the California Department of Fish and Game prior to recordation of a final map. '1'hi_; system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the project. 6 . Sewer , water , and fire hydrant systems shall be subject- to City standards . 7 . Vehicular access rights to Palm Avenue, 38th Street, A and B Streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at private entry drive intersections . 8 . Street rights-of--ways dedicated to the City for A and B Street shall include + 40 feet back of curb to back of curb. All. street landscaping and meandering sidewalks shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association . Public access shall be provided on perimeter sidewalks . 9 . Street right--of-way dedicated to the City for Palm Avenue shall include + 92 feet south fz:oin back of curb on the north in- corporating an 8 foot off-street bike trail on the south in lieu of sidewalk . A !meandering sidewalk shall be provided on the north side of the street .'rhich shall be owned and maintained along with intensified street landscaping by the Ho;neowners Association. Public access shall be provided on this perimeter sidewalk . 10. 38th Street_ shill be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way . A meandering sidewalk and intensified street landscaping shall be provided on the east side of the street and shall be owned and maintained by the Honseowners Association. Public access shall be provided on this perimeter sidewalk. 11 . No final map shalt record until. the Pacific Coast Highway Trunk Sewer is approved by the California Coastal Coimtlisuion or an alternative sewer system acceptable and designed to both the City and the Orange County Sanitation District standards is approved . 12. All entryways from public streets shall have a minimum 30 foot curb radius . 13 . All inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum of 17 feet and outer curb radii shall be 45 feet . 14 . In Tentative Tract 10069 , .landscape planters with parking on one side only shall be extended in a perpendicular fashion on each ,end to denote parking area . 15. Median breaks and left turn lanes .in both directions shall be pro- vided in Palm Avenue at each entry point to Tentative Tract .10067 . Pace Filteen 16 . The developer shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of berrning , landscaping, and noise attenuation treatment south of Palm Avenue. 17 . Prior to recordation of the Final l-laps , the developer shall file with the City a letter of agreement to accept drainage from public streets into the private drainage system. 18 . Approval of Tentative Tract Not.. . 10067 , 10068 , and 10060; shall be null and void if Zone Change No . 78--4 does not become effective . 19 . Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall provide two minimum travel lanes of 12 feet from curb face to Median � curb fa-7e . a 20 . Detailed plans For noise attenuation on the south side of. Palm Avenue shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits . 21 . Patk debt venerated by these subdivisions shall be secured by dedication of land from the property owner at such time and in such location as agre--ed upon by the Planning Cormission, Recreat:i.on and Parks Comrni.ssiun , and City Council . 22 . Off island wells shall be converted to common open space under ownership and maintenance by the Homeowner ' s Association at such time as oil operations cease or Prior to recordation of the Final %lap, a revised site plan showing incorporation of ` these areas into the development shall be approved by the Planning Department and the CC&R ' s shall include provision for annexation of these areas . i 23 . Throe- foot maintenance easements shall be provided in Tentative Tract 10061� and 10067 along all zero sides yards unless , the Homeowners Association will assume all exterior maintenance responsibility . i 24 . A drainage system maintenance plan 'for percolation--retention ponds , cu .verts , channel improvements . and related facilities shall be developed to assure faci.litios will maintain design capacities to assure continued effectiveness . This maintenance plan shall be ` approved by the Department of Public Worhs and California Department of Fish and Game prior to construction . !•Iaint-enance of the drainage system other than in the public street: sy stem ystem shall be the responsi- bility of the Homeowner ' s Association and/or developer . 25. 'Tentative Tract 1006a shell be rev, sed to meet ►r..nimum arkin re:;uirements as set forth in Section 9362 . 16 of the Fluntington Beach Ordinance Code . The revised plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to xccordation of the Final Map . b . Approve Resolution of Intention No. 1237 initiating a Precise nl.an of Street Alignment for 38t.h Street from Palm Ave:juc- to Garfield Street . - a Page Sixteen .attachments : 1 . Area Map 2 . Dra f t Ordi.nanec , Zone t:hango 78-4 3. Resolution of Intention 1237 4 . Applicant ' s request_ for :,neci.al PermiL Apprioval dated August )9 , -'.978 5 . Communication from County Sanitation District dated August 24 , 1978 6. Communication from California Rerional Water Quality Control Hoard dated September n , 1978 7. Excerpts from Geoiocticg,1 r�r�a H�c3!-vgeolnnieal Assessrne-nr and Addendum 1 , dated September .13 , 1978 j 8 . Memo from Chief- James E. Gerspach, H. B . Fire Dept. . dated September 11 , 1978 9 . CoiTununication from Orange County Environmental Management Agency dated August: 14 , 1978 � 10 . Memo from Environmental Council dated Auc�t�s 1~ 15 , _9%C3 11 . Communication from Coa t_ra]. Commission dalud April 15, 19717 12 . Conununication from California Department of Fish and Game dated October 31, 1978 . MF: gc I I i ( ITY OF HunflnGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. 0. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92(4$ 1714) 536.5271 TO: Savoy M. Bellavia, Associate Planner FROM: Environmental Resources Section DATE: December 26 , 1978 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLAKATION '4PPLICANT: A. J . Hall. 'AEQUEST : Re-zone 3 . 15 acres from P2-PD-0 , R.3-0 , ROS-0 to I R2-PD-0 and ROS- 0 L,CCtk'PION • Northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Goldenwest St . i i Background Based on the Staff 's initial study of this project a Tentative Negative Declaration wus published in the local newspaper and posted in the Office of the City Clerk for a 10-day public, review period ending _ December 12 , 1978 and `=- no comments , ___— the attached comments , were received . Recommenda t i gn The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration No . 78-119findirig that the proposed pro j Qct wi l 1 not have a s igni f icin t: adverse e f feCt on the environment . Mitigation �Ieasures The attached mitigating rnr_asures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting from the project and are recommended as condition_; of approval . Respectfully submitted , ' I t 4mes It , Burnes ``&ssistant Planner J113/s DaTT. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR14 Fee - $75 . 00 P. 0, Box 190 HUFft-tellrfclUGA WSW Da to A. J. HALL CORPORATION Received: Applicant Authorized Agent Project lluiniter ; 8305 Vickers Suite "K", San Diego, Ca. 92111 Department of Origin I Mailing Address (714) 565-1162 Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers : Z.L Iirw HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY Property Owner 2110 14ain St . , ltuntint;ton Beach, Ca. 92643 FFdj.11ng A dress Te ephone (714) 960-4351 NOTE : To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied . Maps referred to below may be. viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department. of Planning and environmental Resources . .1 .0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Flan and submit photo— graphs of sucjeet property) 1. 1 Nature of Project : Give complete description of the proposed project. A change of zone from ROS Recreational Open Space to R2-PD-0 tedium Density Planned Development combined with oil production encompassing 1.488 acres. A change of zone from R2-PD-0 Ifedium Density Planned Development combined with oil production to ROS Recreational Open Space encompassing 1. 669 acres (see attached plat map) . The purrose of the zone change is to effect a boundary adjustment between the existing Seacliff Golf Course and the Seacliff Phase 4 Development proposal, z Planned Residential Development of 531 dwelling a. If If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales areas (if any; , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous ;materials which may be used, etc . N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------- AA portion of the intended golf co-irne boundaries are zone', 112-PD-U, -Similnrly, the contiguous has.: 4 project boundary encompasses sevet al ROS zoned areas . The prc7pb ed :one change would, therefore, place appropriate zoning district 'lines between the golf course and Phase 4. a i ' AgA E b. If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities . N/A c. If the project is institutional , indicate the major function , estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project . r N/A d. List all types of building materials to be used for all y structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevation if available) N/A 1. 2 Location of project : (Address , nearest street intersections) I` + 3000` w/o Palm Avenue and 6oldenwest Street intersection 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Portion of Section 3 & 4 , T6S, R11W, SHB. (Sec attached ].egal deacrtption and plat. ) 1. 4 Project land area (acres ) 3. 157 Nud)cr of parking spaces Y/A 1. 5 Square feet of building area Numiber of floors NIA i.6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building NIA i b. Paving ' 9 hg c. Exi.sting landscaping NjA d. New landscaping N/A r -2» 1 �r --- Aim W1. 7• - General relati.oWa .ps of the project to suL = unding properties: (Information avY able In Planning Departtre * on District !daps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN resent Vaciint R-DS Planned roposed ,Jlnf lr%a R2-PD-0 Community Surrounding north V:acan t R3-0 Park � Surrounding south Vncant R4-0 Planned Community Surrounding east Golf Course R-0s Planned Community Surrounding west Vacant R2-PD-0 Planned Community V 1. 0 What will be the mi-mimum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? N/A 1 . 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval , authorization , certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control Q City Council District Gc] Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ❑ other: ❑ Local Agency Formation Commission -3- 1. 10 If the projec is commercial , industrial ,'.,or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center l milts._ b. Preeway exit G miles c. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 1 mile d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) 112 mj„le� ee :scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors, and Areas Map) 1 mile 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2. 1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? possibly within 500' of S.Branch b. Is the project site -.,ithin a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? 2. 2 Draineye and Flood Control : a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accotmnoda ted: Refer to Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 77--6" received by the City on November 22, 1978. b. Is the proj pject within a flood hazard area? no Or natural flood plain?, 1 5 (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) c. What i z the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 2 miles d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) _ no b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) 1/4 Mile i c. What is the range and slope of th;; property as it now exists? + SX -4- st ;r 2 . 4 Land Form: f a, Is the property presently graded? No Refer to Grading( b . Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed , Plan, Pg. 11, ( the acres of land to be graded the amount oar '. EIR No. 77-6 ( earth to be transported on the she , and the { amount of earth to be transported o The—e to ( c. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? d, Is the surrounding area graded? _ No._, If so, how will it affect subject property? 2.5 Soils : a. Tvpe of soil on the project site? Refer to S .3.2 .2 EIR No. 77-6 b . Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? No (refer to Peat and Organic Soils MaY) Ref . S.3.2.2. EIR No. 77-6 c. Does the site exhibit moderate to h; gh expansive soils? N� (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution K-t o) f. S .3. 2 .2 . EIR No. 77-6 2. 6 Geolo ic: Re a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Mapkef. 5.3.2.1.E R No. 77-6 b. Is the site within ar. area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern cf land subsidence? 'No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) Ref. S.3 .2.1 EIR No.77 6 4.. 7 Historic/Archaeological : a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Hintoric Landmark Sites and P.riricipal Vim an Features, Maps) No. Ref. to 5.3. 7 EIR No. 77-6 -5- 2 . 8 . Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? If so, please list: Ref, Co S.3. 3 EIR No. 77-6 b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? No If so, how? Ref . to S.3.3 EIR No. 77-6 c. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- sently existing on the site. Ref. to S 3. 3 EIR 77-6 d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and si-e of trees to be re- moved . Ref. to S. 3.3 EIR 77-6 2. 9 Water Quality : a. Does any portion_ of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bars , tidelands , or inland water areas? Refer to a llvdrogeologic lssessment Report Addendum for Seacliff 4 prepared by f;eotechnical Consultants, Inc. (copy in Addendtun to the f final EIR 77-6. ) b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. See reference above 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial , describe and list air pol- lution sources i,r,d quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A -6- 2.11 Noises a . Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i .e. , airports, industry , freeways . Ref.S3.6 EIR 77-6 b. What noise will be b produced project? If available, P Y the please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. Ref . 5.3.6 EIR 77-6 c. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? Ref. S.3.6 EIR 77-6 2. 12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. Ref. S. 3.4 EIR 77-6 b. What is the existing speed limit at the project location? Ref . S3.4 EIR 77-6 c. Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Ref. S.3.4 EIR 77-6 and Project Platis 3. o Public Services and Facilities : • 3. 1 Water: a. Will the project require installa -Aan or replacement of new water mains? Ref. S. 3.13.1 EIR 77-6 b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines . Xef. S.3.13. 1 EIR 77-6 C. Pieane est hate the dailyvolume in gallons required to 9 q serve the project . Ref. ::. 3.13.1 EIR 77-6 -7... 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? Ref. S.3. 13.2 EI:< 77-6 b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines. Ref. S .3.13.2 EIR 7 7--6 Ce Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. Ref. S.d.13. 2 EIR 77-6 3. 3 Utility Lines : a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution Facilities required to serve project. Ref . S. 3.13.3 EIR 77-6 i b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so, please describe facilities . Ref. S .3.13.3 EIR 77-6 C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. Ref:. S.3. 13. 3 EIR 77-6 V j 3. 4 Solid Waste : a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Ref . S. 3.13.6 EIR 77--6 Type. : PoiAnds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects, note primary and secondary school districts : Primary : Ref. S .3. 12.4 EIR 77-6 Secondary : -S- 3.6 Population Dis2lacement: k E a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residentz to be displaced? 3 . 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? O If so, answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. c . List approximate volume of exported material . d. Indicate the location and the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. i 4. 0 Mitigating Measures : See section 4 EIK 77-6 4. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity , gas , water or wildlife) ? Please describe. 4 .2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures 1 :oposed in the design of the project to reduce " noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? if so, please describe. -9- 4. 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect?� , If so, please describe. 4. 5 Are there. measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e. q. solar heating/special insulatiin etc. ) ? 5. 0 Alternatives : See S.5 EIR No. 77-6 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effact? Please explain all project alternatives . 6. d Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . I£ necessary attach addMonal sheets,. i I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge: . g7ftAD tur Date Filed D.JIH Project: Suprrvfsor (on behalf of A. S. Nall Corp. , Afiplicrint) 0 R D I i;A110E N0 A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTIhI"`ON BEA'-'H AMENDING THE HUNTIIIGTCN BEACH C'RDINAOCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PR,3 ID E FOR C"SAINGr, ONE ZONING FROM RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COI►IBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION TO MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT DISTRICT, COMBINED 1.41TH OZL .RODUCTIONs ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALCNG THE WESTERN EDGE OF SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE, NORTH 'OF PALM AVENUE AND WEST OF GOLDEN14EST STREET (ZONE CASE NO . 78-11 ) WI:ERk;AS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law , the Huntington Beach Planning; Cor:rmi�sion and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings, relative tc, Zone Case No. 78-14 wherein both bodies= have carefully con-- { � -{ d hearings ., and con- sidered 311 .�.rif orrr�at..on presented at said heal in_, , a after due consideration of t:-.e findings and recorrnmendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change 1s proper, � and consistent with the general plan , NOW, THEREFORE , the CIt-y Council of the City of Huntington Beach dc,es crdain as follows : SECTION 1 . she followinG described real property loe,-, tud along the western edge of Seacliff Goir Course , north of Palm Avenue, approximately three thousand ( 3000 ) feet west of Golde_tiwest Street is hereby changed from ROS--O, "Recreational Open Space Dietr'_• ct , " combined with oil production, to R2 -PD-0, "Medium Density Planned Residential Development Dist',rict , " Com- bined with oil production: In the city of Huntington 3each, county cf Orange, State of California, those portions of Sect+.on 3, Township 6 South, Range 11 West , S.B. B. M. , as shown on a map recorded in Book 51 , page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps , records of said county , more particularly de- scribed as follows : /p s 12/22/78 1 . Parcel No. 1 : ROS-0 to R2--PD--0. Commencing at the .:ortherly terminus of that course shown as north 000112811 west , 60.7E feet on a map recorded in Book n7, Pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, north 32*31. 128" west , 180 . 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 4113112111 west, 1711 . 12 feet ; thence leaving said boundary south 521155137" east, 17 . 05 feet; thence south 18042 , 42" east , 130. 92 feet ., thence south 1019 , 44" west , 103 . 86 feet; thence north 32°3lt28" west, 73. CO feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 .154 acres . Parcel No. 2 : ROS-0 to R2-PD- 0. beginning at the southerly Wermi.nus of that course shown as north 15007112" east , 363. 63 feet, on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing use Permit. Boundary line as shown on said map, north 15007112" pasta 363 . 63 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line, s�outlh 46°511lt3" east , 19-IS feet; thence south 40°40141" west, 114 . 90 feet; thence south 49019107" east , 90 . 53 feet; thence south 2° 30 ,18" west, 15. 00 feet ; thence south 41051137" west: , 166 . 71 feet ; thence south 12010123" east, 211 .11 feet to the "Existing Use Permit Boundary" line; thence north 22°0_:' 13" west, 210 . 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 552 acres . Parcel. No. 3 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 . Beginning at the southeasterly terminus of that course shown as north 59°5? 147" west , 359 . 33 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit; Boundary line as shown on said mao, north 59057147" west , 359. 33 feet ; thence north 5136' 31t' wen; 89 . 24 feet ; thence leaving said boundary_ line south 63046105" east , 203. 31 feet ; thence south 26033 ' 54" west , 44 . 72 feet ; thence south 600 0;' ' 3$"east 193 . 74 feet ; thence south 4;,451143" Nast , 607 . 46 feet to the Existing Use Permit Boundary lane; thence along said line north 47154157" Brest, 490 . 65 feet to the point: of begi.nnine. Contains 0 . 1104 acmes . 2 . Parcel No. 4: ROS-0 to R2-PD.-O. Commencing at the i_oafheily` terminus of that certain course shown as north 5°:,6131" west, 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pates 35 through 37 inclusive, , of Records of Surveys , records ,of Orange County ; thence along the ExiaLing Use Pej'mit Boundary line north 5036131" west, 168 . 96 to the Trite Point of Beginning; thence north 5036131" west, 20f). 83 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence leaving said boundary line , south 85*53128" east, 95 . 21 feet ; tl-ence south, 134. 00 feet; thence mouth 34339105" west, 82. 66 feet ; thence west , 27 . 46 feet to the point of beginning . Contains 0. 362 acres . Parcel No. 5 : ROS-0 to R2-PD- 0. Beginning at hereinbefore described Point A; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary .line north 5036 ' 31" west, 128 . '19 feet ; thence leaving said permit line, east , 10.56 f'eet % thence south 005413111 east, 128 .19 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0. 362 acres . SECTION 2. The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed to change District Asap 3 lSectional District M� -6-11 to incorporate the zone change described in Di Map 3 ) rp g Section 1 hereof, and as said district map shall have been amended, the same shall be in full force and effec'. and be a part of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A copy of said dis- trict map, as amended hereby , is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . Section 9061, District Map 3 thereof, is hereby amended by Zone Case No. 78--4 . SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California . i 3. r �f 'r t� ,l PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the .r clay of , 197 • i; i t� J Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM : City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AUD APPROVED: vl� L0 CiV Administrator Acting Planning Director L 1 .r r,Y , ORDINANCE NO.251*1 -B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING ,THE HUNTINGTON BEACH. ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHA'.;GE OF ZONING FROM MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTIQN, MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL , PRO- DUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION TO MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO-- DUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE, NORTH OF PALM AVSNUE AND WEST OF GOLDENWEST STREET (ZONE CASE NO. 78-4 ) WHEREAS, pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, j` the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate y p public hearings relative to Zone Case No. 78-4 wherein both bodies have carefully con- sidered all information presented at said hearings, and after a due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the � Planning Commission and all evZdence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, ' and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFonE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The following described real property located along the western edge of Seacliff Golf Course, north of Palm Avenue, approximately three thousand (3000) feet west of Goldenwest Street Is hereby changed from R2-PD--0) "Medium f Density Planned Residential District , " combined with oil. produc- tion, R3-0, "Medium High Density Residential District , " combined wish oil production, and ROS-O, "Recreational Open Space District, " ps 12/22/78 1 . combined with oil production, to R2-PD-O, "Medium Density Planned Residential Development District- , " combined with ail production, and ROS-U, "Recreational Open Space District, " combined with oil production: In the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, those portions of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 11 West, S .B.B.M. , as shown on a map recorded in Book 51 , page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps , records of said county , more particularly de- scribed as follows : Parcel No. 1 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. Commencing at the northerly -terminus of that course shown as north 0001 /2811 west, 60. 76 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 32031128" west, 180 . 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 4031121" west , 177.12 feet ; thence leaving said boundary south 52055137" east , 17 .08 feet; thence south 18042142" east, 130. 92 feet; thence south 1019144" west, 103 . 86 feet ; thence north 32031128" west , 73 .00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0.154 acres . Parcel No. 2 2 : ROS-0 to R2--PD-O. Beginning at the south- erly terminus of that course shown as north 15007112" east, 363. 63 feet, on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 15007112" east, 363. 63 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line , south 49053.143" east , 79. 18 feet; thence south 40046141" west, 3.14 .90 feet ; thence south 49019 , 0711 east , 90 . 53 feet ; thence south 2030118" west, 15. 00 feet; thence south 41051137" west, 166 . 71 feet.; thence south 1201012311 east, 211. 11 feet to the "Existing Use Permit Boundary" 3.1ne; thence north 22103113" west, 210. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 552 acres . Parcel No. 3 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. Beginning at the south-- easterly terminus of that course shown as north 59*57 , 47" :vest, 359 . 33 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, north 59057147" west , 359 . 33 I 2 . feet ; thence north 5036131" west 89.24 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line south 63°46' 05" east , 103 . 31 feet ; thence south 26033154" west , 44.72 feet; thence south 600 0'j ' ,3 8" east 193.74 feet ; thence south 46051 ,43" east, 607 . 146 feet to the Existing Use Permit Boundary line; thence along said line north 47054157" west, 490. 65 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 404 acres . Parcel No . 5: ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. Beginning at hereinbefore described Point A; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line north 50361 31" west, 128 . 79 feet ; thence leaving said permit line, east , 10. 56 feet; thence south 0054 ' 31" east, 128 .19 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 016 acres . Parcel No. 6: R2--PD-0 to ROS-0. Commencing at the north- erly terminus of that course shown as North 4°31121" west, 470 . 21 feet on a map recorded ir, Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, south 4031121" east , 96 .00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence south 4°31121" east, 197 . 09 feet; thence leaving said boundary north 52*55137" west, 95 . 72 feet; thence north 4028702" west , 64 . 20 feet; thence north 41°21153" east ; 99. 62 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 0 . 215 acres . Parcel No . 7 : R2-PD-O to ROS-0. Commencing at the south- erly terminus of that course shown as north 5° 36131" west , 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records o:► Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 50 36' 31" west, 89 . 211 feet to the True Point of PQcinning; thence north 5036131" west 79 . 72 feet ; thence leaving said bound- ary line west , 37 . 514 feet ; thence south, 57 . 00 feet ; thence south 63046- 105" east , 50 . 53 feet to the point cf beginning. Contains 0. 064 acres . 3. Parcel, No. 8 : R2-PD- 0 to ROS-0. Beginning at the northerly terminus of that course shown as north 503613111 west, 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37., inclusive, of Records of Surveys, records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Bot,n- dary line as shown on said map, south 503613111 east, 78. 21 feet; thence leaving said boundary line west, 94 . 44 Beet; thence north, 145.00 feet; thence north 47027133/1 west, 65 . 71 feet to a nontangent curve concave north- westerly having a radius of 900. 00 feet,, a radial line through said point bears south .23053120" east; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 4014142" and an arc distance of 66. 68 feet to said permit boundary line; thence along said boundary line south 28008102" east , 159 . 70 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 357 acres . Parcel No. 9: R3-0 to R03--0. Beginning at the northerly terminus of that course shown as north 5036131/1 West, 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through t 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary s line as shown on said map, north 28008102" west, 159. 70 feet to a nontangent curve concave northwesterly ha•. ing a radius of 900 . 00 feet , a radial line through said point bears south 28008102" east ; thence leaving said permit boundary line southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 4014142" and an arc distance of 66. 68 feet ; thence north 47027133" west, 49 . 65 feet ; thence north 4101:; '09" east , 53. 15 feet; thence north 66048105" east , 290. 39 feet ; thence south 37008149" east, 82 . 80 feet ; thence north 53043133" east, 171. 43 feet ; thence south 39021127" east , 39. 00 feet; thence south 50038133" west , 45.00 feet; thence. south 42024 , 09" west, 320. 82 .feet to the point of be- ginning. Contains 1 . 033 acres . 1 SECTION 2 . The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed to change District ldap 3 (Sectional District Map 3-6-11 ) to incorporate the zone change described in Section l herecf, and as said district map stall have been amended , the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part I 4 . of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . A copy of said dis- triat map, as amended hereby, is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . Section 9061, District Map 3 thereof, is hereby amended by Zone Case No. 78-4 . SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen li days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 197�. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: My Clerk _ City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Cit Administrator Acting Planning Director I i 5 . An`t*_ on"n t Be��h tom s p y 2110 MAIN STREET,HUN71NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 f 71�16lsa�61 January 9, 1979 i . APPEALS - ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 TENTATiVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , Ca. 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members : Recent discussions at the Planning Commission level regarding our applications for the Seacliff Phase IV Development necessitates further analysis on our part. Therefore, we respectfully request a continuance on the subject appeals until the February 5, 1979 regular City Council meeting. Very tr ly yours , E nning Coordinator on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporation, Applicant DJE/h ... .�''✓ Publish December 21 , 1978 ,i 2 Postcards.- NOTICE of MLIC RMING ZONE CASE NO. 78-4 / NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 78-119 5 NOTICE IS 1ERRgY GIVEN that a public veering wi11 be held by the ti City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Rmttngton Beach, at the hour of 7_._:30 P. M. , or an soon thereaftor as possible, on Tuesday the 2nd day of January , 19 79 , for the purpose of considering ZGne "Case 78-4 which consists of approximately 3.15 acres along western edge of the Scacliff Golf Course , north of Palm Avenue, approximately 3000 feet west of Goldenwest Street. The City Council will be considering one of the following alternatives for Zone Case No. 78-4: 1 . A Change of Zoning on 1 .488 acres of ROS-0, Recreational Open Space Combined with Oil Production to R2 -PO-0, Medium Density Planned Residential Development Combined with Oil Production, with the condition that a corresponding 1 .488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined; or 2. A Change of Zoning as requested by the applicant which includes 1 .488 acres of ROS-0, � Recreational Open Space Combined with Oil Production to R2-PA-0, Medium Density Il interested rsans are� vited to att*N said hearing end •scprts their opttti for or a6 not aaid (see page 2) 1rther inf Pion sexy obt alInad the Offic*10f i1he City\.. Cl0r � CI'l'Y`OF RMINCTM, BEACH By: Alicia M. WAntworth City' Clerk a Planned Residential Development combined with Oil Production with the deletion of an 0.362 acre parcel of land defined as Parcel 4 and 1 .669 acres of R2-PD-0 and R3-0, Medium High Density Residential Combined with Oil Production to ROS-O or in total , Also for consideration at this time will be Negative Declaration 78-119 in conjunction with said zone change. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said zone case: Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. 2000 Hain Street , Huntington Beach, CA. (714) 536-5226. Dated: December 19, 1978 CITY OF HUNT I NGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk i i i , N(JTiC: 'ro (;T,ERK TO SCHEDULE PLMLIC HEARING Irrat Zaift C=�C-a his V_—!r Ej TO: CLTY , LERK'S OFFICE DNM. 7 t. FROM: 1 y P,12ASE SCHEDIME A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE DAY OF 191�- AP's are attached AP's will follow No AP 's a Initiated by: Planning Commission ,• Planning Department Petition ✓�1 '• J. * Appeal Other - WOW-)19 ?i f M I ?; Adoption of. Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer Co Planning Department - Extension �. for additional information. .c * If appeal , pleane transmit exact wording to Ki required lit the ir.};ol . 8305 Viers Suite "R" 7,C #78--4 San Diego, Calif Jamuk y 24, 1970 ON) Hturt� Bmch ampany 23►-231--15 2110 Win S»3t 3as �!' paw Hmtngbo : Aeazh4 Calit 19821 Ocem Bkuf f Cale 92648 in;to i Bnach, calif I 9`648 23-181--06 7.3--731S1 Hmewd tirzjbcn Beach y H=ni g 'Pik- Drive 7bx Diviafa: 225 Bw sh S mmt E4srt ii�rgtx�.� leach, Calif San IrranGi aao, Calif 94120 92640 023-231-09 roappt Of -Urm James A Rizzo 120 So. Wirq Stmwt 1.9881 Omm Bluff Circle IM Arojel ea, Calif 90052 timtiragtm Beach, Calif Ate: Staff Assist&lt 92648 Design B j2 3-231-10 16antfsxjton B c.,h BlanerAtary M minty-Wsk Schcnl Diatrict: P.O. Box 2140 770 - 17th Street 1.7550 dilhette Avenue Mr&i rgbm Haack},, Calif Newport Beech, CmAf 92663 92648 23--231-11 Rl= O Snyder 19861 *O1.an Bluff c3xc.]P MmUngt n Beach, Calif 92648 23--231.--12 John V Kassar 19851 Ocean Bluff Ci r-le Huntiligtam Beach, Ca].:i f. 92G48 23--231--13 I;ar"y 1; pis 19841 Omm Bbiff Mxcle y Hm*A nq tcm Calif 92648 r 2.3�-7'• .-14 � 71 -..is J Ryen / 19831 CIMMI Bluff C.ircla Amtingtm Beach, Calif 92648 n tit THE Superior Court OF T7tE STATE OF CALIFOIINIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t PLANNING PROOF OF PUBLICATION ................... .............................. ....... .......................................... -�- Pub Iic. .Hear.ind—Na.... Z nI19....... .. .... .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. . .............. .. .. ........ ...... .. .. . ... State of California }u. County of Orange f law, Rita ..... . ........ ......... . ..... .................... . ......... ��,,1� 18H19t®YOfY�1�1N�� That I am and sl all times herein mentioned was a citizen.of the iinaiMx ceift, w r;iW,' �M, United states,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I am not■ *M " � k �' c' "' party to,nor interested In the above entitled matter, that I am the WRt- o("M 4022T rk�eprincipal clerk of the printer of the ' *y61 ; p4*04 HkA Raridt.tW ad Huntjngtpn..$.ga h..IMARgn0t)r,Rev.i2w... ��eAlma 1 a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of D �° ~ t � ►"+aTx B Iw Y �y R�W q s .,Hunlirtaeton.,Reach............................ ........ e'1° u% ..uoml of t�wW"b of County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the dis. A""" 3M f "e w2of semination of Meal news and Intelligence of a general character, ` of*AWISW d which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still saw sad Cho" has a boat fide aubscriplion list of paying subscribers,and which ; , "Sim a newspaper has bevy established,printed and published at regular be P►%Wwa D.clamtim 7&1►s r.o.- Intervals In We said County of!range for a period exceeding one kotti" kith "'s am`hutr&a year;that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy,has been published In the regular and entire Issue of said newspaper, hula 6MV4 WA bs h u a,#^kew., and not in any supplement thereof,an the following dates,to wit: �UW���6+�"sIL Id do Chk GwtM,M MA&nM,liiUias- Cos shot.Ca OWNIC W& W ...December•.2-1. .1978 .......... ............I... ....... AU Is4r. an t a att�ad .aid AU set arpnw Ibrb �p "Iw or Kalad UW Z=* Caw N. ?4-/and 14-14U f kcebro e a.us ............. .................................................... 11o1+4r Wo�wYon a�ay to*- iNd Na tin CNy FUROnI1 tkprmes t 1 d&d71.Mi' ? day J DK+.+bm. ................................................................. IM I t*rUly for deeLvel under penalty of perjury that the foreguing is COM t l INNING 1 0�1dMlAtM true andcurirct. By JAM M W.FACIN Ad log Garden Grove par I '�II Dated at ............................. our DOW6 W 11e.r)o5'9 %. *MIN, a.4t.h. ofDeC .p . ?@ �,..�y.... .�.�.... .. ....... Signature 1 FwmNo CA►•5131l ' .,F,:yw yr`. •• t\ 7 Sri • _ .. �.—P a,. g �l r � y 1• c• ,t rley. � , , :, � ,,, • ,., ,... , � ' ,; L t `TZ�. '' ''� .• r .. .-,, ;�T'.SM � ,1 "��• '4�`, � j �. s1 � ik' �"7, _ i1 t s '�{ t yam•• 1 � +. , � .yr�tl'c .. j � �i�'. •` t'�.•�'f�+li���NL t r .f/• �r '.I�• M'i �'�,,b... - �. +..'' r�� +r. 'rr �.i fn�r G��� �.� •�� 1' ":•`'Aff :Z� �ffy.� .t ..�'' lEt?r' �.t. �L � •�,.�``. . _.. .s' .rii.. .r...``•..�.w.....ir.._ ..«ter.. _. �.J.�.....l�.r.. ....,-..• �r•.. ... •_' ... -^ ._. •r •'1 I' � -�r . �.� N��1•�'• '� � 1•.ram • _IUA�r''tl���.� _ . ILI .419 I, till Y . 7 -5, 1.44,y 8 -fit, t1/_✓ , •' . . __ .. . �.. - aAe.-- �6d 461- illood-Wa4i F.4&42,otn..ed y 4� � ;� a 3b Z NOTICE OF MILIC HPAING ZONE CASE NO. 78-4 / NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 78-119 i0TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a -public hearing will be held by the . City Councils of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Counci] Chamber of the Civic Center, Hunt 'vigtan Beach, at the hour of 7 P. M. , or as soon thereafter as possible , on r Tuesday the 2nd day of -January- , 19 79 , for the purpose of r�.or-rr.r+r r�. rr.�r.r�� ti�rr ri r rr,ti� considering Zone Case 78-4 which consists of approximately 3.15 acres along western edge of the Seacliff Golf Course, north of Palm Avenue, approximately 3000 feet +lest of Goldenwest Street. The City Council will be considering one of the following alternatives for Zone Case No. 78-4: 1 . A Change of Zoning on 1 .488 acres of ROS-0, Recreational Open Space Combined with Oil Production to R2-PD-O, Medium Density Planned Residential Development Combined with Oil Production, with the conditi^n that a corresponding 1 .488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined; or 2. A Change of Zoning as requested by the applicant which includes 1 .488 acres of ROS-09 t.. Recreational Open Space Combined with Oil Production to R2-PD-O, f-ledium Density Planned Residential Development combined with Oil Production with the deletion of an 0. 362 acre parcel of land defined as Parcel 4 and 1 . 669 acres of R2-OD-0 and R3-0, Medium High Density Residential Combined with Oil Production to ROS-0 or in total . Also for consideration at this time will be Negative Decla rati%;ri 78-119 in conjunction with said zone change. A legal description is on file in the Planning Department Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions l for or against said zone case: Further information may be ootal ned froin the Office of the City Clerk. 2000 Clain Street, Huntington Beach, CA. ( 714) 536-5226. Dated: December 19, 1908 CITY OF HUNTINGtON BEACH By: Alicia N. W4ntworth City Clerk City Huntington Beach o P.O. BOX Igo CALIFORNIA lltiw ,.� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I I I, January 4, 1979 Mr. U. S. Eadi e Huntington Beach Co. 2110 stain Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Dear Mr. Eadie: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting ` held Tuesday, January 2, 1979, continued the public hearing on Zone Case 78-4 to January '15, 1978, in order to consider it with the appeal which you had filed on the matter. I ' 1 I If you. have any questions, please call our office at 536-5226. Sincerely, Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk AMW:Ca:bt I a i i I i C I TY CIF KunTmGTon REACH DEPARTMEN OF PLANNING V T ANQ ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ,. , • P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536.5271 TOZ Honorable Maycr and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administratcr FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 11, 1979 SUBJECT: D-'le AND RELAT D ITEM D-If CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 15, 1979 During, the agenda review on January 11, 1979 , Mr. Belsito requested that I communicate to the Council a recommendation on Zone Change 78-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 as a follow up to the applicant' s letter re- questing that both items be continued to the February 5, 1979 Council meeting. I etated at that time that it would be the Planning Department' s recom- mendation that the City Council take action on Zone Change .78-4 at the January 15 meeting but that the Council could continue action on the tentative parcel map until after the Planning Commission had acted on the remaining applications for the Seacliff Phase Iv project. Action on the zone change by the Council at your January 15 meeting would allow the Planning Commission then to incorporate 'in its action the proper conditions of approval .to amend the boundaries of the projects pursuant to such Council action. Without act,-on on the zone change, the Planning Commission would be unsure as to the ultimate boundary and- Con- figuration that the project should reflect and in its findings would have -to find the project inconsistent with specific plans of the City of Huntington Beach, if approval action were taken prior to the Council 's resolving the zoning for the project. Mr. Belsito also requested that I communicate this recommendation to the applicant, so that he would be aware of a possible City Council action at your January 15 , 1979 meeting. Also in regard to the appeals for the zone change, and the tentative par- cel map, I wish to point out that an error was made in the supporting information attached to the staff report. Tho memo from J. Barnes dated January 5, 1.979 , stated that there would be an approximate savings of 118 , 000 gallons of gasoline per year should the City pursue the extension of 38th Street from the project to Garfield Avenue. This figure should be cozrected to reflect approximately 35 , 000 gallons savings by requiring that ded'A.cction and improvement. Respectfully submitted, Vfa W. Palin ing Planning Director P I r]f ROBERT A. FISHER AP1EA COME 714 1601 MOVE STREET • Su1TE 260 TELCPHONC 9133-8363 NEWPORT BEACH, CAL004NIA 92660 November 8, 1978 Mayor Ron Sh'enlatan . Mayor Pro Tern Richard Siebert Councilman Ron Pattinson Councilman John Thomas Councilman Don riacAllister Councii.mAn Bob blandic Councilwoman Ruth Bailey City Hall P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: THE HUNTINGTON LIMITED, a Limited partnership, dba THE SHERATON BEACH INAT, dba DRIFTWOOD BEACH CLUB, In Bankruptcy No. EF-76-08598 AP Dear Councilpersons : The undersigned is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Receiver of the above-captioned Chapter XZ debtor estate and has been operating the facility known an the Huntington Beach Inn since October 8, 1976. i.nce that time we have been trying to sell the property o inance same in order to satisfy the creditors in the. case. We have always been assured by the City ' s representatives that all they wanted was to make sure we found a '!responsible" operator so that the property would be a "credit11 to the city. n _,previous sale fell through when the buyers could not come up'-,with their financing, despite the fact that the city had approved them as the "new owners. " We are informed the city approved the placing of a new purchase money trust deed for $2. 6 million. As you s1.so know, the property was again sold in March, i 19780 this time -to Mayer Group, Inc. , for a total sales price of $3, 650, 000.00. 'there can be no question but that this purchaser has both the financial and managerial ability to bring this property up to the high standards set by the City and to make all required payments to this estate. 1 i City Counc::l Members November 8, 1978 Page Two I This sale results in a 100% payout to all creditors in the case and will probably return a substant l surplus to the debtor to be divided among its many limited partners. Therefore, when the City refused to consent to the assign- ment of the land lease, we were left with no, choice but to proceed to litigate the City ' s right to prohibit such assignment. If the City prevailed in their argument the creditors in the case would receive next to n thing, -and the City would receive the property and all .improvements thereon---net quite what we considered fair or equitable. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Judge agreed with us and I ` enclose herewith a copy of his ppinion, dated May 19, 1978. The matter is now on appeal by the City to the District Court judge and argument is set for November 28, 1978. i Even before the trial in Judge Phelp' s Court, it was announced in Court that Mr. Mayer had been negotiating with Mr. Pollyen and that Mayer had conceded, by way of settlement, to: 3, 1) Deposit cash or a bond to assure the City of renovations totaling $586, ODO. 00 ldown from the City ' s original "estimates" of over $1. million) . i 2) Deposit "working capital" of $150, 000. 00. In addition, the purchaser will be paying over $1 million cash by way of down payment and $48, 000.00 in loan fees to obtain his $2.4 million loan from Security, Bank. Enclosed please find a copy of said bank' s commitment letter dated Aptil 25, 1978. However, at the time of trial, (and to this day, I suppose) it was announced to the Court that the City would not consent to the assignment unless : 1) Mayer pays a $35, 000. 00 "transfer fee, " and 2) Mayer does not borrow more than ,$2.1 million against the property. I find it- difficult if not impossible to understand these requirements. First, there is no contractual or reasonable requirement for a "transfer fee. " it has been explained that this is to reimburse the City for their "expenses." I respect- fully r.uggest that you have probably spent a great deal moro City Council Members November 8, 1978 Page Three than that on outside consultant and attorneys ' fees just insisting on this "requirement" of a transfer fee. I find it even more difficult to comprehend how you and your "experts" can tell Mr. Mayer how much he should borrow. If he and Securitv Bank see fit to risk their money, why should the City involve itself in Mayer' s business? if you don 't receive your lease payments you just wipe out the bank and buyer under the rights given to you in your lease. We (Mr. Mayer and myself) have been endeavoring to see you for several months; but all we receive are comments that the "matter is in litigation" and you cannot talk to us. Mr. Mayer is required to meet exclusively_ with Mr. Pollyea. is it possible that Mr. Pollyea would like to see the City acquire this property so that he can operate it for you? This seems to be the only possible reason for the information we have received recently that you have not been told of Mr, Ma ergs commitment from Security Ban . We are informed ME you were told Mayer bad applied for a loan from Glendale Federal Savings and Loan and had been truned down. On the contrary, it was Mr. Pollyea who told Mayer he (Pollyea) had obtained such a loan for Mayer. This, of course, was not true. in conclusion, we only want to be satisfied that the council has the whole story, as it seems so incredible that the City has taken such a position in light of the facts. if this estate prevails in the appeal, Yli:. Mayer would not be required to make the concessions he already has for improvements, etc. if the City truly warts to see the property sold to a "responsible" operator, we have already more than met that criterea. if, however, the city wants the property and will not approve any assignment, then I wish you would just say so; and we can Atop wasting our time and effort trying to be reasonable. ' I s city council Members November 8, 1978 page Four i I apologize for the length of this letter, but I assure you Y had to work to keep it this brief. Sincerely, 46 I i Robert A. Fisher, ! Receiver for the Estate of Huntington Limited R.AF :dt Encs. j cc: Shutan and Trost Henry easden I p. S . I am informed just today that despite the completion of. almost $60, 000.00 worth of paving on the mobile home park per you "specifications, " you (the city) either refuse or decline to come out and inspect the work to verify whether or not it meets your " specifications. " I II SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK B;X9Y KNOLLS OFFFICE, A435 ATLANTIC AVE., LONG BEACH,CALIFCANIA•4213)390.3155 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE SOX 7187, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90807 . April 25, 197 Mr. Robert L. IIU7ar, Prouident Bayer Ccnotruction Co_p. 8121 Be Florence Awmue f Twainay, Caltfornia 902240 De&r Sob, I' i To =m!l= our cozvereat!on tz4a7, va a= plAased 'tc adyliae you' that we will a=-..=d you a loan of $2,400,000 on tha nffunt3ngt= a .h : � pert;". �bjett 2c3a !a `c: a par'_ad of fi:a y�tz with s a tea SeAr a-zoaiz:t;.n sczesiula. wst9 �-iLll; t at oar our pri=- :ato Arad a 16 u fza of Z, 13 etrl±red. Car tztal uutat=d- P in;2s gill as =bjorA to a fi- at deed of trat on thsat lea Id 4 proPertiasa. Bob, .aa va rmticncd, on_ c=lit =t is nubj=t to oar various =v="tv and reatrictions uhieh will require timaly balancla obacta a-rd profit a.;d 'Lasas3 details on ths operation sad othe'r E caatroln which au may feel neesa ary f=:n ti= to :i»a. M'• 3 Agai.n, Bob, It is our plaasura to participasn with you in owther vent-=s and look forward to ==h s-vccess in Mantingtsn Fleacb.. 14 fleace ackzw ledge rar.,atpt on dupllc•ate attac;-ed. T tr. y, `� ' . Sohax>ta+a a cats, T C PreDi.dent RW sbg Acknowledged and Accepted Player Constriction Corporation R.L. ?-Layer i 2 CONFORMED Fillod— MAY 1y CLERK; U. S. f.X,*)JIM1,T 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY .DEPUTY 5 ` 6 7 • UNITED FTATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In Re } Bankruptcy No. BK--76-OBS98 AP 3,2 THE HUNTINGTON LIMITED, ) a Limited Partnership, } MEMORANDUM OPINION 13 dba THE SHERATON BEACH 1• INN, dba DRIFTWOOD BEACH ) 14 CLUB, ) ) 15 Debtor. ) 16 The debtor is a limited partnership against which an 1.7 involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed in June, 1976 . The 18 debtor then filed a petition for an arrangement under Chapter hI 19 of the Bankruptcy Act in the pending Involuntary proceedings 20 pursuant to 5321 of the Bankruptcy Act and Rule 11-3 (b) . 211 The debtor' s only, assets consist. of an assi4ned Ion term ?2 ground lease from the City of Huntington Beach upon which 1 ase- 23 hold estate several different businesses are being condy bed . 24 A large mobile home pack has been constructed upon part of the 25 property by the. lessee . The debtor subleases sites to some 239 26 tenants In this mobile home park . A two--story motel has been 27 erected by the lessee upon another portion of the p:.-opert.y. The 28 motel consists c4 144 .rooms in three buildings. Upon Lhe property :ind t:h'-oo. re -f-aurants nl.uo i.anquet `lie (;ebtor also r v i.c:c !;t.�l t: i vn located j on a ruj"ner of ;-he p•:ura;,l:i:y . ii t 11 Lhe City Of if':11i .� 1!C�i Un !:Ci 1C7�i �::i.11t:f'd i"lie i esi.•.it:e t:o t7ic original lessce, 1:11(' ��i:^j���'t'ty 'r•i:y �1j��;i:F_!1{:] ally ►at•; i)t ;n) it llni )oproved . 'Phe iipon the pxope ty have by the hol ,,i -)-s o .:he 1-carehol d i.ntc�i•e:;t:. I The l.ca::.;:hcld estate is by a first deed of R:rtist to F(20-ral ncl r_ - �n ".!,!,c)ciat.ion %.,)li.ch has an }� h . �.--j)ce of a_aproxi.mai���l.y $1, 500 , 000 and is ft)?:i h�>.r enciwa- I ley a second deed of t:i.l:st in favor. of Automation TiAust:-ies ( P upon vhich approxi-mately $600 , 000 is owed. 4 The debtor has schedule,-! ' i% 'cured creditors of approximate- I t ly $390, 000. Yowever, unsecured ci:oditor's Claims have been filed i j whi ch total ap.)r.oxiraately $491, 000 as gent ral unsecured plus � $94 , 000 I)r.i ,r.ity ter;so u:rod cl a.;_i,:s . The arnount of the f :1.7 claims v.,hich inight be allowable has not yet been uete.►_mi.ned. On ijay 24 , 1977 , a public sale of the leas-ihol.d interest ) was held in open court. The M.yhcst bid w1i,de fc:: the property $3, 600 , 000 . The order co:lfi-�.ini ng sale to the highest bidder VC-Is ,fi lad on July 11, 1.977 . It subsequently developed ' i.11at the ni dder at that sale 23 was unable to procure financing for the purcl.ase . '.ehe receiver 21 then of�:ered the property For sale ac.-+in can January 26 , 1978 . 5 Several bidders appeared in court at the time of the second sale. 26 the sale was subsequently confirmed to Mayer -Construction Co. for 27 a price of $3 , 000,000 cash palls a --ecund deed of trust In the ".,9 ainour,t of $650 000 payable to the estate after five ears the � , P Y Y • 1 second deed of trust to be second and subordinate to the maximum 2 lean which the debtor could obtain from a responsible lender on 3 a . first deed of trust . . 4 The buyer is a large and successful company engaged in the 5 two businesses of construction of homes, apartments, and commer-- o cial properties ,, and the operation of approximately a dozen motels 7 In 197i the buyer was the sixth largest construction company in j 8 the sullivision inn h�nited States and was the second largest 9 builder in Southern California, having gross sales in excess of 10 90 million dollars . The strength and capability of the buyer is 11 beyond any question or dispute. 12 Since the sale on January 26 , 1978 the buyer has been 13 negotiating with the City of Huntington Beach to obtain the 14 City ' s consent to the assignment of the leasehold estate. As a j15 condition granting the consent to the assignment, the City 16 initialler imposed conditions in four areas . First, the City 17 insisted upon $150 , 000 in cash being placed in the accounts of 18 the assignee to assure adequate operating funds . The buyer has 19 not objected to this. 20 Secondly, the City insisted upon a cash deposit in the 21 amount of $700 , 000 to be used to pay the actual expenses of 22 necessary repairs and renovations on the property. The buyer has 23 agreed that substantial renovations and repairs are necessary but 24 has questioned the cost estimated by the City. The buyer has not 25 � objected to making a cash deposit in an appropriate amount out of 26 :;hich the costs of the repairs and renovations would be made. 27 This item is not subject to litigation at this time. . 3 1 Third, the City has demanded a transfer fee of $35, 000. 2 The buyer has objected to this requirement and points to the fact 3 the lease has no provision empowering the. City to assess a transfe 4 fee . 5 The fourth condition insisted upon by the City is that a 6 limit be placed upon the encumbrance^ which might be placed upon 7 the leasehold estate . It :should be noted that there is no request 8 that the City subordinate its position as lessor to the encum- 9 brances to be placed upon the property by the buyer. instead such 10 encumbrances will encumber only the lessee' s interest in the 11 property. The City insists that the encumbrances not exceed 12 $2 , 100 ,000 . Deducting the second trust deed to be carried by the 23 debtor estate , the first deed of trust would thereby be limited 3.4 to $1, 450 , 000 . 15 The buyer has been negotiating for a loan secured by a 16 deed of trust upon the leasehold estate , and has made tentative 17 arrangements for a loan of nearly 3 million dollars from Security 18 Pacific National Bank , one of the largest banking institutions in 19 the United States . No loan • committment has yet been made, but 20 there appears to be reasonable prospects of the obtaining of such 21 a loan. 22 We are not concerned at this time with the issue of 23 whether the City may now terminate the lease. That • issue is the 24 subject of a hearing scheduled in court in the near future . 2v We are. now concerned only with whether the debtor now owns 26 the leasehold estate and whether the City may impose conditions 27 upon its consent to the assignment of the lease , or whether, on 281 the contrary, the debtor and receiver can pass full , free and 4 1 clear title t.o a buyer of the leasehold estate without the necess-- 2 ity of consent of the lessor. 3 The various interested parties have stipulated that this 4 matter should be brought on for hearing upon a notice of motion 5 in regard to the sale order. The parties have stipulated that the 6 matter might be heard on shortened notice . At the hearing of the 7 motion both parties submitted evidence and argument. 8 We start with 570b of the Bankruptcy Act which reads , "A 9 general covenant or condition in a lease that it shall not be 10 I assigned shall not be construed to prevent the trustee from assum-- 11 inq the same at his election and subsequently assigning the same; 12 but an express covenant t�iat an assignment by operation of law or 13 the bankruptcy of a specified party thereto or of either party 14 shall terminate the lease or give the other party an election to 15 terminate the same is enforceable . " 16 The lease in question reads in Paragraph XII, "Neither this 17 lease nor any interest therein, whether legal or equitable, shall 18 be assigned or sublet, in whole (sic) or alienated, pledged, 19 mortgaged or hypothecated, voluntarily or by operation of law, 20 without the prior written consent of the lessor (except as provided 21 in Paragraph No. XIII) ; . . . If the lessee, without securing 22 prior written approval of the lessor, attempts to effect such a 23 transfer, assignment, sublease, mortgage , or hypothecation , or 24 a transfer occurs by operation of law, or if the lessee is 25 adjudged bankrupt or insolvent by any court or upon the lessee 's 26 making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the lessor may, ' 27 at its option forthwith terminate this lease upon written notice 28 thereof to the lessee, and thereupon the lessee shall have no 5 l ftirther rights W eunder . " 2 The United States Supreme Court In Finn vs . Meighan, 3 325 U .S . 300 recognized the validity of such a termination clause 4 under some circumstances. Than in Smith vs . 11oboken, R. R. Ware-- 5 house, etc. , 328 U . S . 123 the Court declined to permit a forfeiture 6 of the debtor ' s lease where such a forfeiture would have prevented 7 the possibility of railroad organization . 8 Three circuit courts of appeal rave ruled in three different 9 Chapter X cases that it -was appropriate to decline forfeiture of 10 the lease despite debtor ' s breach where the reorganization would 11 be totally impossible if a forfeiture were allowed. -See In Re 12 Fleetwood Motel Corporation (3rd Cir. 1964) , 335 F. 2d 857; Weaver 73 vs. Hutson (4th CA 1972) 459 F. 2d 741 , cert . denied .. 409 U.S. 957 ; 14 In Re Fontaine Bleau Hotel Corp. (5th CA '1975) 515 F . 2d 913. 15 Then in Queens Boulevard Wine & Liquor Corp . vs . Blum 16 (2nd CA 1974) 503 , F. 2d 202 , in a Chapter XI case the 2nd Circuit 17 stated, "In determining w';ether to enforre the lease termination 18 here, therefore ; we must consider not only the interest of the 19 landlord but also of the •debtor and its creditors . ' Possession bV 20 Queens will not prejudice Carol , which is protected by a sizeable 21 security deposit:, except to drny it a windfall in the form of 22 increased - rent to which we hold it is not equitably entitled. 23 Enforcement of the forfei,ture , on the other hand , would destroy 24 a now profitable debtor by depriving it of its most valuable 25 asset •• its location. It would also needlessly injure trade 26 creditors and those outside investors who have furnished capital 27 which 'has resulted in Queens' rehabilitation. In our view, these 28 individuals stand on no less significant a footing than did the 6 f I shareholders of(We debtors in Weaver and i' Cetwood. " The Second 2 Circuit th ?n di se nguished the Neighan case by stating, "in none 3 of these cases would forfeiture have ' seriously impaired ' , let 4 alone totally frustrated, an arrangement by depriving the debtor 5 of an asset absolutely necessary to its continued viability. " 6 In this case we have a landlord with a. substantial pro- 7 vision in Its lease calling for forfeiture. Arrayed against the 8 landlord ' s position are the interests of the debtor and its 9 creditors . The landlord seeks an unmitigated windfall, that is , � 10 cancellation of the lease and the consequent securing of title 11 and ownership of the 239 unit mobile home park, the motel buildings 12 with some 144 rooms together with the cocktai Inars, restaurants 13 and banquet facilities, as well as tI,e sarvic( ions including 14 all the improvements placed upon the 1-n. • -halt- er .T '_c by the 15 lessees . On the other hang the debtor has obtained a buyer whose 16 price will not only pay the first and second deed of trust in 17 . full , but will also pay In full all of the unsecured creditors , 18 whose claims as above-mentioned total nearl.y $600,000, and will. 3.9 also return to the debtor cash and a second deed of trust note 20 of nearly $1, 000 , 000 , lc•:ss the expenses of administration . 21 The equities are so overwhelmingly in favor of the debtor 22 and its many creditors, and ,.o st:ron- :ly against the City in its 23 seeking a forfeiture of assets of such tremendous value , that this 24 court must decline to allow the forfeiture . To allow a forfeiture 25 would be completely unconscionable . If the debtor is stripped of 26 its leasehold estate , it has no assets remaining other than liquor 27 licenses and inventor of nominal value and all hopes of a y , p 28 reorganization must necessarily fail. The assets remaining would 7 I 1 not be suffieierlm to pay priority claims , 6.1d genera]: creditors 2 would recr ''re nothing. 3 See also the decision of Judge Peirson M. Nall in In re 4 Burke, 7E F. Supp. 5 (194B) . It is also unnecessary to recite the 5 various facts pointing towards waiver by the city of its rights 6 to declare a forfeiture based v&on acceptance of rentals for some 7 ' two years from the receiver. 8 It should also be noted that the; lease provision regarding 9 consent to assignment .is two-pronged . The -first portion is - a. 10 prohibition of ass-; gnment without consent of the lessor. The 11 second portion gives the lessor an option to terminate upon 12 written notice in case of an assignment or transfer without the 13 lessor 's consent. These two provisions are not self-executing. 14 No consent of this court to term;.nation has been obtained. j 35 I therefore conclude that the leasehold estate is an asset 16 owned by the receiver and the debtor. This decision relates only 17 to the question of whether the lease has heretofore been lost. 1S Reserved for decision after future hearing is the question of 19 whether the City should. be permitted to exercise the option set 20 forth in the lease to terminate for various alleged breaches. No • 21 opinion is expressed upon that issue. . 22 The next step is , what can the debtor and the receiver do 23 with this asset? May they only use it in the operation of the 24 business , or may the sell and transfer the asset to the highest 25 bidder at a court sale? The cases cited above, Smith vs. Hoboken, 26 In re Fleetwood Motel Corporation, Weaver vs. Iiutson , In re 27 Fountainbleau Hotel Corp. , and Queens Boulevard all dealt with 28 situations where the debtor wished to continue to use the lease- _ B 1 hold estate in operation of the debt: - business . Denial 2 of the forfeiture arguments of the less.�a• . allowed each debtor 3 to continue in possession of the leasehold estate and to use the 4 same in operation of its business . 5 In this case the debtor wants something a bit differen _, 6 not the right to continue to use , but the power to sell and 7 convey- the asset to a buyer without the consent of the lessor. 8 The City asserts that state law in California permits a 9 landlord to arbitrarily refuse co4ent ,to the consignment or to 10 impose conditions to the assignment. Richard vs . Degen & Brody, 11 Inc . , 1.81 C.A. 2d 289, quotes from Corpus Juris Secundurn as 12 follows : 13 "However where a subletting or assign- ment of the leased premises without the 14 consent of the lessor is prohibited, he may withhold his assent arbitrarily and without 15 regard to the qualifications of the proposed assignee, unless . . . the lease provides 16 that the consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld, and in granting 17 his assent may impose such conditions as he sees fit. Accordingly, if the right to 18 assign or sublet is restricted by statute or by the terms of the lease and the lessor 19 does not covenant to give his consent to an 20 assignment or subletting, the lessee has no remedy against the lessor for his refusal to 21 consent thereto. " 22 However, in a bankruptcy context the state law is not 23 pPrmi.tted to apply. As early as 1908 the Supreme Court ruled in 24 Gaz1ay vs . WilJ.iams, 210 U.S . 41 that a sale of a leasehold 25 estate by the trustee in bankruptcy of the lessee was not a breach 26 of the covenant contained in the lease prohibiting assigning or 27 subletting without the written consent of the lessor. 28 3 �i I The cour there explained, "All th lhas followed upon his 2 bankruptcy is not by his act, but by operation of law transferring r' 3 his property to O-his assignees . Then shall the assignees have 4 capacity to take it, ana yet not dispose of ;t? Shall they take 5 it only for their own benefit , or be abliged to retain it an their 6 hands to the prejudice of the creditors , for whose berefit the I, I 7' law originally cast it upon them? Undoubtedly that can never be . " 8 To the same effect are In re Gutman, 197 F. 472, and 9 Matter of Prudential Lithograph Company, Inc. , 265 F. 869 and 10 270 F. 469. 11 Section 70b of the Bankruptcy Act as amended in 1938 states 12 in part, "A general covenant or condition in a lease that it shall 13 assigned shall e construed o r vent t o trustee from' not he sign h 11 not bt prevent h to i l 14 assuming the same at his election and subsequently assigning the 15 same. " I take it that the additions of this portion of subdivision' 16 b of Section 70 in 1938 was merely declaratory of existing law. 17 Here we have no trustee in this Chapter XI case , but the debtor 18 and the receiver have the same rights and ?owers pursuant to 19 Section 302. 20 I therefore hold that the provisions in the lease relating 21 to the requirement of consent of the lessor to any &assignment do j 2'. not apply in a bankruptcy situation. It therefore follows that 23 the debtor -ad the receiver may be authorized by this court to 24 sell and assi-,n the leasehold estate without the consent of the 25 lessor being required, and the buyer-assignee will acquire full 26 title to the leasehold estate without the necessity of consent of 27 the lessor . 28 .. 1p 1 1t also �� ].lows that the City may ,- . inpo-e conditions to a the granting of consent . It is unnecessary to decide whether the f - 3 conditions sought to be imposed by the City are arbitrary cr 4 unreasonable. 5 The City also challenges the jurisdiction of this court to 5 determine the rights of the parties against the City. This point 7 also was decided adverse to the City by the case of Gaxlay vs . 8 Williams, supra, and the many cases following it. 9 This memorandum of opinicn shall constitute findings of i 10 fact and conclusions of law pursuant to FRCP 52a. Counsel for 11 the debtor and coursPl for the receiver may jointly prepare an 12 appropriate order modifying the order confirming sale to set 13 forth the determination of the buyers ' rights as set forth herein 3.4 and to limit the powers of the lessor with respect, to its consent 15 to the assignment by the debtor and receiver. 16 17 DATED: May 19 1978 18 '� 19 AAROII X. iELVS BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 l 27 28 i 1 �. t . tit ing ton Bleach Comp a.' c�ivro 7110odAIN STRW,NUNTIMITON BEACH.CALIFOANIA Y ClcnA that trtW�et CITY of NUNTINGTO1 ffA".it,CA! 1'. December 26, 1978 aEc 2] L !! `•:, APPEAL-TENTATIVE PARCEL. f MAV NO. 78-37 1 Huntington Beach City Counl.( l 200D Ma!n Street N;Int- i ngton Beach, Cm. 92648 Attention; Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Counci1 Members We hereby appeal. the Planning Commission's December 12, 1978 approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37, a division of 300. acres of land into four (4) parcels. Specifically, we oppose conditions of approval Nos. Is 7 and 8. We area also asking for clarification from the City Council In regard , to the specific meaning of condition of approval No. 5. It Is oer understanding that this condition is intended to include only that portion of 38th Street adjacent to the proposed Phase IV development and not the full right of way from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. We, therefore, request your approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 as applied for, subject to the Planning Commission's conditions (excluding those opposed) and with the understandiny of condition No. 5 as expressed above. We respectfully request that this natter be considered concurrently with our E appeal on Zone Change No. 78-4. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. t ve�itruly yo , r EADI E _D},�J�' i'�a�i 166 Coordinator on behalf of A. J. Hail Corporation DJE/h Attachment (S75 check) �I Y I Publish March 26 , 1981 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE 80-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be heed by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. in the Courcil Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of _ 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monde da the 6th y of A pril . ly 81 for the purpose of considering Zone Case No. 80-6, a request to rezone 15.2 acres of property located immediately west of the Palm Avenue extension and south of the Huntington Beach City limits from R3-0 (Hedimir. High Density Residential Districts combined with oil production) and Cl-0 (Neighborhood Commercial District ce*ined with oil production) to R4-0 (High Density Residential District combined ,,;ith oil production). Also being considered -is Enviroranertal Impact report No. 80-1 which assesses the development of ,N to 450 residential unity on a 21 acre. site located west of the Palm Avenue extension and south of the Huntington Beach City limits. I A legal description is or file in the Department of Development Services Office. I i All intere:jted persons are invited to ettena said hearing and express their opinions for or against said zone Case 80-6 _ - Further information may be obtained frun -the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Nuptincgton Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATED March 10 1981 CITY OF HURTINGZ!ON BEACH By: Alicia N. Wentw,. rth City Clerk ( ITY OF HununGTOO BEACH �-� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DIVISIOPI 1714) 536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION 1714) 536-6271 B. O. Sax 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAL.IF4n141A 92648 TO : TXP Citizen Advisory ."-)emit^tee FROM: June Catalanc 3�c Senior Planner DATE: January 15 , 1980 SUBJECT: SC,�CLZFF AREA STUDY At its last meeting the Co=iLtse requested infonnatfan from Develop- ment Services staff regarding the Seaeliff Area Study. Although staff is not developing a separate Seacliff report , work has bpen dcrie on the are& as part of the tot-a_ pldn for the coastal. zone. Attached is an outline which summarizes issues in thq area " related to Coa::tal Act policy categorieo . Staff has not completed Mork related to all the issues . Also enclosed is correspondence related to the area . JC :jb January 15 , 1990 LEACLIFF AREA STUDY INFORMATION OUTLINE I) OIL USES A) much of the land near the proposed Seacliff IV is used for oil related facilities : 1) The strip of land between Goldenwest and the City limits and between PCN and a parallel line extending northwest front olive , is intensively used by .Aminoil for oil extraction and treatment facilities . 2) Within the proposed Seacliff IV site , Chevron will consolidate its oil equipment into 2 or 3 "islands. " 3) Between the Seacliff site and Goldenwest, Chevron has offices, warehouses , wells , pipelines and other equipment. 4) The land between Seacliff and the City has few surface facilities but there are underground pipes . 5) Aminoil operates a gas plant northeast of the Seacliff site . £) Most of these facilities will. be long-lived. i 1) The Aminoil lease and Chevron islands will be in use for about 15-20 veara at least. 2) Chevron' s warehouses ' e ouses and offices could be move:d and this area redeveloped to new or 'mixed" uses , but there are no plans for such uses . C) These oil activities may constrain new uses in the area. 1) The ,11 equipment in both the Aminoil strip and the islands should be s,-reened from any new uses by walls , berms , fences, vegetation, or other moans . 2) Through buffering or other mitigation measures , new uses should be protected from noises or odoro emanating from the oil activities. 3) Buffering (and other techniques like dikes and walls) must ensure that leaks , spillp or fires do not jeopardize nearby Uses . Seacliff Area Study Information Outline ST .Ianuary 15 , 1980 Page 2 4 ) Plans for "dual uses" (oil. mixed with residences , for example) in this area must include access for adequate fire-fighting equipment near oil wells and tanks . 5) Plans for dual uses must also include access for pulling 9 units and well-service crews . I 6) Plans for, dual uses must allow oil companies to lay new pipelines and rework existing ones with a minimum of disruption to other uses (like residences and their yards) . j 7) New technology which allows further extraction of old fields is being investigated. New development on old oil fields should include some access to the underground field so that extraction of these resources can occur with• out disruptions to the other uses. II) HABITAT AREAS A) The Coastal Act places high priority on buffering wildlife �I habitat areas . B) The County has not yet designated a plan for the Bolsa Chica . 1) Until the County places definitive uses on the area, the City should assume the most restrictive designation for the area adjacent to the Ci;;k coastal zone boundary:wildlife habitat. 2) The bluffs to the east of the city boundary should be planned for uses compatible with th � wildlife habitat. C) There may be some conflicts in policies between the linear regional park and the concept of buffering the Bolsa Chica. 1) Activa recreation uses may adversely impact natural habitat areas . 2) The transportation system, especially highways , may bring adirArne environmental impacts and over-cspadity usage . 3) However, if buffering places the linear park away from the bluff edge# the opportunity for recreation experiences by viewing the Bolsa Chica from the bluff edge will b© reduced or eliminated. II Seacliff Area Study Information Outline January 15, 1980 Page 3 III ) PUBLIC FACILITIES A) Sewage 1) The Lowery Sewer Study indicates the Orange - 22nd Street Trunk line, which serves the existing Seacliff development is over capacity. Any additional development resulting from Seacliff IV would have to provide for improved capacity . 2) The Lowery Study states that; the Ocean Avenue trunk line, which nerves the Greater downtown area and the existing Seacliff development is currently over capacity between 2nd and 7th. Development occuring between now and the time Reach 3 of the Coastal Trunk is completed (expected within 3 to 5 years) will further overburden the system. B) Drainage 1) The fang & Assoc. drainage study states that the drainage systeir, (which flows into the Bolsa Chica) adequately drains this existing development area . 2) A major concern is the quality and quantity of water that will drain into the Bolsa Chica if further residential developmant occurs and the question of whether the drainage should by-pass the Bolsa and channel directly to the ocean . C) Circulation 1) The existing circulation systein is inadequate to serve additional residential. development. 2) The alignment and termination of 38th Street will impact the configuration of the linear regional park and access to Pacific Coast Highway . 3; The extension of 38th through the oil production area may be constrained by existing oil extraction activities 4) The extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a major arterial across the northern portion of the Bolsa Chica is indicated on the City' s Master plan. This is intended to permit recreation and residential traffic to and from PCH . i 'a i Seacliff Area Study '. Information Outline . January 15 , 1980 Page 4 a) There has been some question on the Coastal Commission level as to whether this extension is consistent With possible wetland designation of Bolea Chica . b) If the extention is prohibited by the Coastal Commission, or restricted to two lanes, traffic on 38th Street will increase. IV) LAND USES A) Land Uses Are Constrained By: 1) Circulation commercial and very high density residential would be limited by the lack of major arterials. I i 2) Bluff erosion and lard subsidence . 3) Low and moderate income housing needs. 4) Ci production activity - noise , odor, fire, etc. 5) Setback requirements for habitat areas and the linear park . E) Coastal Act priorities . 7) Public facilitiss capacities - different land uses have different sewerage generation factors , i .e. residential has less sewage need than commercial . 8) Views tc and from whe bluffs and the affect of setbacks . I • 11R�.1 ` POLICY IMPLICATIONS* i The proceeding outline indicates a number of policy considerations the Committee may want to address . These include : I) HABITAT AREAS A) Address protection of adjacent wildlife areas. B) Establish bluff setback width C) Designate the level of desired recreation activity , i .e. active vs. passive. D) Provide for the linear regional park and/or additional buffer areas . E) Designate the location of the park and uses within the relation to the bluff II) PUBLIC FACILITIES A) .Sewage and Drainage 1) Establish pr;:,orities for development within the coastal zone where '.here is competition for sewage capacity. 2) Addresu the impact of run-off from residential development on the Bolse Chica, i.e , should drainage through the area be permitted. B) Circulation 1) Establish a position regarding the level and type of access to the coast . a) Vehicular vs. mass transit emphasis . b) Recreation vs. commuter trips. 2) Designate number and location of lateral access to PCH . 3) . Resolve conflict (re: Bolsa Street extention) between provision of increased access to the Linear park and PCH and the protection of wetlands . *Energy policies will be included in the energy soction of the element. Seacliff ArAa Study Information Outline January 15 , 1980 Page 6 III) LAND USES A) Designate preferred uses for the area, given Coastal Act and and site constraints . r address the provision of low p) If residential uses are preferred, and rnmkmte income housing. C) Address the compatibility of oil production areas with other land uses . D) Address measures to protect views . NOTE : The Committee had already adopted policies relating to phasing of sewer lines and development, drainage; housing, visual recources, and public access. I i I i III AGENDA Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Comittee January 17 , 1980 Council Chazib+ers Civic Center , Huntington Beach 7 :00 P.M. ROLL CALL 1. 0 uen- al Business la Minuree lb Correspondence lc Coastal Activity Report * Id Public Input 2.0 SEACLIFF AREA STUDY 2a Committee Discussions * 2b Public Input 2c Committee Recommendations 3. 0 LAND USE PLAN 3s Staff Information and Update 3b Commit-tee Discussions *� 3c Public Input j 3d Committee Recommendations I 4 .0 OTHER TASKS AND BUSINESS I 9: 30 P .M. ADJOURN * During items of general business and discussion, public input will be taken following the Committee discussions . For items on which therer s to be a vote, the public may be r+ecoq-- nized to speak on that motion directly before the vote is taken. Stand to he recognized by the C air. - II got 00'1 1 k�-qM aiF _ a! QREEIhy i I AROUND THE MOUTH OF THE SANTA A14A RIMER HOW ARE WE GOING TO PU T ALL OF THESE PIECES TOGETI IER IN ORDER TO INSURE A©EQ;�ATE PROTECTION FROM FLOODING FROM THE SANTA ANA RIVER FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE OCEAN? That is the question which we at the Corps of Engineers are now trying to answer. WE NEED YOUR HELP By the middle of 198A) -- a short six months from now -- the Corps of Engineers will be ready to rao')mmend to Congress a comprehensive, detailed Flood Protelctio� Plane for all of us in the path of potential flooding from the Santa Ana River. What happens at the Mouth of ttte Rilwor is critically important. The Corps of Engineers has some Ideas about how to put the above pieces together in the comprehensive Fled Protection Plan. The corps wcxlld like your reaction to its ideas. What is most important in preserving and unhnncing the area around the river's nlouth? We invite you to join us in an evening of discussion: >A mooting an Wodnosdaxy•JslnuwV 23r IM, 7:QWM-9:3WM United States Army cost*M"" 'man Corps of Engineers 77 fNr Drive,Cash Mo" ,Srt„I„q ,hr Armv 11 hW CAI fVQ M tlhr VawtYh red of"1"WPrs+rt h11+Mw6yy ...Seim, the Narlun DEPARTMENT Uf THE ARMY ILOS ANaELES, DISTRICT. CORPS OF EN411019CR* P. O. rnx *711 LOS ANGELEM. CALIFORNIA 00003 SOME BACI' 3ROUND 111 191:1 fee,! IoN AntM,k!i ihsarlcl of rho Code) ►tl I1141-1141cls, .Iftf•l sub �1,+:►ll,+! d1lL:11s514711 and coordll►alIasi velth local and State urcups, tt•t nnunt•elcis•d it)Cct:>,jn•ss d plan of flood torah,:! 'urtllfetvenlents all .� l / ,I1011ta Ihl' San+J Afvo lle•af, from Iha tr,uuntains to this sCcan Ian 81Cd «n,rehw.l f, 4 oveffnga1111ru{►ntate•Fl 3_'%Wuatemoles in Ora►v,;.r, San Derndedino. 1111cf flivelsldt► ce)onlicsl (h;.iudco were sonv propos213 for the ravel �' .,t nuKUhl�ud MMe to Widt-mr.11liver Sawa Ana Bever eharxtcl • (,+•all pimil Ilk love) dorm drain chantsels lGroonvllls! Banning ' dlstl flUlltIIIIJI nill • Acqulimg lxnlrons of a salt mash to protect crufanNvr;d wild, ` lilt,tili-trey and 1rn envstonniental mrtirjafion Sind tanhatice(vv«r►t ` tQtlANtt• •Ille►vintl:{Inolson of ll►et least a!rrl nesting area an ilia beach A yttar ,qt) flit,Curtis of Empvcwfs began its ei6-jnctv1 p4wnnorj studies feet Iltslxl i 1tmirri,nytriwcmCnts aUnxl If&Santa Ana flevar: to evaluate lire.,rurnyet raids end problems its life entae awa, to ccueuder allema t,rtrlrafo•lsucu twos to ifee racormterided plan, and to remakiste the economic, socafl .Ifni►•►wwexxnrntal invllmAt of ilm plats findlly sclexted arvtl its al mmitivtts r Y1so may h.1vt!l►arti 1pated on a public ir*''e1mg it,Ftbrutry 1979 which kit.kied of those wtvanced planning shtd►es. Now we vioutd like your e t111n1"mis tm the Cot ►ts' ldeaa Itx than """'' t �at the rr►cxtth of the river - ;,...�., ii,lefrruldrly will: eetrwA to xvetal imtxxtanl iluuas *hlch have ron tle4vus• e,•1111!d onttrrillears tit IN!ctxninunitltts in the motitii area J! J r SOME OF THE ISSUES • R(whgrlHty the hvtl stwnt dram chanrtrts may harm some, � cnvrionm nt.11t valuable l f l he)one cas e,a salt rsesT. i t te a �•.. ,.�• " ,. .. o111C1 Ii>°k•isf Irmo nestingeteai. IS ttvete o Way t0 tnil;Qalr,thi!i `.` ""p•r" '-; • Ih1•tr tv ,tt1 rrtlbuu/rrrY1 Wlllllr/r 1pee re•t it, the! arms Iha bast If•tn 11c wt..111It I:I•lutilfrll!rll 1 ��..� woo t." • Ii,vyue-n+tu/ Il1r „rr•r a Jr,►nrle`I iroln t1tC City of $arltn Ann to the ultw•u � ��. 1ti(XIII1 1r. nbt.sws,uy. 1 bete may be up to 1,b million cubic yards ` set %sully wd.aul ealety rirarl•r+,el ip dtsporr elf Where ca!►it uo/ • St MIN•1tnoog4rts It tvfi eAli l stIml a concern that ihc: (lewd protec flcvlt tyat ltn Itn! n+cnith area aught precluda etynsrderatrrrn on flit ���,•� tweire r,l,t matrot,t devNupertl!nt Is there Ito neceptaltk sohitfon> to Whal wed lilt tP)tn!about the tdrarretrt that witsts Icxlay in the tidal \, chantst.rl Ice fix!eam .,I the rrvet mceuth`Ntrw can it be prevent ed Irl floss fuhrrr► • ►fttw late lire c tishn4•Crctecle trads near live river matth b* pro lim led? it THE MEITiNG ON Janaa+ry= 7:00 p.m..s:30 r.m. Over itv SANTA AAA RIVER MOUTH fta+f fear flit,Cusps of Etigrwt:#%itai%bei n woos."as,ffeese issues Il is riw p �y �Q�rtfeluoitet in prlfsafll tts Kle ou as to y TM �esw A p•c,litnes, of the inevial U AREA Iocl asf• •1 o esut•it you Ief!J that Itiese are the matt.naves. • Ili Itt.itr► of nor teachnn}to thlt Corps'rietient sdPAf SPECIAL NGT11: We have rrsa4w)111et notice to ap pef 4e itexl olpan stations wlik--h ever cmittf klenldy as having ran letteemt it Isla flrt,Nt It you hove any questions holtme thlnl, 111411s4 91011 1rltHl 1rn11 time 4IHIV1t IS%4111% We.- ,ulr 1 e!11,1116 112a1 nee) le.l r, [140060 can Bairn Mfx►IN sell,„1110•slt► !iti llh►.i1,er INllyl 11111 IIMM111141 fee 01041,11b•4011„01 fit h1Uls,h, (rsilAllft tl4r,040141%ftec►,i,sr.virl"I w,Mll •a tY111/111AIIr1 oil•.t,l t•lt!I Il•• Ill Feet i2I31 Ire• win I1f11,11ts111e1n111111-11 11161 11r+•Illl le)Ilwe`.F.I,f Ate Ile,• s RCJEST FOR CIT COUNCIL AC1'IC}N .#- ' >- /a i LAP, . Submitted by Paul E . Cook , Director Department Public Works � Date Prepared February 6 1980 Backup Material Attachod Yvt ❑ No Subject Agreement for a traffic signal at Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue . City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUN Of5 Approve as recome nd ed ct•r�• cnK Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, rurding Source, alternative Actions: Statement of Issue : A condition of approval for the Seacliff Phase IV Project- is participation in fifty percent of the cost of a traffic signal. by the Huntington Beach Company, Recommendation : Adopt Resolution No . tlky�authorizing execution of the Agreement for the installation of a traffic sianal at the intersection of Goldenwest and Palm Avenue. Analysis : The City has determined that it ' s in the public ' s interest to install the traffic signal as soon as possible , therefore , an Agreement is needed for the sharing of the cost pending the actual construction of Seacliff Phase IV Project . The cost of the traffic signal is estimated to be approximately $65 , 000 . Alternative : Assume the entire cost of the traffic signal . Funding Sou rcc : The City' s share of the cost can be charged to Special Gas Tax Funds. I PEC :RRL:ek 010 3070 TRAFFIC SIGNAL A(]R -,f:hii?FJT TIM's Art RXEIMENT , made and entered into thisJs 1,0',17 � day of 1979 , by and 'between the Huntington ?each ,-1 ,! j1any , n Cra l if'ornla corporation , hereinnfter (.;All ed " COMPANY" and the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the ) t'ate of California , hereinafter called " CITY" WITNE"SETH : WHEREAS , the intersec tlon of Qoldenwes t Street- and Palm A �,(!nue 1Fe w1 thin CITY , and Engineering studies indicate that installation of a traffic :, Igrial In warranted at the ahove named intersection for improved t, raf'fic safety and efficiency, and One of the final conditions of approval for Tentative Tvac t Mans 10067 , 1COG8 and 1006�' For Seaclif't' Phane IV project , is t?)e installation of a traffic signal c.t the :above named intersection . The costs of such installation small be Evenly divided by gOMPANY and CITY . NOW , THEREFORE , in consideration o' the covenants and con— riit. 'ons herein contaired , the parties hereto agree ao follows : 1 . CITY shell prepare plans anti specif icatior.s , provide engineering and contract administration , for the 1nRtallation of a traffic system at the internectlor► of (loldenwent Street and Palm Avenue . 1 . Jr: be 12/12/79 r� t'i'Y sl, a vertIse 1'oil b1dz , pur!ma�Int. Cal i fovi)ia L"All e law . 3. CITY ' S Department, of Public Works shall supervise the per?'armanc.-e of, said work- �t . The cost of the inBtallation of the traffic signal syscetn is 4st, i,mated to ter_• approximately sixty-five thousand dollars ( 4N,611 , 000 ) . The COMPANY shall pay fifty percent ( 50% ) of the actual bi t: not to exceed thtrt%,-fi ✓e thousand dollars ($35 , 000 ) . The C.rT'f :;t.31; pay ftft,y percent (50% ) of the actual costs and all t (.-o,t s beyond COMPANY ' S rhirt,v-five thousand dollars ( $35 , 000) ' may mum cont i,ibut: i n. 5. COMPANY shall pay its proportionate share forthwith upon the. issuance of a building permit for the Seacliff Phase IV project . Ei . CITY shall require the contractor wh%, receives the bid to keep an exact accounting of th_� expenditures on th,�-, traffic i signal project: . i . Upon completion of the ir.sL-alla}ion of the traffic signal system at the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Palm Aven,ie , the maintenance of said system shall be performed by or under the direction of CITY. The cost of said maintenance sha11 be borne by CITY . I14 WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties he veto have executed this Alrreemetlt; on the day and year first above written . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By tiayor I ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (2 i l �, ty zrk City Attorney R►-VIEWED AND APPROVED : TNITIATg AND .gPROVED Act, dinl4ni sEFa Eor Director of Public Wcrks H NTINGTON BEACFI COMPANY ` "COMPANY" By (,211efrz,.c..� mice P W10 By Assistant "ecretarj 3 • I 00 1 CAS TAX PPoQ7F7 r LIST M! 1979-80 I ,r 02 OESCRxPTIQi: FiJNDINIi oniERS ,GAS TAX '!l7PAL ,f ���' '• w ter. r� 249 Wide Talbert Ave. - Gothard to tkuland 401,000 414,000 81`1000 �. 299 Widen Yorktc%n - Beach to Main 473.000 510,0U0 983,000 342 Upgrade "er Traffic Signn1s 513,000 105,004 618,000 ` 380 FL-sign Old M:Ytm Area 29,059 3,230 32 ,289 1 393 Warner Ave. Bridge Aepl :tit 630,000 -0- 630,000 412 Warmer Ave. Inprovaients at Gol,denwest 40,000 MAN 23U0000 425 Aemistrvct Winger/SprinTlal,e 996*000 2440000 1,240,000 F 427 Traffic Sigitia.l, Go?.derkmut at G.W.C. 30,000 42,000 72,000 428 'Traffic Sigm:il, Bdinger at G.W.C. and Comm 331,500 42,000 75,500 434 Widen Slater - Goldemest to riewland 2150000 225,000 440,000 446 Widen Heil - Beach Blvd., to Silver Lame -0- 90,000 900000 419 Irrprrlve Sir3na�ls, Goldenc�esr At McFadden 28,750 44,250 73,000 462 Traffic Signal, Golderrmst at Ellis -0- 140,000 140jC00 465 Newland Sidewalk 0cnst=ctien 29,000 11,000 40,000 467 Zogers/Tio�ert Storm fain -0- 25,000 25,000 lo.493 Traffic Signal, Goldern est at Palm 37,500 37,500 75,000 500 Broc burst interconnect (Engineering) -0- 15,000 15,000 501 Traffic Signal, Main at Delaware, 20,000 60,000 80,000 502 Inprove Warner Ave. (Engineering) -0- 30,000 30,000 503 Widen Ddinger Ave. (Engineering) -0- 30,000 30,000 504 bower Yorktown -0- 25,000 25,000 505 Trophy Lane SILom Drain Migineeri.M) -0- 25,000 25,000 Mlscellaneals Street ResurfaciN -0- 200,000 2000000 Cccitingemrl -0-- 500000 50,000 3,475,809 2,557,980 6t033o789 I Hr:SOLUTrOr4 do .4846 A 111--b'30LUTIOU OF THE CITY COUNCIL OI'' THE: CITY 01 Z11rNTINaTON ©EACH AUTHORIZING EXECUT1014 OF AUREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT TUE INTERSECTION OF OOLDENWEs'ST STREET AND PALM AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach imposed as one of i' i ivi I conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Maps loot1 , 10063 and 1O069 for Seacliff Phase IV project , the of a traffic signp.l at Goldenwest Street and m Avenue. NW-1 , ` HEREI ORE , the City Council of' the C! ,y of r-iuntington 1►. --ich does hereby resolve as follows : 1 . The attached agreement with the Huntington Beach ,mp:iny Is hereby approved , and d- . The Mayor of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby .mthovized to execute the attached agreement on behalf of the 11A.SSE:D AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of 1hint. I ► jrLon Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th r:t.y of February 1980 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'ity ler ity ttortley ril:V I EWER AND APPROVED: '"T*1 T`IAT AND .A.PPROVED : City Administrator Diroctor, or Public works '� 1.3/79 Res . No. 4846 • 1 t► M t:AUFORNIA ) 1.I 11 1►F HUM'tliC►TM SUCH ) 1 , ALICIA M. W99-M 11p the duly elected, qualified City C 1 vrk of ti:e City of Huntington beach, and ex•off icio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do bereby ctertify that the whole number of n12•11►horn of the City Council of the City of Huntington beach is seven; thitt the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirneative vot a of sure than a majority of all the members of said City Council at r regular sooting thereof held on the 19th cIsy III Februer,� by the following vote: AYES: Councilman: atttinson,Thom_Mendic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley WWS: Councilmen: None Al SEE: Councilmen: None • • City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City • of Huntington Death, California Cityof Huntington Beach P.O. Box too CALIFORNIA 92645 ADMINISTRATOR' CITY U ;IC , UI I tL 9 October 11 , 197J i i Don Wilson , Chairman SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COrtrt I SS IOiv 666 East Ocean Boulevard , Suite 3107 Long Beach , California 90801 Re : Permit No , 79- 5340 Senclif£, 1111ase IV Dear Mr. Wilson : This letter is in response to your September 25 , 1979 communication to city staff concerning Seacliff , Phase IV , You have requested the LCP-Ci1C ' :: Position and the official city position relative to several points raised in the communication . As you know , the City Council approved the proposed project earlier this year , finding it in conformance with the general and specific plans of the city. The LCP-CAC has also reviewed the project in relation to their effort in recommending an LCP plan to the City: Council , The respective positions are as follows : 1 . How will the approval of a coastal permit at this time be prejudicial to the city ' s local coastal program? City Position - The City Council did not take a position on t is Issue in approving the l,roject . Determination of a project ' s prejudicial potential to the LCP is a finding the . Coastal Commission must make in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976, LCP-CAC Position - The LCP-CAC took no Position . Generally , the LCP-CACfeels that no position can be taken on a specific deve_opment project until policies are establishcd in the LCP process . 2 . What are the respective positions toward the oJL ff-site land proposed by the applicant for affordable Lousing? The Holly Avenue project proposal has not been submitted to the city; therefore, the city has no position on the project except to confirm that a General Plan amendment and Tenoning would be required. Telr.phone (714) S36.5201 141 . I►o►i wi l sari , Chairman t)�tul�er 1 1 , 1 '►1,► 801,1111 COAST REGIONAI. COMMISSION fail Re : Permit No. 79 - 53,10 , Seacliff , 1111nse 1V The provision of r.ffordable housing is c11c0u1•;11;ed by the existing dousing Element of the, Uncral Plan and further encouraged by programs of the August , 1979 Draft Ilousing Element . The policies of the Coastal Element will c ncourage the provision of facilities and housing to provide equitable access to coastal resources . Ilowever , housing provision in the coastal zone has lower• priority than coastal -dependent uses and recreation and visitor- serving facilities , or even energy uses . 3 . Why did the city delete eight conditions of approval for the project ? The City Council has ultimate authority to condition projects at the appellate, level . In cases of appeal , such as occurred on the Seacliff , Phase IV Project , the appealed conditions of: approval proposed by the Planning CommAssion may be amended or deleted by the City Council . There were no entitlements , nor any conditions of approval until the City Council acted on the appeals . The City Council. , upon review of the proposed project , li concurred with sixty (60) conditions of approval to the various entitlements for the project . r � The conditions of approval were the result of a comprehensive . review of the proposed project , and its impact upon the surrounding environment . I have .attached a copy of the conditions for your perusal . 4 . The Commission requested that the information they have asked will be available to and, member of the public . It is my understanding that if the city replies to the Commission by October 12 , 1979 , or soon thereafter , that the information I have provided you will be included in the Coastal Commission Staff Report . Please let me know if I am in error on this matter . If I may be of any further assistance , please do nor hesitate to contact me . Sincerely , -L City Xinistrator FGB :TJNI: skd Mr . Poll IYi [ soil , Oul i uctober 1 I , 1979 SOUTH GOAST ItlOM ONA I. COMMISSION I';i►;� :� At tachments : i 1) September 25 , 1979 communication Crom Coastal Commission . f2) Summary of Conditions . cc : R. Gordon Craig Acting Executive Director Dave Eadic Huntington Beach Company James P;Ilin , Mrcctor Development Services LCI'- CAC a- t :�'.+Itit EH rMllrt•luA „��1u1,,, �, CA11FORNIA WASIAL COMMISSION SOU111 COAS I Itl.te OVAL COMMISSION 11A6 1. OCFAN 6O1.111VAp0, SUIIE 1101 . .�;,,• e 41j�ox 1430 + K1EAC11. CAU100#11A M401 1 lir rr �� '390,5011 0111 84606e6 ���.����,' + •, �'�.��.1,1 September 25 , 1979 Ns .* Mary L nil Norhy , Planner ' Q 13 X 1:10 LCP Citizen ' s Advisory Committee CA CA 926,.� c/o Deparnlerit of Development Services P . O. !lox 190 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Dear Ms . Norby and Members of t:he Citizen ' s Advic;ovy Ct.11'ull.it Loc : This letter i, in response to your Actions roncerni.11!; cliff IV) at the CAC meeting of September 19 , 19/9 . In ,light; of your vote nut ro respond uo uIle Col!ani s" i 1,1i ' s �'1�:•:�a 1 1•, ;:t"os 1: for information made a t the pub L i c hearing 01 ��1.;11 -t- 1. 1 %7'? , t;;� :; c:,l r i reviewed the tapes of that hearing . As the tapes indicated , and as YOU Git:)' Staff atld :1 100111bOl- OLU. S'I I S stated at the September 1901 CAC nit_'C'r illf„ :',OV017a11 111e'1,1111':1"S OE i::1L' sion asked the CAC for rheir position on i.S311CS rai:;c:L1 till:ill;; t:lle ,,ng oil P-79-5340 . Specifically : i . The Commission redue, ted specifics ns uo !low t:hu ailo p t i.cn ;.V permit at this; time would be prejudicial t:u Lhu OC.11 C0:l:; :..11 The Commission requested very speci Fic c:haptel- , verse:, etc . ,;t:. the respective positions of both sides ; 2 . The Conunission requested verLf icnt:ion of llcieh V110 Gi ty ' r :::ld CAC ' s position with resprct to the off-si_te land thet. _•��- posing for affordable housing ; 3 . The Commission also requested the City ' :; IJ1+� for the deletion of eight of their conditions oil t.i1>r' 4 . The Commission requested toot' t:hr inl'orilint- iOil r.l1.I;' 1.1loy h.iv-�, the applicant:. staff and the CAC to supl)ly will Ile :1vali L,:IUI c: ::�� �al:: ' ;I'-LM ber of the pubLic . Sin.ee i.wo mcinhersl or veiill• CAC i vni, i fi ve1 :11 i lit' ho;iritl;: .;ml C . were 11r a-CIlL a t 1:11;IL 110a117 i ily i r is: tillcol.i.11tlal 1` 1,11.11 1 111' ;:1.1 1 . i : e•: conimi ttee re ! 1, (.I1;1t. Lho Comm l.:::.Jtill 11:1d liol, i 11101.11:. 1: i1 +Ie . 1.:.1' COIIIInisnicii1 and suirr ru Lift! on the CAC mr-nihor:; ;1:111 I.l.e'.I ! 01:1:,c.1 L sLalf to p ovide Llle r esponsc LU t11C Cl1l0:A LUtl.; il';l�('l1 (11 Since the applicaiilt oil P- 79-5340 has submitted thoi.r response ►:o ::t:,' COMM iSSi oil ' s que:Lions; , and the Coiinlli^:: Lon s t.a1 t.t. ] :; +. 11-:7-11�X-i.11g their response . I sincerely hope the CAC and talc Git •• t:i.l.1 al .;,o avoi L ',emsclves of this opportunity t:o give input Lo the t,ommi.s;; ion ill L'.loir 11,acision making. i ( ITY OF i-iunT1' nCT0 (1 BER ( H J ' DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPWNT NLRVICrS BUILDING DIVISION 0141536!1/411 PI AidNIM, DIVISION 111.11 !r lWo. 11 1'. U. (1(r,c 100 IIUNrIN(;1(IN IILACII. CA1.1V-011NIA971i411 I i Aug I.IsL 11 , 1979 Mr . Dave Kadie Huiitington Ocach Company 2110 Main Street 11mitinyton Deach, California 92648 itC : ftpvi Cw o f CICO c-1 i f f. IV 1'i n.11 CeInel i l i on:i Of hrrit'rov�l ] T haw, rev ic,we`d i; he at t-,-w od corm l l 1 ntis (11 ,ippt ov;1 l for 1 11r` SCtic) i C f I'}I;Asc 1V I'rrJjec-t , which i n(•1 u,le:; 'I'c'nt al i vc: 'l'r :.tc•l Nos - 10061 , 1.00G8 , and i wGc) , '1't`nt.;tt. i vo V;irr•(-1 Map No. 11... 17 • .ind Cnnd_i 1:ion.71 U:ir !rc`r Ini 1. iJr> . 17 - 2 1 , 'I'lcr`:,r' r•c�ricl i 1 irlrl:. ;11 r ;tn <lr•c•111 •l ! c` r 1`1 I ..('t i ron or I III- r .,l,•J i I i mtn III .1ppi 11v.1 1 11nirrr :• • I by I tic! III.Jrini n(I r 'rmimi :,.::iors .111,t :;111j:,wr111r•111 1 't1.11111r: 111.lr1" II y I Ilr ' City i have stalnlWd t hr: two a 1. t;tcllr'rl r'r1111 (::: of (-mid 1 t: t r lrl:i I ,l vr'( I f y 1.ha L Lhe st.ii I: f li-is rev i vw(!cl I ht .se vc)nd i I, i ,1rv; ro f .11tc1 w-ri fy thei r' nec-m m-y . 1 f yc111 nt`c•(l ;iny -1cldi I inn.l I ] to be: st ruled, *t11 cl:I:;L` I'(•c..• i ( r rr: l o ►•r1111 .1vt ull •. t 11.1v1 . I r`t ,1 i 1,c •• 1 one. (7011Y Of 1.1:c!:ic` r•tondI I irin:; i (J Iw r'111r •1r •r1 ( lilt , rrllr I I I ,� r �Ir I, lit! I I i IV 1'1r) 1(r1'I . T.f you hava Kind► rit- her quest.irins rv(1;ir-di nr1 t It I :, plat t.r•ti pI (,.t-w Ci;r. l 1'rc:e in *,:r,nt ;t(:t rnr, in LIIe` I' I .I►lrtinct no11art.lilt`nL. Sincere] y ,t:5' • . k � :%tvny M. '101 1 av i ,I "nits I' hmni.r (7 l.y cal I Itlrll. i 1t111 c on Iles ' r'tl � :trltlE (It f.Alttll�llt�CAI Ir-ORNIN COAS IAL COMMISSION .•' ., SpU111 WAS 111.610NAL CUNIIS51UN IL66 1. OCIAN 00I IEVAND. SIJII( 3101 ITMJ1pR It�O i J, ►, 1 ,1tAC11, CAIfip1111A CtfD01 I , • . ln sorl (7141 8460648 ' September 25, 1979 ING G Ms . Mary Lynn Norhy , Planner I'• t' LCP Citizen ' s Advisory Committee Hun(int,,o, c/o Deparment: of 1%,velopment: Ser. vicc:s P . O . Box 1.90 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Desz Ms . Norby and Members of !.-lie Citizen ' s Advisory Coi-Lni. i-Aoo : , This letter is in response to your actions concorni.n P- 79- 5'=:10 (Soil- cliff IV) at the CAC mecti:.­ of September 19, 1919 . In ,light of your vo::e nuL• ►:o respond CO Lilt',, t,Ulllifll r�:l l)11 ' s �'��:•ht11 1- :;,1_x c for information made at the public ttcarini; 1� st.'ati reviewed the tapes of that hearing . As 4-he tapes indicated , and as your C.it:y Staff and J r1tA WIL1r tau_ SL.11:1 staked at the September 19th GAC meer.ing , several 1 vJAhcr'!: OE Lne �•.-;,,;;ti. : - sion asked the CAC for r.hoi.r position on .issues r,li.'iCki ciurin;; LhQ :�t:.•tr- :,ng on P-79-5340 . Specifically : The Commission requested specifiers as Lo ltaw Lilt.- .lflopri.c::1 ,, 17: ::,:e.• permit at this tinie would be prejudicial Vo Liar Local L`oo;l!; L.; '_ The Conunission requested very specific Chapter , versa, (!LC . Co ,jI:s11i _; he respective posicions of both sides ; 2 . The Conuuission requested veri>=icaLion of both the City ' ; zind CAC ' s position with respect to the off-sit:e land theposing for affordable housing ; 3 . The Commission also requested the CiLY ' S respon::l.• as to uho re.,.-on for the deletion of eight of their conditions oil Lh 4 . The Commission requcs Led 01,1 t the i_n Corma r ;oil t:11.1 1.11o\- ;1:iv•_t ttte 'applicant , staff and the GAC to supply will be avrci lable ::0 %i::1w ;r,u:^t- ber of the public . Sin.cP Lwo n1cinbnr s o your t.nr t v.nri Civil ar t ho hk`:11. 1Ii1, ;11d 1: : were pre,-cttt: aL I: vIL heari Ilt; , i r is till fo r(.tti1,1l 1, I.11:1r r11,' ,.I.I i . r i �• , +� 1: c0mnlittee re) to 111.11ol: VIIL% i:uulnla.:.::..ic)1t had tiol' reque::t,oll i11i ,)1t11.,: i , �1, , T:.t' Coral:ni.ssi.otl and :;t::1ff rei.i.ed ();'i the CAC :1t),l i.t,t•.tl t;l1:I:.L.11. !•, � :1r;1:n Staff to p2.ovidc Lite resl)onf,c Lo trite rlUi_'t:IJ.011:; askt'0 o;. t:}1�:;•,. Since tite applic_artt ou F-•79-5340 flak submitted Litci.r responst— to '%Ai ' C0111miSSiolt ' a clucsLiett:; , and the Coinllir.:. ion Ul ft: i.:: 01L•1-citt:1.V 1�.�'l�.l�•i.11;; their. response, I sincerely hope the: CAC and Llte G".01 V-0,11 :11 :1,0 '�etnseIves of this opportunity to gave input: to Llic Jolt _' "I 'ir vision making. • (:I.t: /lily I --iory goon 1.1 1 fq• - :'- :;i•l�i i•wl►c�i• 1' I TM ,a,.] , h'm holm Lhi :; 1L•t' t:cr wi LI clear up any mi :;conet-pt iLtin:► c:uticerrnit:g; t.ht, ;onmi ss ion Is reciues ;:; of but.h t:he CiLy and t:he (:�►(; . Should you have any further questions please feel fret: to call D. Pickens or Eileen Baumgardner . Sincerely , S • I C ST REGIONAI, COMMISSION Gordon Craig Acting Executive Director RGC:me CC : Dave Eadir�•, Huntington Beach Company t I;Itll','e i!i I ! t1! Ni.l I11111 X I'IIA'#!' IV 1 111.11 ►'11►1111 1 11111', ul A1' 401VAI PG: CONO . PG. C0111). ISSUE NO. NO. ISSUE NO. NO. w k. DRAINAu' E. E. I .R. MITIGATION MEASURES I . Final nesign Approval petit:. 3 8 1 . Insulation Reqd. 5 6 2. Regt. to Accept Drainage: 11 2. of Spoil -, 3. 110A Maintenance 6 *2o 7 4. Maiat. Refits-Poo! Ie Ite putt 7 27 3. l I,IIit inij Ite:gtb. 5 9 5. Maint. Plan Required 8 34 ►1. Plumbing Refits. 5 10 5. Structural Reqts . !, NOISE (Se151111c) 5 11 1 . Attenuation Reqd. 1 0 6. Arched. Investig. 2. Exterior Bldg. Design RegJ• 6 19 Requirements 5 8 3. Interior Bldg. Design r, f INAL DESIGN ROTS . Requirements 5 13 1 . Parcel Map Reqd . 1 2 A. Repeat of No. 1 7 23 2 . File Parcel Map 5. Attenuation Design Regts . 8 31 W/City 1 3 3 . 1120, Sewer , Hydrants , 'a. PARK LAND DEDICATION 11 17 to Ciry Regts . 1 �+ 4 rire hydrants to �. STREETS G RIGHTS OF WAY (R/W) City Regts. 3 9 1 . R/4 width-Palm, 38th St. 1 5 5. Submit Final Plans 2. R/W Wld'kth-Palm, 38th St. 1 7 for Review 2 1 3. R/W Width-Palm Ave. 2 It 6. Submit Final Plans t ,, 4. R/W Width-Palm, 38th, for Review 4 1 A 6 B St'a, 3 6 7. Elevation Review 5. R/W Wfiith-Palm, 38th St . 3 7 fla(Id . 4 2 6. St . Radius Des Ign 3 11 0. 1'inie I Landscape 7. S t . Radius Design 3 12 Plan Reeld. ►i 4 8. St . Median Design 3 13 9. Garage Design 5 5 9. Interior St. Widths ►1 16 10. Dimensicned Site 10. Private Drive Design 7 24 Plan Reqd. 5 12 11 . Median Negt. - A St . 11 . Temporary Fencing 38th St.- 7 25 Reqd . 6 17 12.! 38th St. Design - Scenic 12. Parking Area Design 6 to Route 7 26 13. Parking Areo Design . 8 30 . 13. Parkway W)dth, Maint. Resp. 7 27 14. Rec. Facilities 14. Park:-4ay Design, Maint. Resp. 7 28 Reqd. 7 21 15. Parkway Design (38th) 15. Exterior Maint. , Saint . Resp. 8 29 Casements 0 33 16. Share of Traffic Signal 16. Rrvised Tentative Cos 2 2 RL(Id, 2 5 j 17. 1 trr ►ri n►e:rJcnc"y?'ce.s•, ATE ? t 3 GAA . MISCULANEOUS 18. �r 1 1 . Parcel Nisp Approved 1 1 Fire i XB ATI ON DATE....�„�;, 5 i Ie 2 . Qua i i I' i ca t i on s Re: 19. cA�RbVE� Rights 1•-� Z A3 raj Zone Lhanjlu 1 6 i . Qua 1 i f i ca t i on; Re: COND. APPROVED [] P.C. Zone Change 4 15 ' If . Qualifications Re: 0 DENIED C.C. Zoree Change 6 15 (� VJITMDRAVIN ,�-" hruhlbi tion of Rec. I?%FERRET . ACTION vehicles L i! 3 '-~- .- 6. e 1 Island Convers lon 8 32 J .AN {{- iIC�C , KNIT IS"Ill�n ; !. I , i'e�rirc,ttlt4 at' ._,.. ..._ .. .. i ,�,,I i ! i •lei., / 1 f► rINn,L cAN01TInNs tlr /I��I'rtovA - r�llnFlo: 5r Iv A. TrHTr AT 1 jC PARCEL NAP NO, 78-37 i 'OiAc. : PitltCCl: 1 . The tentative l»rtc 1 map rucr i veaf by t h!: I'Linn i iqr f1r�r�,ir tnuit 1 �Qap Appuvedl oil October y, 1970 , bu Ilir ;illproved I.tyout . iulliuct to contil t itnt of nliprov,,l and adlit-. 1111mil 0i ref IL►4l lamnolai y lino channes rasu I t l nij 1 r(rn LhU f i 101 adult 1 1111 t ul Zones chanija nlu. 78-11. i' na.t Vea.ign 2. A parcel map shal 1 be fi led wi iti an,d approved by the Depart- iRegtta : PaAcee meat of Public Works and recorded with tilt: Orange County !Map Regd. ) Recorder. Umt Uuign 3. Copies of the recorded parcel .map shall be filed with the RegtA: FUe Planning Uepartment and with the: Department of Public Works . Map W/C.cty) f.imt Deign 4. Water supply and sewage tllsposal shall be through the City Regte: ii201, of Huntington teach at the time of development . Shade" to City . Rea' I 5. The boundaries of Parcels l and 3 shall be extended to include :S.taeW 6 R/W: the full rights-of-wny of 38th Street and Palm Avenue. The R/Ili Width-Patin boundary of Parcel 2 shal I lie e:xlend0d to Includo tho total B 36-thl riufit-of-way of Palm Avenue. 'tLibC. : Qtutl i- b. Approval of Tentative Parcel Nap No. 78-37 shall be null and taUolt.6 Re void If Zone Change No. 78-4 does not beconw effective. 4une Changel 9 R lSthe¢�tb - 7. Thirty-eighth Street shall be dedicated and fully improvod to R/W rW tW: its ultimate right-of-way from at least its northernmost W�-� 6 38W boundary within TPM 78-37 southwestt:rly to at least i tr. Inter- section with Palm Avenue. Paim Avenue shall be ,dedlc:,tedl and Fully improvad to its ull,hnale riyh't-of-way width frrAn It!- Intersection with Thirty-eighth Street !.outhi:asterly to its intersection wi th Goldenwest Street. (Nui.dP: 8. The lan►lt*wner or ftis designee shall he reshonsiWe fnr the ACr.C�Urat:tott instal cation and maintenance of tlte: burntine,�, laridscalti,ng , 1 I and wall for noise attenuation tre:mment along the southwesterly Itet d' side of Pa 1 to Avenue between the ex'l s t i ny ten»i s cottr t f ac I lit y and the i rstersuct i r-n of Palm Avunu,s anti 381h Street . r I NAi trniii u nw. or Ai'riinVAi - NIM I IV ram..-wrr•�rr•...w..-r«�.► ....- -.._r._.w .�.. ...w-...�.. .... f P.ige 2 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 10067 1006R . aiM 10069 it F1►ta.L 17ea lgn 1 . A revised Conpos i to s i LO r i an i ncurlinra t i rid all requ i ru- RP.q'C6:. Suhni,t mints of the Planning Co+miission slial l he submitted for Fart Plant review a6d approval prior to the recard,it ion of any (Ittat rwt Rew'.0 ) m,':p. Said revised cumpo% ite bill. 111,111 :.IlaII loco hecolle thin allpi-tived I .iynut fur dove lujimaiit of TaiiiLtlt ivis 1 ructx 10067, 10068, and 10069. (Sttee A 6 R/W: 2. Prior to construction of the Sencliff Phase IV project, a ' Shaii2 06 Siglta.0 traffic signal shall, be ins'talied at the intersection of CO-64 Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The costs of such Installation shall be borne on a 511/50 ratio between the developer and the City of Huntington Beach. (StUW 6 R/W: 3. ( Interim emergency access - 38th Street) InteA.im Emtvt ene� Acaede Regd.J A- 1 . Interim emergency access shall be available nor'ther'ly on 38e1 Street to the extension of Garfle'ld Avenue and from that point easterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the intersection � • of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street. Such emergency access shall remain in force until pu6llc access Is jy available from Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to. a dedicated and improved 38th 5lruet raving at least two (2) 12-fuot travel lanes . A-2. The interim emergency access shall be subject to fire Department appruval as to proper grading , alignment , identification , illu-nination, and security method. In addition,. the emrgency access shall be paved to a full twenty-four (24) foot width and shall be main-tained by the Huntington Beach Company. (S.tAett6 6 R/W; 4. Palm Avenue shall be dedicated and fully improved to its R1W Width _ ui t imate right-of-way width from its intersection with A fAlm Ave. ) Street within Tentative Tract 10069 southeasterly to its i iritersecth)n with Goldenwest Street. (F•uutt Opeinit S. iZevised tentative tract maps Mahal I be %vibmi tted in reflect t: P Rt'.il .s: RcuLsed change in the boundary of the total project as colldi timed by Tentative Ruud. j the Planning Cneivilssion. Said revised reaps sh:il l be sulnnittad prior to the recordation ui' tiny final neap; 1 i f 1lft 17011111 1'1l1NS or Al-1-110VAl. I' IM1. 1v Palle 3 ;th 6 R/W: 6. Palm Aventle A am � +l 9 Street,% .tti►I BIlt alreel -.It-all I.8e /W Wddth-i'aCm, dtditntt:e! aid hilly linlirtrwtdte: is ri11l►t-ol'-way Uhs Aid Sta. ) within the blue border of Tracts 10067 , 1060r anel 10069. i ItAer.td 6 R/W: 74 The borders of TLhtal ive Tracts 16069 and 10n6n shall he '/W Width-Patin expanded tn Include I he• full r i:tfi 1 ti-n f•wrty (i f Po l u► Ave siiic i 38th) and 3Hth St.reut . the borders or ltolt -tt ivu Tract 1t1061 -shall be expanded to includu lists full rItIlIL-of-emy of Nihit AvunNc. )WnIge: F.tnctt 8. Fina1 deSiyn of the drainage system, the retention basins , 7uign App�t.ovat and the channel Improvement's shall be sub)uct to apProval 2egd. ) by , the Director of Public Works, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the; Regionai Water Qublity 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 . propose9d in the information he has submitted to the Planning Conimissloii for drainage into the Bolsa Chica, the drainage system shall be redesigned and remain flexible: to allow for alternative solutions . f.inaC Deb ' 9. Sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shalt be subject Lo �hn Req.ta: Wa eA, City Standard Mans and specifications as adupted by the UWA ih duit A City Council . .to City Spece. ) 10. Except where private entry drives intersect with Palm Avenue VehidatM AeeeAd 38th Street, and A and B Stre' ets , vehicular access rights R,t9j1, ) to said streets shal I beL dedicated to file City of Huntington Beach. CS#AeetA i R/W: 11 . All main entryways from public streets shall have a minimum StAtet R4d6u 30-ront curb radius at locations as speci f led by the • p¢e�gtt) Department of Public Works pursuant to Public Works standards. ti(AV.¢.(.6 6 R/(V: 12 . All inner-tterninrl curl► radii slial I lit! --► minin►um of 17 fv(: t i Stwt,-(. Rtte11 es 4unl uul c r : i:t l► 1 odi l sls-ill I,r 115 I ta-1 , exc.el►t in Prrnl:tet if VeAig11 wltit.it 01011 have .t n►lt►iu+u►n outside culls radius of h0 (i.A. 13. Median streaks an:l left-turn lanes in bollh direelions shall be � S.tlte;P,t Metlin:t hrovidu►i in Point Avunuu at local loos. au►J to the spool i icaL ions of the. Drt►ar tn►cn t of i'ul,I ir. Works . • r �inl Clfl�ll I f I UNS UI' AI'I'illVAt. - I`IIA';I IV Patio h ,; kzl- a e: Rcgt. t fi to wi lh thb Ct t an i rr�vacab�iI malis , the eleveloper �.hal I I. 1'riur tq ree�nrel.st.iten t,f tlir fin to AcCept. y le lutl'ur of agrarnie��it lu '�DAct�Cttage) arcapt. drain"zige frotn the 'nu611ie into the: private drainage system. 'this agreement shall be recorded and a copy submitted to Lhe .City of the recorded document . Jai Ac.:e•eaneutw: 15. Approval of Tent a l i ve Tracts i onG7 , i nnrifl, alul I fin(ig oia l l - uaUjiea.iU,usi3 bucsatna' null alid vuid if Zone Cit.atnle. Nu. 18-4 loas nut LerLoma Re Zone Change) effective. ' Stntetb b RIW: 16. lnterior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall ln: Mioh Sthea provide two (2) minimum travel lanes of 12 feet fr'um curb WV,itLtl 6 face to median curt) race. PMk Land 17. City Council accepted the of(-Vr of dedication of 7.8 acres VeaL4CA.t t'on) from A. J. Nall Corporation for parksite purposes , said property located In the linear park concept area. C . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77-23 'Ftrta,E Deb.ign 1 • The revised composite site plan ref Iect ing those details and :amenities as required by the: Planning Coimil s s I on and Reg6: SubWU thosa shown upon ,supnortinq plans rt.treived 'on October 18, Finat Ptana 1978, shall be constructed as i tidi ca ted within tits' devu I np- Foh Review) menus , lncludind but not limited to opeei space, water areas , textured pavement , reeking , schematic elevations , materials and colors , recreation facilitley , pedestrian walkways , and oil well treatment . (rinat Debi n 2 . Prior to iss'ualice of building permits , all exterior bisi ldi�ig 9 elevations shall be revie�oed aiid approved by the Planning Req#.aa: ELetvat{oit Uepar tmen t . Rev�tecv Re9d. ) �I1�i.bcr.P,latneous: 3 . The CC&R's and Association rules sliall sat forth provi !;lons to prohibit the: ste role of recreational vahiclas upon i �'n01tt�.(.t.COtt Ol� designated open parkiiiy spaces within the iaro,ject. Ree Veiae to) h . Prior tit Ilie Issu,nnce or bitilding lttrrniils , Ihu devciope!r shall • i t t y h sulaui t �i final (antlsealec plan far s e.vlcw and al i r a al y ilia rl�anninil acid Public Ntarl:s De�lsai-inie-nl Native plant siwt.es•ials shaI 1 hC tit I l izcel In 1.1ndscialllitil protlrnins wi ihin the project drsinisilt� fatal l t tIes . The projrcl %litin-.or 4h.f1 i coordinate with the Department of riyls :mil Gome in the: preeparutiun -id review of these: idnelseapu plaits . '• i I I iIAI I'Iti1111 11111110, 111 Al-1-1111VAI I•IIA'.I IV I'ii V¢b•i.f�il 5. A 1 1 gararies wi I li i it, Protluc t Area C ctrul any tit lib r gjrativ i it ._ 'Re Gauge Lice outer product areas wh l'c:lt +r a cons l l iict%t! hew i i,+t let► neb.e1 than a 20 fextl dr'i ve aprun tolta 1 l be edjeii'is,tied with :tut unlat. i c garage dtx)r openers, iC. T.R. 9W ati.on G. I f ee' l ` d a ►dl n - r t ti t. the 9 ntra air can 1 tinning r ., inst f le i ., ty tt 1 l �Mea•euku% Irtsulatitin' iii; cel l'iligs and axtcrior wal l's slialf Ut: a wittimum In utati.on Regd. ) of R-19 atul I1-11 rar,pcct ively. If nn cenI 'l-al air cumtli t ituiing Is nrwidudl, flits iusul,tllctn in C.ui Iltty% and exterior walls shall Lie o mittlmum ul' R- 13 attd R- 7 respectively. F..I.R, Mc iga' Uon 7. All bui ldinn spot is such as unusable lumber, wire , pike , and Meaduw-- Diapobat other surplus or unusable mat.url:dls shall be: hauled to ;in o6 Spo.ieb Regd. ) offsite disposal facility. 'Mo•cw ExteAiok 8. All dwelling units shall lie constructed in compliance with 8M.q. Ue ign the State accoustical standards set forth for all those units Regtb. ) that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. (E.I.R. Ki.L gct,Gion 9. Energy saving i ight'ina , such as high-pressure sodium vapor Meabty w- UghtiM lamps or equivalent ettergy saving types , sha 11 be used In RegtA. ) recreation areas. (F..1.R.Mi-tFgot' nit 10. Low-volume heads shall be used d,n all Spigots and water , ate"UAt' ; Plumbing faucets within the dwelling urtlts. Regl.b. I (i:.T,R. bl+tttgatc.ou 11 . Cbnst:ruction techniques recomtnpnded in the geotechnical report Meabtthebs on file for Lite project, shall be undertaken to the satisfaction S#httetunctt Reqtb. ) of the Director of Building attd Conviunity Developmd:rtt. (Se ieW ) 12. Prior to the: issuance of fiui l d i rt+t pervO ts , the developer shall SFina Vebign Req.i'e: submit to the Planning Department for review and appr•aval a 0•inttxb. cried Site fully dimenslone:d site plats for al I lots within the subdivislon. flan Reqd. i (wni.ee: Itttehiuh 1] . Prior to the issuance of buil+linri iit,rnrits , clntailcJ calculations 13f.dl9. Debi-jn RegIa. ) opt interior pulse levels based) un finol huildi'ui plans 1,11011 he s tlismi t ted to [lip. P l anti t rug Department and the Molding Itt.lt;trt++u�ul fetr ruvlew atul approval . The InLeriur nnise levels of all s t ruc tu-cr, slia I 1 nett exceril t ite Cali fora i .t not se In,Ma ion standard; of 45 db.•t CHI.L. IVACc t.S 6 A/W: Ill. All %ur i .tcd O areas used l ur drive:, ror vehi Ott lar access In , Vivibbig Rebfti.abw) over , ar+d through all areas, within the projects shut i be f Lanes) dr.s loinated as fire: aeeesti l aiies and psi ted as ;uclt. The cuwsi fr,r the Iltmwowners' Associ.et ieui steal I cuutain a provision to require That t.hr: A%tuciation enforce parkinL+ restriction in throe: fire i.trtc%. • 1 11141 Cl111111 111111% 01 lll'PROVAI - HIA'1I IV r'.ulr G i �ititbC,C�(QNt!ui:S: 15• Alrpruva l ul Coati i t inna I ii-:i: f voi, i t tin. 71-7 3 til,:11 l I.,•c,Nnr. Qw :L-Ai. aUolu nut I and void i r luau cit.utile No. fu-►+ tiou.: riot beC41111c Re Zone Chow) cffectivu. If WACetta►lecua r 16. Prior ,to recordation of any p final na 1 ma , list-. CCr.it's rtor the P"(104tttance 06 projects shal I be submitted to the Plarrninii nespartmviol, for Condi ivna) review to assure ctmpli.ince will, all applicillilt: t-Cm1111itiil5 Of allhr-nva l atitl to tl,u AL tUrncy's of l i t:t: fur' review eta to 1 e:y.a I f urm. (F oat OC.e:rgtt 17. Prior to final bui Wing inspectinn , temporary fencing to RegtA: Tempo►cthy consist of a . five (5) foot high chain link construction Fanc utg Regd. ) shall be installed on the northwest side of 30th Street adjacent to the project boundary to prohibit access to tite surrounding oil operations , bluffs, and marsh area unless the area subsequetttl y heconics subject to the jurisdiction of a public agency. Jr-inrtt Ueei It 18. The revised plan for Product C received and dated January RegtA: PaAkbiq 16, 1979 shall be the approved layout for thc,. minlmunt Mtea DeA4,11 parking requirements on Product C. Each parkln:g node; shell reflect total circulation around and through such area and the design of such circulation shill be subject to the approval of the Flre Department . err (F.fnaC Oe-6g 19. Prior to any improvements to the exist Intl drainage channel , R09te: Mell"eol'ogimt test level investigations shall be made by a qualified rove t gaGion Regd. ) archaeologist approved by the Planning Department for ORA 293 and ORA 294. A written report shall be submitted to the Planning Department I nd i ca t i ntl the depos i t.l ona I cha rac:ter, the research potential , .and potential mitigating measures fur each site. Mitigation measures necessary to preclude sits: impairment , as approved by the Planning Director, shall be compiled with. (U�ta.tnager 20. The CCrR' s and the Association rules shall contain a provision :Iuineowllehe' that the Hametvrncrs' Association shall be obi igatetl for adage. Mab tenattee nw ir,i mart ce and upkeep of the dra i naye sys tent, s i dc;wa 1 ks , Rurion. j Irrigation system, and landscaplim both within anti outside of I lle gull l i t: r i ilh t s-u l -wily it, the: iruh l i e 'street St.-LA l„ns vwi th in L lou such:) i i r i'ivric IV tlt:ve lulmic:nl , except that the Asocial ion sh;i 1 not he ul>I bgated to tncritttain airy 1.tntl%caping, sl.rrct pavinel , or dr.tlnacy- tiystems located within the public r ighl 5-ol'-way f r'rN►t I1,t.k or cur It lu liat-k of curb. I I IIAl, 131110 1 t 1 OIN nl hlIrilnunt i111MI. i u i•i Ve.strei 21 . incre:it♦Htnuo racimir.r; ,h.ill lit. ltrtwittrti within lire eernrtMrn Re Remea.t.ion ni1e.•n area tit Prutfuct Area A. 11ni rnvi► ed.plans received .vid Caci.Gi.tie,e Regd. I dii yell January 16 . 1979, -.Ito I I lit- t (lc irlil►e'uved I aynu l fur these: foci I i t i es. D�tair'utgc:: 22. Information stabitil tted by tIre develnpt•r for coiiside:rat ion for Aiibaerutnee, inciuslun in the Real Cstate: Report for all tlirev product Regra. - i'itl►Ue_ nre:as shjl 1 enntain a slaLcitkent cart chi: t.,lrl i�pl inn of lice Repo,%O Ihnivownt-W M•.;oc l at i on for tire• rtril ho vo;mro r,f pr i vol e d ra i n.rva syt:t em5 and , t dawa l ks . (No.iee: 23. The landowner or his del:i nnee shall be responsible for the • installation and the malntcnance: of cite bermind, landscaping, �lttenuet.Lcon Regel. l and wall for noise attenuation treatment along the south- westerly side of Palm Avenue between the: existing tennis court facility and the intersection of Palm Avenue and 38th street. (,St'heW b R/Ili: 24. All private drives used to prnvIde ingress and egress for PlUvate Vit.ive the of I ape rat ions steal I be re(pil red to be constructed with Vee��n1 a street section the: same as tlor,se: constructed for local streets . ' S,#I��re b R W. 25. A raised median shall be constructed within A Street at MedZan R4q.(. - the inter••1-c0un wl tit 30th Street , of a width and desitjn to St. 6 3s1 tit ctmmp l y wP tit Cite sla::c i f f cut i orts of tire. Deltartniont of Public Works. ' Wit¢. 6 b R/W: 26. If the City develops landscaping standard p l erns fnr the scenic ruutes within the City within tine year of the first 3fi:ut St. ►t recordation of any final map within this project , the Seen.iC Route ) developer shal 1 instal i tiro treatment along 380 Street In compliance with said plans for the off- island oil welly , screening walls , and landscaping areas along that route:. (SlAW4 8 R/W: �7• Street rights-of-way tl�di cation to the City for A and 4 Patlatay Width - Streets shall include - 42 feet , plus area for public util f tiers easement back of curb to back of curb. All �irzf�ttenctnee lttalafi. f ,caltir;� and inea nderinq slilowalks shall be ot+ned s l t'ac t t.�• r, utttl nurt ill .tlr lit tI Icy tlits IItam:tn4iivi-tiI A!.%ut i.tt Ion. Public access s11.111 t.c pr•t►vidcd un periuwter walkwayu. jSfnr.eP.S 9 PAV: 20 . St rent r (nitl -rtf-rr.ty dedicated to the City for Palm Avenuc 14ut�iuty t�r.S�ttn - shall lie IUD feet wide. Thls ritaht-ul -m-sy shall Incitrtlu Mr ' ;.'ettct►tee irt:.3ltOtt. ) an 8-root of fstrect blkewiey on l ha southerly side in lieu of a sidewalk. A meandering sidcwalk and inteersified landscapinrl shall be hrnvidad on Lite northerly Side of the street. Tito sidewalk/landscaliing an tite project side of Palen Averiiia shall lit: owned .teal waintained by tho ifryncowne!rs ' &%vclaLlun. I Ill►.t I Itlll►I I ltllt't ill, itl'I'IItlVltl 1'IUt'•I IV • I'���lt� ll 'Stt-Oetb 6 RIW: 29. A un-atttleriilq ,idewall, .Intl inten-,ifit!d trvut i.tntiscapirul PaAkahtif DC. 4gn :.hall he i,ruviJt!d on tllc r..ISt -lids` tsf 311111 Street and shall 3d.th) , Witt. (10 eawned rtt rsta'i n•.a flied by tile Iltm+suuwners ' Assne l at'lan. Keq.t. ) hubl IC Jcc.U:,:, shai 1 bo provided u11 this pe'rimetur s)Jew.t)k. �.F�tru Oi%b.irllt 30. in Tentative Tract 10069, land,capu planters with pcsrItNsj Regfti PdAkt.►ID on one slits otsly :hall Ise exterhdett in a lterpentlic•itlar fa-,hioit ' � Gt;�4.Dlt} (in each end tr, dentate 1143 1:1rt�1 tslreu'. .u, (etet l Ilte d Ili Aaacitrd kxhibl t Nn. 1 . Ihloibe: 31 . Detailed plans for noise attentiatibn on the snuth side nf Ute►uiation Deb.igl- Palm Avenue shall be approved by t her Planning Dei,ar tmen t hegC4. } prior to issuance of building permits. JWACeP.ta►'tP.otia 32 . off-island wells shall be converted to cotrxnon open space Oit Ibtand tinder Lhe ownership and maintenance of Use Homeowners ' Convene.iu►t) Association at such time as oil operations cease. The abandonment and clearinU of the site of all oil operation equipment shall be the responsibility of the all operator. The Homeowners' Association shall he responsible for the Installation and maintenance of all landscaping to convert the arras to common open space. ' In the alternative, the developer may , prior to the recordation cif a final map, submit a revised site plan to " incorporate these area. Into additional lots and/or units wit`in Products A and B. This plan shall be reviewed for approval action by the Planning Department and the CUR's for the rsrct ject shall lstc;l uder prc,vi s ion-, fi:r Ilse annexal lon Irf 1114'..! .lrt.11ti . (f•i►zat Deb<n►t .33. Three- root (z' ) maintenanceeasements sliai I he provided Its RegtA: Ex.te ion Tentative Tracts 10067 and 10069 alantl all zero side yards Maintenance unless the Homeowners ' Association -.vi I 1 assume all exterior Eae`ettlenfe) maintenance respoosibi IIty . (O►tminage : 311 . A drainatle system nialniviianres plait for pni—colation/retent inn At.ilttelwolee I'Pe111 ponds , culve:l•ts , channel hnlrrovCntcctts , :rrtd related laciliflus Regd. ) shal ) be deveiul,ied to ensurt: faei lit ic!, wl 11 maintain design call-lc i I i es 10 .~,.s ore•, can t I itued o f(cc t i vuness. Ill I !, initi n tvilallct• 111011 l;It,t 1. 1 lit! approved by t he Duliartment of Puld I c Works .Intl the C.slilortsia (ltrparttnettl. (it Fish anal Gaitin prier to cttn, tructiun . N,simenantt- tat the.. dt► iirttsrly sy-,tcm either titan i 1e (lie Ishdil i t: orcet r.y•► l vni shall he ►l,r• rvsisctn-, i b i l i t y jr tltc ili,t►ie:e�t.1tst:1'�,,' 11�,�,uti.rt it,rt �ttlti/ire Ili,: eft:vCicrl►t�t'. f I11A1 f 011111 1 I IIII'. iII r11 HIIIVAI vIii i IV I'.t�it: tj Iteliresentat ives or lhu 11wiitnt,tl Water Quaff i ly Clint rt11 Ilu.It J aiidlor, the Del),irtment t,f i'i It ,Ilnt flame tha1I lit.- a1Iawe-el t, heelutiicaI ly In- ,-I:ct . the drainailt! System .Joel n,,Ikt. I'LIC- IIII,IILn,1.e- t ions to the M%bticiat ktn raid/tIr the it) take: any act itnt nt!t:tl:;S.tiry W e!n•,ure I II-i t the dr"l i rl,e,i4 1 dci 11 ties are u-,tinlained in an ul rt.-ct i vC cnrldi I i:.n. "Effective: cnndit ion" 5113l I lie d,-f ineti a.; Iit.it ctnttlit inn %,hir.h Mai ltt.aiI,,# Ilse: wit e r f iit I,I.nur. o w.Ii, til,•,l i ly III I-MtI ty lu within 95 I-li-cent or: i) 6w -, t.t,,,I.tttis t,I the wmcr Quality Cuntrol Huard , c,r 2) the itlg present. cundi lion haseil ulion measurements taken within 60 days subseciuent to the approval date of the tentative tract malt:; , whichever is tlte: toile: restrictive. 11' for any reason the Homeowners' Association and/or the developer falls to take action to remedy a deficiency of the drainage system within 30 days of nutlfication of such delIciency. the City may then take action to maintain that drainage %ys t e m to restore It to effective coed l t i on .tnd :,hall l,e reimbursed for all cre,l !, itlr such mal►at:nt,aictr by the Homeowners ' As sue i a t i utt and/or the: Jeve: l upe t . 'A lAvettaneotu : 35. The; ruvIsed plan for Tental ive; Tract 10068 received and dated 'iPt RmtiOs January 16, IJ%J , shall lot.. the d plan alli,t•ovts for niinimum A�1 parking re_clui renu:rtts as set forth in Sect ion 9362. 16 c,C the Itun t i nU ton Beach Ord i nane.i. Celle:. J f S. W. Schunfac er 6921 Lawn Nay n Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 42648 November 1 , 1979 California a al fornia Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Gentlemen: Please accept herewith the enclosed completed form for "APPEAL FROM PERMIT DECISTON OF REGIONAL COMMISSION" with regard to the South Coast Regional Commissionis decision of October 22, 1979, in the matter of its permit No. 79-5430, Huntington Seacliff Phase IV. At this time, and to complete your files in this matter, I am also forwarding letters I have filed previously with the South Coast Regional Commission relative to my contention that the project should not have been considered, much less ruled upon, by that body inasmuch as there is, I feel, a cloud over the project as reported out by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. The further attached letters;, etc. , between myself and both the Orange County District Attorney and our State Attorney General detail the foregoing. All of this is a matter of public record on file with the City Clerk of the City of Huntington beach. Those records are referenced herein and elsewhere as file 11121 - Seacliff Phase IV" , and by reference are made a Dart hereof. j I I would hope that your Commission would finally take a necessary long, hard fa looms at this project . Thus far I fear that r too many decisions have been ;Wade purely for political reasons. For example, a portion of ' the Regional Commission' s; October 22 packet contains references to the City of Huntington Beach having addressed locati.onal concerns regarding low-cost housing. The tone of this reference would make one feel the City Council had given its approval of the proposed off-site and outside the Coastal lone location of the applicantb low-cost housing requirement. At this time, to the best of my knowledge, few, if any, of the Councilmen or Councilwomen are even nware of this, ouch less having had the opportunity to discuss or rule on same. This is but one example. Y/hile I cannot be certain of who will appeal, or how many requests you'll receive, 7 feel sure that most will find it an extreme hardship to attend meetings in Los Angeles and/or San Francisco. It 's difficult enpugh to attend daytime meatines in 1untington Beach especially when c:ne can never be certain ;Then the inatter will be discussed. However, I respectfully request dint the Commission consider holding its hearings (if' any) in Huntington Reach. Only by doing so can you avail yotrselvec of the total input available here. Please accept my fondest thanks for ,your consideration of this appeal on my pfirt. I will. await your deca.siun in the clatter. ',*!,ndect reCards, • :Chumarher- cc: 11untinCton Beach Co. Huntington ,;cac1.iff 11ameowners Aran. Ci 4y► Clerk, City of 11untington Beach Amigor; dr.• 11olsa Chica CALIFORNIA COASTAL CL oWISS10N i11 Rowan! itnet,s.+, Fn�+eMao S41a5• (t�,15) �t�3-8555 APPEA1, FROM PEPAUT DECISION OF ma7gwi. fI�3CZOr: Section I. Appellant 1. Name, address &nd telerhone number oi' appellant: S. W� Schumn2her-• 6921„ 'Lawn Haven Dr. Huntf to • sac Zip (&roa Code)(Telephone 1:s. 2. Name, addreas and tele-':one nur:-r•er of cppellaxlVe rE;resenta•civs , if Seet:en 11. Deeirion of Roc.+onal Cm,=4 ssion Bei r. A•)pWa'_-?c : . Name of Fefiona2 Colrnis:.ion:Snu�h r arzf Reminual Co m j=c on 2. Da:e cf Regional Co=4-ss:,z&1s decisicn: October 22, 1979 Regional Co=A- ssicn File 1:=ber; ?9-5340 �. Brief descr•,:ption of dove o1"zent being appa3led: 531 +1ni t_ rass Azz. tat development known as Seacliff Phase IV , Huntington Beach, CA r. 'rief d_scripticn of davelopnlEnt location '., City or c :r: nea:e. road_ etc. ;unt r��tan Aeach„� CQunt�_- od' Qraaag-j ate,. the N�rtt erly end of Palm Avenue — 115 acres more or less. Describe decision of the Re?i.ona-1 Coa..;.issien. (E r c •a approval ccndltiors, etc- ) : 5ectian rII. Zdentirlcation and Notification of Other inti.-rertCc 1. Mate the name: aria addresses of the fD11oaing pur::ea. pare: i_' necessarj: a. The ni=e and address C! tt:a 11untin ton Reach_ Cc�. . .?LL2 Main St . , z._ funti],rtan Pear i , r'A o,6Z�, b. The governing body of each cdurt•y, city and local j:Dverlr--t-!,: � et, encies having Our=sdi rticr, r. the Frc• &ct ar-:^: City L)f j.jirjLi nfr .n, ; Rich f'."li !7nu 1cl l , and n1 :fir* r[am-i z inn c. Nar:es an: Uddres:;.es cf all pereons wc� ex-p:'ccse 3upp,:rt to the at.-Velccnent snd prcvid�,c their riuzi-s and pio`a? Ccrznissi.r. or are of •.enri:•_ 'V;• ,►-,,. _-:el1Ln- an interes'. in tt;.- mlttt•r s;•pear ci: Ar,ips; de Holea Chica, P.Q.Box 1563, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Aeon. , 3921 Luwn Haven Dr. , 11B CA City of 11untington Beach, 2000 Main St. , ifunti.ngton Beach A111-11,TCA?1T .... •. •w� •M \ •• • r. • 'ti•Y .\ •.�•I� w"• I..IM 4.1 V.r+-\.-..• a - •r♦ _• .. .• . .• � . • .. �_.•� I � •. rr. _ I , Section XV, NUten rt bit tfs to to Damnstrate :•uticta: i al The lippel2anL•�.ouit' cleik nat:atae to the Statr Co ireion 'that u sLbctA.^•iaZ .:ks rb13od b 'the i w .v Y ppeal, an issue of such concern that it warrants a new hearing at 't"e aap.P:icution by the -C=Amsion. The appellant's failure: to 'met forth :r. su:fic:en, detail zhe' 'fact$•,upon which �thA •frpe4l .3s:.baeed, shC tre'reaaonR try appe' llun't believes the decision of the Regional Coomlacion to be 1nccnaiste:r.. : the requirements of the Coastal Act, way reaulx in reluctaon o!' %he: appeal .I; arounas that the preaanc:e of a rubstat;tial issue has na. beet, de.=ra;ratFd. the ehart deadlinea� provided in the Coastal A,:t, review of' your appeal w_11 :� :•. be possiola '"ees a complete and fully-substantiate: appeal is autnatted rt. NOTE: Mie Coardazi6n may considtr aspeaLs or the Regional U=ission decision much ats Ststewide p1waing issues or procedural errors a van where these are not of con- cern* to the appellant. For example, where the appellant objects only to orie of scrvera-1 conditions, the. Commis-eon msy hear the appiil and ultimately change other conditions or deny the appl.i-caticu-i altogether. Check applicable reason(s) why you believe the State CofR" a3icn should :::, ::• . the appeal. (In gen&ral, the t:orarission has not fow ! t:u: un apr.e31 substantial issu: 'ch:. warrants hearing an2eeas one of :.F.e foilowang fac:c:•s prescrt• ) XX 2. The development preoents a statew-_de pla••ininE iscue -*n which maids:: of the State Corrariss:on is required and the. matter i-t c2' sta tewide S .;..i:i :• .-.. c . 2. Tt-.e de::si:in of the hei=:nal Comm-' s::ic:, adverce rencurcea or the grope: public use of resourcvs , eont.rary to opeci:'_c pr::•._ ._ of the Coastal Act of 19,760 j. The decision of time hef.ional Ccnri.sci_r, :s 1r.canjistitr: w: t:• pre1%.% : decisions of the Sta 4e Ccaetission or did not. arieq\.:a te:'_y addrt:s isauss covert-� u;; • \•he rote r_tfve -idel_nes adcoted t: • �he S\,a.. Coc.-sai:�s'o •. r'p' � J e � r XX 4. ".ie proceedinEs of tLe Rea-onal Cortnission we:G materially affe:: :,: by inacau-rate factual information or procedural error and therPforea resulted ir: a decision contrary to tt,e: policies of the Coastal ;,ct of 10;6. -5. The decision of the hej;i_,gal Coaziissicn should to chanZcd teca::se new factui 1 infcivaticn, relatin: to coastal issues, and thi; infot��tiar. c.ul: nc: reasonably have been presEr red tic the Regi:nal Cc=,:.5sicr:. I XX 6. Other (Specify ir. det•iil )_ I feel Lhe- dgcj sion _ tg dplet a 38t i s .reQt I s extonni.on from the project to Garfield and Edwards was totally illegal, that thin the p.ro�j-act as re port :id out by the 11A CJty. Council JU Java i d to th.o extent: that the Rai ional Comm. should not: have even considered it. At Lac: a cos_•ple:te , concise statenent o: facts substantiating the: allege.: r easo•-s warranting hearing of the t,preal c,y the State Cw.r:+,ission anu reversal c: r..- catiion of the decision of the RErianal Corrnisaior- ;OiT: Due to time, atilt 2" nZ, A.n.. .T. ig v :o:..�+t:A�.:lt c , �.:�a C'ynmi ac3 n�� 1,uo rc+uac,� i;• estat:lia`ed a. =cvnmri enlendar proceedirig for tKase appeal s which tLiv, staff rF\cc;::.•- c,end-, do not present a substantial issue or any s{gziifi,-'ant factual disc;:►-e. therefore, extremely urtunt that you sL.� procrtotlI aubn>;t to the staff ftMUstitw nt ;.a- tioci of youz\ appeal. If your appeal is scheduled for the stvnnory calenrsr, ;rout -W:?1 receive advance written notice of 'she staff recommewn?ation and procedure:.;, Section V. Cnrtiticatiun 1 I dbclare that the foregoing is true mad correct tit- best of my know±,-ag. and 1 mrderatand Hutt ar-Y Wis:,tatement or omisa:cn of the infornist:c:i may b! grounds for re,,1e,,t1on of this appeal. _ C•r,iE.. ��aLL:.(C�� ' _ � � �G :•�rlr:�fG�'::•l'L` J ' r of a►ppeI I ant, or re pre san,•s:_ i Revised 8 115 t78 S. W. Schumacher ; 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 September 18, 1979 South `Coast Regional Commission California Coastal Commission P.O. Box 1450 ; Long Beach, CA ?O801 Attn: Ms. Eileen Baumgardner -- Ref. your file 5340 I Dear Ms. Baumgardner: II Please refer to the Coastal Commission' s copy of my letter of June 11 , 1979, to Mr. William Evans, Asst . District Attorney, Country of Orange, regarding alledged illegal action taken by the Huntington Beach City Council's Majority in conditioning Seacliff Phase TV long after their jurisdiction had passed under provisions of the so-called Subdivision Map Act. The particular action dealt with the deletion of the previously proposed 38th Street between the project area and the intersection of Garfield and Edwards in Huntington Beach. At this time I am attaching a copy of my letter of September 13, 19799 to our Attorney General, Hon. George Deukmejian, along with the therein referred to copy of the August 1 , 1979, reply to my above-mentioned Letter as authored by Asst. District Attorney Douglas N, Woodsmall. With that letter. Mr. Woodoma+ll declines prosecution as the action as taken by the Council majority is not "criminal" in nature, leaving ne little choice but either :,o take civil action, or pass the matter over to the Attorney General . The purpose of this letter is to update your file in the matter as much as possible. It is still my contention that it would be impossible for the Commission to accept the project as forwarded from the City of Huntington Beach as it may well be that the City ' s own actions may be .reversed if the Council ' s actions are ruled to have been illegal. Thus, the Coastal Commission may well not know just exactly what it is being asked to review and/or pass. Should you feel any need to discuss this, I can be reached at my office ' in Huntington Beach at 847-7728 or 211 /192-5888. Kindest regards, I / S. %'. Schumacher l Encl. Ju; S. W. Schumacher 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. funtington Beach, CA 92648 September 13, 1979 Hon. George Deukmejian Attorney General State of California 555 Capitol Mail Sacramento, CA 95614 Dear Sir: For your ready reference, attached hereto is a copy of my letter of June 11 , 1979, to Mr. William Evans, Asst. District Attorney for the County of Orange, California. I have previously forwarded yuur office a copy of that same letter. '.text attached is a copy of a letter datod August 1 , 1979, from a Mr. Douglas H. Woodsmall, Deputy District Attorney, declining to prosecute alledged violations of the so-called. Subdivision bias Act as, to quote the letter, "Inasmuch as the office of the District Attorney only prosecutes violations .f law which are criminal in nature, we must decline prosecution of your reported complaint." If it it; true that his office can' t prosecute non"criminal" acts, then your office appoars to be the last resort, so to speak, short of civil action I ' m sure I could take, but am equally sure I should not have to take. P.egardlee:s of any views I might have on development in Huntington Beach or anywhere else it appears there is a dangerous precedent being set � g here, in apparent bold and open contempt of the legally established procedures within the Map Act itself. If your office is swnrn to uphold the State's codes, then I fee]. you have little choice but to prosecute especially inasmucli as all facts involved in the matter are part of ' th a public record. If equal Justice under the law is a factual concept, certainly equal injust can occur and the next time it could well be a developer catching the brunt of such a misdeed as appears to have been perpetrated by the Huntington Beach City Courcil' s majority. The development involved, Seacliff PhDse IV, is now before the South Coast Regional Comm. of the California Coastal Commissior. , as reported out of the H.B. City Council following the alledged Map Act violation. Therefore, I respectfully request that you avail ,yourself of the facts in this matter. Regardless of the City Attorney' s opinion. that this alledged misdeed was legal, the record will show that there was so very ranch alternative cpinioii within the Council 's own ranks certainly to have made the seeking of an outside opinion viable. That alternative opinion dealt chiefly with the Map Act, not with the action at handt and, thus, the action appears to have been taken with knowledge of and at variance with the law. Your early reply to this letter will certainly be appreciated. If there ws some other form this complaint should take, please advise or forward any forms you might feel area called for. There is a solid opportunity for your office to act in this matter. V11thout such action, it is my firm belief the law will take oa little more significance than a parking- meter violation. While there seers to be pleanty of people available to police parking meter violations, so far it seems that this farther- reaching Act iE baii,g administered Lu inure to tho convenience and comfort of a development interest with no concern whatsoever for the impact of either the violation or those affected by it. ;1.tidert reSards, OFFICE OF ED WAR() J. MERRILCES CECIL HICKS DISTRICT ATTORNEY °I.AC:a0. MUNICIPAL COUNT Orr AA 71011, EbGAN A iitriEAtAft DISTRICT ATTORNEY OIIICCToII. 3UrCA1011 COURT OrCN•TIOK! ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE MICHAEL R. CAPIZZI DIIICCT011. �P rG.AI OPCMAr10M• JAME? 3. ENRIGHT F. O. BON 808 CHIEF DEPUTY 415TRICT ATT.JRNEY SANTA AAA, CALWOTIN1A 92702 Telephone: t714) 934-3600 August 1, 1979 Mr. S. W. Schumacher 6921 izwn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear :sir. Schumacher: This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1979 to our office concernirg actions taken by the Huntington Beach City Council on the proposed residential developer it known as Seacliff Phase IV. I have considered the information provided in your letter and reviewed the applicable law. It is my opinion that the Conduct of the council was not criminal in nature. Inasmuch as the office of the District Attorrt� only prosecutes violations of law which are criminal in nature, %%u nwst decline prosecution of your reported ccaplaint. You are, of course, free to pursue any other remedies you deem appropriate i .;n this ratter. I thank you for your vigilance and concern in referring this matter to our office, even though we were unable to become involved in this instance. Please don't hesitate to refer any apparent)y criminal c..tiisconduct to us in the future. i3-spectfull y yours, DOLMAS H. WOODSM1, Deputy District Attorney I /hag i CaNtRA1. Or/ICf NORTH 0I'f1CF NEST OI'IrICE SOUTH DCFICE "AN.-OR OF►-ICE JUVF,4ILF OI'rICk l 100 Civic Crrltx on. M. 121I N. B1N/rL9r AY1. •141 11104 3i1 oft a1 33143 COUWII VALLtT PIOWT. 4101 JAM/Oell BLVD. 301 C111 DNIVr SOUIP SA141A ANA. CA. 92101 NJLLIIITOM. CA. 92431 M1IIMINITLR. CA. 92603 LAIUMA HIGUCL. {A. IZI?1 NrA'rOnT OCN., I:+I. 92I63 ORA144r, CA. 02E11 S. 1.7. Schuamcher I 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. 11untington Beach, CA 92648 June 13, 1979 I, I South Coast Regional Commission California Coastal Commission P. 0. Box 1450 I,cng Beach, CA 9G801 Gentleuen: This letter is in regard to your agenda for your meeting of Tune 25, 19799 in partic.ulFar that portion dealing with the proposed develo`_:i:iont of Seacliff Phase IV. .;hi.le I and planning to attend your meeting, hopefully have the opl;orturtity to address the Cocmmi.sui►an, I feel it necessary also to write. you this letter ahead of your deliberations. Ar, zi. residuri t of the residential area ad jacen.. to tk:ie proposed project, and urn an o f ficov it its homeowners association, T wish to c-:press ray objactions to the project, and thank you for tra'-;ing then inta consideration whether they deal with arenas of concern to which ycu can address yoursetvea or, [lot. Iiunt.:l. 1Z;tv:1 eacliff t�o:ncovmers, particu] t.r•ly thof;e l.ivint; off' 1'i<1�.: :ve. , hLIVI: L;er•iol.r; objections to sharir.g their .::virorl:iezit ti;ith cev,:ral tl.ousand cars per day along Palin Avenue. This is valid in thcc t 110.,, nc-v. iurvus two-Uirds of one-half of our existi.:lf, homes along :�ritl, Seaclif C :.uUtFaurrant, Seacliff Golf Courrse, and the grawinC Seaclif f Tennis Clui,. Additionally , u•�acliff residents in gerieral ol;ject strenuously to the cbi,mlete lac'; of useable open--space originally pni;i for %,;hen vie bought our buL never )rovided, ecpecifally in vie►; f the erosion of !Any for sa:ac through this p?Fannin, 11iwico closed, d.:velo 11►aent . In addition, coi:le of our residents who are involved in oil operations si cuateu rig::,, to the rrorao sod do-elor:rlant acl'rlse tl,:at from their oun L: 1,,: r.!.(;r,cr:, thu pC:r•Coia6 on basins 7r•011OUDd W C01 1 C::C d I'�a11]F.[;� •t:u� luo c 111Cl.; Uri _.a,�i;r•, taut probably v.on ' t tour•:: . .:(LU: tYCirllsl i s' , .'U lliivi: safflu r•u:3idents in tlac lol':ur ul .:v;j t1urls v,-tho ;..bead, 1SaVi: L}: ►%S':LctrlCl':i r,u1,Fl�t' Uac,►-lips no doubt due. tv tli% ralrcady over—hurder.c.ki iritu 1-mici. ;eacliff drain::, and inLo c:h:ic;. va, uriaerctunL t:.e pro just ;;i 11 drain i tc- forces! main. `hi -. may not be Fi concurit of yours nOw, tut it %;ili be: ,after overflow into our str•e:ets. Fin�jlly, L :::C:3i cu,:.:::i ttee iL; nor., rlori:inl; hard to cU ii.•lete 11 viable Luc ai Coast,, _, :,Ian. .,r) fur, it seams thin; levulo,,er :LQ doing, everyth.i nj i:, t:ir: po:,c:i to t•uoii liis plans forward ridd tLereby ravoil, lnc-luuion in the I'M 1..4c:; would hope your Co►anii.cc,ion viould watci, this: car 0full, . In a:1Y uv(...C. , :10:joc L,Ccept ,.ay tlianIku in advaucc f%) r your t;:.11 ZAIld Cii:l::ldt_':•F! ,.. _. , 7.1anC, with th a great, nany S' :,cliff roo.i due tl;, -,.ill l oolt f:�rwr�rd t.� :�i,r• ,�ui�'l. C hearing on June 2�, 1()7�1. S. I,% Schumacher 6921 Lawn Haven Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 June 111 19?9 South Coast Regional Commission California Coastal Commission P. 0. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801 Gentlemen: rnclo:red herewith please find copy of my letter of this date to Mr. Cecil lucks, District Attorney for the County of Grange, California. That letter is and contains my formal request for prosecution and/or ` reversal of a decision made by the City Council of the City of Puntington Beach to remove a previously imposed condition in order to allow a local. developer- to move forward with a residential development known as Sencliff Phase IV. That derision by the Council appears to have been made in contravention with our state' s Subdivision !•;ap Act, and I hold that if that is the case, the project before ,your Commission is incorrect at best. Therefore, it is also my position that for the Commiscion to yenter hearings on the project at this time, until such time as the legality of the foregoing can be determined and/or action can be take:, would constitute a complete and utter waste of the Commiszl.on' s time and our tax dollars. Certainly, I cannot and would not try to speak for our District Attorney and his staff. Howe-irer, should his office decide not to prosecute for any reason, I do intend to forward this information to the next highest level, our Attorney General . As mentioned in the a+tazLed, all of thin is a matter of public record now on file with the (:i.ty Clerk of the City of Huntington Reach. I have gained her permission to reference her filer. in the natter rather than forwarding voluminous ►nateri als to the various agencies. o long as this cloud hPnLs over the project, ? v.ould think it impoc-ciblk. F fur the Commisoion to weigh the project fair:.y. Kindest reaptrdus, (! IIi .I�c f S. 'Ile'. c ,�. �,l . Schumacher Encl. 4 r 1 S. V* Schumacher 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Leach, Ca. 92648 Julie 1 1 , 19?9 t1r. 17illiani E'vens, Asst. Dicitrict Attorney Office of the District Attorney Orance County Courthouse Santa Ana, Ca. 92702 boar Mr. Evans: This refers, to our Shone conversations of May 111 19?9, and (surlier, relative to actiono .a;en by the City Council of the City of Huntirlt;ton Peach which actionu may ;,.all have been violation of certain 1',rovisicnc :) r ' t1:c Sub- i divioion '.inn :,Ct of the State of California. I have delayed sending this formal cutal)l;,,int and request N.' action to you Use to c(l!'tilirl events beyond my direct and pe:r= al control , events of Yr14.1ci; :t' :11 cer Lain you have been made aware by now. Tn tLis r(:opect, I ';could rufur you to the first attached photocopies of letterii to our Pi :tr'ict 1'.t. tvrnay :anu to our state' s Attorney General, Lott, in regard to a fuz•t11er attac:l:(;l1 cra;:y of a :,lurt,o from ate to a local organization to (�hi.ch I not only Lut al Uo serve aL ar. officer, Firot :rice-Preci.dent, not President i,:. ':rs. 1!uttorl ' c. :letters imply. It .is r;(1 ..c!:;rct to anyone that I ain involved to fa cvrtNin extent in a recall ::::)v� ..:er; t r:i.f:;(:(i at llrs. Hutton. 1 t sl.oul.d u 1 zo be no secret. that III ti,,:; n E,riJ icticn an individual in �hich I later be identified au a :nea.ber Council, I would certainly advise the Croup in advance, Lo thruv. :;:iid intention open to dircui�uion, certoizly to alert my fcl.lovr ::;(:�:.i;��r:;, uivloi-ates and officers to tuy intentl ns, actions and the li%(:. Yor i tz Ut"', part, I; .(:1.i;. r;. Council has baleen no pok;:.tion, in%ich less action, u:; La ti.%: V.:C'n:l1 (. f :Srs. Ilutton or anyone: c-Jau; nor has anyr.,ne in the re-call -:,0v`!%ur1L .u�)11.t ar:y i,id, c:om;ort or help from Ii.G.?; . I:. Council. "itti Lt. u ,i :velo;�::enL, however, ray attorney Udvi&ad that I :;Mould take no .-i-o t..! L'1i :)Gill(; until iL could Le ii--cortu-ned whuthe.'r Nrz. Hutton !,fa,: ;r'ittC: L!ie I.(:LtCrri, and :if ---o, %-iaa r LoLiig durnhl;e'.d by ver per .,,oll.'• 1l Ot' l,Cr office' to thv Private ac:.ionu of is p.'';vatc act:J n-; 8C :all iYacli.vidua), .,,.100, 01roll"{11 th0000 L(.tt(:r;a 14ti�,S i,b.:i ► t i:a th l;ilrt t le:—Ur; LU ut1ii Ct_; clrjllci%rnirlc C : : 4ilt/'7 L to '11G;j 1:!•1 'tt lcU ,0. i :il illl.ill(, 1. !011 1.1y attornoy I z; final n.ai f L'1: i (.ila 0 tj:i. 1 may 5'r(tll ;:vv.i civ4i _'t'L.Vd� v.­.. the City (if P11!.t1.11t;tU1. : +.:.CI, +,rip %:t'G. t'(itt'W, itt: 0 lnt._ :' L +f , .� 't dvit;eci that T y t 1 ! th.` r i (;► "v'.,�.'': t. 1 :,1;'i i1�.. � it aC. l:il:i i� c:}Ci:t..11 1:_LL �s.0 CO 7i)1$1nL . : ! _'�ic'.. co;,. iJ i t.':ilr '(� O 1r, t: �arl"tt.Ln " to ll Cin 1; not 1.. c t l kv ,, l_ 6'_L!1 ral'i;j !.'t:/;!AI 1 PCt:. V3�.'LUG Of uliy r1i,tUVC VC:r'. '�'1::) l' t i'it �:VUae1i .iGl1 of iany rUCIt1 1 tl! • t:a."._ 1' tti(: C, ,IE irat iV, 6it-110 U. : �''.( ,• .:r. :_;,:.. ve.' rvv l o►, and corlti tionin ll; y tsu: 'rur,li efts tar, k(r.aGc, .'i i►:ilia r31': :�.,.• .' » ....: �:�1:, L ;U �.I".),,U .l�l.( t Lllj(.Ilt l']�. '��t4i f It IirIU',il! iil.; .il!il(;,:.1 fi• Mr. Evans Bugs: 2 wtaa approved by that commission. Following pres;cribod methods, the , applicant for reasons of his own, appealed the Planning Commlasion ' s conditions to the fluntington Beach City Council. In due course, the Council called for and held a public hearing on the appeal on February 20, 1979. During and following that hearing several conditions previously i:nposeu by the Planning Commission were changed or removed, again according to eetablished and lawful procedure, and the project was approved as so modified . It is significant to note that: the Council' ta February 20 meeting wav adjourned to its next regular meeting data, time and place. That next meeting was held on March 5, 1979, and was likowisae: conducted and adjourned in form to the Council 's next regular session date, time and place. No action relative to Seac:li ff IV was mentioned, nor were there any actions taken in it:; regard during that meoting. At this point I would refer you to the further attached ;3hot:o-copy of a memoranduc:t dated ?-larch 15, 1479, from Huntington Beach's acting Planning I)irc;ctor Jawes Perlin to I•!rs. Button, explaining the Subdivision ?:ap Act 's proviniona in tertns I ' m sure ;you' re tnorc acquainted with than I trould be as a lay:<<an. ".n :'.arch 19, 1(0)?9, the Council held its regularly schOdUled t:tectino for that date. ':gain, insofar as ,Seacliff TV i!; concerned, no tl,irC: vacuccorali.:;i.«}, chaal;ed, div.cus,ad or the like. At its, regularly schoduled meeting of April 29 1979, nearly six wee'cs after � ruling on the applicant ' s appeal of the Plannint; Commission' s conditions and approval. , the Council committed certain of its own conditions to the Planning benartuAf;nt for study. However, nu action was taken to modify or chatiLe the Counci.11 s own previous conditioning of the project. Tt shuulit uli; be nu tod that the Council had been provided with a copy of t•.r. ;'falin ' s tne:.:,z-ariduu; and there war very huated opposition to even cor ni tting Lie project to furth,,r ctudf bo-cauce of this departure from legally established procedure, t::c: Qppuyitiott c:,:;inating from two tnetrttaers of the Council both of t4lto►a ta►:stained fruLi votinf: so as not to be a part of the decision; whatsoever. V-% April i=: , 1 ()'192 tot ita: regularly scheduled maoting, nearly two full months a f tur• it:, actions; and resultant conditioni.ni,, of the project 0,1 F eL:•uary 20, 1g'/,, the Council effectively reversed its-elf on certain of it:; own :tr; viouaLy-:imposed conditions without so wuch Lis a »;uta t• t Bring of t� ft.trLLer ,ublic 1:c cring or the like_, and uvcr the extreme object:iotnu of :,ores of iL„ own t:.t:ribc.rs who felt that to rule, on anything connected therewith would III, al-co to exceed the; jurisdiction of the Council , amid jurisdiction ht:v; nt; iunq: since _sussed from that Cody in due course under the provisions of tho IeL , and its .a4cordance with 1ct;ally -aluLablished procedure. c oi.nA ;i.i r.t i:.; not based upon disagreeme. ,'; with the subntanco of the cor.ditiutr:i ut• charibu s thc:reto, and whethor or riot I di&-ricrva with that substance i u not important. 'rha Counci.i could a;; c:aslly have chanced its can litions in unotl;cr direction. TLe iutport�urt Faint hare, T feel, i:, that in z;a::ini; thin further change, nctd its dc:i r�r•tilie 4'rc,u ost 3blished rant: tested protceLtlt:-o in ZiMcLli tale charvCcq tho:.;a :acrItt,c:r•cs voti.r&t: :in f'r,vcr of this; departure have, in the face: of htaavy crcdiblo doubt cast: ijbout thei.• acti.orrs, offvttivt: ; eiected tci c�xcvcci their own jurisdiction, and havo done so :along; cvitli violraLi::�; t►:e ;ct Tn�Ar.mirh aF. the Councillu own inaction to ante to rc,c;tify 1st.; ov.11) i.i : ;r.l., i'c:�:I , denart.ure iron thu naridatc:i of tint iICt , t,;.s y cur office fur r;Uch rc:cti, ri.cat:iuti ae, voay Le r,uquirad uliuur• lta xtt U i u L .ir., a public attorney, you ' re Ci arf;tid eiith enforcumerV. of our• uL:atc;' is la-.:c and t ^.i;ulatlonn. Mr. Evans Page 3 Rather than burden you further with substantial extra paperwork herewith, I have gained the vorbfal approval of our City, Clark, Alecia Weatworth, to reference her file in this matter, 121-Seacliff Phase IV, as a source ,reference of public record. It is my hope that your office will pursue this matter vigorcusly in an effort to keep this departure fro..; procedure as mandated by State of California' s Subdivision Maip Act, from being adhered to as a newly establis7ied norm in such matters as thie. As information, I tam providing tire,. Wentworth with a copy of this letter. Also, in that Mrs. Hutton has chosen to involve our Attorney General directly iL this matter, 1 are providing his office with a copy and at i least the attachments. I will look forward to hearing from you in due course, and wish to thank you for your handling of it in advance. Since ely, S. :'r. Schulaacbor cc: Eon. G::orge DeukMe jian ::ro. .i ecia .' . '.!entworth I �I k j. Z; �; ,.,:_r.��.:.wyl,�•��{,s`;`�'T�S'K :IC' ""_"f�{Yi;rc'. ..:"i? ._ :... . . . . -- OFFICE of +��„�►�' C I T Y ' A T T.0 R N E Y P.O.Box tW �. Moss#AA1N iY!{IET G I A1,UTTON 1 May 1 'T9 7ELEPHONO Y 4 17141 S36.6656 rj. �l I Honorable George Deukmejian Attorney General � State of California 555 Capitol Mall , Suite 550 Sacramento, California 958111 Dear George : Attached is a copy of a "political broadside" authored and signed •ay Mr . Steve Schumacher of this city who is the current president of the H.O.M. E . Council , a local organization of hcrne- owners ' groups , who is bringing a recall against me and two city council members . I have no idea what the accusation is in this broadside, i . e . , what the alleged "misconduct" consists of; what "map act" viola- tion is alleged; and what "adherence" is . However , I would like to know It' any of your deputies, or assistants have given for . Schumacher any "advice" as he alleges , and if so , in what con- text . Your early reply will be appreciated . Very truly yours , GAIL HUTTON City Attorney 01i :ahb Enc . i orrice p/ r'�"`�a G1TY' ATTORN EY . • • . !'.O •Oa iW am AWN ME" lIi1M'�tlllaTOM MAGI Ci1LN'OA+WA�� Cityi,:tw"y 1 may 1979 (71 i sate s Honorable ,Ceall •Nicks District Attorney County of Orange Courthouse Santa Ana, California 92702 Dear Cecil : Attached is a cop,,r of a "political broadside" authored and signed by Mr. Steve Schumacher of this city who is the current president of the H .O.M.E. Council, a local organization of home- owners ' groups, who is bringing a recall against me and two city council members . I have no idea what the aeouRation is in this broadside , i .e . , what 'the alleged "misconduct" consists of; wh'At "map act" viola-- t1on is alleged ; and W!!t "adherence" is . Howev;:r, I would like to know if any of your deputies or assistants have given Air. Schumacher any "advice" are he alleges , and if so, in what con- text. Your early reply will be appreciated . Very truly yours, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney CH:ahb I� Enc . April 24, 1979 Members, 11.0.14. 2. Council This will constitute a nhort report on some intended action I intend to take as an individual, action for vlrLch I do not request the Support of M 'O.Mr,E. Council or the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association eventhough it deals with Seacliff Phase IV. That Seacliff Phase M has been noriditioned thoroughly and thus approved by the Planning Commiasion, in .fairly common knowledge. It seems also fairly well-known that . the City Council changed the Planning Commission ' s rulings more than significantly. While I'm not comfortable with the 1,, of conditions demanded by the Counci3 , I have no quarell on tho surface surface with them in that they were achieved within the "system" they were duly voted upon and gassed following the Council ' s own public hearing. Under certain provisions of the California Government Code, more paricularly the so-called "Subdivision leap Act", once the Council had conditioned the project, it still had one last opportunity to change any or all provisionc of its actions provided the subjact were brought back before the Council at its next regular meeting. 'This was not done. Thus, under tho Act, the method :for the developer to follow to effect an;► farther changes was re-submission to the Planning Commission. However, the Council chose to deal :urthor wi"h the matter, and to delete certain of its own previously-imposed conditions well after its Jurisdiction had ceased. Having heaa-d that this was "in the wind", I contacted the Office of the District Attorney and found that provided the Council had been forwarned that their actions might well be illegal, bringing the project back would be a violation. The particular section of tho Cods which pertains to this doi,& not carry any sanctions, however. But, i.naswuch as it iL what is rcfirrud to as an adhereance section, violation does constitute misconduct :_n office. It. is this I intend to pursue with the Attorney General ' a office in Sacramento as well as our own District Attorney. The Counci_-.. can lean heavily on the opinion of the City Attorney in t1,iu Cane, .--n opinion which 1 have not seen, but which reportedly :;ui,_,artc t1,i. Council Is act.' on, and is suppove�d to bu well-documented. It is my fooling, hovievor, that those other tax-supported offices should havo a final say in Such M3tteri; sz this, or else eithor the insti.tuticins or, the laws dessigned to nrotect, citizens are a more sham. CYhile I ' ve left out many details involving this iinue, T feel that this deals with the aitu:-tia a fairly at this peii--t, and I 'll keep you posted a% tiil.nGs herin to develop. .Steve Scrip- icher , ( rc- god tyt copy) INTER-DEPARTMENT C0h1AhUi`1CA1IUw: +tC�n�t.u+ti rt,+rr Gai 1 Hutton JC)nlir:; W. Pal ir, TO Cit, At:torne. 1�tut;t Acti11•J Plannii, Uirt_ctor 5(:I,lI:ct SEACLIFP IV PROJECT D:,tl! March 15 , 1979 i Pursuant to our conversaLi.on held on '1'uusLj,,; , thu 1.301 of March, t:ollOW- I, ing are m t:llc tights on the procedures n4eces:;art ft,)r the L+untingt.oll Beaell Company to obtain an amendment and/or modif-- cation to their previously approved tentative parcel ma:p and t:erlt.ative' tract_ maps for the Seiacliff Phase TV development propost) L . ,1s T inclic:, Locl,. t.o yeti, I (10 :lt:)L feel that the City Council :it- thi :: point : It hill illtl t.urLlrt!r juri..sdicLion over the nitap:; %2:1 , 1)L11' _-W-1111: LU S(_, t.irsi G6452 . 5 (a ) Of Lhe Sktbdivisiorl 1'1::1) Act t_11.: L;ubjoc:t to which wo `►alci addres s,.-d our:se lvc�s (i . c . , appeal. by Litt., sub iv id1�r tc the ley isl �l- - iv � body) i!� recluired to be filed tai. thin 1'S (hays after action of th :,()v sort' acl� rl;:,► ( thu l lannin�7 t'c�nunissio11) on the subject maps . ( `1'ht: C0111- : 1i . ityll ci:2., thu tltivi.:;c,ry body on Lilt' L'trlC�it+i.ve parc%A map bocause` L•lic : II d )f 'Zoii : nq Ad j US L11►ents hatl re- f erret.1 tht_ parcel trap Lc than for action . '•, :�.:. :. ' !,­n rc-+; Il : rus th-iL sa l.cl :Il)1)e,►L 120- l►e l-- d by 010. legislutiVo ,� ,t ; ,,i1e is i t:�• C'ounc:i : ) wi.t.h i:l 30 d -i%1L; -of tof ilinq of such ap11ual and ith) ;1 : U dz:�'s fa11 C)aJ.i tit] Lllc t•,'-mc1us oil C)C Hit:! ht?c'lri na7 th•<� (t+:ilit-C i rr L)t.inq int-inn .it., .ry) 1:end,lr iL.,-. d0cis• : ;_jn on L 11t: �'�, LUj� :' �lil Ili:: ill.�j)e.► !:.7 t:h+' P I :11111 i 1►•; C 1:111t i.S S i1:)I1 1971 o, .).mart 31 , ] '+ !`J , �ill(1 :l public 11t:.ar 1 1:t1 �':�(s ill . l� l:" t,• S onl'�i:l,l U,1;'`' 20 1979 , LI-10 11t::::ar111t1 was is v'ri►s r•�; Aored within t}, . Lh>.:c:i l iod tililo its st• t., forth +1 t�c7vt_ l•11, ',lnt CL,.I, ' , zm l ny recon:;idUrat.,Uon of this docision would h0 0L t:1Jl' =iijlie cr next regular 1.ti:r11S1aLiV+: :il:?:.;Si n of the + f:)unC ! 1. . I>.`_i ' (+ 1 tl:ltL' h;lS 1)Z15SQ'Ll ilrlt.l WC: hsavo (101lu f--Ir beyolid Wil(_' �11 f0l• C :o pul: 1 it, ho :ir• .1 and/O.: thu li) da1y:, f+.)i: reilderiliq of the 10:' 'r lio W1Lllili tlio ju► iSdit-'trivrl Of the CiL}, r lick: c , cJlly 1"' 'tj1l� �t 01" 1 nlotlii1caLion , -imellClilent". , aild/oi- ►1 L""_ViSiQ11 i lud with thu ►•Jllich has :� t) J'i:flCt:t1 t lit! l�tl�tit '.'C ''t''. '_C:�; tt:l:►'.:It 11�C t: 1'c:C: liulps for apprC.`)w11. vri. thin Tf tilt! 1.)i01110vottt and/or tht! roport •• o:.11t:r 1, 11 1 Li I)t.• J! wants L, l: "'i:l);' 'i is 4 os, ;-Lb Le hlud i J C%it: L()li iilltlj Or delOI:l.oll j ) ' JCi'• CC)t] t ' t '+It:> ; ' '�.+}_'UV:1 . , it 't!t)'.11(1 1).: i.'llt:ir'o1y ill) to volir 1.112P.1rtrl,kollt L:}J, :1q• tttr'11' " '1 i )!� on :>✓hothur his i''l?t:UC-,ot. wmild coatit ituLv a ,'.2v i s lt. n to .1 1:ent0t t• a• t r.lct. Map. If }'tltl 1. j.11C1 thZlt- it 15 111 filt:C it !'��•/ ' :; : )rl to 'I1:11) , Lh, it L K.' 111i1L) 111US1' bra f i 1t. d as su1 ;I1 with LhG Maltrl'!inq t1• 1:t +rt t-co o., the or ajiiwl + ilina f :to 1:Jaid for Li11': c;lt' Ill;lp bt. fove L11t_ acvi.c;+..r"y ,Jt:j!li icy. 1L ll 't.'L' , �.C.IT; 1t. l.t: -• lE; not c1 ►:C!V.i S l' nil t Cl tilt. Illa'11� , tll�:'tl v � cr , � I • .:� t 1••!t .l:ltr. ►1+' � '!] + .. Lfl .flit •11t11111..i1L 11iCLit,l1 ..Lrnll �l ti-. 1`l t.t.�:ll .�i2ti5t it F". i f f I)lt�i:;c IV H;irc li 15 , 1979 Paqu l by the developer setting forth his reasons for Lhc; requestvd. tt1odj fi(:atior. . This written request is Cher. reviewed by t:he advisory agency a t uric of its regularly scheduled meetings. The Planning staff reviews these requests and submits their recommendations to the advisory agency pur- suant to Section 6G452 . 3 of the Subdivision Mal) Act , which requires that such report be served on the subdivider at least three ( 3) days prior to any hearing or action on such request . As you are well aware, our Subdivision Ordinance allows t:rrat a tentative: tract r..an he in effect for 18 months from the date of approval and allows • hat: a developer can file a final snap upon this tentative map at any time: during this 18 month period. If for sun►e reason , however, a final map is not submitted for recordation, then Zt the tormination of the 18 months the effectiveness of the map becomes null zrnd void and all proceedings terminate . Therefore , I do not feel that a map can be � brouclh+: ctp rr!; a reconsideration or as new business by the City Council' after ::he ducis ion has been rendered upon an appeal pursuant to Llie provisions of the Map Act. Article 3 (Judicial Review) Sc:c:tion 66499 . 37 of the Stage � Chapter '; , ► hl.ap Act SILT, Les that an action to attach , review, sit aside, void , or annul the cic!c:ision cif an advisory agency or legislative body concerning a aul,divi:; ic):r or anf• proceedings or detc:rniinations taken , done , or made prior to su'_'ir deci.:;ion or to determine reasonableness or validity of aty; c ondi tJons attac h,:.-d thereto, shall not be maintained by any person unless such act.i on is cotiurienced wi t:h in 180 clays of ter such doc ision . From this :,c.,,-Lion , I would say that such determination has .z].rcady been made by the, City Cortncil at its February 20 , 1979 meeting and cannot now l,e without violati.ncl those suctions of the Map Act which 1 ha.Pe previously c i. ted in this mernu. ] nuMI-hers and my Lhoucltrt.5 set forth herein c15si.SL' you in your :-ecommt2ndation to the City Council on Lhis subject matter . W. Pal rt Act i: (j Plann:.ncl Director JS•1�� : c? f �I i I' 'i S. W. ►Schumacher 6921 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 September 13, 19?9 lion. Geurge Deukmejian Attorney General State .,f California 555 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Sir: For your ready reference, Pttachsd hereto is a copy of my letter of June 11 , 1979, to Mr. William Evans, Asst. District Attorney for the f County of Orange, California. I have previouslj forwarded your office a copy of that same letter. Next attached is c: copy of a letter dated August 1 , 1979, from a Mr. Douglas H. Woodsmall, Deputy District Attorney, declining to prosecute alledged violations of the so-.called Subdivision Map Act as, to quote the letter, "Inasmuch as the office of the District Attorney only prosecutes; violations 1f law which are criminal in nature, we must decline prosecution of your reported complaint. " If it is true that his office can' t prosecute non"criminal" acts, then your office appears to be the last resort, so to speak, short of civil action I 'm sure I could take, but am equally sure I should not have to take. Regardless of any views I might have an development in Huntington Beach or anywhere else, it appears there is a dangerous precedent being set here, in apparent bold and open contempt of the legally established procedures within the N,op Act itself. If your office Is sworn to uphold the State' s codes, then I feel you have little choice but to prosecute especially inasmuch as all facts involved in the matter are part of tt:e public record. If equal justice under the law is a factual. concept, certainly equal injust can occur and the next time it could well be a developer catching the brunt of such a misdeed as appears to have been perpetrated by the Huntington Reach City Council' s majority. The development involved, Seacliff Phalle U, is now before the South Coast Regional Comm. of the California Coastal Commission, as reported out of the 11.13. City Council following the: alledged Map Act violation. Therefor,:: , I respectfully request that you avail youreelf of the facts In this matter. Regardless of the City Attorney ' s opinion that this alledged :nisdeeti was legal, the record will show t';at there was so very much alternative cdinion within the Council 's own ranks certainly to have made the seeking of an outside opinion viable. That alternative opinion dealt chiefly wits the Map Act, not with the action at hand, and, thus, the oction appears to have been taken Aith knowledge of and at vsri:ance with the law, Your early reply to this letter will certainly be appreciated. If there 1s some other form this complaint Should take, please advise or forward any forms you might feel are called for. There is a solid opportunity for your office: tc act in thin matter. Without such action, it is my firm bell of the lew will truce on little more significance than a parking- meter violation. V.hile there seem to be pleanty of people available to Policy? parking mete; violations, so for it seems that this farther- reaching Act iy being administered to inure to the convenience: and comfort of a -evelopment. interest with no concern whatsoever for the i►.pract of either the violation or those affected by it. " indest re Bards, :.;. ,I. .ichunticher ' ;-�,���•GGt� .J :1 OFFICE OF EDWARD J. ME nRILEFS CECIL HICKS DISTRICT ATTORNEY o1ATCTOA. MUNICIPAL [O,,, o..X.T10.1, EJOAR A FREEMAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY DIACCTOR. SU►KRION COURT OVCRATIOHI ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE MICHAEL R. CAPIZZI 01R[CT011, tr[c-AL OPERA71ONS JAMES G. ENRIGHT P. O. BOX SOB CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SANTA AAA, CALIFORNIA 92702 Telephone: (714) 834-3000 August 1, 1979 Mr. S. W. Schumacher e921 Lawn Raven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92G48 Dear Mr. Schumacher: This is in response to your :.�--tter of June ll, 1979 to our office concerning actions taken by the Huntington Beach City Council on the proposed residential &-welopment known as Seacliff Phase IV. I have considered the information provided in your letter and reviewed the applicable law. It is my opinion that the conduct of the Wuncil was not criminal in nature. Inasmuch as the office of the District Attorney only prosecutes violations of law which are criminal in nature, we must decline prosecution of your repotted complaint. You are, of course, fret to pursue any other remedies you deem appropriate `1 in this natter. I thank you for your vigilenoa and conoern in referring this matter to our office, even though we were unable to become involved in this � instance. Please don't hesitate to refer any apparently criminal misconduct to us in the future. Respectfully yours, DOM AS H. WOODSMAM Deputy District Attorney /m9 CE14TRAL OFFICE NORTH OFFICE WNST OFFICE SOUTH Orrick HAW110N 01'YICE JUVI:NILF OFFICE 7114 ;:1VIC r 1tiltR nP. W. 121' N. O[IIRIL[Y AYP. 11141 171'e SM1tT 3014) CROON VALLt'I PAWT. 4401 JAI101111tT 13I.V0. 301 CITY volvt SOUTH SA91A AMA, CA. 91701 FOLkC'4S016, %:A. 07631 WESTu11ISTER. GI. 97663 LAAUMA W%Ut1. CA. IP 677 -44:wrOIIT n(H.. CA. 9.06% OUAHG[. CA. 0?MAA 02 -21 TO : 11Lh113E:lLS O1• '1 111: CA1, 11--ohN I A COAS'1 AI, COMMISSION , I- ROM : CITIZEN ADVISORY (:-.MINI 111,11 E1.1, IIUN'rINGTON 13LACII 1,(Y.:AI, COASTA1, PI(O RAM RE : D):CE"Miil-Al IIEAR I NU ON APPE'Al. 3•10 79 ( SEACLI H, IV) t DATE' : NGVI:hI}fER 1't , 1 :17b At the November 17 , 1 J7:j nieut i ng o 1 Lou Citizen Advisory Committee of the Iluiitit;t; torr l3uac:u I,oc:al Coastal Program , our committee votcu un,ririniurisly to tvansmiL the 10110wJ.119 i'eso- Iutioll to )'c,u : WE REQU}:ST THAT ziiji)ROVAI, 01- .SEACLI ; F IV, APPEAL 349-; J , BE DENIED VNT lt, THE I,OC:AI, C;OASTAI, PROGRAM OE THE CITY 01, HUNTINGTON 13EACII CAN 13E CO,%IP1,ETEi, AND REVIEWED BY TILE HUNTI NGTON BEACH PI,ANN INV COSIAI I SSION AND TILE HUNT:NGTON 1(E;ACII C:1 '1'Y COUNC I1. , WHICH 1 S ANTICIPATED 13Y JUNE 1980 . t1'I: 13L.1.,i EVI: AP010VA1, Or SEACLI hI, IV AT T1I15 TI11L. ItiOU LU via l.o 1 (.1. 'ma., t:I'ry , S ABILITY TO IJROI'ERLY PLAN THE' SL:AC;I.I I- I• AREA . . CURREMl'I.Y , TIII%' (: , '1'1' 01 IIIJN'I'l NG'I'UN BEACH IS PREPARING A SEAC 1,l11- AI(FA ST117 •1' Ab PA10' Of 1111L COASTAL E;I.,I:A ENT AND I NC01(r DRAT I N(; A N AI,1'S I S M, ' IR.' SE:ACL C P E IV DEVELOPMENT WITH A Iil-A'011T ON ' IIE AREA . THE MEMBERS 01 UUIt 1.Cp COII,11 I T 1 Eh lil:l.l E:'il: THESE CITY STUDIES SHOU1,1) IWI-ORE SLAC1.11- 1, 1V IS APPROVED. Tom Cooper &.)hn Dwyer ireu Froelich I:iroda 111artyn i Don Shipley Gor6cll Smith Lconarn Wright f Ed 1'selroche I cc : Huntington ►ivac h City council Huntington 130:1•:11 111lrnning commission Air . t . He1tiit.0 i • UTY of HunTinGTon BEACH AA, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. O. BOX 190, HUN-INGTON BEACH, CALIFORHIA 92648 h141 5365271 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Helsito, City Administrator FROM: Development Services/Local Coastal Program DATE : May 3 , 1979 I':E: IMPLEMENTATION OF COONCIL ACTION, JANUARY 15 , 1S79 (M-2) SEACLIFF PHASE IV Statement of Issue: The City Council ' s approval of the recommends, 1 ` for a communica- tion to the South Coast Regional Commission ;rc *,ng Seacliff ` Phase IV has not yet been impleme:ited, Recommendation: The Citizens Advisory Committee recommends that the attached communication be sent. Analysis: w • The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advi^.nry Committee at its meeting May 2 , 1979 .reaffirmed its previously. submitted communica- tion with certain updating changes . The original con6ittee vote � on this matter on December 6, 197B was 12-0. The reaffirmation vote: on May 3 , 1979 was 12-0 with 2 abstentions. Rfspectfully ubmitted , J - ames W. alin Acting� Planning Director Mary Lynn Norby Local Coastal Program JWP:MLN:d f Attachment OR 0% ` UN ` J.J Lw� City of Huntington each0 ' P.O. sort too CALIFORNIA IUM OHfit'G OF THE MAYOR 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: This letter is a result of the actidns of the . Local Coastal Program Citizen Advisory Committee on December 6 and December 20, 1978. Minutes of these meetings are attached . The Cit- Council approved the request for communication of the s .f PP 9 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 (aloo 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 ^oastal 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 by determined. 3) The effects of the proposed project upon the adjacent Bolsa Chica environments, 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 ac::ess to coastal resources or crowd out coastal receators with commuter trips is still being evaluated . IiB-LCP May 3 , 1979 Page 2 5) Now this project could meet the low-moderate income housinc' policy of the Coastal Act is yet to be determined in conjurci:ion with a comprehensive coastal housing policy. 6) The locational relationship of this property to the Huntington Beach oil field operations and to the OCS operations requires the necessary analy31s before energy-related uses are precluded by this residential development. During the study sessions and hearings on the Seacliff Phan: 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 tim e 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 for 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 coastal. issues involved with S the eacliff development' proposal . We urge you to take these coastal- related issues into consideration in review of this project. Our Citizen Advi:: iory Committee feels that approval of Seacliff IV now. would prejudice the LCP and be contrary to the intent of the Coastal Act of 1976 . Sincere,.y , Don MacAllister Mayor DMA/MLN/dc Attachments: Minutes 12/6 & 12/20 Staff Report - Request for Council Action f J, AM MINUTES LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE "— Room p-8 ,.,. Civic Center 1 Huntington Beach Cal iforni a, 92648 December 6 , 1978 ( approved Dc - 20 , 197n ' ROLL CALL Present : Bozanic , Chatterton , Dahl , Dermod,y, Estep, Higgins , Moshiri , Porter , Smith, Wright , Zschoche , Betty Kennedy ( alternate for Tom Cooper ) I Absent : Andreassen, Cooper , Coulter , Dwyer , Harris , Slates Staff Present : Mary Lynn Norby, Jim Palin , John O ' Connor Others Present : Four citizens • 7 : 15 . m . . - The mi nu•tes of the . November 15 The meeting wa ., called to order at p .. 1978 , meeting were approved with additions . A report of the correspondence to 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 availahle to the memhers on the Friday b.ef ore the Wednesday meetings . I -C Coastal Activity RUort 1 -C-1 Boat Ramps - Reports of the funding of the make-up dock and "city facilities 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 Cnmmittee i4as brought upp-to-date on the project s a us-approved EIR and contit uation of. Planning. Commission consideration to December 12 , 1978 . Some remaining coastal issues were delineated . A MOTION BY E . ZSCHOCHE AN SEC4NO: BY MERLE MOSHIRI REQI'ESTED A :TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL I.EQUESTING 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- miy be- predetermined by the approval of this development now include : Environmental Habitat Areas Neu Development ( Seacliff Area Study ) Energy Impact Study HE MOTION WAS APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: 12 NOES : 0 ABSTAIN: L PC CAC I December 6 . 1978 Page 2 r..� 1 -C» 3 Linear Park - The concept of the linear park and its relationships to fhee'-�'�aCYiff project and the Bolsa Chico area were explained. 1 -C - 4 Bolsa Chica - This report included information about the EDAW Draft S-Eudy�iteport , the Council ' s annexation request , the State Restoration and the LCP Environmental Habitat Task . 1 -C-5 Coastal Develo ment Permits - A report on the City Council ' s determination to pursue the assumption of coastal permitting by the City was reviewed. Discussion led to a consensus that assumin' t h r coastal permitting before the completion of the LCP would impede the progress of the LCP . This would he due to the necessity to pay mare attention to individual projects rather than to the overall planninct and handling of 'issues on a comprehensive hasis . Staff knowledgeahle enough of the Coastal Act to set up this option is already occi,pied with LCP . 1-C- 6 Army Corps of Engineers - A report on the Corps of Engineers recent survey ofproperties , 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 , Proposals 7 at need to be submitted by December 15 , 1978 . It was agreed that area . Otl eeting) which are found to be wetlands ( such as areas East of Beach which the Corp visited and identified) should also be w�',t_hin the coastal boundary. Some readjustments in the 'Downtown-�'ain .Street area to include the Old Civic Center Site may be in order to fit the newer redevelopment area . 1-D Public Input - Mr . T . Whaling addressed thc% Committee, referred to his correspondence about Downtown planning. lie recc-immnertied thc, t redevelopment efforts be terminated as their delay was otily holding tip private efforts to make something happen downtown . He suggns tea that parcels owned by the City should be made available to private developers . The redevelopment issue is scheduled to be before Council on December 18 . • 2b Additional Infarm'a�tion on Public Access Sites - Information about total Huntington Harbour de scat ons and par fees - was summarized in the hand-out repor.t.. Further data about sites 1 and 1A, 20 3 , 4 and 11 also was furnished in the handout report . 2c Site Reviews Site 3 - Discussion was held about whether a general policy should estaslished by the City concerning acceptance of All dedicated recreation and access areas offered. No consensus was reachrri. I� LPc CAC Decrrmber F , 19) a Page 3 ri ri Site 11 - The public acces< rrat iirrs of thr % i tr were ti l %r.iis : ed ►is w`e"II as the Coastal Commission negotiatinns -,ihir;h lei to those requirements . Site 8 - Because of the potential trnffir. problems it was suggested 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 9 & 10 - Discussion on these sites included the point that these sites are snmewhat remote from regional access thus should not be heavily emphasized . However , since these bei.ches are a , :^ady City-owned , 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 walking routes . o t t Site 11 (west ) - The site behind Sams S..afond Rpstauran northwest o site 11 has been identified as an additional site to consider for public access and recreation . Small boat rentals to serve the public have been suggested as a possible use of the site. Sites 12 13 and lA - Privately owned properties suggested for new pa`rks,�s Be even a ldw priority as their ac uisition costs arr� 9 p Y q c,�,,. high and all of them are somewhat remotely located from regional tr►-,ffic arteries . Therefore, the usage expected would be primarily local and the expenditure of funds could serve more people at another s i te. s Site 15 - The small public access beach being developer) on TT6676 came under considerable discussion . Additional information about the status 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 i be found for the site. Site 6 - It was decided that input should he made intn the Cnunty P ansrfor Sunset Aquatic Park . An important considera • inn is that small boat rentals be considered as a facility of S .A . F . Very few other locations are ava4lable to serve all incomes of the , population'. Also this use would be dir'ectl,y related to serving, the campers who use the campground of the nark . The safety 'of these sma l'1 boats , such as canoes among the large boats which ar,e using the i channel areas was discussed. It was determined that a recommendation on how to develop safety for all such uses should accompany ►i0' recommendations of the use. ri 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 Or, report . PC Cr'c December 6 , 1978 Page 4 Site 7 and 7A This puhlic arrv-t, -, prov { slnn!. whlrh am roin Intl InIo 6r nq�nri Trin i clad 1 s 1 and were %um. mar i 7ed . The cirr.enhe l t park hits been developed . lioaever , thr Dike trail is very narrow , alsn there is no curh cut where the trail makes a street cross i n�, to the water view vista park . The lot suggested for purchase to give narkinq support to the little beach park , 7A , would cost over $2.009000 , perhaps too high to consieer for an island 5Ite which may not he easily accessible to regional demand . Are there hoat docks at the vista park? is a question to be investigated by Staff . As the walkways are for public access , the signing should be consistent with this . 2d Pelicy Recommendations et se - Since the hour for adjournment had passed and the Committee members required more time to read the additional information , the remaining agend-: items were deferred to the next regular meeting , December 20, 1978 . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 20 p. m. 1 i ' a r i j _.... _ - IL MI,•+I1TES PROGRAM - CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE LOCAL COASTAL P � oam 7 Civic Center Huntington Beach December 2011 i978 (Approved January 31 1979) RCLL CALL Present: Andreassen, Bozani% Chatterton, Cooper, Coulter, Dwyer, Estep, Harrtk7., Moshiri , Smith, Wright, Zschoche Absent, Dahl Dermody, Higgins , Porter , Slates Staff Present: Norby i i O�hers Present: Four citizens 1 1 c, The meeting was called to order at 7: 15 p.m. The minutes of the December 6, 1978 meeting w .re approved. I b. The correspondence procedure was explained. A MOTION WAS 'M GE BY ;JRIGHT THAT PROPERTY OWNrRS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED WHEN FEASIBLE OF COM"ITTEE P1EETI"!GS WHEN THEIR INTERESTS MAY BE INVOLVED WAS APPROV!-O BY THE FOLLOWING . AYES: 12 NOES: 0 A MOTION WAS MADE BY COOPER THAT TRANSMITTALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF AYES AND NOES AS VOTED BY THE C'6,,,MITTEE WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: 12 NOES: 0 1 c. Coastal Activity Report : i 1. The Orange County L .C.P . Work Program and the Huntington Beach i L.C .P. have several areas of common concern. a ON A MOTION BY COOPER WITH SECOND BY ESTEP, TO ADJOURN THE MEE'ING AFTER AGENDA ITEM I.d. IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC H E.'ttt:NG BEFORE 'rH E COASTAL COMMISSION ON i H E 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 was reviewed. G. Smith indicated he heard �— that Signal (major property owner) would be strongly opposed to any such annexation. LCP-CAC December 20, 1978 Page 2 3. The special meeting of the Planning Commission on January 6 , 1979 to consider the Seacl iff project was announced. ON A MOTION BY MOSHIRI AND SECOND BY ZSCHOCHE THE REQUEST FOR CITY C(JNCIL ACTION ENTITLED "SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING" WAS APPROVED WITH ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. THE VOTE WAS: AYES: 12 NOS: 0 4. The Committee ' request that the Boat Ramp be opened immediately was denied by Council on December 18. However, constru:tion of the make-up dock and other City dock facilities are expected to be under constrtrtion by January 25 and the opening may be possible in March , 1979 . 5. L .C.P. Administration Requests have been made for reimbursements . $23,652 was requested against the $68,541 Coastal Zone Management grant and r $4,720 was claimed for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1978 from SB-90 State funding. Information about the L.C.P . staff was repo:•ted. 1.d There were no inputs from the public. The meeting was adjourned at 8: ?0 p.m. after deferring the remaining agenda items to the January 3, 1979 regular meeting. I I-UH UI I Y. L;Uur AU I !UN A"ect��.�• James W. Patin/Mary Lynn Planning - Local Coastal Program - Submitted by --December9 f3 Llaison 8 Department Citizen -Advilo[y Committee Date,Prepared Revt.�d jZr-r.CrnhCL 2z , 19,M Backup Material Attaghed x Yvs No Subject SFACI IFF„nFyEl CPMFNT P F� City Administrator's Comments Discretionary with Comici' . j - .r ..r Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: V Statement of Issue: The Seo--liff Phase IV development proposal is currently under review for City approvals. This 112-acre project is within the coastal permitting zone and also the Local Coastal planning area. The Local Coastal Plan to be completed in mid-1979 will contain recommended land uses for all coastal properties including the subject proposal area. Until this LCP is complete, approval of a large development project such as Seccliff may predetermine oc.tions of the LCP or be inconsistent with Coastal Act policies. I Recommencint ion: The Lcu:nl Coastal Program-Citizen Advisory Committee at its meetings on Derember 6, 1979 rind December 20, 1970, by votes of 12-0, resolve,1 to request the City Council to communicate •.with the South Coast Regional Commissiai about this project. The purpose. of the commo6cation is to urge that the information from the Local Coastal Program studies and tang use determinations be included in the permitting decision on this large project. To incl+;c'-c this information in permitting decisions, the project permit reviews need to t:e schf►doled subsequent td the preparation of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. Anal sis: The Seoc li f f area wis i cent i f ied 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 page, please . . . . . . . . Fla 3/78 Rt!gm-%t for ('ity Council Action Sr-ciclif f De:vetle,atn-ant Proerrssing Dec etnb(-r 22, 1978 ^. Page z "The issues concerning this area are the locot ion of the varying densities of residential, circulation, the integration of existing long-term oil facilities, and siting to preserve and provide access to vistas and maximize onsite open space. The: latter issue becornes especially critie,af if bluff line req;onal park is not pursued by the County of Orange, An ndditional issue is the irnpcx:f of any expansion of the oil pro6)ction area along Pacific Coast Highway in response to offshore oil development. The lnndfoll for the existing offshore wells is in this area. It is possible that this area of the coastal tone could require significant expansion of its offshore nil processing and transportation facilities. Such a major expansion would significantly affect the Seocliff planned community." Additional coastal issues which were identified in the review of Environmental Impact Report 77-6. priges 236 to 2143, are included as on attachment to this request. The potential offshore oil activity effects in this area were again emphasized In these E IR comments. The removel of such n large, parr-el (1 12 acres) from consideration for alternatives uses such cis oil or rerrention or visitnr-serving focilities seriously reduces the options availohle in n cornprehensive local coastal plan. The issue of the pntentinl danger to habitat areas from runoff into the Dolso Chica was identified. The rir►crrninntion of who-toter the proposed mitigation rzieasures will be p 1 suf ficirmt to protect coastal resairce.s has not been rncde by the Local Coastal Plan at this time. The extension of 38th Street tc intersect with Pacific Coast wa Hi h is rellminuril Highway � Y felt to be consistent with C'onstal Act pulic'es. However, this determination awaits certain street r:apncity (Iota presently veiny developed. How the propnsnl, it oth(!rwice c.ompotihie, could he consistent with the Coastal Act policy to increase law- and moderate-income housing "ortunities will be addressed in � the Sencliff C'�,tal Area Study, not completed, arc; the Housing' Background Study, still urxler review. i That the uses rind protections of a regionally significant, sensitive habitat and wetland urea, the Bolso Chirn, immediately exljecent to the project have not been finalized by the Orange County Local Coastal Program, State Land, Commission and the State Department of Fish artd Game will tend to render a decision made on this project premrito)re. next page, please . . . . . . . . . rtegLx-.st for City Council Action Searliff Development Processing December 2.2, 1978 Pace 3 ' Some of these concerns have not been resolved even Wiring the extensive, Iterative communications and planning which have tolcen place on Seacliff. it would be unwise planning to establish an i►•retrievable site use without resolOng these issues. Funding Source: The communication costs are negligible in relation to the issues involved. Alternative/Additional Actions: I. The Local Coastal Program - Citizen Advisory Committee could provide direct input at Coastal Commission hearings conceming the status of the Huntington Beoc6 Local li Coastal Plan. 2. Local Coastal Program staffing decisions could be expedited to enable the coastal planning to proceed on an advanced schedule. Respectfully submi ttec:, (0%( If d a W James W. Palin Acting Planning Director JWP:MLIJ:sh Attachments: Pages 236 - 243 of EiR 77-6 + n , 3 i --z (yh f i)ii'at N 1 � r t 45. Cun he flood ha rd inap on Ogee i 34 i s outdated Use the ma P dated Aug), 28, 1976. kes se,f, outda to df neap s been replace . J � 46 Crmunent Pernrissiop landnput must a obtained from he appropriate agent ' s involved inc: drainage of he Seacliff de opment to the Ksa CH6 . e • es�,u,is� ' -'� Thr cunwi,ent s incorpuratCd reference. ' 47 , Ceuivavii The ast sentence on'Aage 133 is n t clear . Six c . s . seems ldw when coma n undeveloped develo ed dnoff. Pa 9 p 0 P .�' � ftes onst� 1 f •-, Recalculation cu 1 a ti on or ti,�. runoff increase b the applicants i cants ens i Weer• , Y pR 1 F -,r indicates the increase will be 13. 2 c . f .s . 48. Coriunent Coastal policies intend to defer all large (over 5 acres ) projects until after LCP certification in all coastal areas ( not just the Bulsa Chica) . This is to prevent prejudice of the LCP Lanai Use Ilan by un-thing l a rqv devv i npments . Ites aunsC The co.uiiient is incorporated by reference. � 49. Coacnent The factor +.hat through-views will be excluded because of the vroject lids more a€rpi icab1 lity than that the interior portions of the devei - vihnuartt are riot visible to the public. 1 q,��liu�t,e The effect is the. same. The inabiiity to see into the project, indicates that you cannot see through the project . , 7 1 236 NI Jlllrtrl.l N'n�t� , 50. Colivieli t The no-project alternative is des crihed as allowing for Future expanded oil uses. This is a very pertinent future planning option not given sufficient emphasis in this rel. jrt . The proposed :-Oject could preclude extensive oft/gas facility expansion in the area . This is one of the sites in California identified by recent State studies as a preferred landfall i 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 arid support facility require- ,nents will not have been obtained . This project proposes to proceed before these geographically contingent factors are examined . Response There are a large number of potential impacts resulting from the prupospd project , each requiring attention. The City believes the report presents a t)alanced review of those impacts . !i l . Conrnen t The possibility of reorienting the coirui!on open spaces for hel.ter public visual use could improve the project with respect to the CU3stal -policy of visual resource protection , deperoding on the resulting configuration. Res onse [he possibility of redesigning the project to enhance public visual use is discussed in the Mitigation Section. 52. Conwieot tier..ruse of the potential for damage to the adjacent Qolsa Chica 1 J ,u,,► %h , runr�f f hc„r id Grp r hltr)"ClUd dwa% froli tilt? bo ls-i Chic ii , (tine i fill oil 17r eKli,inded us,r,je of the culvert on the north is not compatible with Coastal AU policies r•eyarding the preservation of wetland areas . K�'s(rons� Runoff cdrrrlo t be gravity channeled away from gol sa Chica without rl, i s i '19 the eliti re pro.jec t are,i several feet. (See response to comment No. 1 ) .Ao . a 237 53. i✓onrnent 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 Ilighway. The 38th t Street bikeway location should be integrated into the Dluffline Regional Park so that separat'lUn from the roadway can be effected . key r'Ons The corm*.ent is incorporated by refers 54 . C�nxnent The extension of 36th Street to PCH in addition to the northerly extension to Cdvards Street would provide additional , much-needed access to collstal resources , perhaps relieving the PCIi intersections at Goldenwest, llth 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 commutL.-S to choose the .oastal route. The LCP will analyze the need for the PCH intertie as well as the circulation needs for the entire area. her�un5e No response necessary. c5. Coavi-2nt The 924 + acre site is proposed for State acquisition for L,r.ological preservation, The Orange County Linear Regional Park is to include much smaller area , approximately 100-200 acres . ft�s onse_ Tne conment is incorporated by reference. 56 . Co►isne"t The Coastal l;olicy re(erred to is aimed at increasing lower cost housirIg av,lilabi1ity in the coastal zone. This project does not contribute t.r, thrs 90,11 . however , it does not displace any lower cost homes , since the i site is uripopul,ited. Therefore only an alternate project providing lower cost housing would be an improvement in this respect. ReX?onsr_ `r The cutrnent is incorporated by reference. . Cl` 238 57 . Cuimient As a Vc ene ra l continent, it should be clarified that the 'Coastal J Act of 1976 , not the Coastal Nin, is the basis for Coastal Commission judgments . Cii,tpter 3 of that Act contains the adopted policies . Many of these are b sed ors the Coastal Plan ; however , the Coastal Plan itself is not the policy l i c ducun"en r.. Response The commenL is incorporated by reference . 5ti. Cummen L The first aril serond parag►-apltis or► 1,.it;e 109 could be more I accurately rewritten to read as follows : "The projeL t site 1 i r.s within thv cons La l rune boundary which defines the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Coninission . The California Coastal Act of 19, 6 was based on the 1975 California Coastal Plan which resulted from the statewide Cudstdl Initiative of 1972 . The California Coastal Commission (rrnd si A Regional Conrni ss ions have the general resnans ibi 1 i ty for protecting ,•�, f h California Coastcll Zone . � the natural , scF:nic: , and other resources u the The official bounddr•y , which averages a 1 ,000 yard wide bind along the coast- line of the St.: `.e , is depicted in ttie Coastline Boundary Map of 1976. ProieLtS pr•ol)osUJ for anywhere shoreward of this buundary are required to ohtain Coastal penri ts . "Projects within the Huntington lleac.h Coastal Zane (and this project is within the zone) muss. apply for permi Ls from the South Coast Regional Commission after receiving ni;cessary City approvals , until such time as a Local Coastal Plan is certified . The Commission currently bases its decisions on IrAvrpretive Guidelines , upon the research and mapped data of the California Coastal Plan and the pernitting experience of the 1?revious Coastal Zone Con- servation Comm scion. When the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Plan with • 15JWLif"ir. kind use goals rind designations is certified , this permitting process r will t�cct�rrr• a Ci Ly process ." Hespunse The suggested changes are incorporated by reference. r ' 239 ! f 1 ' t 59. Witment Since the guidelines listed are from the California Coastal Plan, 1975, they do not represent the latest policies in each map area . They do represent the best planning recoctiln.e..dations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Corlrn ;ssiun for its 1915 plan . They were interim determina;:ioils which were considered in the U 1ifornia Coastal Act of 1976 . R�E'5�)C�r►5 I No respanse necessdry . ► 60. Convnen t Considering the abuvL�, (corr�nent no, 59) the Dolsa Chica section is nut the only, concern in the project area. Within those guidelines , how- ever , under Pacific Coast Highway is a mention of "upland parking areas" which could apply in the hroject' area. Also , the project area is P part of the Huntington Beach oft field , which was not mentioned here. The groundwater aquifers and the water injec,.. on plants directly to the south of the site need to be evaluated for interactive impacts. LIL3s put Ise The interactive impacts are discussesd, in the sections that ripply to Chose ;rnNacts (soils dnd (Jeology , noise , air quality , etc. ) . 61 . C(menen t Due to the policy provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976; that the Cu•jsta 1 [')at) guidelines quoted exclude the project site is irrelevant. Areas ddjdcent to environmentally sensitive habitat ?reas must also be (!valuated in terms of their impacts to the resources . I ' Kes�t.� Ise See response to conment no. 60. 62. Cotru:►ent Rewrite page 111 , last., paragraph to update: i "The Work Program for the Local Coastal Program dated October 17, r I�111 , has been Ilrep,)rt d. It sets out the tasks and schedule: for the . r w'VII,eration of the Local Coastal Plan. The land use designations resulting from this plan area scheduled to be completed by March. 1979. The LCP will r include definitive development and resource policies as well as specific lend use designations . " 1 r 240 Rr�5PorISe [lie suggested update ill incorporated by reference, 63 . Cotivient Change Draf'_ l.CP to LCP Work_ Program. Figure 26 shows the location of issue areas to be studied in the Local Coastal fr•orirani process . No lased use d e.,ignations are proposed by the Work Proyranr. Res po(Is e The contrrent is incorporated by reference. 64 . Cu;went Iwo tither issues cited in the HP Work Program are: ( i) the cons id ration of" other than residential uses , a►id 2 ( ) the consideratian of plans for offshore oil and gas support facilities possibly locatable in this ,area . es_pPnse Incorporated by reference. Jo�4}, M ( 65. Comment ' 1 The Interpretive Guidelines are red re ui b q y the Coastal Act of 1976 , Section 30620, not the California Coastal Plan. These interpretive guidelines are general statements of Commission findings of consistency with the Coastal Act . I� Response The correction is incorporated by reference. i 66. Co;uuen t That " the project site is adjacent to a sensitive planning area whose ultimate development plans are undetermined at this time. " is a siyni ficant connrent. Response No response necessary. 1i` fJ / A r � 241 f 6 f (.t)Vllllf!ilt The report c:urrec:tly o!Ls cut that 00% project represents an irretrieval)le use of the site , eliminating future planning options . The project appeae•s Lu he inconsistent with the Coastal Act . Response No rcspunse necessary. 60. Coullnen L The Lucal Coastal Program--Work Program has made nu planning designations whatever , only detenitined whst is!;ues musL be resolved i►l Particular are,is . The project , hmvever, is consistent with the City' s General Plan ani current zoning . Response The reference to Work, Program planning designation has been 1 deleted frurn page 146. f� 69 . Cullrllen t Further e%, luation of the reed for increased facil '. ties to seepport offshure (OCS) oil anti etas operatiuns is one things that needs to occur before this project car be said not to prejedice the LCP . Response c � The report does not state that approval of the project will not pre jucl i cc the LCP. 70. Coiri:rient yNO land uses have yet been envisioned for the Huntington Beach ( � tMasta l zone by the Local Coastal Program. f Incorpurated by reference . 71 . Cnlll vii t The following coivuents refer Lo the Initial Study : I►1 01V Welter Quality Veclaration 2. 9(a) : The project site abuts the tlol sa Chica , a t idei dnd and fonner bay. 2 . 11(c) : flow will the project reduce existing noise levels , con- sidering the increased traffic induced? c 242 ti (ZC'S 10lIS!! The 111iti,31 Study is an informational document designed to help determine if an EIR is necessary. Comments on the Initial Study are not appropriate in the Draft EIR review period . 72 . Couutl nt "The City s five-year capital, improvenlen t program" re fe+•red to in this section is not an approved document, but the Public Works Department 's plan for improvement it sees as necessary. Response i See response to cumnent nu . 31 . 01_t.0�11 rJG (:Onffril- 'WERE RECL 1V - FROM THE CALL RNIA DEPARTMENT i M u itlij 1 Or+w{ CALTRANS ` 73 . Co!►ment S Ma►• . _ y The tr fic and cir'c ation secti did not cons/ergeneratioll of/ddiorlal t!'af is on Pacifi :oast: Hiytlw / � 2onse 1. , i The report es estimat the amount of roject generated traffic th woul(i use acific Coa Highway . Spe fic mitigation m sures ' a '1-e not su c ested b cause the aject is such - small percentage f the 1 (. y l } regior 1 traffic at influe es PCfi and req . res a regional s ution . i4. ouviient Sul tar Ca1tran5 feels that 5 to , miles per trip ould be more re�asunabl than thq 0 miles per tri used in the rep rt . Z-0� P. I - .. / !' per trip ivas considnre /easonable b Cause with th e!! n 1 l es t • + aciiff S in% Center . a project is airly remot kxce p.len p'� the Se pF r rail wo rj and Shopping a r �3 s . 75. Cr non.0r!t u vla ry C��1 tr ��s ac3rees that: nnection of/ 8ch Street o PCH shout not he done! �.�ntil +�,1►t�til++e in the future . 2.43 City of Huntington Beacl,?h r`. P.O. BOX too CALIFORM,,' 036" OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR South Coast Regional Commission January, 30, 1979 Captain Melvin C. Carpenter Executive Director P .O. Box 1450 Long Beach , California 90801 Captain Carpenter : Re : Seacliff Phase IV Development Pronosal and LCP This ?.etter is a result of the actions of the Local Coastal Progra;.. Citizen Advisory Committee on December 6 and D,- ::ember 20 , 1978 . Minutes of these meetings are attached . The City Council approved the request for communication of the com- mittee ' s concerns that the applicable Local Coastal Program studies be incorporated .into the decision ma%i g for this area. The staff report - Request for Cout' ail. Action, (alsr.; attached) outliner, the basis for the request. Issues idehtifieu inclut: . : i 1. . This 112-acre project proposal is proceeding through City pro- cesses ahead of the. Local Coastal Program studies which will determine the Local Coastal Plan for this area and the total Huntington Reach coasta;. planning area . 2 . Whether the residential use proposed is compatible with the Coastal Act Land use priorities is yc: to be determined. 3 . The effects of the proposed project upon the adjacent Bolsa 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 connecct Lon will benefit public: access to coastal resci-rces or crowd out coastal recreators with commutes 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 cahjunction with a comprehensive coastal housing policy. 6 . The locationai relationship of this property to the Huntington Beach oil field operations and to OCS operations requires the necessary analysis before energy-related uses are precluded by this residential development . Telephone (714) 536-5201 Captain Carpenter January 30 , 1979 Page 2 During the study sessions and hearings on the Seacliff Phase IV pro- ject, 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 pro- visions , 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 for inclusion in the process at this time. The Planning Commission has approved the development in question with considerable conditioning and, mending appeals , it will be free to pursue coastal permits in the near future via your Commission. This letter emphasizes that there are coastal 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 Advisory Committee feels that approval of Seacliff IV now would prejudice the LCP and be contrary to the intent of the Coastal Act of 3.976 . Very sincerely yours , Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator FGB:MLN: df Attachments : Minutes - 12/6 and 12/20 Staff Report - Request for Council Action Wpm JJ . City of Huntington Beach '..arr`►tint' I P i P.O. box t90 CALIFORNIA SUM OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 1 , 1979 i SEACLIFF PHASE IV Mr. pave Eadie Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 i 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 project area was passed and adapted on January 15, '1979. 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23, Tentative Tract Nos. 10067, I 0068 and 10069 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 were � approved by the ty Councilon a ruary Viand modified on April 16, 1979. ATTEST: / Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of th- City Council FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PHASE IV TENTATIVE PARCEL MAID 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 Zone 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 Huntingtnn 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. 6. approval of Tentative Parcel. Map No. 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change No . 78-4 does not become effective. * 7 . 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 'eci.se-planned width shell be made by the developer from Pacific Coast tiigh\-,ay to Garfield Avenue . Full 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 38t:h Street from the northerly ooundary 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 completion of 50 percent 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 percent of the units within the project. 8. Original Condition No. B deleted by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20 , 1979 . (See following page for new Condition 8 . ) Condition 17 as inadz.f. led and imposed by the City C�;vncil at its hearing of the appeal on February 20, 1979 Tentative Parcel 78-37 ' Final Conditions of _.pproval ` Page 2 8 . The landowner or his designee shall he responsible for the installation and maintenance of the berming , landscaping, and wall 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. 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 applicant 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 Goldenwest Street. 1 ` AnA FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SEACLIFF PHASE TV ' Tentative Tract Maps 10067 , 10068, and 10069 : 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 10067 , 10068, and 10069 . 2 . Prior to construction of the Seacl.iff Phase IV r P oect af 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 Beach. *3 . The City will precise plan 30th Street within a period of one year. Said preci:,e 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 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 access shall be available and maintained northerly on 38th Street during the construction of 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 Raps shall be submitted to reflect the change in the boundary of the total project as conditioned by the Planning Ccmmission. Siad revised maps shall be submitted prior to the recordation of any final map. G . Palm Avenue, A and D Streets , and 38th Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to ultimate right-of-way within the blue border of 'Tracts 10067, 10068 , and 10069. 'I' "Ks is Condition 43 as modified and imposed by the City Council at its hearing the appeal on February 20 , 1979 Tentative Tract Mel 1.0067 , 10068 , 3.0069 Final Conditions of Approval, Page 2 7. Thi, borders of Tentative Tracts 10069 and 10068 shall be ex- panded to include the full rights-of-way of Palm Avenue and 3ath Street. The borders of Tentative Tract 10067 shall be expanded to include the full right-of-way of Palm Avenue . * B . Final design of the drainage system, the retention basins, and the channel improvements shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works , the California Department of Fish and Game, and the kegional 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 i1. the information lie has submitted to the Planning Commission for drainage into the Solsa Chica, the drainage system shall he 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 the City Council. 10. Except where private entry drives intersect with Paln. 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 fray. public streets shall ha;►e a minimwn 30-foot curb radius at locations as specified by the Department of Public tvorS:.s pursuant to Public Works standards. 12 . All inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum of 17 feet and outer curb radii shall be 45 feev., except in Product. B 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 accelpt 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 is is Condition #S as -modified and imposed by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on February 20,� 1979 Tentative Tract Ma 0067 , 10068 , 10069 Final Conditions or�proval Page 3 15. Approval of Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068, and 10069 Eihall become null and void if Zone Change No. 78-4 does not become effective. 16. Interior private streets in Tentativt, Tract 10067 shall pro- vide two (2) minimum travel lanes o;' 12 feet from curb face to median curb face. I *17. City Council accepted the offer of dedication of 7. 8 acres from A. J. Nall Corporation for parksite purposes, said property located in the linear park concept area. (19. Condition of Approval 419 deleted by City Council on Feb.20, 1979) CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 16 , 1979 Reconsideration of conditions on Seac' iff Phase IV: Condition No. 3 for Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068, and 10069 'ZSu 'i ect to acquiescence of ape scant an a written agreement betmeen 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 frorn that point aasterly along the extension of Garfield Avenue to the inter- section 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 !laving at least two ( 2) 12-foot travel lanes . A2 . The interim emergency access shall be subject 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 shell be maintained by the Huntington beach Company. This Condition #17 is as imposed by the City Council at its hearing of the appeal on :February 20 , 1979 , and constitutes a replace- � meat of the original Condition # 18 , parks dedication , as imposed by the Planning Commission . l FINAL, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SEACLIFF" PHASE IV a Conditional Use Perinit 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 . I I i i i i r, 1 ' City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box too CALIFORNIA 925411 . UI-I-ICE Ui' '1'!iF CITY CLERK 10 f � 7 May 1 , 1979 'r`',' SEACLIFF PHASE IV �s��f],�� ('JV Mr. Dave Eadie , Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Rear 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 project area was gassed and adopted on January 15, 1979. 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23, Tentative Tract Nos. 10067, 10068 and 10069 and ' entat ve Parcel Map No. 78-37 were approvea by t e ty Council Can February 20, 1979, and modified on April 16, 1979. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and Ex-Cfficio Clerk of the City Council + S I 04 May 3 , 1979 SEACLIPF PHASE IV i Mc. Dave tadie Project Supervisor Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 Dear Mr. Eadie : I hereby certify that : 1 ) Zone Change No. 78-4, a zoning boundary adjustment between the existing Huntirnton Seacliff Country Club and the Phase IV project area was passed and adopted on,�.'rx,,., /s, /'?19, 2) Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 , Tentative Tract Nos . 10067, 10068 and 100 9, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 7 -37 were approved by the City Council on February 20, 19791oLt ' >> � ATTEST: ALICIA M . WENTWORTH City Clerk and Ex-Officie Clerk of the City Council i 1 i Motion by Yoder, second by Thomas : Yoder: Motion that we accept and impose Recommendation No. 1 and parts of Al and A2 of Recommendation No. 2 as suggested in RCA 79--27. 1 AYES: Pattinson , MacAlloster , Thomas, Yoder NOES: Dailey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : Mandic � I ,II I RCA 79 -27 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SubmittedtiY ._. ft.._o.. d C. Belsito pepertme�t �Adm..i.,n,.:,.stra,tion Date Prepared ]2J L 10 18 79 Backup Materlsl Attacifed E3 Y'rt ONO Subject SCA IF IV - 38TH "STREET - CO^NUIT1`ON � 'T__ENTATIVE TRE1C1'S 1.067 ` - 00 .iJr�l/.1 Z1QN 7 liF�.TEXM .�./�...iARC EL & 78-17+�r.�� �r City Administrator's'Comments Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STAtHMENT OF ISSUE: Conditions 3 and 7 pertaining to 38th, Strreet in Seacl-iff AV were returned to staff to review and report to City Council for any recommended changes . Conditions 3 and 7 are identical exce' t that Condition 3 relates to the Tentative Tract mars and Condition 7 relates to the Tentative Parcel Map . RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation # I does, not relate to Conditions 3 or 7 but was added because it was inadvertently omitted during Planning Commission ,aitd City Council reviews . Recommendation ON presents two 'Possible amended versions oC Conditions 3 and 7 . RECOMMENDATION -01 1 With the acquiescence of the applicant , an additional dobnhliti'on mlist be added to Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 in order to insure 'thirt no pa.rccl within TPM 78 -37 is landlocked . The condition should read as fo:tlows : Thirty-Eighth Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to i.ts ultimate right-of-way width from Iat least its northernmost boundary within TIPM 78-37 southwesterly to at least its intersection with Palm Avenue. Palm Avr,nue shall be dedicated and .fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way width from its intersection with Thirty-Eighth Street southeasterly to its intersection with Goldenwest Street . RECOMMENDATION 0II (next page) J Ono 399 ,i `. r+ , i RCA 79-27 Page 2 RE-COMMFOATION II The City and , the flu`ntington Beach Company shall enter into- -an agreement binding .on any ex i st ing or future owner of -the -a ft ected, ..property modifying condi-tions 3 and 7 . The nature of t}ie modificat ion ' wi.l l the extension of Garfield 'Avenue .issues . The issues are :, (1) whether depend end on clarification of several p.uc is a rutil ic'ly de'di'cbted and improved right -of-way, (2 ) whether the City can restrict public access on-a— . public right -of -way , and (3), if the City cannot .restrict public access , whether the C i.ty would choose to abandon ,the.. right -o f-wav . . The following proposed Modification A is the staff recommendation in all circumstances except if it is determined that : 0 ) 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. be' avallable northerly on 38th Street to the extension of Garfield Avenue and 'from that -paint 'easterly al-)ng -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 :.ravel lanes . A The interim e mergency access shall he subject 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. A3 The City will 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 Beach 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 necestary, then regarciess 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 be appropriate and reasonable . The inherent beverage of holding onto the , 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 requirod to dedicate and improve right -of-way in compliance with City precise plans of st7eet alignment in the area . r -- O .r RCA 79-27 Page 3 RECOMMENDATI ONI I- _(Continu_ed) NoweVeir; if the City Council chooses not ' to exp'ress' 'a 'willingness to 'abandon ' posilble right-of.-way, then Mod'ificailon -A cannot be overlooked'. A final deierminat'iott between rlodi`fication A or B cannot be made until clarification ' on the" right status of the extension of Garfield Avenue and on ' whethei public access can be restricted on a public right-of-way. Modification B: B1 IntCTim emergency access shall be available northerly., on 38th Street to the extension of Garfield Avenue . Such emergency access shall remain in force until dedication and improvement of 38th Street with at least two (2) 12 foot travel lanes . R2 Same as Modification A2 . B3 Same as Modification A3 B4 The Huntington Beach Company shall place , a six foot chain link fence on the southern, northern and western boundary of 'the Garfield Avenue Extension . :i w ANALYSIS : ' Recommendation # I : Recommendation AI is technical clean up which insures access to the are in Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 by requiring full . dedication and imt�x•ovement for that; portion of 38th Strut adjacent to .the blue border and the same for , Palm 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 011 : 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 language in the conditions is misleading in that the description of the northern boundary is 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 501 ofthe units within the project , at least two fully improved 12 foot travel lanes shall be provided ont38th Street from northerly boundary of the map to the ultimate alignments of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street . Precise alignment of 38th Street ; ;t to Pacific Coast Highway has not been a point of contention . The issue of the viability nf Conditions 3 and 7 surfaced because of an opinion provided by the City Attorney an March 15 , 1979 . N the opinion of the City Attorney , the City may not require dedication and improvement as contained ,in Conditions 3 and 7 unless the developer agrees 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 So% of the units in the project are built . However , the requirement for public access is excessive in light of the findings 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 ha,,1 t� adequate capacity , to handle the addi,tiomil traffic generated by Phase IV. The requirement imposed by Cendit�.ons ' 3 and '7 for public access . northward along 38th Street to Garfield ;Avenue is . based on considerations for improving access , to . ttie subject site , but most importantly for provision of alternate emergency access to the subject site . The problems associa._• p � ' ited with the provision of public . access on 38th Street after 501 of. units ':are complete as requiied, 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 cif, 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 signalixin3 the intersection of 38th Street and Garfield Avenue since Conditions 3 and 7 did not account for the possibility, (3) The normal phasing of the dedication and improve- ment of right-of-way maybe upset to the point of . inefficient use of public funds . Because of the oil 'encumberances in the area i.t . is unrealistic to expect dedication and improvement from land j 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 ultimate ' 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 # 1 . Also , that this agreement shall be binding on any future property owner , until such time as 38th Street is improved and open co 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 : 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 1 access on 38th Street at this time is not in the City ' s best interest . 1 I H. Sta'tus of the ext:cnsion of: Garfield Avenue : Ttie wcSterly extension oC Garfield ,i ,_d Avenue from I dw�irds Street r'unning approximhtely ;i `9S0 feet ' with �7 width iiary3ng between ZO feet 'arid '60 feet ,(depending o` ,soitrce of information and interpretation) maybe publicly dedicated 'H jht -of-way .' ;. Or it may be an easement or the City may have fee to the property' -(depending on 5' ou7ce of into mation dad interpretation) . The !'right-of-way" maybe . improved if` the existing roadway is (within `the "right-of-way" . . There is , .however , a possibility tfie 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 b6ars no relationship to the question of type of access needed . The legal status of the Garfield Avenue extension will , however , effect the manner in which appropriate access is attairied . The following two sections deal with this problem. C. Restriction of. Public Access on public Right-of-Way: j The City Attorney ' s office is reviewing the possibility of ! restricting public access on public right-of-way . ;his may be a means of limiting access on the Garfield Avenue extension for emergency use. if the extens ion proves to be public right-oi=-way. The. My can cut -de-sac right-of-ways , however in this cgse the pr,,rtical effect of such an effort at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street would be to reserve 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-way 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 : st a f J' i s i awe at this time to ascertain a specific method for � i 11 i 1 c t l ilk p111► J J, l i g h t 0 tiYiiy f')i J enp r b 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,. c0porations , but can do so ' in 'interest of safety, convenience and public welfare . Since abandonment of the Garfield Avenue extension woul.d. 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 cbtirse , The major argument against abandonment is that the 'City may lose some bargaining leverage . The inherent leverage of holding onto the 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. Conclusion : If it becomes necessary to vacate the extension of Garfield Avenue in order to limit public access , then proceed accordingly . j 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 . Furth^rmore it would seem advantageous to both the City and the Huntington Beach Company if the engineering services, necessary for determining precise alignments were 'provded - 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 2) march 15 , 1979 City Attorney Opinion 3) April. 9 , 1979 Memo from Assistant City Attorney , • r• o• • 1 1 10 - 1 j • ... ` 1 CA f C) 1J �• 1 I' ,� f 1 40totnrt[Sr sTR[[T OOIDCN Wts? I C!T'!f OF HUNTINGTON Bloc" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION rnw"�r.uw tiu u Gail Hutton James W. Palin T° City Attorney F�Om Acting Planning Director Subject SEACLIFF IV PROJECT Date 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 Sencliff 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 b the subdivider t legisla- tive pp y e a. to he leg 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 the:" 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 requires 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 hold 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 Beach. If the proponent and/or the property owner at this point want: 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 map , then previously we have been reviewing a;men2lraents based upon a written request Seacliff Phase IV March 15, 1979 Page 2 by the developer setting forth his reasons for the requested modification. This written request is then reviewed by the advisory agency at one of its regularly scheduled meetings . The Planning staff reviews these , requests and submits their recommendations to the advisory agency pur» suant to Section 66452 . 3 of the Subdivision Map Act, which requires that such report be served on the subdivider at least three (3) days prior to !` any hearing or action on such request . As you are well aware, our Subdivision ordinance allows that a tentative tract map be in effect for 18 months from ti.e date of approval and allows that a developer can file a final map upon this tentative map at any time during this 18 month period . if For some reason, however, a final map is not submitted for recordation, then at the termination of the 18 months the effectiveness of the map becomes null and void and all proceedings terminate . Therefore, I do not feel that a map can be brought up as a reconsideration or as new business by the City Council after the decision has been rendered' upon an appeal pursuant to the kk provisions of the Map Act. I 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 a subdivision or any proceedings or determinations taken, done, or made prior, to such decision or to determine reasonableness or validity of any conditions attached thereto, shall not be maintained, by any person unless such action is commenced within 180 days after such decision. From this section, I would say that such determination has already been made by the City Council at its February 20 , 1979 meeting and cannot now be reconsidered without violating those sections of the blap Act which I have previously cited in this memo. I hope these section numbers and my thoughts set forth herein assist you in your recommendation to the City Council on this subject matter. James W, Palin Acting Plannir.- Director JWP :df CITY CW HUNTING liMURACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION "WTWITM MACH VON To Floyd G. Belsito From r', Raymond C. Pie City AdrrNstrrstor !=irlp";Chief Subject SEACLiFF PHASE iV. �-��, Md 6A 5, 1979 CCNNDITIOM ON 38TH STREET ISSUE: It is my understanding that the developer has extenuating public access, design and precise street can alignment problems v!ith the emergencyaccess condition on the Seacliff Phase IV development rojec as approved by the Cit ounx il. Also, it is the desire of the developer to have this condition reconsidered by the Council. ANALYSIS: This Department has met with the developer, and even though it Is still besi from an emergency management standpoint, to have open public access to Garfleld Street when the project is 50 percent complete, a reasonable alternative solution Is acceptable to the Fire Department if: I. A Fire Department approved emergenc;, ccess road;paved to a full twenty-four (24) foot width with proper grading, alignment, identification, illumination, security, method of traffic control and priva?e maintenance is guaranteed. Z. An agreement is made between the property owner of the emergency access route and the City with regard to conditions in item L 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. RCP:cw cc: Jim Palin, Planning Department Mell Ott, Fire Department AUAL i s CIT"'!�' OF HUNTINOTON MACH ;�, INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICAtION �nr+rw.MN umx To FOYD G. BELSITO From EARLE W. ROBITATLLE City Administrator Chief of. Police Subject 38th STREET EXTENSION Cate MARCH S, 1979 As I stated at the Council meeting of Tuesday, February 20, I can forsee no major problems with the proposal for the 38th Street alignment. 'i I I i 01 r 1. PC• CIYV CW HUNTO a to INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION iO4OPIP ON MACH TO Bud Belsito From H. E. Hartge Subject Seacliff IV Date March 29 , 1979 I note -that conditions 3 and 7 imposed on Seacliff IV ,is on the Council agenda of. Apr l 2, 1979sunder item. L-7a. 1teim 3 would require the construction of 38th Street as a public street from zhe 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 w{.11 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 . H. E. FIartge Director of Public Works HEH:Jy JA-o 1 a pC7 , 100681 10060 -try 16, 1979 + e 2 to t ho recordation of any final mni) . Said revised composite s.i to 111,at1 shall then hecomct the n pproved layout for development of Ten- tative 'Tracts _10067, 1. 0068 , and 10069 . Z. prior to construction of the Seac.l .iff Phase TV project , a traffic: signal. shall. be installed ,at the int:orsect•ion of I'alm Avenue and Goldenwesf' Street. The costs of such installation shell he borne: on a 50/50 ratio between the developer and the City of Huntington Beach. 3 . If the City precise plans 38th Street between Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenuc/rdwards Street on the north w'. t:hin •a period .of 'one year after re corclation of the first final map ,of this .project,, ;,the developer shall dedicato 38th Street to its full precise-plahned width from Pacific Coast Itighwny to Garfield :avenue. Cu 1 i street improvements shall be installed within the blue border of the Object Wraps and, in the event that 38th Street is so pre- cise 131anned , the developer shall. provide improvement of one (1) 12-foot travel, lane in each direction on 38th Street from the north- erly boundary of the map tc Garfield 1lvenur. and from the southerly bodn'dar.y of the map to Pacific Coast II iuhway. Said dedication and improveiment:5 shall be compInted prior to issuance of. a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the projects to be. constructed upon the subject site . 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 intersect:iotl with Golden- west Street . _ 5 . Revised tentative tract maps shall. be submitted to reflect the change in the boundary of the total project: its conditioned bl' the Planning Commission. Said revised maps shall be submitted prior to the recordation of any final map . G . Palm Avenue , 11 and B Streets , anti 38th .street: shall be dedicated .and fully improved to ultimate ricillt-al-way within the blue border of 'Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 . 7 . The borders of Tentati%►o Tracts 10069 "Intl 1006B shell lie c�}_panded tu itlrl lldc tllr` f 1.111 r i(tls S-cif-wny of 1101 m Avontto ::tld 38th Stror t. . 'iho borders of Tentativo 'I,1-;ict• 10067 shall he o.xpanded to inclldc: the fitL1 riv111: -oI"-w:ly of I':t1tn ��v��clue. tt. I' illal tip sioll of ! lit, 1,nasins , and 1110 1'11.1111101 im1,1'o%1vtilL,nLs slia l l be. 6 ub.lcrt t0 :l-' the Director of I'ut, lio t-.7orks , ttlr. California Department of NMI and Garb. , .and tilts Iteqjotl:ll ii-Iter Cll,lality Cnlltrril I�c,,ard prior to recat-d�ltioll Of. illil filial rlap. Those systcnl;; ;11,111 l:)(a desicIned to provide for siltation and erosion control both dur inch and of ter construction of the project . if for f;tlme roa oll tilt` Iovo lollor is till• ale to collst ruct the 'Irai naf}e faG 11 i t i��:; :1!i }�rrJ}Jcl_;�`�.1 ill t h�� i rtf r�rula t. ic�ll he Iias ;ubini t- t:ed Lo the /^!�'.T«"r'�...•. I:••...^ 1 ...;..cf. ! '...:" '..,:L. :!.•17^..'.l_: ..•.a ri'.... - ... %:!/ _!'.. 'l.• ...!1.0..mac. .-^'w.re w... .. �. ,,. ...-.-....-. .� �.�� Ftington Beach CompCOY 2110 MAIN STRECT,HUNTING[ON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92640 (7141 9W-4351 S.A. YOUNG VICE PRMOENT •GENEAA1.AIANAGEFi • March 2, 1979 CA i y 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 20, 1979 regarding Seacliff Phase iV, we have been investigating with city staff alternatives to Condition No. 3 of Tentative Tracts No. 1067, 1068 i and 1069 and Condition No. 7 of Tentative Parcel No. 78-37. We initiated this action as a result of our discovery of several problems w'fich may resuit from the proposed condition relating to the alignment of 38th Street. Specifically, by allowing public access through the oil producing area north of the Project presents substantial security, access and safety problems as well as physical problems associated with underground oil Facilities. Also, the eveitual precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street may not correspond to the emergency access route; therefore , providing street improvements along this route for every day public use is not timely or reasonable. Our conversation with staff has indicated that a suitable alternative can be worked out. We would , therefore , request that the City Council take action at the March 5 meeting to reconsider the matter on March 19. This should allow time for you to analyze our proposal . � I Very truly yours , SAY/h I rM Page #2 Council Minutes 2/20/79 MINUTES - Approved and adopted minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of Januarys 29, 1979 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PPARCELMAP 78-17 - FRANsuWXCHIOLO - Approved Final Parcel Map No. 78-1 and accepted o offeF e cat on pursuant to the mandatory findings set forth by Board of Zoning Adjustments on property located on the south side of Main St r t east of Florida Street and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and release for pro- cessing by the County. PARCEL MAP 78-27 - W JACKSON SRANSFORD - Approved Final Par Map- No. 78-27 pursuant o the mandatory findings set forthmay` the Board of Zonin djustments on property located south of Ellis Avenue and east of the Southern P cific Rallroad, and instructed the City Clerk to execute same and to release for pro ssing by the County. SUBDIVISI9N AGREEMENT - TRACT 10172 - GRAGE WIhLS INC - Accepted Letter of Credit No. S - - (-Bank of America) an approve au orized execution of the Sub- division Agreement on property located northea of Alabama Street and Portland Avenue. LIFEGUARD ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT - Approved d authorized execution of an agreement between a sty an oun y o Orange pro ding far the County to pay the City $56,1ZO to provide lifeguard service to the uni ornoratsd area of Sunset Beach. TRACT 9286 - NOTICE OF COMPLETION - D DOLLAR - Accepted improvements dedicated for public use in Tract No. 9 ocat northwest of Yorktown Avenue and Florida Street and authorized the release of th Faithful Performance Bond, Monument Bond and ternina- tion of the Subdivision Agreem t. TRJ1CT 9404 - NOTICE OF COMP TION - THE JANES CO - Accepted improvements dedicated for puU, c use in Fact No. locatedon the west side of Bolsa Chica, south of Neil Avenue and authorized th release of the Faithful Performance Bond, Monument Bond and � termination of the Sub vision Agreement. FINAL TRACT 10485 - L OF TT 10485 - MAHMOUD KAVIANI - Adopted Negative Declaration No. - 8, approvV map pursuant to !he mandatory findings set forth in Section 65464 of the governmen Code and accepted offer of dedication and improvement as shown on Final Tract No 9989, being all of Tentative Tract No. 10485, located .on the south side of Cypr s Avenue west of Ash Street, examined and certified by the Director of Public !Mork and the Secretary to the Planning Cam nission as being substantially in accordanc with the tentative map as filed with, amended and approved by the Planning Commisr Acreage: 1 .64; lots: 6; Developer: Mahmoud Kaviani , Fountain Valley; adoptep subject to stipulations as follows : Deposit of fees for water, sewer, drainengineering, and inspections, certificate of insurance, subdivision a5ree- men , and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map, the final map shall be recorded prior to the expiration of Tentative Tract No. 10485 or April 17, 1980, and further instructed the City Clerk that she shall not affix her signature to the map nor release such map for preliminary processing by the County or for recordation until the aforemention conditions ha%e been met. SEACLIFF PHASE IV APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Pattinson announced that chis was the day and hour set for the continuance fran January 15, 1979 of an appeal filed by the Huntington Beach Company on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporatson to the Planning Commission'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. ,.,rl,....�..._. Page #3 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 He also that this was The day and hour set to consider appeals to the Planning` Conmission's approval on January 16, 1979 of Tentative Tracts No. 100679 10068 and.,l0D69 and Conditional 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 a pp eal to the ial 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 Palen Avenue. The specific conditions of approval that were appealed are Number 3,6,8,'11 ,18 and 19. ThE Amigos de Boisa Chica appeal of Tentative Tracts No. 10068 and 10069 and con- ditional Use. Permit No. 77-23 is based on urban runoff into the 86lsa Chica , the approved alignment of 38th Street being too close to the edge of the bluff, ..Product Area "C" being too close to the aolsa Chica lowlands, and the appr,3vai 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--30. 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 required the dedication and improvement of 36th Street. Mayor Pattinson declared the concurrent hearings opened. The City Clerk informed Council that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and other than the letters of appeal , she had 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 Anti gas de 8olsa Chica, addressed ,Council anH state at ey a prepare a written summary o 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 alignment. He spoke regarding building in the fill area and the drainage runoff with pollutants to the Bolsa Chica. Mr. A. J. Hall representing A.J. Hall Cor oration, addressed Council and stated thaf t e drainage had been planned-to meet the approval of various agencies such es the City, State Deparbnent of Fish and Game, etc. He gave reasons why he believed the cnnditions of approval relative to 38th Street were unwarranted. Mr. Dave Walden E ineer for A. J. Hail Cor orb a�on, addressed Council and responded to 5uncilwoman Bailey's questions relative to stonn drainage capacity and the 38th Street alignment. Mrs. Ph llis Saris o representing the League of Women Voters , addressed Council regarding the Find] nv.ronnenta Impact Report as t, pertained to the sewer capacity. She stated the importance of ensuring that the tax monies are not used to finance these services. She urged that 38th Street be aligned as recommended by the Planning Co mission. Page #4 • Council Minutes - 2/20/79 Mr. Mark Porter addressed Council and stated that he believed the developer should delay 2ereloonmnt until the future sewer reach is built. Mr. Herb Chatterton, again addressed Council and stated that the precise planning of 38t Street Fa not yet been through the public process. Mr. Hall addressedf Council and stated that he believed a cost-benefit study as suggested by the Lev' gue of Women Voters was a good idea and that an environmental cost-benefit study should be made. He stated that he belived the protect should be delayed until the local Coastal Program is completed. Or. Ed 2schoche addressed Council and stated that he believed the project would limit Me a ternat ves for the coastal zone. Mrs. Susie Newman addressed Council and stated that he believed the project would mft the 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 recommend a 1 .5 acre parks citing maintenance factors . Discussion was held by Council and staff. Mr��Walden again addressed Council, and responded to questions regarding sewer capacity stating that they were wilting to compete with other developers who may be coming in with plans during the time period of their development. There being no one further present to speak on the matter, and there being no further protects 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, Council overruled the Planning Commission and sustained the appeal -,f A. J. Hall Corporation to conditions 7 and 8 of Tentative Parcel Map 78-37, with modified conditions . AYES: Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: Mandic, Yoder ABSENT: None TPM CONDITION NO. 7 - 38TH STREET - MODIFIED On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas, Council directed the Clerk to strike out "and from the southerl boundary of the map to Pacific 'Coast Highway" and add "and ma�ined n good condition with ewer enc avai la.i 43fi;79. 10 �to parparagraph 2 of Condit on o the C on Seac Appeals, page RECESS - RECONVENED The Mayor called a recess of the Council . Following a ten minute recess the motion failed by the following vnte: AYES: Thomas, MacAllister, Pattinson NOES: Yoder, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert ASSENT: None •1 Page k5 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 A motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to delete reference to the southerly boundary to Pacific Coast Highway and adding reference to interim emergency access befng 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 main motica "and to be fm roved upon cog letion of 50% of the homes in the develo nt". The motion to amend the original motion, carried by the following vote: AYES: Yoder, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert NOES: Thomas , Pattinson ABSENT: None The vote 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 M601FIED 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. Dedicatim of 38th Street to its full utlimate precise-pl "nned width shall be:made`by the 'develbper from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. Full street improve- ments shall be installed within the blue border of the subfect 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 Gar Field 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 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 recommended by the Planning Commission, regarding traffic signal AYES: Yoder, Bailey, Mandi NOES: Thomas , MacAllister, Siebert, Pattinson ABSENT: None TPM ALTERNATE CONDITION 9 ADDED - BERMS - LANDSCAPING - WALLS 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 wall for noise attenuation treatment along the southwesterly side of Palm Avenue between the existing tennis court facility and the inters^ction of Palm Avenue a;id 38th Street. - Mi Page 46 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: None ABSENT: None TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10067 1006B, 10069 - APPEAL SUSTAINED - APPROVED WITH MODIFIED MITIONS On motion by MacAllister, second Thomas, Council overruled the Planning Commission f and sustained the appeal of A. J. Hall Corporation to conditions imposed on Tenta- tiave Tracts No. 10067, 10068 and 10069, with modified conditions. , The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Siebert, Pattinson NOES: Mandic { ABSENT: None t 1 CONDITION 3 - 38TH STREET IMPROVEMENT k 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 construction of the first 50% of the units within the project. The motion carried by the following roil call vote: AYES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic , Siebert NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Pattinson CONDITION 6 - PALM AVM A & d ST, 38TH ST DEDICATION NO MODIFICATION f 1 On motion 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 allow Condition n to stand as submitted h; the Planning Commissiono died for 'ack of a second. i Page 07 - Council Minutes - 2/20/79 f a On motion -by MacAllister, second Thomas, Council approved Condition 8 to read 4 as follows: "Final design of the drainage system, the retention basips, and the channel improve- ments shall be subject to approval by the. Director of Public Works, the Cali- fornia 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 pro- vide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the protect. 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 drain- age into the Bolsa Chica, the drainage system shall be redesigned and remain flexible to allow for alternative solutions." The motion ca►•ried unanimously. CONDITION 11 - REACH 3 - SEWER TRUNK LINE - FAILED A motion made by Mandic, seconded by Bailey, to allow Condition 3 to stand as submitted by the Planning Commission, felled by the followed vote: AYES: Bailey, Mandic NOES: Yoder, Thomas, MacAllister, Siebert, Pattinson ABSENT: None CONDITION 18 - PARK DEDICATION OFFER ACCEPTED On motion by MacAllister, 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. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pattinson stated that the Condition 19 appeal was sustained by original motion. APPEAL - CUP 77-23 - TT 10068 b TT 10069 - DENIED On motion by MacAllister, second Yoder, %ouncil denied the appeal to the Planning Commission approval of CUP 77-23 and Tentative Tract Nos. 10068 and 10069, filed by Amigos de Bolsa Chica. Motion carried unanimously. CUP 77-23, TT 10068 AND TT 10069 - APPROVAL. SUSTAINED On motion by MacAllister, second Yoder, Council sustained 'the Planning Commission and approved CUP 77-23 and Tentative Tract Nos. 10068 and 10069, with modified condi- tions on Tentative Tract 10068 and 10069 as previously stated in its action on such reaps. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CASE 78-19 =-DENIED Mayor tinson announced that this was day and hour set''fo a public hearing b for tan a of zone .from (Highway on a pets Qn filed by Or. Joseph No le g ( g y Commercial Dtgrict) to R2-Q (Medium Density, Res ntial/Qualified C ification District) an property generally located on the nort a of Pacific Coa ighway approximately 200 fe t�west of Anderson Street. The Cit until also consi d Negative Declaration No.'18-109 in conjunction with said zone%case. IN THE Superior Court OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In and for the County of Orange CITY OF hUNTINGTON BEACH9 CITY CLERK .............................................................. ............................... PROOF OF PUBLICATION F.0.1 ic.MaarAW:-Ap-pe.4 I A f I.. ...... ...................................... .. .. .... .... . State of California S3. County of Orange Rita J.. Richter .. ..................... .................................. That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of twenty-one years.and that I am not a party to,nor Interested in the above entitled matter; that I wn the principal clerk of the printer of the HUntinpton,Beach Independent Review ....I............................... a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Hunt ington—Bea ch...................................... -County of Orange and which newspaper lei published for the dis- seminaflo'n of local news and Intelligence of a general character, a . . ..... ..... and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still ir has a bam Me subscription list of paying subscribers,and which newspaper has been established,printed and published at regular Intervals In the said County of Orange for a period exceeding one year;Uml the notice,of which the annexed Is a printed copy, has been published In the regular and entire Issue of said newspaper, and not In any supplement thereof,on the following dates,to wit: FebLrmrY..8,..1979..................................... ........................................................ ...............................I................................. I certify(or declare I under penalty of perjury thst the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated at ..................Garden Grove . ............................... • Signature jl FaMS6 CAr-5137? 41t-T'r 'L r+ •1]!:'.Mi/a1 V`1h:.R`.t 0/7 Nt�'i'YCR tl� 1�L'iC 1iiEARL!IC APPEALS ON SEACLIFF PHASE fY NOTICE IS HEUDY GIV= that c, puti;ie hearLaS will be held by the City Council of the City of Hunttntton beMoh, in the Council Chaub er of tha Civic Center, MW tYntton Beach, at the hour of , 7:30 P.M. , or an sores thereafter as poeslble, on Tuesday the 20th day of February 19 „79� for 'cite purwoe of ' comsickrinS appeals of the Planning Commission's approval on .January 16, 1979 of Tentative Tracts No. 10067, 10068, lW,69 and Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23. These three (3) tracts and the conditional use permit are for the development of a 531 unit 'planned residential development on a 114 acre site located Hest of Goldemfest Street, north of Palm Avenue and southwest of the Seac'liff Golf Course. The applican6 appeal of the three (3) tracts i3 based on specific conditions of approval pertaining to the required dedication and improvement of 38th Street, drainage design, -squired 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 Numbers 3, 6, 8, 11, 18 and '19. The *arigos de Balsa Chica appeal of Tentative Tracts No. 10068 and 10069 and Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 is based on urban ranoff into the Balsa Chica. the approvesi alignment of 38th Street is too close to edge of the bluff, product area "C" is too close to the Balsa Chica lowlands, and the approval of this overall project should be delayed :until after the completion of tho Local Coastal Program. These appeals will be heard in conjunction with an appeal of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-38. This tentative parcel map is in conjunction pith the above mentioned tracts and was appealei by the applicant bycause of the conditions of approval that required the dedicatiot: end improvement of 38th Street. A legal description is on file in the planning Department Office, All tnterested persons are invited to attend said hearing and expres3 their opinions for or against said Appeals. Further information may be obtaf, ad from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Geach, C.A. 9260. - '714) 53;-C?26 Dated: February 5, 1979 CITY Of HUNTINGTON REACH By: Aiicia M, Kantworth - -- I;it,Y Clerk NOTICE: '10 (:E.GEtK TO SCHEDULE' PUBLIC HEAR1NC rrEM .t' A!a, j J oOlv`' &001 TO: CITY CLERK' S OFFICE DATE: FROM: .21 I PLEASE SCIEEDULL A PUBLIC IIEARING USING THE AI TACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE _DAY OF 1977. f I i AP' s are attached ` AP' s will follow No AP's I Initiated by: Planning Commission Planning Department Petition �. * Appeal Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) _ YE'S ( NO Refer to Planning Department - Extension # �7 for additions information. * l ,: appeal , please transmit exact wording to be requlred in the lognl . 44 A /ooG7 � toL8 o-�.cf.ot Llei /..n��v� �0 7j 23 . 7./wi fh'.1u.C7) tu�ta aid E/ic . ,,, a r°� aAZePv�eAop..w� u�r. /2Pw�v �/E O.c� .d 5�zpwau a� �yc � _T Patwe. 4' 7.4L NIAVWA� (3)�ft�L 644e /+a9jwu 'm a�+ewce-wn n.d 2ow+w.{��S 4�5:tnu1- � J10"Alf 6 .4;k E�iro . 7,4 �ygawwf tkr.f u��z �u,ed ana iu.,�.6e.� 8� G , b�, ��,/$ 2d+ald.(tcu 7.W.& A /OD(d /sM /ao(a$ auA C'end[7Eeew,Q UAL A ?/' '23 .w,nta- Ek &Aa, L'/uie.. A a�te+a.el a �mnni..d �S.i� Ile ir. tv e�a� lo . �eq2 tau anca .e .4a to ePe�a. E4 el 64 roallIX At&t & 1"k. &t4t&��k Pao�t& 4W#l .Ap -444 UVAIK�. _- Ao4A 64 A40C �54 cd7���Id tow I�ZA� C!lo i - t , I - - _ t ' _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ ., _ _ _ _ _ _ _i_ _ _ .. _ _ StAts DsPt. of Fish arxi C.asalt - A J. iiall Cbp ' 8C #7 677-Z3 , Av+rsw 0305 Vitas Straot I IT 10067' 10068, 10069 + L Q fled<, CAW iii Calif t Oct. 24s 1978 (M) ; 90802 y2111 � t _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - � l23-23.1-15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - : _ CaliharniA Asgiccydi Water !astt �qBeach Ompaw I Dow'am W Parmw ; Uuallty controlaorctti :t1L0 Maim street ; L9�Zl Ckuaw 81u!! Cxs�cla , 6833 Ixhdiana Aver x" Suitt t o ntirogtm Bean, Calif t ELatLhgtxhu 8041ch, Cal-if ' R1wlr+eic3a, Calif 92506 92648 1 92648 ; Attn s r rancism %-LQi 13-181R-06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?3-23i1-16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - uramw C:oust,► +'.etstim - - - - E .Besch U34 01V g bawttd District 'lax Mvisbm t 6551 H=nJ thq Tidy Drive 10844 1-0Lia Av�rxea 224 stab 8tacat t ��� �� gl,if , ftuitain Va lmyy, Calif. San , Calif 94120 i 92640 927t'8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - 23-231-09 H. H. ximmm%vy Sct=l , -74slr A Risao ' FAstsict + 19418L Ckmn Uluff Circle 770 -- 11th Ste ' l+untirigttan Elwic h, Csl.if kkaftAwton Bead, Calif 92648 ; 92648 + 2 3-2 31-10 H.B. UrJm Iligh School Lapt. of txwUq -tatrLVI ; LAAt rit:t + 120 so. Spring Strwt 11-W2 17th Street We Arq&Ias, Calif 90052 ; Uuntirogtm esadh, ftli f ' i Attn: Staff Asa.ixitant - B t 92648 , 23 110-014-39 � latinoil USA Inc 19861 00 m Bluff Circle* 1 P.U. 8o[2828 - tjustingtm I%mch, Calif ' 288 Jerre � 92 M i U3M Beach, c;all f W806 '_ 1 _ 1. in t all N bruac6+ay , U851 Oobm BluffCircle ; Santa Ana, Call 92601 � I Jamtington beads, i f ALtnL Bob Fiat�ar 92646 t 13•-231-13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •-i�� die EbLaat-�a- - - - - - - - - i • - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - . - - - - - - - - f ljezvey E lMWris 114041 Cixwt nwy Lwm ' 19041 Oman snuff Circk ;�� eroc'fi, Calif 91e49 sluntssrit m Beach, Calif 92648 , 23-231-14- - - - - - - - - -• - •- - i�ss o�Mcs�n 1+t�ta,cs - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - . . . . . . 7Yhot» J bran IN15 Cata►llm A%wuw , Pesi ilaec#i, Calif ' 19831 Uo rn Bluff Circle j90744 ' t iuntim tlnn Beactl, Cal.ff 92640 I , I t c t t I i t t , 1 , 1 I T r r r fu1 ftb uL Notices 25 WrICB 0! PIMIC not-M APPEALS ON SEACLIFF PHASE I1 iMICE is HEAIBY Q1VR1 that ae "lie hearing ri11 be twld by tbq City Council of than City of Mueat.istton Basch, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, ft:titr.Eton Haech, at the hour of P.R. , or es 'soon tbf rea ter an possible, on _Tuesday the 2,_,__ Other, day of Febr�ua� y-- 1g 79, for tha purpose of i considering appeals of the Plannin!' Commission's approval on January 16. 1979 of Tentative Tracts No. 100679 i00681 10069 and Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23. Thes► j three (3) tracts and the conditional use permit are for the development of a 531 inn t nlAnned residential development on a 114 acre site loca'teq west of Goldenweit Street, north of Palm Avenue and southwest of the Seacliff Golf Course. The applicanth appeal of the three (3) tracts is based on specific conditions of approval pertaining to the required dedication and improvement of 38th Street, drainage design, i required seoering system, and thv requirement for the dedication of a park site on the north side of Palm Avenue. The -oectfic conditions of approval t::at were appealed ere numbers 3, 6, 8, 11, 18 and •19. The Amigos de Balsa Chica appeal of Tentative Tracts No. 10068 and 10069 and Conditional Use Permit No. 71-23 is based on .rban runoff into the Balsa Chica, the approved aligrnent of 36th Street is too close to edge of the bluff, product area "C" is too close to the Balsa Chica lowlan1s, and the approval of this overall project should be delayed until after the Completion of thO Local Coastal Program. These appeals will be heard in conjunction with an appeal of Tentative Parcel Map Na. 78.38. This tentative parcel map i•t in conjunction with the above mentioned tracts and was appealed by the applicant because of the conditions of approval that required the dedication end !atproveraent of 38th Street. A 1-gal description is oit file in the Planning Departftnt Office. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearinq and express their opinions for or against said Appeal$. Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 20M Main Street, Huntington Beach, Co. 92646. - (714) 536.5226 Dated: February 5, 1979 CITY OF RLMINGTON BEACH 6y: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk EQU 8T FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Jamcn W. Palin Department Planning Date Prep2red February 13, 19 9 Backup Material Attached [j] Yes F] No Subject APPEALS - TENTATIVE PARC 0L MAP NO. 78-37 ; TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 10067, 10068 , AND 10069 ; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77-23 . City Administratur's Comments Approve as recommended by staff. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, `-r,iative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: 1. An appeal filed by the Huntington Beach _-),!,!-an t -i `.,a`f of the A. J. Hall Corporation____appealing the Planning_ Coo..aasion approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37, Conditions 1 , 7 , and 8 and requesting clarification on Condition No. 5. This appeal was previously before the Council at your January 15, 1979 meeting and was continue.3 to be heard concurrently with subsequent appeals relating to this project. Appeal filed December 26 , 1978 . 2. Appeal filed by A.J. Hall Corporation appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on Tentative Tracts 10061 , 10068 , and 10069 , Conditions 3, 61 8, 11 , 18 , and 19 . Appeal dated January 31, 1979 . 3. Appeal filed by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica to the Planning Commission' s approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 and Tentative Tracts 10068 and 10069 . Appeal dated January 25, 1979 . The above-referenced appeals are filed to the Planning Commission ' s decision to approve Seacliff Phase IV, which is located on property along the westerly leg of the Seacliff Golf Course . RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff Recommendations : Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 : Staff recommends that the City. Council reject t e aappeal by t e Huntington Beach Company and sustain the Planning Commission 's decision' subject to the findings and conditions of approval as proposed by the Commission plus the added condition recommended . by the Commission at its January 6 , 1979 meeting an the maintenance of Seacliff Appeale - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 7. landscaping along Palm Avenue to he the obligation of the property owner. Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 : Staff recommends that the Council reject the appeal filed by the A. J . Hall Corporation and sustain the Planning Commission decisions on these three tract maps. Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 ; Tentative Tracts Ma]es 10068 and 10069 : The staff recommends that t e C ty Council reject the appeal filed BF-the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and sustain the Planning Commission decision on the conditional use permit and the tract maps. Planning Commission Recommendations : Tentative Parcel Maw No. 78-37 : At its December 12 , 1978 meeting the Planning Commiss of n conditionally Tonally approved TPA 78-37 as follows : ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY RUSSFLL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 4AS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND COND I.ITIONS , BY THE FOLLOW-- ING VOTE: FINDINGS : 1 . The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the City ' s General Plan, subject to final adoption of Zone Change 78--4 . 2 . The proposed parcel :map is i» compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department on October 5, 1978 , shall be the approved layout, subject to conditions of approval and adjustment to reflect boundary line changes result- ing from the final adoption of Zone Change No. 78--4 . 2 . A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded w.lth 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 systems of the City of Huntington 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. :6 . _Apprqyal of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 78-4 does not become effective. Seaclif£ Appeals -- RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 3 7. The City will precise plan 38th Street within a period of one year. Said precise plan shall terminate at Pacific Coast Hid �wav on the south and Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street on the nort . . . 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 improvements shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, aid improvement 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 and from the southerly boundary of the map to Pacific Cot,st Highway . Said dedi- cation and improvements shall be completed Fi3or to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the pruject to be con- structed upon subject site . 8. The applicant shall participate to 50 percent of the cost of any traffic signals which the Department of Public Works deems to be necessary at 38th and Pacific Coast Highway and at Garfield hvenue and 38th Street . AYES: Russell, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: Stern ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins NOTE: Please see suggested added -Condition No. 9 at the bottom of page 12 of this report. Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068, and 10069 : At its January 16, 1979 meet- ing the Planning Commission conditionally approved subject maps as follows: ON MOTIONS B'{ RUSSELL AND SECOND BY BAZIL TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS NOS. 10067 , 10068 , AND 10069 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI'T'IONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : FINDINGS : . ...._...1'_.... .The» proposed n is consistent subdivision osed ro .Ao _.�.�,��.�...�M��.__....�.�..-..._.:...�...._...,�:.�,.�.y:. ,:.:�,� J with the General and .Specific Plans applicable to the property. 2. The design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemen-' tary City Subdivision Ordinance. 3 . The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposal , 4 . The design of the subdivision and its improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmen.'.- . 1 damage or cause serious public health '$ problems. Seacli Ff Appeals - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 4 S. The design of the- subdivision and its improvements does not conflict with public easements, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . A revised composite site plan incorporating all requirement., of the Planninq Commission shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the recordation of any final map. Said revised composite site plan shall then hic nme the approved layout for development of Ten- tative Tracts 10067, 10068 , and 10069 . i 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 j Beach. I j 3 . If the City precise plans 38th Street between Pacific Coast Highway on the south and Garfield Avenue/Edwards Street on the north within a period of one year after recordation of the first final map of this project, the developer shall dedicate 38th Street to its full precise-planned width from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. Full street 5mprovements shall be installed within the blue border of the subject maps and , in the event that 38th Street is so pre- cise planned , the developer shall provide improvement of one (1) 12-foot travel lane in each direction on 38th Street from the north- erly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue and from the southerly boundary of the map to Pacific Coast Highway . Said deOication and improvements shall be completed prier to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the projects to be constructed upon the subject site. 4 . Palm Avenue shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way width from fts intersection with A Street within Tentative Tract 10069 southeasterly to its intersection with Golden- west Stro-et. .....K...)-....tW.M..U+.....•wr.r .�r..r .............�... .rwtt-•---may..w .tt..fN..r..,r�.. ..��� S. Revised tentative tract maps shall be submitted +:o, reflect the change in the boundary of the total project as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Said revised maps shall be submitted prior to the recordation of any final map. 6 . Palm Avenue , A and d Streets, and 38th Street shall ,be dedicated and fully improved to ultimate right-of-way within the blue border of Tracts 10067, 10068 , and 10069 . 7. The borders of Tentative Tracts 10069 and 10068 shall be expanded to include the full rights--t)'f-way of Pa1rn 'Avenue and 38th Street. The borders of Tentative Tract 10067 shall be expanded to include the full right-of-way of Palm Avenue. 8. P nal design of the drainage system, the retention basins, - and the channel improvements shall be subject to approval by the (director of Public Works, the talifornia Department of Fish and yatme, and Seacliff Appeals - RCA February 13, 1979 Page 5 the Regional Wate_ duality Control Board t-Lfor to recordation of Any final map. These systems shall be designed to provide for siltation ard 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 drainacj into the Holsa Chica, the drainage system shall be redesigned and constructed to accommodate surface drainage from the project area to the ocean via 38th Street. 9 . Sewer, water , and. fire hydrant systems shall be subject to City standard plans and specifications as adopted by the 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 ledicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 11 . Reach 3 of the District 11 Sanitary Sewer trunk line facility pro- posed to be constructed from the project to Lake Street shall be constructed and in operation prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit within the Seacliff Phase IV projects. 12 . 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. 13 . All inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum of 17 feet and outer curb radii shall be 45 feet, except in Product D which shall have a minimum outside curb radius of 40 feet. 14 . Median breaks and left turn lanes in both directions shall be pro- vided in Palm Avenue at locations and to the specifications of the Department of Public Works . 15 . Prior to recordation of the final maps , the developer shall file with the City an irrevocable letter of agreement to accept drainage '..• KNI'.:IM/'Y4w.r....w...✓...a.....•.rwr..!-._.r-...r law.... .�...wY ti..... .1.� from 'the pubfic streets Into the private drainage system. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy submitted to the Citf of the recorded documdnt. 16 . Approval of Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 1.0069 shall become null and void if Zone Change No. 78-4 does not become effective. 17 . Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall provide two (2) minimum travel lanes of 12 feet from curb face to median curb face. r, 18 . The developer shall be required to dedicate to the City a paik , s'ite of a minimum area of three (3) acres between the align?nent of 38th Street as . shown Capon his maps and the City boundary .along, the bluff line northerly of the intersection of 38th Street and Palm. Avenue. This dedication shall be completed prior to the recordation of the first final man. Seacliff Appeals - RCA February 13, 1979 Page 6 I l The area located on the northeasterly side of Palm Avenue between the oil operation island and the existing tennis court facility within the 5eacliff Country Club complex shall be dedi !ated as a park site concurrently with the recordation of Final Mai. 16369. 18a . The wall design and landscaping '-1zreatment around the oil operation island located at the southeaz�.erly corner of the intersection of A Street and Palm Avenue shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval action. Wall and landscaping shall be installed by the developer, and the Homeowners ' Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping until such time as the oil opera- tions have terminated upon subject site and an a1LFrnate use has been established thereon. 19 . The blue border of Tentative Tract 10069 shall be relocated to incor- porate the area bet-veen the oil operation island and the existing tennis courts at the southeasterly intersection of Palm Avenue and A Street rs a part of this subdivision. The border of the project shall also be relocated to incorporate those areas zoned R2-PD-0 and to exclude those areas zoned ROS-0 by the approval of Zone Change No. 78-4 . after final approval of said zone change . AYES : Russell , Stern , Finley, Bazil, Paone NOES : Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the appeal filed by A. J . Hail Corporation and sustain the Commission' s approval of Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 with the findings and conditions as outlined above. Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 Tentative Tracts 10068 and i0069 : At its January 16 , 1979 meeting the P ann ng Comm sszon con tiMonally approved Conditional. Use Permit as follow,: ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL USE PLUIT NO. 77-23 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use of property is consistent with the General Plan. 2. All design and improvement features are .proposed in compliance with Citv ordinances, standards, and special permits granted by the Planning Commission . CONDITIONS OF APPR')VAL: `I 1. The revised' ,composite site plan reflecting those details and ameni- ties as required by the Planning Commission and those shown upon supporting plans received on October 18, 1978 shall be constructed IV Seacliff Appeals -- RCA FFbruary 13, 1979 Page 7 as indicated within the developments , including but not limited to open space , water areas , textured pavement, fencing , schematic elevations , materials and colors , recreation facilities , pedestrian walkways , and oil well treatment. 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, all exterior building eleva- tions shall be reviewed and approved by the Planninq Department. 3 . The CC&Rs and Association rules shall set forth provisions to pro- hibit the storage of recreational vehicles upon designated open parking spaces within the project. 4 . Prior to the isstance of building permits , the developer shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments , Native; plant materials shall be utilized in landscaping programs within the project drainage facilities. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the Depart- meet of Fish and Game in the preparation and review of these land- scape plans . 5. All garages within Product Area C and any other garages in the other product areas which are constructed having less than a 20 foot drive apron shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers.' 6. If. central air conditioning is installed in any units , the insula- tion in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-19 and R-11 res-ectively. If no central air conditioning is provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-13 and R-7 respectively. r " All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire , pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials shall be hauled to an offsite disposal facility. S . All dwelling units shall be constructed in compliance with the Stater acoustical standards set forth for all those units that lice within the 60 CNEL contours of the property . 9. Energy saving lighting, such as high-13ressure sodium vapor lamps or equivalent energy saving types , sha-1 be us(.d in recreation areas. i 10. Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water facets within the dw►Ruing units. 11. Construction technin ues recommended in the geotechnical report: on file for the pi:oject shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Community Development. J. 2 . Prior to the iss4unce of building ' permits', the developer whall submit to the Planning Department for review and appx;va►l a fully di;nensicned site plan for all lots within the subdivision. Seacliff .Appeals - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 8 13 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , detailed calculations or interior noise levels based on final building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Building Department for review and approval . The interior noise levels of all structures shall not exceed the California noise insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL . 14 . All surfaced areas used for drives for vehicular access in, over , and through all areas within t•h ! projects shall be designated as fire access lanes and posted as such . The CC&Rs for :he Homeowners ' Association shall contain a provision to require that the Association enforce parkinj restriction in those fire lanes . 15 . Approval of Conditional. Use Permit No . 77-23 shall become null and void if Zone Change No. 78-4 does nut become effective . 16 . Prior to recordation of anv final map, the CC&Rs for the projects shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review to assure compliance with all applicable conditions of approval and to the Attorney' s office for review as to legal form. 17 . Prior to final building inspection , temporary fencing to consist j of a five (5; foot high chain lint: construction shall be installed on tht. northwest side of 38th Street adjacent to the nroje.:-t bound- ary to prohibit access to the surr.oundinq oil operations , bluffs , i and marsh area unless the area subsequently becomes subject to the jurisdiction of a public agency. 18 . The revised plan for Product C receiver? and dated January 16 , 1979 shall. be the approved layout for the minimum parking requirements on Product C . Each parking node shall reflect total circulation around and through such area and the design of such circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. 19 . Prior to any improvements to the existing drainage channel , test level investigations shall he made by a qualified arc;laeologist approved by the Planning Department for ORA 293 and OFtA 294 . A written report shall be submitted to the Planning Department indicating the depositional character, the research potential , and potential miti- gating measurns for each site . Mitigation measures necessary to preClUde site impairment,, as approved by the Planning Director , shall be compl e-0. with. 20. The CC&Rs and the Asscciation rules shall contain a provision that the Homeowners ' Association shall be obligated for maintenance and upkeep of the drainage system, sidewalks , irrigation system, and landscaping both within and outside of t:ho public rights-of-way adjac- ent to the public street sections within the Seacliff Phase IV devel- opment, except that the Association shall not be obligated to maintain any landscaping , street paving , or drainage systems located within the public rights-of-way from back of curb to back of curb. Seacliff Appeals - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 9 21 . Recreational facilities shall be provided within the common open area of Product Area A. The revised plans received and dated January 16 , 1979 , shall be the approved layout for these facilities . 22 . Information submitted by the developer for consideration for inclusion in the Real Estate Report for all three product: areas shall contain a statement on the obligation of. the Homeowners ' Association for the maintenance of private drainage systems and sidewalks. 23. The land owner or his designee shall be responsible for the installa- tion and the maintenance of the berming , landscaping, and wall 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. t 24 . All private drive:: used to provide ingress and eg r`ss for the oil operations shall be required to be constructed with a street section the same as those constructed for local streets . ' 25 . A raised median shall be constructed within A Street at the inter- section with 38th Street, of a width and design to comply with the specifications of the Department of Public Works . 2 P 6 . If the Citydevelops l.andscapi:ut standard plans for -he sc:!nic routes within the City within one year of the first recordation of any final map within this project- , the developer shall install the j treatment along 38th Street in compliance with said flans for the off island oil wells , screeni.ig walls , and landscaping areas along that route . Street rights-of-way dedication to thQ City for A and B Streets shall include ± 42 feet , plus area for public utilities easement beck of curb to back: of curb. All street landscapinq and meandering si6ewalks shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners ' Associa- tion.. Public access shall be provided on perimeter walkways . 28 . Street right-of-way dedicated to the City for. Palm AvE-nue shall be 100 feet wide - This right-•of-way shall include an 8-foot offstreet bikeway on the southerly side in lieu of a sidewalk . A meandering sidewalk and intensified landscaping shall be provided on the northerly side of the street . The sidewalk/landscaping on the pro- ject -, id(-- of Palm Avenue shall be owned and maintained by the Nome- owners ' Association . 29 . A meandering sidewalk and intensified street landscaping shall be provided on the east side of 38th Street and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners ' Association. Public access shall be provided or this n--rimeter nidewal.k . 30. In Tentative 'tract 10069 , landscape planter,; with parking on one side only shall be extended in a perpendicular fashi on each end to denote parking areas as outlined in attached ExhiLAt No. 1. Seaclitf Appeals RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 10 31 . Detailed plans for noise attenuation on the south side of Palm j Avenue shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issu- ance of building permits . 32 . Off i .land wells shall be converted to common open space under the ownership and maintenance of the Homeowners ' Association at such time as oil operations cease . The abandonment and clearing of the site of all oil operation equipment shall be the responsibility of the oil operator . The homeowners ' Association shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all landscaping to convert the areas to co.rmmon open space . In the altern:.tive , the developer may , prior to the recordation of a final map, submit a revised site plan to incorporate these areas into additional lots and/or units within Products A and B. This plan shall be reviewed for approval action by the Planning Depart- ment and the CC&Rs for the project shall include provisions for the annexation of these areas . 33 . Three-foot (31 ) maintenance easements shall be provided in Tenta- tive Tracts 10067 and 10069 along al;. zero side yards unless the Homeowners ' Association will assume all exterior maintenance responsibility. 34 . A drainage system maintenance plan for percolation/retention ion ponds, culverts , channel improvements , and related facilities shall be developed to ensure facilities will maintain design capacities to assure continued effectiveness. This maintenance plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the California Dep<<r_ tment of fish and Game prior to construction. Maintenance of the drainage system other than in the public street system shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners ' Association and/or the developer. fepresentatives of the Regional Water. Quality Control Board and/or the Department of Fish and Game shall be allowed to periodically inspect the drainage system and make recommendations to the Home- owners ' Association and/or the developer to take any action necessary to ensure that the drainage `acilities are maintained in an effective condition. " Effective condition" shall be defined as that condition which maintains the water flow in terms of both quality and quantity to within 95 percent of : 1 ) the standards of the Water Quality Control Board , or 2 ) the existing present condition based upon measurements taken wi. th'.n 60 days subsequent to the approval date of the tenta- tive tract maps , whichever is the more restric►:ive. If for any reason the Homeowners ' Association and/or the developer fails to take action to remedy a deficiency of the drainage system within 30 days of notification of such deficiency, the City may Seacliff Appeals - RCA February 13, 1979 Page 11 then take action to maintain that drainage system to restore' it to effective condition and shall be reimbursed for all costs for such rnaintena::ce by the Homeowners' Association and/or the developer . 35 . The revised plan for Tentative Tract 10068 received and dated January 16 , 1979 , shall be the approved plan for minimum parking requirements as set forth in Section 9362 . 16 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . . AYES : Russell , Hazi.l , Paone, Finley , Stern NOES : Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins 1 For the action on Tentative Tracts 10068 and 10069 , please refer to actions set forth previously in this transmittal . The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny -the appeal filed by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and uphold the approval of. Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 and the accompanying maps . ANALYSIS: The Seacliff Prase IV projects, Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 , Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 , and Tentative Tract Maps 10067, 10068 , and 10069 were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a number of meetings. It would be impossible to set forth in this transmittal all of the issues discussed by the Planninq Commission and its approach to resolving j those issues through its review and approval action. Therefore , the staff has attached for your review the minutes of those Planning Com- mission meetings to give you some insight into the discussions and the subsequent approval actions. Followi,nr_ is an analysis of the appeals filed , 4.n the same order as previously followed in this transmittal. Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 : The letter of appeal states that the proponent is opposed to Conditions 11 7 and 8 and that he requests clarification by the City Council on Conditi.or; of. Approval No. 5 . Condition No. 1 : This condition was necessary to require that the 3ou» ary be a Gusted to reflect the ultimate decision on the zoning boundary as determined by the City Council on Zone Change 78-4 to make the proposed project and action consistent with general and specific plans of the laity of Huntington Beach . Condition No. 7 : Requiring the dedication of 38th Street to its ultimate with Z Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue- was conditioned by the Planning Commission because after review of the environmental impact report it was felt that too much traffic would be direcLA to Goldenwest Street if there were no provision for a second entrance into � Seacliff Appeals - RCAAaa February 1.3 , 1979 Page 12 this development . The Planning Commission requested inf--rmation on the number of trips anticipated to 'be generated from the proposed project per year over 38th Street to Garfield Avenue , and it was determined that approximately 467, 200 trips per year would travel over 38th Street with an approximate savings of gasoline consumption of 35 ,818 gallons per ,-year if 38th Street were to be required to be installed concurrently with this project. Condition No. B : Requiring that the developer participate up to 50 percent in the construction costs of signals which the Department of Public Works deemed to be necessary at the intersections of 38th Street and Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield Avenue and 38th was imposed by the Planning Commission due to the impacts from additional traffic anticipated to travel those streets from the construction of this project. The developer in his letter of appeal also requested clarification of Condition No. 5, which requires that the blue border or boundary of Parcels 1 and 3 be extended to include the full rights-of-way of 38th Street and Palm Avenue and that the boundary of Parcel 2 be extended to include the full right--of-way on Palm Avenue. This condi- tion was added to allow the map to be consistent with specific plans of the City of Huntington Beach as well as to assure that there was adequate higt;vity width within the boundary of the proposed project. Additional Information : It should be roted that the Planning Commission has subsequently held a public hearing on the Seacliff Phase IV on January 6 , 1979 , at which time it was tentatively determined that the full width on Palm Avenue should be dedicated and improved from the project to Goldenwest Street as well . The Planning Commission at its January 16 , 1979 meet- ing imposed a condition requiring such dedication and improvements as Condition No. I of the conditions of approval can Tentative Tract Maps 10067 , 10068 any: 10069. The Planning Commission in its review on January 6 , 1979 indicated its desire that the staff cemmuni.cate to the City Council the concern on maintenance of landscaping to be installed by the developer along they southwesterly portion of project area along Palm Avenue as noise attenuation and aesthetic treatment to separate the Aminoil oil operation strip from the proposed project. The Commission was informed that the requirement for such maintenance would be more appropriately conditioned on the Tentative Parcel Map, as none of the tentative tracts were proposed to encompass said property. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the City Council add the following condition to the conditions of approval for the tenta- tive parcel map: Suggested "The land owner or his designee shall be responsible Condition 9 : for the installation and maintenance of the berming, land- ' -' scaping , and wall 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 . " Seacliff Appeals - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 13 It is noted that the applicant did concur with the imposition of this added condition at the, January 6 , 1979 Planning Commission hearing . Minority Report: Planning Commission Stern has requested that the Depart- ment submit his minority recommendation for Condition No. R of they Conditions of Approval imposed on Tentative Parcel Mari 78- 37 as follows : "The applicant shall be solely responsible for 100 percent of the cost of any traffic signals which the Department of Public Works deems to be necessary at; the intersections of 38th Street and Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield Avenue and 38th Street . " Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068, and 10069 (A . J . Hall Corporation Appeal) The applicant, A. J . Hull , in his letter of appeal dated January 31 , 1979 , sets forth his reasons for appealing Conditions 3 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 18 , and 19 . The appellant in his appeal letter stated that Conditions 3 and u are not necessary as they exceed normal conditions of develop- ment and impose an unreasonable Financial burden upon the applicant. The Planning Commission in its review of this project felt that it would be very undesirable to allow 500+ units to be constructed at the end of what they deemed was a two-mile cul-cle-sac without having the additional escape routes which these conditions provide, as well as full street improvements within the boundary of the proposed project. ___..,.I It would be impossible to predict when the adjacent prope•.-ties would develop to achieve full width s -:reet improvements on thooe streets within the project; therefore , the Planning Commission, based upon traffic counts from the project as well as anticipated need , required the above-referenced conditions . Condition 8 : Drainage . The appellant has requested a modification to this condition to pro- vide for future flexibility in alternative drainage designs . After much review by the Planning Commission, and as Gh,:, proponent could not assure teat authorization from Signal Landmark would be granted for the drainage into the Bo] sa Chica or permission given to go onsite to make the necessary modifications for the proposed drainage, the Commissioi conditioned the development to provide drainage facili- ties to the ocean via 3Rth Street if he were unsuccessful in obtaining drainage into the Bolsa Chica and/or if he were unable to meet the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for water quality 7,tandards with the proposed system. Condition 11 : Sewers. The proponent has requested deletion of this condition in favor of a normal condition of development imposed by the City which requires a sewering system that is acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the Sanitation District at the time of development. The Planning Commission in its deliberation on this subject did not 171 Seacliff Appeals - RCA Febru r d y 13, 1979 Page 14 ilr feel that it was inappropriate to require that Reach 3 of the District 11 sanitary sewe:: trunk facility be constructed and in operation prior to the occupancy of any dwelling unit within the Seacliff Phase IV project. It should be noted that this condition does not necessarily require that the developer construct this facility; however, if he chooses to phase his project in prior to the phasing by the Sanitation District on the Pacific Coast Highway trunk facility, then it would be his responsibility to construct this leg (Reach 3) of the District ' s trunk line . Conditions 18 and 19 : Parks . The appellant has requested deletion of the conditions requiring the park site on the north side of Palm Avenue adjE-cent to the existing tennis coverts within the Seacliff Country Club facility, as they do not feel the parr at that location is suitable or necessary. In the Planning Commission ' s deliberation on the park site locations , E , it was felt that this otherwise unusable area was the only feasible property within the Seacliff IV development upon which to designate a neighborhood park site to serve both the prior Seacliff develop- ments as well as this project . The Planning Commission in its review prior to designating a park site to be located on sub-act property requested information from the developer on the anticipated use for this parcel because of its size , donfiguration, and restricted access to a local street . The developer could not indicate a future use for the area and the property could not he developed under its existing zoning designation because of its size; therefore, the Planning Com- missiorl then decided to condition that the property be set aside for park purposes . Conditions 1 and 5 : I The appellant in his January 31, 1979 letter has withdrawn his appeal to conditions 1, and 5 on the Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 , as he states they are no longer objectionable because of the City Council approval action on Zone Change 78-4 . He also asks that his objections to Conditions 7 and 8 regarding 38th Street be reviewed in context with his objections and letter of appeal on Conditions 3 and 6 of the tenta- tive tract maps , as both pertain to the same subject. Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 ; Tentative Tract Maps 10068 and 10069 : Amigos de Bolsa Chica Appeal : The appellant has set forth in its January 25 , 1979 letter of appeal four issues that they feel should be reviewed and discussed on the Seacliff Phase IV projects : Issue No. 1 : The appellant has stated the urban runoff is allowed to flow into the Holsa Chica wetlands and thence to the State Ecological Reserve rather than being conveye,l directly to the ocean. °eacli f f Appeals - RC; February 13, 1979 Page 15 In its deliberation, the Planning Commission spent much time discussing this issue and through their conditions of approval with the stipula- tions within Condition No. 8 on the tentative tracts as well as condi- tion of approval No. 34 on the conditional use permit, have essentially mitigated to their satisfaction the effects and alternative drainage systems for this project. Issue No. 2 : 38th Street is not precise planned and the alignment of that street as approved in these tracts Places the street too close to the edge of the bluff in some places . In the design and reviews of the Seacliff Phase IV, a number of re-. Isions took place prior to the projects being submitted to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. These prior revisions required that Product Area C be revised to afford greater setback from the bluff edge . This setback on 38th was also submitted to the County for its review and recommendation , and they concurred that sufficient set- back had been provided to afford for a lineal park as well as all nec- essary facilities or systems within such park. Issue No. 3: Product C is incorrectly sited in that it places a maximum density of Seacliff Phase IV closest to file environmentally sensitive Bolsa Chica lowlands . The staff in its original staff report had also listed this as an issue; however, in review of the General Plan and locational criteria for higher density residential developments , it was determined that this product area is properly sited . However, the height and bulk are not referenced in the General Plan for locational criteria and would be an issue to resolved through the coastal planning function. Issue No. 4 : Approval of the project should be deferred until the Local Coastal Program is completed. They also go on to state that if the project- is approved it will negate current coastal planning for the area. The Planning Commission in its review also Felt that the project would prejudice the preparation of tho Local Coastal Plan; however, the City Attorney' s office researched this aspect of the approval action and in- formed the Commission that they could not ;Hake a finding that the approval action would prejudice the preparation of the Local Coastal Plan as they were not the Coastal Development Permit issuing agency. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Planning Commission has requested that we include their concerns on the approval of this Seacliff Phase IV project, which outline why they voted the way they did as well as setting forth concerns that they had at the time of approval . Following is a summary of those concerns : Sei:eliff Appeals - RCAF'` February 13 , 1979 Page 16 Commissioner Finley : Commissioner Finley expressed her continuing con- cern about the Local Coastal Program, sa-ing that approval of the project would . be a pre-judgment in this area . S:ie noted that, although the Com- mission has been advised that the LCP is not within its purview, it should still be possible for. the Commission to act in its advisory capacity to the City Council by pointing out the conflict with the pending Local Coastal Program and perhaps by asking the Council for a moratorium in the area until the LCP is completed. It is her intention to vote against the project to get these. concerns in the record . Mrs . Finley changed her "no" vote on C .U. P . 77-23 to "aye" and voted the same on the tentative tract maps for the following reasons : 1) the maps must be acted on at this meeting or stand &pproved without conditions ; 2) The Commission has worked hard to place conditons addressing the many areas of concern , and the appeal to the City Council will enable the Council to determine the sufficiency of those conditions . Commissioner Cohen : Commissioner Cohen based his "no" vote on the proposals because the project will be prejudicial to the Local Coastal • Program, no provision is made for affordable housing , there has been little or no trade off for the special permit requests that have been granted, and no weight has been given to the cost/revenue aspect of the project. Commissioner Bazil: While voting in favor of approval , Commissioner Bazil requested that the record show that he is opposed to the requirement for the 3-acre park west of 38th Street because he feels that designation of park sites should be left to the Recreation and harks Commission. He can , however, endorse thi 1 . 5 acre park site at Palm e.nd Goldenwest , as it uses up z problem �liece of property, is easily accessible, and could be used by both the existing Seacliff and the subject project. Mr. eazil also asked that the gas and mileage information presented to ` the Commission in regard to 38th Street be included in any transmittal to the Council. Another concern was making sure that Reach 3 of the trunk line was in and available to the project prior to occupancy of the units . Commissioner Stern : Commissioner. Stern requested that a minority report be submitted in his name to the Council on the issue of low- and moderate- income housing within the higher density product , Product C. It was his suggestion that 10 units could be assigned to low-income buyers and 10 units to moderate--income buyers . The other Commissioners requested that a majority report be submitted pointing out that their reluctance to include such a condition on the project was not based on opposition to low-cost housing per se but only against the methods proposed to effect Lt. It was pointed out that the City presently has no provisions or expertise to enforce such a condition , and until a specific, detailed plan is worked out which would include numbers of units , price and income criteria , enforcing mechanisms, etc. , it would be better to leave the matter to the Coastal Commission . Commissioner Stern also expressed reservations in regard to the effect on the Local Coastal Program. ;.1 Seacli ff Appeals - RCA% February 13, 1979 Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Seacliff Phase IV has been reviewed for environmental impacts by EIR 77-6 , which was ayproved by the Planning Commission at its November 14, 1979 meeting . Therefore , no additional action is necessary on environmental, documentation for the appeals filed an this projec•�. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS : Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-- 37 : 1 . Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the request. 2 . Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission by deleting or modifyyinq the conditions of approval . 3 . Sustain the decision of the Planning Commission and add a condi- tion of approval regarding the maintenance of landscaping along Palm ,Avenue as outlined previously . Tentative Tract flaps 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 : 1 . Overrule the decision of. the Planning Commission and deny the tentative tract map applications . 2 . Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission by deleting or modifying the conditions of approval . Conditional. Use Permit No. 77-23 : 1 . Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the conditional use permit request . 2 . Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission by deleting or modifying the conditions of approval . SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 . Huntinaton Beach Co. letter of appeal (TPM 78-37) 2 . A. J. Fall letter of appeal (TT 10067 , 10068 , 10069) 3. Amigos de Dolsa Chica letter of appeal (TT 10068 & 10069 , C.U. P. 77-23 4 . Area Map 5. Original Staff Report (11-7-78) 6 . Amigos de Bolsa Chica letter dated 11-28-78 7. Memo from J. Barnes (1-5-79) B. Memo from J . Darnes (1-8-79) 9. Memo from J . Gerspach (1-10-79 ) 10., Memo from M. L. Norby (11--7-7 8) 11 . Metno from M. Zambory (1-4-79) 12 . Fiscal Impact Analysis ll ••• ,Seacliff Phase IV Appeo - RCA February 13 , 1979 Page 18 13. Outline of Concerns tc be discussed at Planning Commission meeting Jan . 6 , 1979 11 . Planning Commission minutes : November 7 , 1978 November 14 , 1978 November 28, 1978 December 12, 1978 January 6, 1979 January 16, 1979 January 23, 1979 15. EIR 77-6 16. Hydrology Report (as addarLdum to EIR 77-6) Respectfully submitted , )James W. Pa1in Acting Planning Director i -'WP:df i i J i Sr; I OFFICE OF THE CRY CLERK 20:)0 Main Street Huntingipn Beach, California 92"S A , j r i f � f 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE NO.70.19 NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN Hurt a pubiie hearing will be held by the City Council of Iho City of HunCrtgtrrn Elvich, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or ad won thereafter as possible,on Tuesday the 20th day of February, 1979,for the purpose of considering a petition for a change of none from C:d IHrghway Commercial District) to R2•0 {Medium Donsity Residential/OuaItIlod Classification District)on ` property generally locatrsl nn the north side of Pacifit Coen {` Highway,approximately 200 feet weir of Andorrnn Strert. A logsl dascription is en file in the Planning Dapartmvnt � Othce. The City Counril will alw he comrdnring Nrogatrve Drcls•r• tiLn Nr..78.109 m conjunction with Zono Cate No. 78-19. i All interested persons are invited to attend said hoarit4; and etpr_ss their opino ns for or against said tone Case 78.19. Furthrrr rnfermution may be obtained from the Qlfrreof the City Clerw,2000 Iltairt Strnat, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 (7141 53G5220 Dated: 2/5179 CITY OF HUNTINGTON CEAC14 ©y: ALICIA h1,VVENT1 onTH City Cln14 Pub.M!79 Hunt.Q•-rh ind. 75 w al BFA�H J411 Tom 'CAC1F, January 25, 1979 g r� Alicia Wentworth City Clerk- City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street , C ach Huntington B 48 g e a . 92.6 Dear Ms . Wentworth: Amigos de Bolsa Chica requests to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission'6 approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 Seacliff Phase IV , Tentative Tract Nos . 10068 and 10069 . This appeal is based on the following issuesc 1 . Urban runo.if is allowed to flour onto the Bolsa Chica wetlands and hence to the State Ecological Reserve rather than being conveyed directly to the ocean. 2. 38th Street is not precise planned and the allign- ment as approved places the street too CIOSE! to the edge of the bluff in some places. 3. Product "C" is incorrect2 y sited in that i t places the maximurr, density of Phase IV closest to the environmentally sensitive Bolsa Chica lowlands . 4. Approval of the project should be deferred until the Local Coastal Program is completed. The project as currently presented does not comply with Nome aspects of the existing General Plan, and if approved j will negate current coastal planning for the area. Our check foL. $?5 is attached to cover the cost of this appeal . l Very •truli ours , 1 Y ,77 Herb and 14el.ody Chatterton Co-Presidents Amigos de Bolsa Chica at l'.'aclment E A. J. Hall Corporation jet 8305 Vickers Street,Suite R 1 devcloring f 7q P. O. Box 11505 f/a dip award-winning IVY Cl Y. Sin Diego, Callfnmla 92111 c•otunrunit(es STY 0 j710565•1162 CIiC ' it Z1Uµj;hGY January 31 , 1979 APPEAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 10067, 10068 and 10069 'l j Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , Co . 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth t City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members -. y We hereby appeal the Planning Commission' s January 16, 1970. approval of Tentative Tract Map Nos. 10067, 10068 and 10069, the subdivision of 114 acres of land into 190 lots , one lot , and 145 lots , respectively, &I ) within the Seacliff Phase IV development area. Specifically, we are appealing conditions of approval Nos . 3 , 6 , 8, 11 , 18 and j 19 relating to each Tentative Map for reasons inc'.uding those listed below. We Will elaborate further at the public hearing. Conditions No. 3 and 6 (relative to 38th Street) : We feel these conditions are not necessary or feasible for this project; they exceed normal conditions of development and pose an unreasonable financial burden upon. the Applicant . Condition No. 8 (drainage) is too limiting and precludes future consideration of alternative drainage. designs which rray also be acceptable to the City. We, therefore , request a modification to this condition to provide for such flexibility. Condition No. 17 (Sewers) : The method and timing for adequate severing is a function to be asse.;sed by the City and County Sanitation District as each phase of construction Is commenced. 4:e request deletion of this condition in favor of the normal condition of development imposed by the City which requires a sewering system that is acceptable to the Department of Public Works and the County Sanitation District at the time of Cleve Iopment. 1 A. J. Hall Corporation 8305 Vickers Street, Suite It developing P. U. Box l 1505 award-winning San Diego, California 92111 communities {714)565.1162 January 31 , 1979 Page 2 Conditions No. 18 and 19 (Parks) impose the requirement for a park site along the North side of Palm Avenue*. We request deletion of this condition because we feel that a park at this location is not suitable or necessary. Concerning our appeal on Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37, vie wish to clarify our letter of appeal submitted recember 26 , 1978. Based on the City Council ' s action to approve Zone Change No. 78-4 we no longer object to Condition No. I and Condition No. 5. Conditions No. 7 and 8 (regarding 38th Street) : We request eletion of the conditions based upon the same objections as stated regarding Conditions No. 3 and 6 of Tentative Tracts 10067, 10068 and 10069. Your consideration of all of our petitions under appeal at the February 20, 1979 City Council meeting would be appreciated . Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, A. J. HALL CORPORATION, Applicant f r A uachment : Check ($75. 00) 0 �• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To CITY COUNCIL From CHIEF PICARD C/O BUD BELSI'TO FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY ADMIN?STIRATOR Subject PRECISE PLAN FOR 38th STREET Date FEBRUARY 14 , 1979 It has come to our attention that the developers of the Sea Cliff Phase IV project are contemplating an appeal to certain conditions of approval which have been placed on their project by the Planning Commission. This memo is an official request that the City Council uphold Condition #7 for tentative Tract 078-37 for the precise plan of the 38th Street alignment, the dedications and improvements . I It is very important for good fire protection that there be adequate access and egress which will provide smooth uncongested traffic flow. The project will add approximately 531 additional units to an area with existing units and a country club. Without 38th Street, Palm Avenue will be thiB only entry and exit to the area for Fire, Para-medic, Police and Ambulance Service. Also , in the event of an incident in the area that would require evacuation, one exit to the area would pose extreme problems for ill emergency services and pose an extreme life threatening situation . As a matter of past policy, the Fire Department has asked for two alter- nate routes at completion of 100 units. When 150 units have been com- pleted , we have required full flow public access which in the case of Sea Cliff is Palm Avenue and 38th Street from Edwards to P.C.H . -y/ r r ���� 84 ',�.�c� TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROM A51IGOS DE DOLSA CHrCA Herb and Melody Chatterton, Co-Presidents SUBJECT: APPEAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77-23 SEACLIFF PHASE IV TENTATIVE TRACT 14AP NOS, 10068 and 10069 This appeal is based on the fact that, as approved by the Planning Commission, portions of the Seacliff IV project are not in confor- mance with certain laws of the State of California , the General Plan of Huntington Beach, and certain ordinances of Huntington Beach. Issue A . Product C is of excessive density. Discussions Product 0 is submitted under the medium density provisions of the City Ordinances and General Plan. ?tedium density allows up to fifteen (15 ) units per acre . The criteria to allow such density is tot 1 "1. Locate in close proximity to commercial and other i business areas , educational and institutional facilities , • ,. cultural , acid other uol�.., facilities e . transportation routes) . 2. Should serve as a buffer or transition area between lo%v density or estate residential and more intense lard uses, j where possible , " ( General Plan 3 .4.3,1.3) Since Product G meets neither criteria, its density should be no more than the minimum of seven (7) units per acre. Recommended Actions Council finds that TT 10068 is inconsistent with General Plan Section 3 .4 .3./.3 , and for that reason approval of TT 10068 is denied . Issue B. Product C has excessl7e bulk . Discussions All units in TT 10068 are of two story construction and most structures have eight (8 ) units . The existing zone (R2--PJ) allows no more than S units per structure and re- quiresthat at least one third (113 ) of the units. be of one story construction (S. 937?.9) . Recommended Action : Council rinds that TT 10068 is inconsistent with ordinance S . 9312.9, and for that reasor. approval of TT 10068 is denied . Tssue C . i rnduc't C i.mnronerli► located . Di^cession: Tentative Tract 10068 (Product C ) is the highest density development existi.nr or proposed between Goldenwest Street and the Rol sn. Chica lor,,lands . The location of TT 10068 pl.;ices ttii- hii:hest den::ity rlo.-;e;t to t}in environ:ncntal.ly sensitive lowlandst The incompatnbility between the density Appeal on Seacl iff IV ."bruary 20 , 1979 igos de Bolsa Chica Page 2 proposed for TT 10063 and the sensitive lowlands allows denial under the Subdivision Map Act S. 66474 " (d ) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. " Recommended Action: Council - finds that TT 10068 contains a density not suitable for the site due to the immediate adjacency to the Bolsa Chica lowlands and planned County Regional Park, and for that reason approval of TT 10068 is denied. Issue D. , 8th Street is improperly aligned . Discussion : No specific plan for the alignment of 38th Street exists. Both the alignment of -the existing road and the alignment • in the City 's adopted. General Plaza are farther from the bluff edge than the alignment contained .in..TT 10068 and TT 10069. This narrowing of the strip between the street and the bluff edge leaves insufficient space in some places for the County ' s linear park. The proposed alignment also requires that a portion of 38th Street be constructed on a large new fill through a ravine leading to the Bolsa Chica lowlands . This proposed fill lies almost directly over the South Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault . The Subdivision Map Act requires denial if "the site is not physically suitable for the type of development " S . 66474C. Recommended Action: The Council finds that TT 10068 and TT io069 are inconsistent with the City 's General Plan regarding the alignment of 38th Street. The Council also finds that the site is not physically suitable for the construc- tion of 38th Street upon a fill.. For those reasons approv- al. of TT 3.0069 and 10069 is denied . Issue E. Product A includes some units to be laced on- potentially- unstable fill. Discussion: Tentative Tract 10069 includes several housing units to be located on fill to be placed in the existing ravine . The ravine lies almost 'directly over the South Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault. The Subdi�,ision Alap Act requires denial if "the site is not physi.cally suitable for the type of development. " S.66474C. Recommended Action: Council finds TT 10060 includes housing units on potentially unstable fill and that the site is not physically suitable for such development, and .for that reason the approval of TT 10069 is denied . Appeal on Seacliff IV ruary 20, 1979 gos de Bolsa Chica Page 3 Issue F. Seacliff ICI places an unacceptable quality and quantity of runoff water into the Bolsa Chica lowlands. Discussions The proposed drainage system includes siltation basins which prevent low flows (light rains ) from entering the lowlands and remove silt .from. thee..runoff. _However, the system does not remove disolved chemicals and floating materials . Thus, the sensitive environment of the low- lands, including the State Ecological Reserve, will still get all the lead compounds, oils , fertilizers , pesticides and floating trash. Also, during severe storms, the rate of flow will be higher than before development. The Subdivision 114ap Act requires denial if "the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to ,cause substantial environm:.-ntal damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. " S.66474e . Recommended Action: Council finds that the proposed project would discharge surface runoff of degraded quality into an environmentally sensitive wetland and wildlife habitat area , and that such discharge would be likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, and for those reasons approval of TT 10069 is denied . Issue G. Prejudicing the Local Coastal Plan._ Discussions The City is in the process of developing a Local Coastal Plan as mandated by State law. The undeveloped areas in-- eluding and surrounding the Dolsa Chi-,a are the most sensitive to be addressed by an L.C .P . in Western Orange County. Ii Seacliff IV is approved prior to completion of the L. C . P . , the many planning options which should be considered for the Huntington Beach Mesa disappear. If approved, Seacliff IV will undoubtedly set the pattern for development for a majority of the mesa. The issue iss should we try to fit development into our plans, or should we fit the plans to the development? Recommended Action : Hone . The opinion of the City Attorney that denial of a project for reason of prejudicing the Coastal Planning Process is the perogative of the Coastal Commission prevents Council act-ion. Appeal on Seaeliff IV Pruary 20, 1979 .:. gos de Bolsa Chica Page 4 Summary: Each of the issues A through F above are sufficient grounds for denial of the Tentative Tract Maps and Conditional Use Permit for Seacliff IV . Together, the six issues require denial of the project. Dent/ Tentative Tract 10068 because : a. Does not comply with General Flan 3.4- 343 (Issue A ) b. Does not comply with City Ordinance S.9312.9 ( Issue B) c. The site is not physically suitable for the density of the development. (Issue C) d. The alignment of 38th Street is inconsistent with the General Plan. (Issue D) e. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development . FIssue D) f. The design of the subdivision and its improvements is likel to cause substantial environmental damage. (Issue FT Deny Tentative Tract 10069 because : a. The alignment of 38th Street is inconsistent with the General Plan. (Issue D) b. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development. T Issue D) c . The design of the subdivision and its improvements are likely to cause substantial envirorunental damage . (Issue F) Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 72--2.l because : a, Does not comply with General Plan 3 .4.313 (Issue A) b. Does not comply with City Ordinance 59312.9 (Issue B) c . The alignment of 38th Street is inconsistent with the General Plan. ( Issue D) s i 1 1 TO s h"MINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROT,I AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA Herb and Melody Chatterton, Co--Presidents SUBJECT: APPEAL FILED BY-A .J. HALF CORPORATION Conditions 8 , (Drainage ) and 18 and 19 (Parks ) I DATE: February 20 , 1979 The developer has appealed certain conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission.. We believe the developer' s appeal should be denied on Conditions 8 , 18, and 19 for the following reasons : Condition No. 8 (Drainage). The applicant feels that the option of discharging his runoff either to the Bolsa Chica lowlands or to the ocean is too restrictive. He requests modifica- tion to allow flexibility of design. We believe that the option of discharging surface runoff to the Bolsa Chica lowlands should not be allowed. The quality of runoff from the presently designed storm system will be harmful to the fish and wildlife of the Bolsa Chica lowlands , especially the Ecological Reserve , since the runoff will pass through the Reserve on its vray to Huntington Harbour. If the Council modifies Condition Number 8 the option for discharge into the Bolsa Chica lowlands should be removed . If flexibility for future design changes is added, they should include the same public hearing process as the original project. Recommended Action : Modify Condition No. 8 to reads The drainage system shall be redesigned and constructed to accommodate surface drain-- age f •gym the project area to the ocean via 38th Street. Final design of the drainage system, the retention basins and the channel improvements shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public .forks , the California Department of Fish and Game , and the Regional hater 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. Condition Nos . 18 and 19 Parks The applicant requests relocation of a three .3, C.cre Lark site dedication from an area near Palm and A street to an unspecified ] bcation. If Council agrees that the Palm and A Street location is not necessary, we re ,uest that the three (3) acres be added to the other f r I� A .J . N. 11 Appeal on Seacl iff IV Febr 20, 1979 Amigos de Bol.sa Chica Page park dedication site westerly of 38th Street. In no case should the park dedication for this project be separated from the project by more than 500 feet, i i w .losep)) H.`Loeb �11 'ZJ 0A •�?�t C:ailtrrria 9?.Batt pa(` �v,zo2r�:: r� , AMINOIL USA February 20 , 1979 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn. Ms . Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Subject : Appeals---Tentative Parcel Map No . 78-37 ; Tentative Tract Maps No. 10067 , 10068 and 10069 ; Conditional Use Permit No, 77-23 Honorable Mayor and Council Members : Aminoil USA, Inc , is the operator of certain State offshore oil and gas leases from surface locations within the uplands adjacent ` to the pzoposed project. It also operates oil and gas leases within the Bolsa Chica area . Aminoil hereby registers its objections to subject Maps and Use Permit including , but not limited to , the following : 1 . -Iminoil objects to the extension of 38th Street from the pro- posed development to Pacific Coast Highway. Such extension will pass through Aminoil ' s densely spaced oilfield facility operations adjacent to Pacific C^ast Highway, This will create a traffic and safety hazard within this oilfield operation. 2 . Aminoil objects to a drainage system which will create drainage into the Bolsa Chica area. Such a drainage system would adversely affect Aminoil ' s oilfield operations . Very truly yours , AMINOIL USA , INC . By o,s p i Loe ce : Huntington Beach Co . ional Counsel and 2110 14fain Street A sistant Secretary Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � W .401 1*4 THE0 04) 'Superior Count IP OF THE C, �� STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 + / In and for the Cetsnty of Orange Q r X° 1 CITY..O.•.HUNTINGTON,.BEACH•,..._ ...ZTY..CLFRK PROOF OF PUBLICATION ......... ....... ............. ... . . . .. . . Pub 14c.•Haar.ing..7D-4., .78-37... .......... .... I State of California County of Orange Rita J. Richter ................................. .............................................. ........ .........., That I am and at all times harem mentioned was a citizen of the United Staten,over the age of twenty-0ne years,and that I am not a •• : ):' party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter;that I am the t ; r incipal r!t.rk of the printer of the «:•, �,R,' "i Huntington Beach Independent Review c ;; a newspaper of general circulation,published in�the City of Huntinwton Beach ................... .... ......................................... County e!Orange uA which newspaper U published for the dis- seminutlrat of local mws and intelligence of a general character, Z; and which imwspaper at all times heroln mEntioned had and still has a bona fide subscription Ust of paying aubscriben, and which newspaper has been established,printed and published at regular t intervals in the sari County of Orange for a period exceeding one year; that the notice,of which the snne:ed is a printed copy, has h been published In the regular and entire Issue of said newspaper, and not in any supplement thereof,on the following dates, to sit: Ir January :41 1979 ............................................ ..................... � ........ .... ................................................... ii ................................................................ I cer trf for declare)under penally of !r u that the fort oln is Y Pe Y Fs• 1 rY 8 B - true and correct. nateciat .....................Garden.Gmie............. ciliforr,`r<;this....�Fthday ur,c3�Ttu +t' ...7�... ki f !igit.4lure r J V J cis-at�y� i REQUOT �FOR CITY COLD ;e ACTKDNN Su.)n6itted by James W. Pal-in Department _Planning Date Prepared January 8, , 1879 Bac�rup Mf�teririi Attached Yes No Subi_ct APPEALS TO ZONE CHANGE NO. 78--4 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL 14AP NO. 78-37 .rM��r�..rrrrr'..�rrwr��rrr.r rirgrrrrrirrMr�rrr -r�r.rr..-��rrr�rw��r.���i City Administrator's Comment!; APprove the Planning Commission's and staff'S recommendations, or after hearing testimony of applicant, sustain or modify Yecommendations. i I i Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: i STATEMENT OF ISSUE: An appeal filed by the Huntington Beach Company on behalf of the A.J. Hall Corporation appealing the decisions and recommendations of the Planning Commission on Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 and Zone Change No. 78-4 , respectively. Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 is a request to subdivide a 300 + acre parcel of land into four (4) parcels to facilitate -the development of the Seacliff Phase IV planned .residential. project. � Zone Change No. 78-4 is a request to charge the zonj'.ng on 1. 48 acres of property presently zoned ROS-0 to R2-l?D-0 and to change the coning of 1. 669 acres of land presently zoned R:?-PD-O and R3-0 to ROS-0. Seacliff Phase IV is located on property along the westerly ley of the Seacliff. Golf Course. RECOMMENDATIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 : Staff recommends that the -ourcil re3ect the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission ' s decision subject to the findings and conditions of approval. as imposed by the Commission plus the added condition recommended by the Planning Com- mission at its January 6, 1979 meeting on the maintenance of the landscaping along Palm Avenue to .be the obligati.cn of the ,property owner. �.. tom.-ra .. ..._..-.t.«..�.r_... ......«..«.....r......... .� . ..�..,.. .....,....... ... « .w,...+.w,... ..........-..«.,a_...._.,•w. ....-... ...e.... _i . .,.. ,,..... ., .., .. .. 1`�,�7y�1• RX-O ENDAT�IONS s i FIrMNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: t' Tentative Paxcel' Ma' No. : 78-37 : At its December 12 , 1978 meeting t e Planning Commission conc:Ntionally approved TPM 78-37 as follows: ON Mt?TION AY, PAON E AND SECOND BY RUSSELL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. f 78=37 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: i FINDINGS : t 1. The proposed tentative parcel map is consistent with the City' s General Plan, subject to final adoption of Zone Change 78-4 . ♦..a«..r...,r�M •'I f. 1..--.. .. .n.r. 1.7-: , �l Sr.!IrA:Yra(r vrr�f'r...'.•Jr•:'.�� ..7�r'1...Y MI'.1W wU.A>.�...r Ytiw.+ter�«..�w• ' 7":i��.��'�� 1 ...._..�•i..r......rr•r.... .r..ws[1W.cA+aY: . as.•RN,laiir(Jlta•:.:A� .1....tr a>r y_....._.1{..a.r•r.A.l. •_ • • ...w.._.. w l� fi 2 . The proposed parcel map is in compliance with standard plans and kz_i s ecifications on file with the Cit as well as in compliance P y with the State Map act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Planning_ Department on October 5, 1978 , shall be the approved layout, subject to condi- tions of approval and adjustment to reflect boundary line changes resulting from the final adoption of Zone Change No. 78-4 . 2 . A parcel ma shall be filed with and approved b the Department of P P PP Y P Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder . a 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 systems of a the City of Huntington 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. 6 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 78--4 does not become effective. 7 . 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 ul-imate precise-planned width shall be made by the developer from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue . Full street improvements shall be inst.glled within the blue border of the subject map, and improvement of at least two (2) 12••foot travel lanes shall be provided in 38-th Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue and from the southerly boundary of the map tc Pacific Coast Highway. Said dedication and improvements shall be completed Friar to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the prey - ,ject to be constructer» upon subject site. -2- The applicant shall participmte to 50 percent of the cost of any traffic signals which .the. .Department of Public Works deems to be necessary at 38th and Pacific Coast Highway and at Garfield Avenue and 38th Street. AYES.: Russell, Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern 1 ABSENT: 'Finley i ABSTAIN: Ifiggins __.__.....�. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold its approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 with the findings and conditions outlined above and the additional condition requiring tr^.ats��nt along Palm Avenue as delineat.ea on 'Page, -4 ,-o£. hhis­report. Zone- Chan a Nu: 78-4: The Planning Commission offers the following, alternat ves for the City Council ' s consideration and recommends the adoption of one of the attached ordinances : 1 . Approve Zone Change No. 78-4 insofar as it requests boundary changes of 1. 488 acres of ROG--O zoning to R2-PD- 0 zoning and in no other respect, with the condition that a corresponding 1. 488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined. ` 2 . Approve Zone Change No. 78-4 as requested, with the condition that Parcel 4 (a change of zone from ROS-O to R2-PD-0 on 0. 362 acres of land) be deleted from the request. Further action and Commission discussion on the zone change can be . '; '• found in the original Request for Council Action dated December 2'2 , 1978 , attached herewith. ANALY S I S : -,Tentative --Pa7&0_'r-MA' -No-. 78-37: The letter df� appeal states that the proponent is oppose to Con itions of Approval Nos . 1 , 7, and 8 and that he requests clarification by the City Council on Condition of Approval No . S. Condition No. 1: This condition was necessary to require that the boundary be adjusted to reflect the ultimate decision on the zoning boundary as determined by the City Council on Zone Change No. 78--4 to make the proposed project and action consistent with general and specific plans of the City of Huntington Beach. Condition No. 7 : Requiring the dedication on 38th Street to its ultimate iM Uh—from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue was con- d .tioned by the Planning Commission because after review of the environmental impact report it was felt that too much traffic would be directed to Goldenwest Street 11 there were no provision for a t second entrance into this development. The Planning Commission re- le -3- gt:esec� formation on the number of trips anticpated�fci�be- generated from the proposed project per year over 38th Street to Garfield ! 'i Avenue, and it was determined that approximately 467,000 trips per year would travel over 38th Street with an approximate savings of gas- oline consumption of 118,000 gallons per year 'if 38th Street were to be required to be installed concurrently with this project. � . j•.,, .. ` .. '�:_ 1"r..,r.. .. ',".t1.:t++1'.,.YIYI/•..w, ....v...-.,...,;..; !ri... ,.....,...._..__.ln,.•y...r..M.1wr..M.+.t'/."r.w llYTroRn.• ..h!♦ r 1 ...._ ..1 .r. .. ..a lFr — —_ rtw_.-.....�Ft tJ.+ . .11.<, w •. .., ♦..ri ':. . :,.. .. .. ._.n^'-•.._.t...._. ..r. r.._�.i...W..,p u,., :1.'.... '.\let.....vl N.,...r r. .N. M/.r4 r.� Condition No. 8: Requiring that: the developer par.11...c..u..e.� qu g p participate up to. !; 0 percent in -the construction dosts of signals which the Department of Public Works deemed to be necessary at the intersections of 38th Street and Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield Avenue and 38th was k imposed by the Planning Commission due to the impacts from additional '.; traffic anticipated to travel those streets from the construction of this project . I The developer in his letter of appeal also requested clarificatidn of Condition No. 5, which requires that the blue border or boundary of Parcels 1 and 3 be extended to include the full rights-of-way of 38th Street and Palm Avenue and that the boundary of Parcel 2 be extended to include the full right-of-way on Palm Avenue. This condi- tion was added to allow the map to be consistent with specific plans `+ of the City of Huntington Beach as well as to assure that there was adequate highway width within the boundary of the proposed project. Additional Information: " It should be noted that the Planning Commission has subsequently held �- a public hearing on the Seacliff Phase IV on Januar 6, P 9 Y, 1979 , at i , which time it was tentatively determined that the full width on Palm Avenue should be dedicated and improved from the project to Goldenwest Street as well, The Planning Commission has not yet made a final determination on this conditions, as the final action and conditions of approval are scheduled to be reviewed at the January 16 , 1979 , Planning Commission public hearing. ! ' The Planning Commission in its review on January 6, 1979 indicated its desire that the staff communicate to the City Council the con- cern on maintenance of the landscaping to be required to be installed along the southwesterly portion of the development along Palm Avenue as noise attenuation and aesthetic treatment to separate the Aminoil i-` oil operation strip from the proposed project. The Commission was informed that the requirement for such maintenance would be more appropriately conditioned on the Tentative Parcel Map, as none of the ` tentative tracts were proposed to encompass said property. The Punning Commission therefore recommends that the City Council add the following condition to the conditions of approval for the fienta- tive parcel map: "The land owner or his designee shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the berming, land- scaping, and wall for noise attenuation treatment along the southwesterly side of Palm Avenue between the existing tennis court facility and the intersection of Pa..m Avenue and 38th Street. " It is noted that they applicant did concur %rith the imposition of this added condition at the January 61 1979 Plrnning Commission � r hearing. ,� —4— v Minority..,Report: Planning Commissioner Stern has requested that the Department submit his minority recommendation For Condition No. 8 of the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 as follows : "The applicant shall be solely responsible for 100 per- cent of the cost of any traffic signals which the Department of Public Works deems to be necessary at the intersections of 38th Street and Pacific Coast Highway and Garfield Avenue and 38th Street. " Zone Change No. 78-4 : The proponent filed his appeal to the ,Planning ss _a,,recommenationson�..Zon hange No. 78-4 . as it was his. understanding that these recommendations, would p cluc�"e"'hi s' original requested rezoning from being heard by the _Council. It_jig �.hs�weyer.,_. the . staff' s position based on the"-Planning Comniss':r4on' s Alternative 2 recommendation and the legal notice published for this request (which was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Council at its January 2 , 1.979 , meeting) , that the Planning Commission action would have allowed the City Council to act on the zoning as originally requested. The Council at its January 2 , 1979 meeting continued this zone change request over to its January 15 meeting at the request of the developer to allow him to be present and participate in the discussion of these items. Detailed discussion on Zone Change 78-4 can be reviewed in the attached original Request for Council Action dated 12-22-78. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Seacliff Phase IV has been reviewed for environmental impacts by EIR 77-6, which was approved by the Planning Commission at its November 14 , 1978 meeting . Therefore , no additional action is necessary on environmental documentation for the appeal filed to Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37. The environmental status for Zone Change No. 78-4 was assessed by Negative Declaration lo. 78-119 , which was posted for the prescribed length of time prior to review by the Planning Commission. The City Council is required to take action on the subject Negative Dec- laration 78-119 prior to any action on Zone Change No. 78-4 . FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. «rvw...wr..r.rw.rwr........rlL'�•sr..rl a.i. « .. .,,.........,. ALTERNATIVEACTIONS .._ ... ._ .._..... ...... ...._...___._,_....... _.._r..._...w............_r_...._ _......,�, ._.... Tentative Parcel Map %8-37 : 1. Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission on Tentative Parcel Map No. 78--37 and deny the request. Z. Overrule the decision of the Planning Commission on Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 by deleting or modifying the conditions of approval. -5- 3. SusItain the becision ' of the .Planning 'Cvmmission and acid a condi- tion of approval regarding the maintenance of landscaping along Palm Avenue as outlined previously. 4 . Continue- the appeal until the Planning Commission 'has acted on CohAitional Use Permit No. 77--23 and Tentative Tracts Nos . 10067 , ' 10068 , and 10069 . Zone Change No. 78-4 : 1 . For alternative actions on Zone Change No. 78-4 please refer to the original Request for Council Action dated December 22, 1978 . ` SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Letters of Appeal 2 . Request for Council Action (dated December 22, 1978) 3 . Area Map for Seacliff Phase IV 4 . Copy of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 S . Planning Commi3sion Minutes of December 12, 1978 6 . Memo from J. Barnes dated January S , 1979. Respectfully submitted, Ow James W. Palin � Acting Planning Director JWP:df N6r t Otington Beach Corripeiy 2110 MAIN UTREET,HUNTINOTGN MACH,CALIFORNIA 94 (714196"301 r CITY Of HUNTING TOII DFACK CAi V. December 26 1978 DEC Z; 2' 471 PH 4 ' APPEAL-T£NTAT N E PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We hereby appeal the Planning Commission' s December 12, 1976 approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37, a division of 300 acres of land into four (4) parcels. Specifically, we oppose conditions of approval Nos. 1 , 7, and 8. We are also asking for clarification from the City Council 'in regard to the specific meaning of condition of approval No. 5. It is our understanding that this condition is intended to include only that portion of 38th Street adjacent to tha proposed Phase IV development and not the full right of way from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. We, therefore, request your approval of Tentative Parcel Map tio. 78-37 as applied for, subject to the Planning Commission's conditions (excluding those opposed) ani with the understanding of condition No. 5 as expressed above. We respectfully request that this matter be considered concurrently with our appeal on Zone Change No. 78-4. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Ver r my yo i EA i E p`f 6,167Coordinator on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporation DJElh Attachment 075 check) 1 , Ih '110,ai . , 11NIA 11eMli - -' IyiR11M�e�111 Pteember ,21 ,Ll ey 978 ZONE CHANGE NO.- 78-4 SEACLi FF�PHASE IV „ Nit tngton Beach City Co6ncl'1 20O0,•'.Main S t ree t li6ntington Beach, Ca. 92648 'i Aetelntion Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Cjerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Y;..•PP- _ g: { ,s ion 's December :12 1978 eppn 1 We he eb a � eal the Plannin Cow , ee 7 1 - j' - . �1 (1 of Zone ChAn a No. 78 4 an .� • ,. J. ad ustmnn.t of xonipg bounder es betty , a .port'ion• of the 'Pha!te' i Y*prodect..und. he existing RU41ngton Seal ,i i t Go, f •Course.. pp Plan{lg Commisslon'�s'. conditions of` We o ose the approve{ wh i ch 'have been suggested �to- be� of f!I zed Ito the xont thapc and. req- t that 'h City Cbuncl1 ive favorable considaration' to + '► zone change request as filed. ` . . q g , zohe than a request tjn � We are also re 'ues t i n a con�t i puance on the . ' g q t I , the January. 15,, 1979 regular Cl ty ,Counci 1 meeting In order that;W' e may present all necessary lniformation for the benefit of 'the- City Council in their deliberations . A check In the amount of $75 to file the appeal Is attachedio Thank ybu for your attention to this matter. Very truly'yours J, gyp: J. EA(I tf arming Coordinator on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporation DJE/h Attachment 1. REC XJES r FOR CITY CCUNC L, ACTION James W. Palsin Planning Env. Re source Submitted by Department Date Prepared December 72 , 1a�a Backup Material Atached Yet No LZJ ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 Subjc�ta _. ALONG THE WESTERN BUUNDARY OF SEACLIFF ,GOLF COURSE . i City Administrator's Comments I I The. Plannin Commission's action on Z' g one ChFinge; Number 78-4 has`been apiiealed by t]te applicant; therefore, I am recommending that this item be continued until the Council can hear both the Zone Change and Appeal concurrently. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: D STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Transmitted for consideration is Zone Change No. 18-4, a ,request by the applicant to change the zoning on 1 . 48 acres of property presently zoned ROS-0 to R,2-PD-0 and to change 1 . 669 acres of land presently zoned R2-PD--0 and R3-0 to RO.S-O. Subject property is located along the westerly leq of Seacliff Golf Course. F RECOMMENDATION: ` The Planning Commis3ion is offering the following alterridtive for the City Council ' s consideration and recommends the adoption of one' of the attached ordinances: E 1. Approve Zorte Change No. 78-4 insofar as it request: boundary .changes of 1. 488 acres of ROS-0 zoning to R2-PD--0 zoning and in no other respect, with the condition that a corresponding 1 . 488 acres of land be dedicated by the applicant and allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined. 2. Approve Zone Change No. 78•-4 as requested, with the condition that. Parcel 4 (a change of none from ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 on 0 . 362 acres of land) be deleted from the request . ; ANALYSIS : Applicant : A. J. Hall Corp. 8305 Vickers , Suite R San Diego, California 92111 Location : Abutting the westerly edge of the Seacliff Golf Course, north of Palm Avenue , approximately 3, 000 feet west of ; roldenwast Street. nn�It, no sna POe T;.ro Request : ;A- change,of zoning from R2 PD-0, Medium Density Planned RResidenti6l Development combined with oil ,production and 0', Medium High Density =Residentfal. , combined 'witn 6, production �to RQS-0, Recreational Open`::Space. combined !` with 'oil production, atd ROS-O, Recreational Open Space , combined w.tth oil prdditction to R2= D•-0 , Medium 11 Density 'Planned Residential Development combined with oil production. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON DECE„MBER 12 1978: ON_ MOTION BY PRONE AND SECOND ,BY BAZIL, ZONE CHANGE NO. 78 ,4 .WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO ONE OP THE TWO FOLLOWING COURSES OF ACTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: I . Approve Zone Charige No. 78-4 insofar as it requests boundary changes of 1. 48B.' acres of ROS--0 zoning to R2-PD-0 zoning and in no other respects, wifi.h the findings that a corresponding 1. 488 acres of land , be dedicated by the applicant and Allocated to park acreage in an area to be later determined; or . 2. Approve Zone Change No. 78-4 as requested, with the coh eideration that Parcel 4 (a change of zone from ROS-O to R2-PD-0 on' 0. 362 acres of land) be deleted from the request. FINDINGS: 1 . The 'Planned Residential Development zoning exchange for the ROS-0 zoning in some areas and the corresponding excbAnge . of ROS•-0 to R2PD--0 in other areas is consistent with the City' s General Plan . 2 . The proposed uses permitted by the R2-PD-0 zoning will be com- patible with surrounding land uses. AYES : Russell , Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: Stern P.B3 ENT; Finely JABSTAIN: Higgins DISCUSSION: Zone C`,-ange No . 78-4 is a request to alter the existing westerly boundary of the Seacliff Golf Course in order to accommodate a portioh of u 533 unit planned residential development. This proposed boundary rhange of the Seacliff Golf Course consists of approximately 3 .55 acres of land which includes approximately 1 . 5 acres of property presently zoned ROS-0 to be rezoned to R2-PD-0 in order to accommodate a portion of the prcpased Seacliff Phase IV and in turn approximately 1 . 7 acres of property preaently zoned R2--PD-0 and R3-0 to be rezoned to ROS-0. After lengthy discussion by the Planning Conunission and several motions that failed lkecause of lack of affirmative votes, the Planning Commission agreed on recommending to the Council that one of. the above mentioned alternatives be considered in order to ahp; ave Zone Chang: ,No. 78--4 . The Planning Commission 's first alternative would be t.n have the Council approve only the property . Page ThKee , f r that is presently zoned­ROS':to R1-PD-' O which will ; accommodate those portions of!,ahe Seaeliff Phase 1V project that encroaches into .the wgsterly boundary of, 'the. Seaeliff Golf cciurse and_ regufre ,t9*f the developer, that an equal ;amount 'of land, '1 .488 Ac'pes, b'ei dedicate ta,.the .City for;.'park develop developmebt. .;This additional 1.488 acres of land. mould be in addition to the 'p-irk requirements required by ordnance 'for this project. Altern'itive two would be 'to approve wone change 78-4 as requested with the deletion o'f.'parcel 4 as depicted on the attached plat map. This would 'aIlow , for and Fom- of ` proposea project to encroach into the existing golf -course except For one area consisting of 0. 362 acres that "fall-s withi.n:'o,ne of the existing fairways. The Councils third alternative would be to aoprove ,Zane Change No. 78-4 in total as reRuested . by. the appli- cant. The Planning Comiuission feels that, this alternative is the least desirable insofar as the property 'that is changing. from R2-PD-0 and R3-0 to ROS-O is not the most desirable for open space uses . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Seacliff 'Phase IV; project has been reviewed for environmental - impacts by Environrn for the reental ,Impact Report No. 77--6. This EIP. has been .posted prescribed amount of time and pursuant to all provisions of ! the California. Environmental ,Quality Act all comments, either in writing or oral have been incorporated into the final draft EIR. . This final draft EIR was approved by the Planni.nci Commission oil November 14 , 197.8. Zone Change No. 76 has been assessed for environmental effects by Negative Declaration No . 78-1.19.. This negative declaration has been posted for the prescribed lengih .of time and no comments either oral or in writing, rave been. recei.ved by the, Planring,,Department as of this date. The City Council is required to adopt Negative Declaration No. 78-119 prior to a final decision for Zone Change No . , 78-4 . Attached is a copy- of the initial study prepared for Negative Declaration No. 78-119. This initial study form has been included for the Council s review and consideration. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS : In addit:icn to the previously mentioned alternatives , the City Cohncil i may deny Zone Change No. 78-4, which would require the applicant of Seaeliff, Phase IV to redesign the boundaries of thc proposed subdivisiots in order to develop only those areas that are preserilly zoned for development . SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 . Area Man for Seaeliff Phase IV 2. Plat to accommodate legal description for. Zone Change dated November, 19713 3. Staff Report for Seaeliff Phase IV dated November 7, 1978 4 . Alternative Ordinances � egpectful ubmitted, . amen Pa in Acting i)lanninv Direc.•tor. Jr _ �-R4—01 p0s-0R4 A ZA FU n, 1 ROS-a• RY • top PI in Area A �y � L H Plan Axed �•�~ i •i'•• ['l^ . ; + �i — ::_ -Tr 10055 —' 2—PD-0 -��f — 'i�R. C1-0 Iry • �- Planning Area 9 .._ ' R3-0 . a TT 10067 E 'CI-0 r M2-02 M2-02 . 1Rs< N1tt pAttric TENNTATIVE TRACT 10067 TENTATIVE TRACT - 10066 1.�"Iff TENTATIVE- TRACT 10069 . CONJ?TIOI.AL USES PEW-.IT 77-23 zone R2-Pb-O «.;��►,�:a,r p•cM NUMT�NGT�N KACN !'LMWNi DEPT. • . hluntkVtan S t staff P rt 0 x TO: Planning Commissicn FROM: Planning Department DATE: November 7, 1978 SUBU LAST: .SEACLIFF PHASE IV GONE,CIIANG�-' NO. 78-4. CONDITIONAL USE �Elt�'l; NO. 77-23,. TENTATIVE .-PARCEL 14Ae NQ. 78-37, TENTAT1VI: ,AC7 NO. 10067 T U TATIVE TRACT NO. 10068, TENTATIME Tj1ACT NO. 10069, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-6 t' APPLICANT: A . J. Hall Corp. 1i305 Vickers , Suite "R„ ZONE, i?2-1?D-Q, It1-1�u-01, RO,S-0, R3-0 San Diego, California 92111 T��c. GENERAL PLAN: E)`)GINL'ER: Walden and Associates , Planned Community 125 E. Baker .Street, Suite 125 Y � Costa tlesa, Calif, 92626 EXISTING USE: LOCATION: West of Goldenwest, north of Vacant and Oil Production Palm t ZONE CHANGE 11EQUEST: i - - DwE ACCEPTED: Jan . 16, 197 Change of yore from ROS-0 ! to R2-PU--U MANDhTORY PROCESSING DATE: Continued by Consent ACREAGE: 2 . 8 acres CONI)IT ONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: DA'1'L'_ ACCEPTED: Nov. 11 , 197 533 si n(lle fnmily and MAND1►1'OkY PROCESSINk; DATU: townhouse residential units Continued by Consent ACREAGE: 114 acres TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ltLQULs'r: DATE ACCEPTED: Qct. 5, 1978 4 l o Ls MAM)A'POR 11110C1;;.SING DATE : November -�-- AC1tL11Gl;: 300 acres A9ft pool A'IrG'N%1i'M' I'l1�lr,•"i•' �•'X 4PA'!f•t AMr t i A+If• I M� M r eslfT' Mac Xis>f -• ,r��s•�0' ��rl.1r' aft W.tir rAi•�ir'leh r' !l► � MAN 0- AP404 td d' .MO &W woo 0. .rf'r�+jw'�r Al tl,,_ A'01'�ricyll"'d�' MAN' •Jrfd-E own, A�ir01'!iI't M9W ' n��r•fr<r . &P?-Mo AlOS,A H. •N'�rw ten • gag All NI•Jvx•w toles. D 010 /oE G• AOYA R omo Nrv•i/'s/•r fit!►t't• •�y�.3,.?/. it>vi• .v44•rr/4w Md" ,�/f :lr P AM i ,PC�L •- RDA 010 Nfrw'XO•w /r« 99 ZM "• A►vN'a-w /41a7 Q• 'Wipe •�i [• t7/./�' ,: R�II11a1'r1 G1MRiMK1R ►. 0. M1Igo f1�nAfr n $mil4 Dow."m �.�E,�,►,r�n�r� �Al T1�,��itl/�O�Vy Mot) P*VLdOOlf Page Three 2 . 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAp 78-37 This proposed parcel map would divide two existing 300 acre parcels into 3 parn-els and ;a residual parcel to allow for further subdivision as a planned development. 2. 4 TENTATIVE TRACT IN67 , _10068, 10069 These tentative tracts constitute and subdivide the three product areas of the planned development, 3 . 0 SUMRX OF ISSUES As a result of extensive staff, Commission and public review, the following significant issues have surfaced regarding this project. 1 . Impact of the proposed development on the Local Coastal Plan. 2 . Feasibility and acceptability of proposed drainage system. 3 . Availability of adequate sewerage capacity. 4 . Acceptability of proposed circulation system including 38th Street alignment, interior access, and parking. 5. Park requirement :.mpl ementatior,. 6. Treatment of scenic highway and special street landscaping . 7. Location of Product C 8. Applicant ' s request for special permit to deviate from certain code requirements . 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: t Environmental Impact Report 77-6 was prepared by,, the consulting;:.firm of Ultrasystems, Inc. in conjunction with the Planning. Department. A draft EIR was distributed, to governmental agencies and interested members of the public during a 45-day review period from December,.l, 1977, to January 16, 1978, to solicit comments regarding the project. Tbe public review period was extended for an additional 137 days at the request of the applicant so that discussions, could be held. with agencies objecting to certain aspects of the project. During the course of the review period, project design modifications were made by the applicant- to mitigate impacts identified through the EIR. Major areas of probable impact that were identified in the EIR include consistency with the Local Coastal Plan, project drainage .and its effect on the Bolsa Chica, traffic impacts from a projected 5, 130 . additional vehicle trips per day, sewage system capacity, archaeological resources, and compatibility with the County linear park and the Bolsa Chica wildlife area. Comments were received from public agencies and private individuals on all of these areas of concern. Page Two TENT 1 IVE 'I RAC'1 NO. 10067 DID I E_A� 'tLI_I IUD. Nov. 11, 1971 .190 lots ; one lettered lot t�11tJU '1'UItY I�ItOLI StiING I)AIT": h . _ (Product B) Cuntinijed by Consent ?' ACREAGE: 41 gross acres TeN'Iwrin TRACT NO. 10068 DATE ACCEPTED: Nov. 11, 1977 one lot (Product C) MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: ACREAGE: 19. 4 gross acres Continued by Consent J TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 10069 DATE ACCEPTED_: Nov. 11, 1977 n 147 lots, one lettered lot MANGA'I'ORY 1�120CCSSIIJG DATE_ (Product A) Continued by Consent ACRI-:AGE: 53 . 6 gross acres I l . .7 SUGGESTED ACTION: if the Planning Commission finds that the project is not prejudicial to the Local Coastal Plan, staff recommends approval of the subject ap- plicationswith tindings and conditions as suggested. Staff further recommends approval cf Resolution of Intent No . 1237, initiating a precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street from Palm to Garfield. 2 .0 -GENERAL INFORMATION: The subject applications were processed in conjunction at the request of staff so that all issues could be discussed at one time. Specifically the proposals are as follows : 2 . 1 'LONE CHANGE 78-4 This is a request to rezone 2. 8 acres along the western edGe of: .Sraeliff Golf Course from ROS-0 to R2--PD-0 thereby adjusting the boundary between the course and the proposed development. E ., . 2. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 77--l 3 This is a request for a three-part planned development consisting of 533 single family and towr'iouse units on 114 gross acres of land at an overall density of 4 . 67 units per gross acre. Page Five 6 . 8 Parking. Produ_____ct _A Product B Product C Provided: 825 575 437 Required: 478 618 490 An individual statistical summary for each Product Area is included with project plans submitted to the Planning Commission . 7_. 0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEThe E: r sessiondonision Decemberm9tfi1977et ,three times Commissi.onersoFinrle` project At the firsty, Newman, and Slates listened as staff representatives reviewed street layouts, sewer capacity, and special landscape treatment. General]., the Committee concluded more information was necessary. On January 20, 1978, the Committee including Commissioners Finley and ' Newman reviewed proposed revisions to the 38th Street alignment and parking provisions in Product Areas A and B. The Subdivision Committee, consisting of Commissioners Finley, Hazil, ar.3 Stern, met again on August 18, 1978 Ito consider.revised 'plans .- At that time, major issues discussed included the prnposed, drainage .system and its effect on Bolsa Chica and existing and proposed sewer, capacities . The Committee asked that involved agencies be- contacted again for updated information on these projects. The Committee directed staff to find a suitable way to insure that special landscape treatments and meandering sidewalks . ,are incorparated into the project. The Committee discussed generally the issues outlined in Section 3 .0 and concluded that further review of the project be conducted by the Commission as a whole. A Planning CommissionoStudy Session' was scheduled to review Phase IV. As a result of its discussion and the, presentation by. _the 6pplicant, the Commission concluded that a Resolution of Intention 'defining •a Precise Plan of Street Alignment for 38th Street be adopted in "c;onjunction with any project approval The Commission reviewed the. applicatit,,' s request for special 'permit . In general,, ;no.'opposition was voiced to reduction of minimum' side yards and elimination of trash enclosures in Products A and bulk provisions in Product CepaCommin requirement and waiver of building 8 or reduction of building Commissioners were concerned, however, about parking shortages in Products B and C, and elimination of recreation area requirements in Products A and f). The Planning Commission met again on September 12, 1978, to discuss this project. In joint session with the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Commissioners concluded that action on Phase IV cannot be postponed for development of a comprehensive parks plan, that determination of 38th Street alignment. could be a maijor City contribution to progress on the linear bluff park, and that the linear park can assist in filling neighborhood park needs but not replace individugl` neigfiborhood parks. Meeting independently, the Commissioners suggested that full dedication and improvement of 38th Street be required and voted to in. vestigate means of securing additional blutf top properties to contrjbute to the linear park. ' Page Four ' The Final, EIR is composed of the Draft EIR as it was circulated for review, the comments and project changes received during the review riod, and the City ' s response to the comments. This document was transmitted to the Planning Commission on August 24, 1978, for final consideration. A supplemeiztary: study of the feasibility of the proposed drainage, system was conducted subsequently . That study, Geoloaig and Hydrgggo gig Assess- mgnt by Geotechnical Consultants is proposed as amendment to the EIR. Appropriate mitigation measures suggested by the EIR are incorporated as conditions of approval . 5. 0 PRESENT.-,AND USE,;, �Z0�1ING. AND �E, ERAI, PL�,N J?ES7.GNATION: The 114 acre project area is currently vacant or in- oil production. it is zoned 'R2 'PD-0, P.2-PD-01, R3-,0, and ROS-0 and General Planned as Planned Community. To the north and northwest, the area is General Planned as Planned Community and Planning Reserve in un- incorporated territory. The zoning of this mixed vacant and oil production area is R � To the west and south, . therea is General . al Planned Planned Community and Resource Production. Existing zoning is R2-PD-0, R4--0, R4--01, M2-02, R3--0, R3-010 and M-0; and',existing use is vacant and oil production. To the east, the area is General Planned Open, Space, Planner? Community, and*,Low Density Residential . It is zoned ROS-0, R4-01, R4-0, R1, and R1-0; and it is utilized for a golf course, oil production, and single family development . A portion of the area is also vacant . 6.0 STATISTICS INFOB,M4TTON: 6.1 Number of Units 533 6. 2 Area of Project 114 gr. ac . ; 99. 8 net ac. 6. 3 Density 4 .67 du/gac; 5. 3 du/nac 6. 4 Unit Type 2 Bedrooms 145 un. 3 Bedrooms 224 un. 4 Bedrooms 138 un. 5 Bedrooms 26 un. Bedrooms per gross acre 14 . 42 bedrooms ,I 6. 5 Site Coverage (allowable 45%) 20% ti 6. 6 Common Open Space Provided 1 ,050, 474 square feet Required 561, 200 square feet r . 1--.'6.7 Private Open Space Provided 1, 062, 864 square feet Required 170, 050 square feet maximum �p a. a age Six 8 .0 ANALYSIS: Prio; to action on the various applications constituting ' Seacliff Phase IV, the following areas of concern must be thoroughly addressed: 8. 1 Impact ,Qn„ the Local, Cg&Lta1 plan The proposed development is generally compatible with the General Plan and. existing zoning. , However, because the project site lies entirely within the Coastal Zone, it will be affected by the local coastal planning efforts underway at the direction of the Coastal Act of 1976 . Upon certification by the Coastal Commission, the Local Coastal Plan will supercede all previous plans for this area . Though work on the Local Coastal Plan is underway, a coastal element to the General Plan is not anticipated prior. to April, 1979. Several coastal issues are being investigated as part of the LCP for this area : protection of. new potentials, potential for low- and moderate-income housing, . impact on adjacent sensitive areas, potential for visitor serving facilities including parking, and potential for oil/gas facilities expansion, he development proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with-'thb olicies_of the Coastal Act. Considerable provision has been made for aesthetics, open . space, bluff setback, and scenic highway treatment; and residential use is not per se prohibited. Because the ultimate coastal ,plan is not complete, however, a key issue becomes -the impact of decisionmakin9 now on future planning options. The cornm`itmgnt of 114 acres to a particular use at this time may preclude plashing decisions (when the results of coastal research is known) and, therefore, prejudice the LCP. While literally any decision could be said to in some way, limit future planning options, certain specific facts are important in this case: 1 . The size of the project area: 2. J t® Location adjacent ;to a sen'Jitive area whose ultimate utilization has not ye.t .be en determined, and 3. Tfiie .uncertainty of future neeede for this area for natural resource production and/or processing. On; the o thei hand, this project guarantees continued options for bluff park planning, does not restrict public access to any waterway or public resource areas, and provides a desirable aesthetic: environment in an area planned for .residential use for some time. Prior to determination on the project itself, the Commission should conclude whether the project is prejudicial to the preparation of the LCP. 8 , 2 Drainage Considerable discussion has taker place regarding the feasibility and desirability of the proposed drainage system for the project. The main slues are immediate and long-term capacity, impacts on water quality, nd impacts on the Bolsa Chica . The final drainage proppeal arrived at by the applicant in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, Water Quality Control District, and California Depaitment of )Fish and Gams involves utilization of the natural drainage course enhanced by three ty . � a Page Seven 'o ponds, new culverts at 38th Street, im 'ovement retention/percolate n p e p of the channel from the culvert to the Solsa Chica, creation of a drop structure to slow water velocities, and reconstruction of the road below the bluffs. A special geologic and hydrogeologic assesA- ment of the proposed system was conducted by Geotechnical Consultants , Inc. This study found the proposal technically feasible end' the Public Works Department has concluded that it is adequate for the proposed development and can be expanded in the future to accommodate additional projects in the area. The Regional Water Quality Control Hoard has granted clearance of the proposal , and the State Department of Fish and Game has concluded that the revised proposal adequately addresses its concerns regarding impact on the Solsa Chica provided adequate maintenance of the system is insured. B . 3 Sewer Capacity Two alternative sewering proposals have been considered for this project: either incorporation of reaches 3 (portion) , 4 and 5 (portion) of the Sanitation District Master Plan ur4er reimbursement with the District or cor.- struction of parallel lines to the existing City system. For overall economy, the Sanitation District recommends ,parti.cipation in the Master Plan facilities . In either instance, adequate sewering depends on approval and completion of Reaches 1 and 2 of the PCH trunk line now pending on appeal before the State Coastal Commission. Because the nature of the development and its sewerage options are consistent with 3 the Sanitation District Master Plan, the District is not recotcunending any delay in project approval . Consistent with previous Planning J Commission actions on similar projects , the sewer issue is addressed I asarecommended condition of approval , prohibiting recordation of final maps until the coast trunk sewer or acceptable alternative is approved. 8 .4 38 th Street A 1 ignment The proposed alignment of 38th Street through the project areas repre- sents the culmination of negotiations among City Staff, Coastal Com- mission Staff, and the County Environmental Management Agency . According to county and city staff analysis, the alignment is a minimum of 100 to 200 feet to the east of top of bluff as defined by EFTA, and the County staff has concluded that the alignment is sufL•iciently set back from bluff ' s edge to not interfere with the proposed linear park. Analysis of the alignment by Planning and Public Works Departments as well as Planning Commission Study Session concluded that it does not preclude future street options either north or south of the project area . As requested by the Planning Commission, Resolution of Intention No. 1237 is included for adoption to initiate a Precise Plan of Street Alignments for 38th Street -from Palm Avenue north to Garfield. 85 Jntegk9 Circulation In the EIR and throughout staff analysis considerable attention has 'boen � Focussed at street widths, turning radii , entry drives, and emergency a1ccess. The proposed plans constitute revisions to original proposals designed to address the impacts identified and are acceptable to staff . Product A Incorporates 32 foot wide streets with parking permitted on one side only. All turning radii will be designed to Firs: Department Page Nine r` 'X ' S . 9 6treet LandscUi_na The applicant is proposing intensified landscape treatment including meandering sidewalks along all public streets . Though staff recognized the aesthetic attributes of the proposal, the, Public Worke :Department rejected the idea in view of maintenance costs invoived . The Sub- division Committee directed staff to pursue.,the special . treaEment, ; however, and the applicant-`has agreed to assume all landscape, maintenance if the City will accept 'dedication, maintenance, and liability for the meandering sidewalk. The City Attorney ' s Office has determined that such an arrangement is possible, though cumbersome, and perhaps unnecessary since the City can leave both sidewalk and landscaping in private ownership and require, public access to the sidewalk without liability or maintenance respansibility. This is staff recommendation through conditions of approval on the tentative tracts. 8 .10 Location of Product C Some concern has been raised about locating the higher density product close to the linear park and ' the eolsa Chica . This issue, however, r , involves conflicting 'principles. On the one hand, the proposed location conforms to General Plan locational criteria in terms of t{ arterial access and .recreational facilities . It also. overlaps the R3-0 zoning area originally in' teneed for even higher density use. , ., On the other hand, it conflicts with General Plan criteria calling for lower ,density buffers near sensitive areas and proximity to business and institutional uses . In an area where urban uses could be made inconspicuotis , this product offers the greatest building bulk and highest density of the three product types . A decision to ' relocate this product area could necessitate major overhaul of the `t entire project. Some impacts can be mitigated by the suggested condition to fence the west side of 38th Street to ,restrict access to the sensitive areas . r 8 . 11 Request for Special Perpiit City Planning ' Department standards contain provisions for deviation from code requirements in order to promote better living environ- ments, facilitate innovative design and site planning, and create an- aesthetic environment. The applicant has forwarded a request for 'i seven special permit items which he feels are necessary to achieve his design concept . In summary, staff recommends the following action r' on those .items: 1 . Approve reduction of minimum side yard from 15 to 10 feet in Products A and g because the zero side yard concept is used and adequate average separation between units is provided . 2 . Approve elimination of trash enclosures in Products A and B because ,I each single family unit can adequately be served individually. M Page Eight , standards, entry drives have been expanded to allow additional stacking, C'',"and all driveways will be a minimum of 20 feet to relieve on street parking pressures. To improve circulation and access, Product B interior streets were revised to include median planters to discourage illegal parking in areas wftece parking bays did not exist. Entry drives along Palm Avenue were- leii'Chened and widened to expand holding capacity and facilitate turning movements . Interior circulation in Product C was revised to incorporate minimum, and exterior turning radii and added exits and emergency access . With these changes, all Product areas meet minimum street width and turning radius standards . However , the Fire Department is still. concerned with emergency access to the project and is recommending (by memo of Sept. 11 , 1978 attached) that its concern for reduced response times be noted in the Final Public Report on the project. 8 .6 Parkinct Products B and C do not meet minimum parking requirements . Product D is technically 43 spaces short though all driveways are at least 20 feet to accommodate parking needs not usually possible in planned developments . on the other hand, availability of guest parking is restricted by the street configuration and cluster nature of the development. Product C is approximately 53 spaces below code requirement. The applicant designed the project in this manner to comply with Coastal Commission staff direction. Because of the greater density of this project. its typica' ,PD design, - ,�, ,and the minimum access provided, parking for this Product may be a critical `" issue . Despite the apparent differences in coastal staff and City, parking standards, the Coastal Commission has not officially required -any parking reduction in projects approved to date. The applicant has requested a special permit to vary parking requirements for these two product areas . 8. 7 Park Reguipements The Phase IV project will generate approximately 8 acres of park dedication. Because no park is currently planned within or adjacent to the project, the land dedication will be taken at a later date to be used as designated by the City Council . The Planning Commission and Recreation and Parks Commission have opened discussions regarding parks in the Seacliff area. 8 . 8 Scenic Highways 38th Street along the northwestern edge of t -- e project appears in the Scenic Highways Element as an extension of Ec-aards Avenue and is designated as a local scenic route. Thouqh a specific implementation plan for the scenic route proposal has not been prepared, the intent of the program is to beautify certain streets with intensified landscaping, medians, increased building setbacks, height requirements, etc . The Seaclifi IV proposal along 38th Street incorporates these features to great degree : landscape buffers are provided, landscaped berms instead of perimeter walls are proposed, building setback is considerable, parking areas are adequately screened, 38th is being designed to include landscape , ., medians , street landscaping is intensified . K Page Eleven within the development, including but not limited to open space and water areas, textured pavements, fencing, schematic elevations, materials and colors, recreation facilities, pedestrian walkways, oil island treatments , etc. 3 . Prior to issuance of building, 'permits, all exterior building elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department . 4 . Tte CC&R' s and association 'rules shall set forth provisions for re:�ittfiction, on the storage of recreational vehicles in open parking Ppaces. 5 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments . b . Prior to start of construction, the developer shall, install a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street in accordance with the specifications of the Director of Public Works . j 7 . Prior. , to issuance of certificate of occuoancv, a saved, temporary emergency access such as that existin; nog: - shall bo available in a manner satisfactory to the Fire Chief frr,��i the termination of 38th Street improvements north to Garfield Street . B . All garages within Product C shall be equipped wits, automatic 1 garage door openers . c 9 . If the developer proposes to provide air conditioning, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of 1-19 and R-11 respectively . If no air conditioning is to be provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a minimum of R-13 and R-7, respectively. 1.0 . An building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11 . A chemical analysis as well as tests for piysical properties of the soil on the subject property shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits . 12 . The structures on the , sub ect property, whether attached or detached., shall be constructed in compliance with the State Acoustical Standards set forth for all units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. 1: . Energy saving lighting, such as high-pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in recreation areas. 14 . Low--volume head, shall be used on all spigots and water faucets . ,1�1 page Ten 3 . Approve 43 space parking reduction in Product B because driveway t design is- greater than typical Planning Department projects, guest parking is located throughout the project and a true ratio of 4 . 5 spaces per unit is provided which exceeds normal standards. 4 . Approve reduction of building separation requirement to 10 feet at corners of buildings in Product C because of building offset, adequate average separation, and architectural features . 5 . Deny reduction in parking requirements for Product C because of project density, design, limited on-sight guest parking potentials, and minimum accessibility of units from on-street parking. 6. Approve elimination of recreation area requirements for Products A and B because of compensating private open space provisions as well as excess common open space. 7 . Approve waiver of building bulk provision for Product C to allow 8 units per building and two story end units because the intent of the code is met by building design, varying elevation and offsets. 9. 0 RECOMMENDATIONS: If the Planning Commission find: that the project is not prejudicial to the Local Coastal Plan, staff recommends approval of the subject appli- cations with findings and conditions. +-1 Approve Environmental Impact n Report 77-6 as amended to include the and letter- �Reg {� likletter Iron Sept and C�me of October 31. 1978, a rcm Regional Water 4ua Control of September 2 . Approve Zone Change 78-4 with the following findings : 1 . The planned residential development zoning is consistent with the City' s General Plan. 2. The proposed uses permitted by the R2-PD-0 zoning will be co►^patible with surrounding land uses. 3 . Approve Conditional Use Permit 77-23 with the following findings and conditions . FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use of property is consistent with the General Plan. 2. All design and improvement features are proposed Ln compliance with City Ordinances, standards, and special permits granted by the Planning Commission. CONDITIONS : 1 . The 'Site plan received and dated October 18, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . 2. All details and amenities of the 'development as shown on the site plan and supplementary plans shall be constructed as indicated �(r Page Thirteen 2 . A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 90 3 . Water supply and sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach at the time of development. 4 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department. 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 to total right-of--way of Palm Avenue . 6 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 78-4 does not become effective . 5. Approve Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , end 10069 with the following findings and conditions. (The following findings and conditions shall apply separately to each tract but are listed jointly here for ease of reference) FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General and Specific Plans applicable 4o this property. 4�*` 2. The design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision is in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance . 3 . The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development proposal 4 . The design of the subdivision and its improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems . 5. The design of the subdivision and its improvements do not conflict with public easements . C,)KQITIONS: 1 . The tentative maps received October 18, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval. 2 , Palm Avenue, A and B Streetr. and , 38th Streets shall be dedicated and fully improved to ultimate right-.of-way . 3 . The borders of Tentative Tract, 10069 and Tentative, Tract 1006.8 � shall be expanded to' include the full rights-of- way of .Pa'lm ,Avenue 1N and 38th Street. The borders of Tentative Tract No. 10067 shall be expanded to include the full right-of-way of Palm Avenue. 'i Page Twelve 15 . Crime prevention techninuer, shall be applied to the design of the project (e. g . , single-cylinder lockq , etc. ) , � 16 . construction techniques :ecommende►] in the geotechnical investi- gation shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Community Development. 17 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , the developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval , a fully dimensioned site plan for all lots within the subdivision . 18 . Prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots within the subdivision, detailed calculationsbased b e on final building plans shall be Submitted to the Planning Department and Building Department for revie%, and approval, insuring that interior noise levels for all structures shall not exceed the California Noise Insulation Standards of 45 db CNEL. 19. Provisions shall be contained within the CC&R ' s authorizing the Board of Directors of the Hcmeowners Association to impose fines on violators of the parking restrictions . 20. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 77-23 shall be null and void if zone change 78--4 does not become effactive . 21. Prior to recordation of Final Maps , CCbR ' s shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval . i 22. prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, fencing shall be installed on the Northwest side of 36th Street to prohibit access to V e surrounding oil operations, bluffs, and marsh area unless the area is held in ownership by a public agency. 23 . Product C shall be revised to meet minimum parking requirements as set forth in Section 9362.16 of the Huntington Beach. ordinance Code. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to recordation of Tract 10068 . 4 . Approve Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS : 1 . The proposed parcel map is consistent w1Lh General {PI-in . 2. The proposed parcel. map is in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and Supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the planning Department on 6'ctober 5, ' 19'78 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of apl: roval . .1� I Page Fourteen I 4 . The developer shall submit a 25 -year hy0rology and hydraulic study and lOr-year calculations for the protection of structures per the Orange County Flood Control District requirements . 5 . Final design of drainage system, retention basins, and channel g g y n , i ins, improvements shall lie subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and the California Department of Fish and Game prior to recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the project. 6 . Sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems Nhall be subject to City standards . 7 . Vehicular access rights to Palm Avenue, 38tr; Street, A and D Streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at private entry drive intersections qZ wa ,- I t ! B . Street rights-of- aKeet edicated to the City for A and B Street shall include + 40 back of curb to back of curb, All street landscaping and meandering sidewalks shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Public access shall be provided on perimeter sidewalks . 9 . Street right-of-way dedicated to the City for Palm Avenue shall. include + 92 feet south from back of curb on the north .in- corporating an 8 foot off-street bike trail on the south in lieu of sidewalk. A meandering sidev�iik shall be provided on the north side of the street which shall be owned and maintained along with intensified street landscaping by the Homeowners Association. Public access shall be provided on this perimeter sidewalk. 10 . 38th Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way. A meandering sidewalk and intensified street landscaping shall be provided on the east side of the street and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association . Public access shall he provided on this perimeter sidewalk. 11 . No final map shall record until the Pacific coast Highway Trunk Sewer is approved by the California Coastal Commission or an alternative sewer system acceptable and designed to both the City and the Orange County Sanitatior. District standards is approved . • 12 . All entryways from public streets shall have a minimum 30 foot curb radius . 13. All inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum of 17 feet and outer curb radii shall be 45 feet. 14 . In Tentative, ,Tract 10069, landscape planters with parking on one side only shall be extended in a perpendicular fashion on each end to denote parking area . 1.5. Median breaks and left turn lanes in both directions shall be pro- vided in Palm Avenue at each entry point to Tentative Tract 10067 . 2.0 - W Page Fifteen 16 . The developer shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of berming, landscaping, and noise attenuation treatment south of Palm Avenue . 17. Prior to recordation of the Final Maps , the developer shall file with the City a letter of agreement to accept drainage from public streets into the private drainage system. 18 . Approval of Tentative Tract Nos . 10067, 10068 , and 10069 s'iall be null and void if. Zone Change No . 78-4 does riot become effective . 19. Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall p-:ovide two r. - :jimum travel lanes of 1.2 feet from curb face to median curb face. 21 . Detailed plans for noise attenuation on the south side of Palm Avenue shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. 21 . Park debt generated by these subdivisions shall be secured by dedication 'rf land from the property owner at such time and in such location as agreed upon by the Planning Commission,, Recreation and Parks Commission, and City Council . 22 . off island wells shall be converted to common open space under ownership and maintenance by the Homeowner ' s Association at such time as oil operations cease or prior to recordation or the Final Map, a revised site plan showing incorporation of those areas it. `•o the development shall be approved by the Planning Department and the CC&R ' s shall include prov" lion for annexation of these areas . 23 . Three-foot maintenance easements shall be provided in Tentative Tract 10069 and 10067 along all. zero side yards unlesF, the Homeowners Association will assume all exterior maintenance responsibility . 24 . A drainage system maintenance plan for percolation-retention ponds , culverts, channel improvements , and related facilities shall be developed to assure facilities will maintain design capacities to assure continued effectiveness . This maintenance plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and California Department Of Fish and Game prior to construction . Maintenance of: the drainage system other than in *he public street system shall bc. the responsi- bility of the Homeowner 's Association and/or developer . 25 . Tentative Tract .10068 shall be revised, to meet minimum requirements as set for in Section 93d2. Parking Beach Ordinance Code. 16 of the Huntington the Planning CommissionTp.riorvtoerecordationlofetheb1 iina l to Fi,na 1 Map. 6 , Approve Resolution of Intention No. 1237-- initiating a Precise flan of Street Alignment for 38th Street from Palm Avenue to Garfield :•street . . 1 CITY OF HunflnGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ..,, • P. O. BOX 190. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9254E 17141 536 5211 I � TO: Savoy M. Bellavia, Associate Planner FROM: Environmental Resources Section DATE: December 26, 1978 SUBJErT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICANT: A. J. Hall REQUEST: Re-zone 3. 15 acres from R2-PD-0, R3-01 ROS--0 to R2-PD-O and ROS-0 LOCATION : Northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Gol.denwest St. Ba_ ckc5round �j. Based on the Staff ' s initial study of this project a Tentative Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and posted in the Office of the City Clerk for a 10-day public review period ending December 12, 1978 and x no comments, the attached comments , were received. Recommendation The Environmental Resources Section recommends that the City Council approve Negative Declaration Nc . 78-119finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. h:itigation Measures The attached mitigat:.ng measures will reduce potential environmental effects resulting frorr. the project and are recommended as conditions i of approval. Respectfully submitted, Jomes R. barnes , sistant Planner JR13/r: . •�3 Paqe Sixteen .- Attachments : r I . Area Map 2 . Draft Ordinance , Zone Change 78-4 3 . Resolution of Intention 1237 4 . Applicant' s request for Special Permit Approval dated August. 29, 1978 5 . Communication from County Sanitation District dated August 24 , 1978 6. Communication from California Regional Water Quality Control Board dated September 7, 1978 7. Excerpts from Geological and vdroaeolg ical Assgssment and Addendum 1 , dated September 13, 197B S . Memo from Chiet James E. Gerspach, H. B. Fire Dept . dated September 11, 1978 9. Communication from Orange County Environmental Management Agency dated August 14 , 1978 10. Memo from Environmental Council dated August 15 , 1978 11 . Communication from Coastal Commission dated April 15, 1977 12 . Communication from California Department of, Fish and Game dated October 31, 1978 . MF:gc • i OA t 00 b. If the project is re©idential, indicate number , types and sire of unite and associated facilities. N/A ce if the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A d . List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the projeo t. (Submit detailed elevations if available) N/A k i ' I 1. 2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) ± 3000' wjo Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street intersection 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Portion of Section 3 6 4, T6S, W11W, SMB. (See attac`►ed legal description and plat.) 1. 4 Project land area (acres) 3 Number of parking spaces /A 1. 5 Square feet of building area NIA Number of floors N/A 1. 6 What is the percent and coverage proposed by the project for: a. Building ,NZA b. Paving rN/IAA rr i .iJL�.r.r�r c. Existing landscaping N(A ill d. New landscaping _ _NJh I ;, i r ENVIRONKENTAL INFOWIATION FORM D i C 1913 Fee - $75 .00 P. 0. Box 1 JU I�uF�talt�l�7icfUS'$ 9®bYi�C Date A. J. HALL CORPORATION Received: AppliFaRtMthftlze2l Agent Project Number : 8305 Vickers , Suite "R", San Diego! Ca. 92111 Department of Origin Malling Address (714) 565-1162 oEfier kpp cat on Z'e e-plione or Permit Numbers : NUNTING70N BEACH COMPANY Property Owner 2110 Main St. , Huntin ton Beach, Ca. 92648 Ma nq Address/Telephone (714) 960-4351 t,"*OTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in ; taking a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps refer red to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources . 1. 0 Project Information (Please attach Plot P1 an and submit photo- graphs of s5E3ect property) 1, 1 tlature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. A change of zone from ROS Recreational Open Space to RZ-PD-O Medium Densit}+ Planned Development combined with oil production encompassing 1. 488 acres. change of zone from R2-PD-0 Medium Density Planned Development combined with oil production to ROS Recreational Open Space encompassing 1.669 acres (see attached plat map) . The purpose of ti .; zone change Is to effect a boundary adjustment between the existing Seacliff Coll` Course and the Seacl.iff, Phase 4 Development proposal, a Planned Residentia: Development of 531 dwelling ••nits. If• the project is commercial or industrial give,,.a complete description of activitieA and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of saps areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any pote:l tially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. N/A „_ -_+_ w..rw�-...�r��.r�--rrw-�r...�.-...+rrwr--��-rr..w+r.+w�-�+�.r+-rww r..--�.w.�-r-rr rr.... *A portion of the intended golf course boundaries are zoned R2-PD-0. $imilarly, the contiguous hale 4 project boundary encompasses sever:il ROS fined areas . The prop eed zone change would, therefore, pace appropriate zon ,g district lines between the golf course and Phase 4. 1 .10 If the proj* i6 commercial, industria or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center l�ei3� b. Freeway exit 4 uiles i c. Slesentary School (refer to Recreation Areas 1"p) 1 mile d. Public park (refer to Recreation ,areas reap) 1j2 m�� e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) . 1 mile 2 . 0 Existing Environmental Settiu of Proposed Project: rrr�rr..rra�� 2.1 saidmic: a. Chat is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? possibly within 500' of S.Branch b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? N4 f. 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control:- a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: Refer to Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report ro. 77-6" received by the City on November 22p 1978. b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? no . Or natural flood plain? y,, (refer to Flood Plains andlood Hazard Area Maps) c. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to blood Control Channels Map) 2 miles d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) n b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) 1/4 kile e. What is the range and slope of the gropoity an 'it 'now exists -4w General relations of the project to sui , ing properties : (Information ava+ le in Planning Departun District Maps) AND RE CEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN rosent Vacant R-OS Planned roposed -�,o,Q�{,.�,.r+ � R2-PD-0 Community Surrounding Vacant R3-0 Park north Surrounding Vacant R4-0 Planned Community south Surrounding east Coles ourse R-OS Planned Community surrounding Vacant R2-PD-0 Planned Cotmtunity west 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? I N/A 1 . 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, + on or iseuance of a permit for this authorisation, certificat . project; ❑ C .C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control Q City Council District �] Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments ❑ California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board Other: �1 Local Agency Formation Commission ,'�� 2. 8 Wi�ldliife&egetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a places to feed, nest or rest? If eo, please list: Ref . to S. 3.3 EIR No. 77-6 b. will any of this wild`ife be displaced by the proposed project? � If so, how? Rn.f. to S. 3.3 EIR No. 77-6 C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life F er- sently exietinq on the Site. Ref. to S .3.3 EIR 77-6 d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be re- moved . Ref. to 5.3.3 EIR 77--6 2. 9 Water Qua!iU: a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches, estuaries, bays, tidelands, or inland wmtea areas? Refer to a Hydrogeologic Aesesement Repart Addendum for Seacliff 4 prepared by Geote&rical Consultant,, Inc. ;�.opy in A3dendiun to the final EIR 77--6. ) b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. See reference above 2. 10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity ane, types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. j N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. ' w - ` 2 . 4 '.and Form: a. Is the property Presently graded? No Refer to Grading( l). Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed , Elan. Pg. 11 , ( the acres of land to be graded the amount o — EIR No. 77-6 ( earth to be transported on the alto , and the ( amount of earth to be transported o1rf 't�ie site ( c. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after gracing is completed? d . Is the surro%inding area graded? No If so, how will it affect subject property? 2 . 5 Soils: a. Type of soil on the project site? Refer to 5. 3.2. 2 EIR No. 77-6 j YP-- P j a Organic Soils o he site?D. Are there any Feat and/or g c t n t s t No j (refer to Peat and organic Soils Ma V) 7 g � Ref. 5 .3.2.2. EIR No. 7-6 c. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? No (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2 . 6 Geologic: Ref. 5.3.2.2. EIR No. 77-6 a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? No _ (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Mapkuf. 5.3.2 .1. EIR No. 77-6 b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? No (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . Ref. 5.3.2.1 EIR No. 77-6 2 . 7 Historic/Archaeological: no Could Onrp ponpW1y ba r4tel odo ),bi,1.a for wt, i o►,j aan1jj&11 �. or archaeological sign1f icanc.•e on fhe ai te7 ! f avo, p IPgna describe. (refs... to Archaeological Sites, flistoric Landmark Sites and Principal V staa and Features Maps No. Ref, to 5. 3.7 EIR No. 77--6 A -5- , 9LA 3. 2 Sewer: Will the project require: installation or replacement of new sewer matns7 Ref. S. 3.13.2 EIR 77-6 b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines . Ref. S.3.13.2 EIR 77-6 c. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent vol=es within the system. Ref. S.d. 13. 2 EIR 77-6 3 . 3 Utility Lines - a , Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. Ref. S.3. 13. 3 EIR 71-6 b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? If so , please describe facilities. Ref. S.3.13. 3 EIR 77-6 C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project? If so, please describe how. Ref. S. 3.13. 3 EIR 77-6 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Ref S.3.13.6 EIR 77-6 Type: Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects , note primary and secondary school districts : Primary : Ref . ,3.12.4 EIR 77-6 3� Secondary % -8- _? , 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjaccnt off-site noise sources (i .e. , airports, industry, freeways) . Ref .53.6 EIR 77-6 b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available , please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produc- 1. Ref. S.3.6 EIR 77-6 c, How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels7 Ref. S.3. 6 EIR 77-6 2. 12 Traffic : a , Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips Per day from the project. Ref. 5. 3. 4 EIR 77-6 b . What is the Existing speed limit at the project location? Ref. 53. 4 EIR 77-6 c . Indicate points of egress and ingress to the project. Ref. 5. 3 ,4 EIR 77-6 arid Project Flails 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities : • 3.1 Water: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new water mains-? Ref. 5. 3.13.1 EIR 77-6 b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. Ref. 5.3.13. 1 EIR 77-6 c, Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to 3b serve the project . kzf, 5. 3.13.1 EIR 77-6 , 4 . 4 Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing cotsniunity to minimize visual effect?_w__r_�_ If so , please describe. 4. 5 Are there. measures or facilities designeil into the project to facilitate resources recovery (e . g . solar heating/special insulation etc. ) ? 5 . 0 Alte.nati.ves : See S.5 EIR No. 77-6 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives . 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach adarCional sheets . ` . I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge . S g ' tur Date F e R.J EADIE Project Supervisor (an behalf of A. J. Hall. Corp. , Ap?licsnt) i i Ti � 3. 6 Population Displacement: Ir �1 I r IF I�rFrr CFI Y r F�IrIF/r.IF� a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? No If not, do not answer question (b) . b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? 3 . 7 Demolition: a . Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project? No If so , answer questions b through d. b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be 3emolished by the project. i c. List approximate volume of exported material. d. Indicate the location °.nd the distance to the site where exported material will be dumped. 4 .o Mitigating Measures : See Section 4 EIR 77-6 4 . 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve � resources (electricity , gas , water er wildlife) 7 Please describe. 4 .2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying project? if so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise genarated by the project? If eo, please describe. ItFff Parcel No . 1 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 . Commencing at the Furbh6rly terminus of that course shown as north 0001128" west, 60 . 76 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inolusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, north 32031128" west , 180. 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 4° 31121" west, 177 . 12 feet ; thence leaving said bounda504214211 south 52055137" east, 17 . 08 feet ; thence south east, 130 . 92 feet ; thence south 1119, 44'1 west , 103. 86 feot ; thence north 32031128" west , 73. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 154 acres . Parcel No. 2 : ROS-O to R2-PD- 0. Beginning at the southerly terminus of that course shown as north 1500711211 east , 363 . 63 feet , on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 15° 07112" east. , 363 . 63 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line, south 46051 , 43" easy , 79.18 feet ; thence south 40046141" west , 114 .90 feet ; thence south 49019107" east, 90 . 53 feet; thence south P.'030' 18" west , 15. 00 feet ; thence south 41051137" west , 166. 71 feet- ; thence south 12010123" east , 211.11 feet to the "Existing Use Permit Boundary" line ; "hence north 22c'03113" west , 2_10 . 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 552 acres . Parcel No . 3 : ROS-0 to R`--PD-U . Beginning at the southeasterly terminus of that course shown as north 59°57 ' 47" west , 359 . 33 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys, records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 59057147" west , 359 . 33 feet ; thence north 5°?6' 31" west 89. 24 feet; thence leaving said boundary; line south 63046 '05" east , 103. 31. feet ; thence south 26033154" west , 44 .72 feet ; thence south 60007138" east 1y3 . 74 feet ; thence south 46051 , 43" east , 607. 46 feet to the Existing Use Permit Boundary line ; thence along said line north 470541571 " west , 490. 65 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0. 1:04 acre: . `. ORDINANCE NO.13113 --A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 9EACH AMENDING THE HUNTINOTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR ORANGE OF ZONING FROM RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION TO MEDIUMS DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE, NORTH OF PALM AVENUE AND WEST OF GOLDENWEST STREET (ZONE CASE NO . 78-4) WHEREAS , pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach city Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No . 78--4 wherein both bodies have carefully con- sidered all information presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper. and consistent with the general plan, NOW , THEREFORE , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The fcllowing described -,eal property located along the western edge of Seacliff golf Course , north of Palm Avenue , approximately three thousand ( 3000) feet west of Ooldenwest Street is hereby chanved from R05-0, "Recreational Open Space Distr:lety " combined with oil production, to R2--PD-O, "Medium Density Planned Residential Development District , " com- oined with oil production : In the city of Huntington Beacii, County of Orange, State of California , those portions of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 11 West , S .B. B.M. , as shown on a map recorded in Book 51 , page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county , more particularly de- scribed as follows 16.1122178 ^t 0'�' I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the_______ d-Y of 197 . , Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk / City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: c� Cit Administrator Acting Planning Directo., i Parcel No. 4 ; ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 . Commencing at the sou ' er y terminus of that certain course shov-n as north 5036131" west , 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line rorth 5036131" west , 168. 96 to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 5036131" west , 209 . 83 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence leaving said boundary line , south 850S3128" east, 95 . 21 feet ; thence south, 134 . 00 feet; thence south 34039105" west, 82. 66 feet; thence west , 27 . 46 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 362 acres . Parcel No . 5 : ROS-0 to R2-Pb-0. Beginning at hereinbeforp deacriSed PHnt A; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line north 5036 ' 31" west, 128 . 79 feet; thence leaving said permit line, east , 10 . 56 feet ; thence south 0*54131" east, 128 . 19 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 362 acres . SECTION 2 . The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed to change District Map 3 (.Sectional District Map 3-6-11) to incorporate the zone change described in Section 1 hereof, and as saie district ,ear shall have been amended, the same shall by in full force and effect and be a part of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A copy of said dis- trict map, as amended hereby, is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3 . Section 9061, District Map 3 thereof, is hereby amended by ZZone Case No. 78-4 . SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. 30 �- � combined with oil production, to R2-PD-0, "Medium Deneiry Planned Residential Development District ," combined with oil production., and ROS-0, ''Recreational Open Space District , " combined with oil production : In the city of Huntington Beach , County of Orange, State of California , those portions of Section ? , Township 6 South, Range 11 West , S.H. B .M . , as s:iown on a map recorded in Hook 51 , page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps , records of said county , more particularly de- scribed as follows : Parcel No. 1 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. Commencing at the northerly terminus of that course shown as north 000112811 west , 60 . 76 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map , north 3203112811 west , 180 . 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 403112111 west, 177 . 12 feet ; thence leaving said boundary south 52055 ' 3711 east, 17 . 08 feet ; thence south 18042 , 4211 east , 130 . 92 feet ; thence south 1°19 ' 44" west, 103 . 86 feet ; thence north 3203112811 west, 73. 00 feQt to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 154 acres . Parcel No . 2 2 : ROS-0 to R2-1.3D-0 . Berinning at the south- erly terminus i ' that course shown as north 15'0711211 east , 353 . 63 feet , on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existl.ng Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, nc,rth 15007 ' 12" east, 363 . 63 Feet ; thence leaving said boundary 11ne, south 46Q51143" east , 7.0 . 18 feet; thence south 40* 116 , 4111 west , 114 . 90 feet ; thenc.� south 49119107" east , 90 . 53 feet; thence south 2* 30118" west , 15. 00 feet; thence south 41051137" west , 166 . 71 feet ; thence south 12010123" cast, 211 .11 feet to the "Existing Use Permit Boundary" line ; thence north 22103113" west , 210. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0. 552 acres . i Parcel No. 3 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. Beginning at the south- I easterly terminus of that course shown as north 59*57 , 4711 west , 359 . 33 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive , of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map , north 59057147" west , 359 . 33 i 2 . i ORDINANCE 110.1,51S ..D All ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINdTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDIN4NCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE. FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, =I IUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO- DUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION TO MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WxTH OIL PRO- DUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF SEAG?,IFF GOLF COURSE , NORTH OF PALM AVENUE AND WEST OF GOLDENWEST STREET ( ZONE CASE NO . 70--4 ) WHEREAS , pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, I the Huntington Beach :Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No . 78-4 wherein both bodies have carefully con- sidered all information presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows SECTION 1 . The following described real property located along the western edge of Seacl,iff Doff Course , north of Palm Avenue, approximately three thousand (3000 ) feet west of Goldenwest Street is hereby changed from R2-PD-0, "Medium Density Planned Residential District, " combined with oil produc- tion, R3-0, "Medium High Density Residential District , " combined with oil production, and ROS--O, "Recreational Open Space District , " 12/22/78 i - -- - - , Parcel No . 8: R2-PD-0 to NOS-0. Beginning at the northerly terminus of that course shown as north 5036131" we3t , 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages ,35 through 37, inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, south 5036131" east , 78 . 21 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line west , 94 . 114 feet ; thence north, 145. 00 feet; thence north 4 ,7027 ' 33" West , 65 . 71 feet to a nontangent curve concave north- westerly havl.ng a radius of 900. 00 feet , a radial line through - said point bears south -23053120" east ; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 401414211 and an are distance of 66 . 66 feet to said permit boundary line ; thence along said boundary line south 2800810211 east , 159. 70 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 357 acres . Parcel No. 9 : R3-0 to ROS-0. Beginning at the northerly errninus of that course shown as north 5036131" west , 585 . 78 feet on a map recorded in Boon 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive , of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 28008102" west , 159. 70 feet to a nontangent curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 900 . 00 feet , a radial line through said point bears south 28008102" east ; thence leaving said permit boundary line southwesterlyy along said curve through a central r• ngle of 4014 %11 and an are distance of 66. 68 feet ; thence north 47027133" west , 49 . 65 feet ; thence north 41011109/1 east , 53 .15 feet ; thence north 660 48 ' 051' east , 190 . 39 feet ; ' thence south 37008148" east, 82 . 80 feet ; thence north 53043133" east , 171 . 43 feet ; thence south 39021127*1 east , 39. 00 feet ; thence south 50038133" West , 45 . 00 feet; thence south 42124 ,09" viust , 320. 82 feet to the point of be.- ginning. Contains 1 . 033 acres . SECTION 2 . The Planning Director of the City of Huntington Reach is hereby directed to change District Map 3 (Sectional District Map 3-6-11 ) to incorporate the zone change described in Section 1 hereof, and as said district map shall have rcen amended , the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part %��'J 4 • f feet ; thence north 5°36131" west 89. 24 feet; thence leaving said boundary line south 63046105" east , 103 . 31 feet; thence south 26033154" west , 44 . 72 feet; thence south 601007138" east 193 . 14 Feet ; thence south 46051111311 east , 607 . �46 feet to the Existing Use Permit Boundary line; thence along said line north 47054157" west , '490. 65 feet to the point of beginning. i Contains 0. 40�, acres . i Parcel No. 1: ROS- O to R2-•PD--0. Beginning at hereintefore described Point A; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line north 5036131" west , 128 . 79 feet ; thence leaving said permit line, east, 10 . 56 feet ; thence south 0" 54131" east , 128 . 19 feet to the point- of beginning. contains 0 . 016 acres . Parcel No . 6 ; R2-PD-•0 to ROS-0. Commencing at the north-- erly41-.erminus of that course shown as North 4031121" west , 470. 21 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange :'ounty thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map , south 4` 31121" east , 96 .00 feet to the Trus Point of Beginning; thence south h031R21" east , 19Y . 09 feet ; thence Leaving said boundary north 521517137" viegt- , 95 . 72 feet ;, thence north 4028t0211 west , 64 . 20 feet; thence north 41021153" east ; 99 . 62 feet to .he true point of beginning. Contains 0. 215 a^res . Parcel No. 7 : R2-PD-0 to ROS--O. Commencing at the south- er• y terminus' of that cu;krse shown as north 5036131" west , 585 . 7E feet on a map, recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of' P.ecords of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 5036131" west, 89 . 24 feet to the True Point of Beginning ; thence north 5136 ' 32" west 79. 72 feet ; thence leaving said bound- ary line west , 37. 54 feet ; thence south, 57 . 00 feet ; thence youth 63046 ' 05" east, 50 . 53 feet to the point of beginning. Conta. .ns 0 . 064 acres . 3. �1 � (t j ORDINANCE NO . Q3&13 -C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO- DUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, C014BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION TO MEDIUM DENSITY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, COM- BINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO- DUCTION, ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF SEACLZFF GOLF COURSE , NORTH OF PALM AVENUE AND WEST OF GOLDENWEST STREET (ZONE CASE NO. 78-4 ) WHEREAS , pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have had separate public hearings relative to Zone Case No . 78-11 wherein both bodies have carefully con- sidered all information presented at ss:id hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the general plan, NOW , THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The following described real property located along the western edge of Seacliff Golf Course , north of Palm Avenue , approximately three thousand ( 3000 ) feet west of Goldenwest Street is hereby changed from R2-PD-0, "Medium Density Planned Residential District, " combined with oil produc- tion, R3--0, "Medium High Density Residential District , " combined with oil production, and R07--0, "Recreational Open Space T. lit_'ict , " 12 22i 78 1 . j �� of the Huntington Beath Ordinanoo Code. A copy of said dis- trict map, as amended hereby, is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. Section 9061, District Map 3 thereof, is hereby amended by Zone Case No. 78--4 . SECTION 4. This ordinance shall bake effect thirty days after its adoption, The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation, printed and, published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting tbereof held on the day of 197 , Mayo r ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: II , i l C y Clerk City At orney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : V F Uit Administrator ?Aca4tiln�!�gPlanning Director I, 5. feet ; thence north 5036131" west 89. 24 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line south 63046105" east, 103 , 31 feet ; thence south 260331541, west , 44. 72 feet; thence south 6000713011 east• 193. 74 Peet ; thence south 46°51 ' 43" east, 607. 46 feet to the Existing Use Permit Boundary line; thence along said line north 47054157" we,;t , 490 . 65 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 404 acres . Parcel No. 4: ROS-0 to R2-PD- 0. Commencing aL the south- erly terminus of that certair, course shown as north 503613111 viest, 585. 78 feet on a map i•F.:orded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line north 5036131" west , 168 . 96 to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 5036131" west , 209. 83 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence leaving said boundary line, south 85053128" east , 95 . 21 feet;- thence south, 134 . 00 feet ; thence south 34039 ' 05" west , 82. 66 feet ; thence west , 27 . 46 feet to the point; of beginning. Containe 0 . 362 acres . Parcel No. 5 : ROS-0 to R2--PD-O. Beginning at herein- Before described Point A; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line north 5036131" west , 128 . 79 feet ; thence leaving said permit line, east , 10 . 56 feet ; thence south 0° 54 ' 31" east , 128 .19 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 016 acres . Parcel No. 6: R2-PD-O to ROS-O. Commencing at the northerly terminus of that course shown as North 14031121" west , 470. 21 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, south 4°?1 ' 21" east , 96 . 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence south 4031 ' 21" east , 197.09 feet; thence leaving said boundary north 52155137" ; est , 95. 72 feet ; thence north 402810211 west , 64 . 20 feet; thence north 4102115311 east ; 99. 62 feet to the true point of beginning . Contains 0 . 215 acres . Parcel No. 7 : R2-PD-O to HOS-0. Commencing at the southerly terminus of that course shown as north 5036131" west; 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 Inclusive , of Records of Surveys , records of Orange .� �� 3. combined with oil production, to R2--?D-0, "Medium Density Planned Residential Developinent District , " combined with oil production, and ROS-0, "Recreational Open Space District, " combined with oil production: In the city of Huntington Beach, County of Orange , State of California, those portions of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 11 West , S .B .B.M. , as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said county, more particularly de-- scribed as follows : Parcel No. 1 : ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 . Commencing at the norflierly terminus of tI.at course shown as north 0001928" west, 60 . 76 feet on a map recorded in book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive , of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence :Tong the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 32u31128" west , 180 . 00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 4031121" west , 177 . 12 feet; thence leaving said boundary south 52055137" east, 17. 08 feet ; thence south 281,42t42" east, 130 . 92 feet ; thence south 1019144" west , 103. 86 feet ; thence north 32031128" west , 73 . 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 154 acres . Parcel No. 2 : P.OS-0 to R2-PD-0. Beginning at the south- erly terminus of that course shown as north 15007112" east, 363 . 63 feet , on a map recorded in Book 47 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map , north 15007112" east , 363 . 63 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line , south 46151143" east , 79. 18 feet: ; thence south 40046141" west , 114 . 90 feet ; thence south 49019 ' 07" east , 90 . 53 feet ; thence south 2030' 18" went, 15 . 00 feet ; thence south 41051 ' 37" west , 166. 71 feet; thence south 12010123" east , 211 . 11 feet to the "Existing Use Permit Boundary" line ; thence north 22003 ' 13" west , 210. 00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0. 552 acres . Parcel No. 3 : ROS-0 :ro R2-PD-0. Beginning at the south- easterly terminus of that course shown as north 59057147" west , 359. 33 feet or. a map recorded in Book 97 pages 35 through 3 iinclusive , of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, north 59057147" west , 359. 33 2 . County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundar line as shown on said map, north 5036131" west, 89. 2� feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence north 5*36131" west 79.72 feet , thence leaving said bound- ary line went , 37. 54 , feet; thence south, 57 . 00 feet ; b3 thence south 046105" east, 50. 53 feet to the point of beginning. i Contains C , 064 acres . Parcel No . 8.: R2-PD-0 to ROS-0. Beginning at the northerly terminus of that course shown as north 5036131" west, 585 . 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97, pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boun- dary line as shown on said map, south 5036131" east, 78 . 21 feet ; thence leaving said boundary line west , 94 .44 feet ; thence north, 145. 00 feet ; thence north 47027133" west , 65. 71 feet to a nontangent carve concave north- westerly having a radius of 900. 00 feet, a radial line through said point bears south 23053120" east ; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 4014142" and an arc distance of 66 . 68 feet to said permit boundary line ; thence along said boundary line south 28008102" east , 159. 70 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 0 . 357 acres . Parcel No . 9 : R3-0 to ROS-0. Beginning at the northerly terminus of that course shown an north 5036: 31" west , 585. 78 feet on a map recorded in Book 97 , pages 35 through 37 inclusive, of Records of Surveys , records of Orange County ; thence along the Existing Use Permit Boundary line as shown on said map, north 28008102" west , 159 , 70 feet to a nontangent curve concave northwesterly hazing a radius of 900 . 00 feet, a radial line through said point bears south 28008102" east ; thence Inaving oaid permit boundary line southwesterly along suld carve through a central angle of 11014142" and an arc distance of 66 . 68 feet ; thence north 4702713"" west , 49. 65 feet ; thence north 41011109" east, 53 .15 feet ; thence north 66048105" east, 190 . 39 feet ; thence south 37008 , 48" east , 82. 80 feet; thence north 53043133" i east, 171 . 43 feet; thence south 39021127" east, 39 . 00 feet; thence south 50038133" west , 45. 00 feet ; thence south 4202410911 west , 320. 82 feet to the point of be- ginning. Contains 1.033 acres . y R3-U - R4-01 , � r �• ' R4-0 `% 1• / ROS-0 R4-01 RM - OS Q / • i t t Rl P1G.nzing riX'E'a "A" � - IT 10069 rig ��,, 1 • 1 C1-0 o F7-,' t Plarin' 11 11 \ `. ----------f�� cv 1 ` 0 R3 d .uig Area B _ ,t•2-u _s IT 10067 R2-,Fb-01 'C1-0F. ij r ---- _ R4- -- -- Hwy PACiric TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 TENTATIVE TRACT 10068 TENTATIVE TRACT 10069 COINJITIONAL USE PERMIT 77-23 zone R2-PI1-0 w••n+.r.r0"MACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. L r��yJ•� •two vi ew,Iu.sa' �,� t '�, r�=.�� ,l�n• ,� �� � � � � .� ' � Elf , r mIroog LAPOV Ww: vAcjNT,COL AWVM fay+ : C'.n.M u»••` , f fVS J t T QfG A I/9roSD OvS } O • n T 6 S,h.// N( S.b.AI. AS SNOsw Ow A#W-b!/cau !/, �fTOIrRM,f1.,OflJN ptwpl. . f i•••� L il/!7Jl • • �N�CRUIrORNfA S forK nMc•is •.aIt s. 7*K P.^-Wt CFV TWI PWACOC A"P/S M SPPZAA?e • •' �� l� 1� H�/J1 i!."�.,'t7N SEA CC ,pc ; ..•+.ter • t f .J.7 s t • , ✓,r �w Mb �- '� � .�' ' R[4tDt1AC_MRZlL'♦ �'_ ••` •'`!� �TR} �--� - C•rjv'/' ��`//�\• \f+v •- 1yLJ,•f11�3•w '_ jw-.•1' e7,- Y rP`10- Lo AACFL �f 7 .�•• ems,. � '�� 'b• '�, � `t C •. •� •J _ ,•t' -�• 1 •J•OZ Spy .'�, j "� - lL1i^D[ y I t` i - •� f.,..�• L� `r PAAcEL 3 1 _ �� • } ( 11AJ�•.si• ' _ �f,►; „Fay' 1 /9�•tG � � G� � �► E - t - •' /,fir Rrl' � % �• f J \ _ 4air P,CllylS?' MAP ` ' I PAJ5CEL, w •t , �:V N OZ JX ' ;.�: • t //t"_- � o' jara�+r. ' ,-A� ' � 'LEI•• �c� • ��"�.� -1 • • • ".' , , � . J Ji' • • �• ,;.��� � �t�� -RE9iCXIt�. IMiI�Cr�:y {. /(+• Mf0'S!•N'Y- • rr' �• ��r '� .} -.r'.�_+ -,- " : - — J`�r�� ,� �,r` �l ` ICk 4 ;+' _•'`Iz enr • _ ors A+[S,DUAL iAACrt J • N:JM,7Y07'tYr OLAp+C.7�f ado .' tr1IY llt9'.r '7J�11r•Jf//NI�fI' •- --—-- \ (7M) 60-/'S'J! :. IY • ft ~Ais•/JNW-Ar. A.J.M&U CCwfiO%At'1 Ow v tz . F!.�D1X�.AiT/171►117/l!! a>p Y�RS SPIT!R f�51t!•'/''Ed"S nitip►C;o►�,ftCses/it3 SArvOF=;O,CI�.i2/!! lift.,•• t-._. �' - aw'-f.il?FA"a dw w (71a)Sbs-rct aj! s AACWK COASjHICNiIMAY ` f 7IV IVhiA - ••.. _._ice - - _ - - - - _ _ - - — __— ' h ve(I Jan. 3 , 1979 14INUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Cj.-O.c Center 2000 ?lain Street Huntington Beach, California j TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1.2 , 1978 - 7 :00 PM COb21ISSIONERS PP.ESFNT: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Cohen, Pazil , Papne COtPIISSIONERS ABSENT : Finley i NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. I CONSENT CALFNDAR: i ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28 , 1978 , WERE APPROVED AS POMENDED , BY THE FOLLOWING `DOTE: AYES : Higgins , Russell , Stern, Bazil, Paone NOES : None ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Cohen ORAL COMNIU14 I CATIONS : I Nonce SCHEDULED ITEMS : ZONE CHANGE NO . 78_4 A221icant : A. J. hall Corporation To permit a change of zone from ROS-U to R2-PD-O and a change of zone from R2-PD-0 and R2-0 to ROS-0 on approximately 1. 488 and 1 . 669 acres , respectively, located west of Go.ldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Applicant: A.J . Hall Corporation To permit the division of 300 acres of land into four (4) separate parcels located west of Gol.denwest Street north of Palm Avenue. ) Minutes , H .B. Planning Commission December 12 , 1978 Page 2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77- 23 Applicant : A. J. Hall Corporation To permit construction of 533 single-family and townhouse residen- tial units on 114 acres of land located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue . AND TENTATIVE 'TRACT NO. 10067 Applicant: A. J. Hall Corporation To permit 190 lots (one lettered lot) - Product B. located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue . AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 Applicant: A. J. Hall Corporal_ To permit a one-lot subdivision (Product. C) located west of Golden- west Street north of Palm Avenue . AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 Applicant : A. J. Ilal1 Corpora tion To permit a 147 lot subdivision , one lettered lot (Product A) located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. Commissioner Higgins again informed the Commission that he will abstain from the Commission ' s consideration of these requests. Acting Secretary Palin discussed the revised fiscal impact analysis submitted by Mr. Arguello , Finance Director, and the information from the Local Ccastal Program stayf in regard to the project. Commissioner Cohen presented his analysis of the figures submitted and said his extensive review indicates that the City will probably suffer a net loss on the total project. Commissioner Bazil agreed , but found no basis for denial, noting that the City will be fortunate if housing can be Provided at even close to a break even point. Commissioner Stern discusse3 the effect of the project on the Local Coastal Program' s coastal energy impact studies, questioning whether removal of such a large area from conside .at:ion might not result in loss of funainq for the study. fie also reviewed the possibility that the site might be chosen for a future landfall for offshore oil operations . Acting as Chairman rYo Tempore , Mr. Stern requested public input on the fiscal analysis. -2- 12-12-78 - PC Minutes , H. B. Planning Commission December 12 , 1978 Page 3 nruce Greer addressed the Coamiission to question the validity of the 1976 study on which the fiscal figures were based , He discussed, the costs of improvements to feeder streets which may be necessitated by the extension of 38th Street and the cost of signalization of the intersectinens of 38th with Garfield and Pacific Coast Hiqhway. I The public hearing on Zone Change 78--4 was reopened . No one was present to speak in regard to the zoning , and the public hearing was left open during Commission discussion. Acting Secretary Pal.in pointed out the areas on the map which are pro- posed to be involved in the change of zone from ROS to R2-PD-0 and vice versa. lie informed the Commission that the applicant has deleted two units and shortened the cul-de-sac as he had agreed to do at the prior meeting , but that any necessary alterations to the golf course have not been delineated on the plan . Commissioner Stern pointed out that the major area to be rezoned to ROS was in reality one of the drainage bazins for the project, which was not really usable open space , and the result would be that the zone change would in effect: be merely a transition to R2-PD-0 at the expense of the ROS zoning and the golf course . Commissioner Paone concurred that the proposal did constitute an encroachment on the golf course without a corresponding meaningful trade off for usable open space; however, it was his opinion that the deletion of the two units could constitute a tradc off for approximately 1. 5 acres of the originally requested 2 . 8 acres , reducing the zone change to approxi- mately 1 . 5 acres . Ile suggested that a trade off be made for this acreage by dedication by the developer of a corresponding amount of future park land . Dave Walden , prnjnct engineer , informed the Commission that some relo- cation work will he necessary around the area of the drainage basin , but that no tees or greens will have to be moved . The drainage area will still be a part of the golf course, and is in fact desirable in the play of the green at that location. Ro also noted that it would he underwater for only very short periods of time during and after rains. The nuhlic hearincq was closed . A MOTION WAS 11ADE BY PRONE AND SECONDED BY COHEN THAT THE PLhNNING COMMISSION RECOW--END FOR APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE NO. 7R-4 INSWAR AS IT REQUIRES A BOUNDARY CHANGE ADJUSTING 1. 48 ACRES OF ROS-0 ZONING TO R2-PD-O ZONING BUT IN NO OTHER RESPECTS , AND UPON THE CONDITION 1 THAT DEDICATION OF 1 . 488 ACRES OF ADDITIONAL PARK LAND BE MADE. IN AN � AREA TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION . i Legal counsel - John O 'Connor reviewed the restrictions the code places on the City ' s ability to require park dedication . Commissioner Bazil said he would rather approve the zone case as submitted with the deletion of Parcel 4 from consideration. Commissioner Paone noted that approval of a zone change is purely discretionary in nature and could be conditioned to effect what could be termed a transfer of development rights. -3- 1 2-12-78 - PC Minutes , II. B. I11.anninq Commission December 12, 1978 Page 4 John Stern requested that thm maker of the motion concur to adding r..•.� • a recommendation to the City Council that the zone change may bed prejudicial to preparation of the Ieral Coastal Program; maker of the motion did not so concur. MOTION FAILED BY TI•?E FOLLOWING NOTE : AYFS : Cohen, Paone NOES: Russell , Stern , Razil ABSENT: Finley A13STAIN: Higgins A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE. NO. 78-4 AS SUBMITTED EXCEPT FOR THE DELETION OF PARCEL 4 . MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. A MOTION WAS M7tDE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY RUSSELL THAT ZONE CHA1.1GE NO. 78-4 BE RF.COP4MF.NDFD FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED . MOTION FAILED BY THr FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Paone , Russell , Bazil NOES : Stern , Cohen ABSENT: Tinley ABSTAIN: Higgins Commissioner Bazi1 requested that the record show his preference for the approval of. the zoning with the deletion of Parcel 4 is for the reason that such approval will assure that the gross acreage of the golf course will remain the same under that treatment. Alternative approaches were discussed. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL ZONE CHANGE NO . 78-4 WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE OF THE TWO FOLLOWING COURSES OF ACTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1) APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 78--4 INSOFAR AS IT REQUESTS BOUNDARY CHANGES OF 1 . 4R8 ACRES OF ROS ZONING TO R2-PD-O ZONING AND IN NO OTHER RESPECTS, WITH T,!: CONDITION THAT A CORRESPONDING 1 . 488 ACRES OF LAND BE DEDICATED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY AND ALLOCATED TO PARK ACREAGE IN AN AREA TO BE LATER DETERMINED; OR 2 ) APPRO17E ZONE CHANGE No. 78-4 AS REQUESTED, WITH TIi) CONDITION THAT PARCEL 4 (A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM ROS TO R2-PD-0 ON 0. 362 ACRES OF LAND) BE DELETED FROM THE REQUEST. FINDINGS: 1 . The planned residential development zoning exchange for ROS zoning in some areas and the corresponding exchange from ROS to R2-PD-0 in other areas is consistent with the City ' s General Plan. 2 . The proposed uses permitted by the R2--PD-O zoning will be compat- ible with surrounding land uses . -4- 12--12-78 - PC 4W Minutes, H. B. Planning Coaunission December 12 , 1978 Page 5 Russell, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: stern ABSENT: Finley (, ABSTAIN : Higgins The Commission -oiled its members for individual preference between the two alternative courses of action on the zone change and the reasons for that preference , as follows : Commissioner Paone: Alter- nate 1. The open space allocated as a drainage basin is not really usable open snace, and this alternative will alloi4 the acquisition of additional park land. Commissioner Bazil: Alternative 2. Park dedi- cation requirements are provided for in the ordinance code, and this alternative will allow present acreage to be retained in the golf course. Commissioner Cohen: Alternative 1 . This alternative would allow additional park dedication to be obtained , perhaps in the area of the linear park. Commissioner Russell: Alternative' 2 . Commissioner Russell wished the record to clearly state that his vote to approve the zone change was a compromise to permit the request to go to the City Council. Commissioner Stern: The majority of the ROS area as submitted by the applicant is clf!arly unusable open space, and approval of the zone change under the Coastal Act would be detrimental and prejudicial to the preparation of the Local Coastal Planning effort. The Commission discussed the treatment of arterials on the tentative parcel map and the method of making sure that the future 38th Street is dedicated and improved to Commission recsuirements. The public hearing or, Tentative Parcel Map No. 78--37 was opened. Jeff Fellbacn , Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed the Board to read a communication from that organization urging denial of the Seacliff IV projects. Reasons cited for this stand were the drainage into the Bolsa Chica , the need for the alignment of 38th StrPet ,to be set prior to approval of the project, the unsuitability of Product C to its location nearest the bluff , and the adverse impact which the Amigos de Bolsa Chica feels would result to the Local Coastal Flan should the projects be - approved . Thera being no other persons to address the Commission, the public hF -:ring was - closed. Commissioner Stern made a motion , seconded by Commissioner Cohen, that Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 be denied for failure to comply with the Circulation Element-. of the General Plan n r de signa- tion, street desi na- tion, for failure to address the possibility of the site being used as landfall for oil operations on the outer continental shelf, and for its prejudicial and detrimental effect on the Focal Coastal Plan . Discussion followed . Commissioner Cohen suggested that consideration of any further applications for Seacliff IV be postponed until after the Local Coastal Plan has been presented to the City. Counsel O'.Connor informed the Commission that denial or continuance of a pro- ject bared on a possible future use would be speculative in nature L nO would raise serious legal problems. --5- 12•-12--70 - PC Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission j. . December 12 , 1978 Page 6 Commissioner Bazil presented figures for vehicle miles trave]ed ' and gasoline consumption saved when 38th Street is constructed, .'noting that it should result in a savings of 901000' gallons of gasolina and . $75, 000 per year to the residents of Seacliff IV in the future. After extensive review of the procedure and conditioning of the. tenta•- tive parcel map appl.ication, Commissioner Stern withdrew his motion for. denial . ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECO14D BY RUSSRLL TENTATIVE PARCEL IW NO. 78-37 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS : 1 i 1. The proposed tentative parcel asap is consistent with the C ity ' s General Plan , suhje:t to final adoption of zone Change 78-4 . 2 . The proposed parcel map is in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemen'.%.ry City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The tentative, parcel map received by the Planning• .Departmeh t on October 5 , 1978 , shall be the approved layout, subject to condition,7 of approval and adjustment to reflect boundary line changes resul-C-- ing from the final adoption of Zone Change No. 78-4 . 2. A parcel map shall I.,e filed with and approved by the Department oj: 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 Departrent of Public Works . 4 . water supply ana sewage disposal shall be through the Cite of Huntington Beach at the time of development. 5 . The bouncy, :ies of Parcels 1 and 3 shall be extended to include the full rights-of-way of 38th Street and Palm Avenue. The boundal-y of Parcel ? shall be extended to include to total right-of-way of Palm Avenue . 6 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No . 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 78-4 does not: become effective . 7 . 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 Cdwards Street ' on the north. t)cdication of 38th Street to its full ultimate precise-planned width shall be m.•lde by the developer from Pacific Coast Ftigh�,ay to Garfield Avenue . Full street' improvements shall be installed within the blue border of the subject map, and improvement of at -6- 12-12-78 - PC Minutes , H.B. Planning Co;:ani.ssion December 12 , 1978 Page 7 least two (2) 12-foot travel lanes shall be provided in. 38th Street from the; northerly .' boundary, of ..the map to Garfield Avenue and from the southerly boundary of the map to Pacific C dedication and impzovement.� shall be completed Highway. Said a Certificate of Occupancy for an p Prior to issuance of Y phase of the project to be con- structed upon subject site . B . The applicant shall participate to 50 percent of the cost of any traffic signals which the Department of Public Works deems to be necessary at 38th and Pacific Coast Highway and at Garfield and 38th Street . AYES : Russell , Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES : Stern ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins It. ,was suggested that the remaining Seacliff IV applications be con- tinued to another meeting. After consultation, Mr. Hall agreed to such a continuance, and it was the consensus of the developer, the Commission , and the staff to review the proposal at a special daytime meeting. ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY BAZIL CONDITIONAL' USF PERMIT ,NO. 77-23 , TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 , TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068, AND Ti,NTA- TIVE 'TRACT 10069 WERE CONTINUED WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT TO SATURDAY, JANUARY 6 , 1979 , AT 9 : 00 A.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell, Stern , Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins Commissioner Paone asked that staff }prepare 4 detailed agenda for the review of the tract maps and the conditional use permit , setting forth each area of discussion to avoid repetition and delay. Mr. Hall asked that each Commissioner express his concerns which he would discuss at the next meeting . These were presented as follows : Commissioner Paone : Major concern will be compliance with code re- quiren:ents and park acquisition. Commissioner Bazil: Primary con- .cerns are to see that 38th Street is precise--planned through from Pacific Coast-Highway to Garfield and that Reach 3 of the trunk line is under construction ; code compliance will also be required. Com- missioner Cohen: Drainage will be an issue -- would like to nee it a411 drain toward the ocean. The precise plan will be important , going from 11011 to Garfield . The density of Product C and the bulk of that pt nduct: along the bluff is undesirable. Commissioner Russell : Will also require strict adherence to code requirements; park land will be an issue; would like a more definitive alignment of 38th Street as it 'relates to the bluffl.ine; precise conditions will be required for any ecological problems , such as wildlife habitat impacts; lbulk of Product C on the bluff. Commissioner Bazil added that he would like Minutes , Ji. B. Planning Commission December 12 , 1978 Page 8 i to see wording in the CC&Rs for the ro p ject which will guarantee maintenance of the drainage basins. This. wording must absolutely ,.? ,_• Guarantee that if the basins. are not adequately maintained eome ; govern-- me'nt entity shall have .the right to perform necessary, iaintenance aind bill . the homeowners Association for same. Commissioner Stern concurred r • with the concerns expressed, and added that he would 3nciude resolution of the homeowners ' association fee, some effort to address the issue of low and moderate housing , a more precise cost comparison between drainage to the Rolsa Chica and drainage to the ocean, and some ;t allowance made for storage of recreational vehicles within the complex. Commissioner Cohen emphasized to the developer that the above concerns were not necessarily the only ones which inay be discussed at the meeting when these projects are again considered, and that others may surface in the interim. DISCUSSION ITEMS: y( TENTATIVE TRACT 10511/CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT NO. 78-22 Applicant: Mola Development Company ^ ' Acting Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the applicant has submitted a revised plan for this previously denied (December 5 , -' 1978) request and has asked that the Commission reconsider its prior action. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to grant the request and direct staff to reschedule the applications . ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY RAZIL THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA- TION ON TENTATIVE. TRACT 10511 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-22 WAS GRANTED , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Biggins , Russell , Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSENT: F'inlev ABSTAIN: Stern :.' The Chair directed that the remainder of the discussion items be ' continued to the regular meeting of December 3.9 , 1978 . r ON MOTION BY PAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL THE MEETING WAS AD30URNED BY THE. FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Russell , Stern , Cohen , Bazil , Paone NOES : None c ABSENT: Higgins , Finley ABSTAIN : None I'r Meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p.m. I' James IQ. Palin J n Ste Actinq Secretary C al ro Tem CITV OF HUNTINGTON BEACH lNTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION IfUPg11% T(W INCH To James W. Palin From Jim Barnes Date 1 Subject SEacliff, Phase IV Circulation January 5, _9 . 9 Alternatives Pursuant to your request, indicated below is the approximate yearly savings in total vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption for cars traveling from Seacliff IV to Garfield Avenue via the 38th Street extension. According to Figure 17 of the draft EIR, approximately 3078 0£ the total trips per day generated from the project would travel to Garfield Avenue via Palm Avenue and Goldenwest Street assuming no 38th Street- Garfield Avenue connection . This would result in approximately 1, 123 , 470 trips per year and 2, 134 , 593 vehicle miles traveled per year. The amount of gasoline used for automobiles using this route would be approximately 142 , 306 gallons. With the 38th Street-Garfield Avenue extension according to Ultra-- systems, approximately 1280 of the total trips per day generated from the project would travel to Garfield Avenue via 38th Street. This would result in approximately 467, 200 trips per year and 350, 400 vehicle miles traveled per year . The amount of gasoline used for automobiles traveling this route would be approximately 23, 360 gallons . The 467, 200 trips Per year traveling to Garfield Avenue via 38th Street will save approximately 1. 15 miles per trip or approximately 537, 280 vehicle miles. The number of gallons of gas saved will be approximately 11.8, 946 gallons . JB:gc 1 it j �� ` , , r r• tskJl PUbltsh January 4, 1979 1 Fos Cc 'ards lrOTIC'E OF PM1C Huai-PC + APPEAL TO APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 78-4/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 78-119 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP .7'1-37 NotICF IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public herring will be held by the � City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of P. M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday i �i a■ 7- A♦rr t the 15th day of January , 1979 fc,r the purpose of i considering An appeal filed to the Planning Commission' s approval of Tone Ca ,e No. 78-4 , beintl a Change of Zone from ROS (REcreational Open Space District) to R2-PD-0 (Medium Density Planned Development combined with oil production) on 2.8 azres along the western edge of Seacliff Golf Course north of Palm Avenue, &ppro> imately 3000 west. of Goldenwest Street; andN a.n appeal filed to the Planning Comission`s approval of Tentittiva Parcel flap. No. 711-37 to permit the division of approximately 300 acres of land llj :ated west of Goldenwest Street and north of Palm Avenue into four (4) separate ,►arcels. Council will also consider Negative Declaration No. 78-119 in con.jonction with saic: Zone Case. All Interested persons are invited to attend said hAaring and express their opinions for or against said appeal s Further information ney be obtained from the Oi L ic:e of the City Clerk ., 2000 Maim Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92640 (714 - 536-5226) DATED Januarz 2 , 1972 CITY OF t VWTIhK,'TON DUCH BY" Alicia H, Went Ort h City Clerk State Dept. of Fish and Game A J. Hall 'Corp zC #78-4/CUP 177-23 350 Goldenshare Avenue 8305 Vickers Street '1T 10067, 16060, 1OU69 IaV Beach, Calif San Diego, Calif Oct. 24, 1978 PH) 90802 921U 1 f c.alifv►rnia Itegio�na3, hater 23-231-15 amity Control Board Whtiwjji l beach Canpany Douglas W Parsons 2110 Main Surest 6833 Indiana. Avenue Suite 1 m ee3ch, Calif 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle Riverside, Calif 92506 th t:on 9 Huntington Beach, Calif Attris Francisco Velez 92648 92648 ur I ; 23w181-06 23-23�1 16 �� C�cnurty Sanitation uia�rict Huntington }leach Cbnjxviy Myron S Hmmrd .10844 El I is Avenue Tax Divis inn 6551 Mosni.ng Tide Drive. l-bantain Valley, Calif 225 bush Street k3untingtaon Beach, Calif W2708 San Francisco, Calif 94120 92648 j 23-231--09 H. B. Elementary Sc1Y--Ol. James A Rizzo District 19881 Ocean Bluff Circle 770 - 17th street Huntington Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Cal 92648 92648 i 23-231-10 H.B. Union High Scl=' � Dept of transportation District 120 So. Spring Street 1902 17th Street Lis Ancleles, Calif 90052 Muitingbon Beach, Gall F Attn: Staff Assistant - B 92648 23-231-U 110-014-39 IbLert: C Snyder Andrioil USA Inc 19861 Ocean Bluff Circle$ P.O. Bcoc2828 IlLuiti.Mtoa Beach t calif 288 Junipero 92648 bong Beach, calif 90806 23-231--12 ls',nvironment al. Winagement 4geticy John V hasser 811 N Broadway 19851 Ocean Bluff Circle Santa Aria, Calif 92601 luntington beach, Calif AttnL Bob Fisi2er 92648 23-231-13 Av&goe tie Dolsa Chi a Harvey D Marris 1.7041 Courtney lam 19841 Ocean Bluff Circle Iuntington Beach, Calif 924-11) Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 League 23-231-14 oralir� �Wmen tees mxates J Ryan Seal H e-aeh, Calif 19831 (Xvan Bluff C..rcle 90740 IILHILington Beach, Calif 92648 II NOTICE TO CLERK TO 'SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Q,,mn U Yb1►a� TO: CITY CLERK'S 0 ICE DATE: FROM: PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE 1 DAY OF �_ 197ef. La Are Attached s will follow No AP' s Initiated by; Planning Commission Planning Department Petition i * Appeal. Other Adoption of Environmental Status (x) YES NO Refer to �...) �al�� Planning Department -p Extension for additional information. * If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal . Number of Excerpts 25 Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CASE,W. 78-4/CONDITIONAL USE PEPNUT 77-23/ ENM WAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-6 NOTICE I� tAEBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the CiL' ..y Planning m lannin Commission of the City of Huntington Beach ' California , for the purpose of considering Ckiange of Zone No. 78-4 from WS (Recxeational Open Spare District) to R2-PD-0 (Medium Density Planned DevelVmnt combined with oil production) on 2.8 acres along the western edge of Seacliff Golf Course north of Palm Avenue, approximately 3000 feet west of Goldenwest Street. Also for consideration will lx. Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 t o allow the oonstruction of 533 single family and t,owrhouse residential units on 114 acres tit r 0. of land generally located west of Goldenwest Street and sout'I of Palm Avenue. i Environmental Impact report No. 77-6 analyzing the potential inpacts of this zone change and developn+ent proposal will be considered additionally. t P'e' Q �►�.�tir���:�1v\ �°��'ill�Tn�'it.1 (0:f) �71A �-��1�`L �"v. � C� iC �Z Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7: 10 P .M . , on Novubar 7, 1978 in the Council Chamber - Building of the Civic Center , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach ,- Ca.l ifornia . All interested persons are invited to attend s. iid hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed 7, 11e Change 76-4, �..., Conditional Use Permit NO. 77-•23 and Environmental Inipact Reporl No. 77-6 Further information may be obtained from the Ci ►'.y Planning Department . Telephone No . (714 ) 536-5271 DAVED this 26th day of pctober, 1.978 CITY PLANNING COt-1-ISSION James W. 13,11i" Acting Secrcta' ' By � i r O et G Number £ Excerpts Z p Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Hunt in n Beach California, for the purpose of considering _ •paA W~',0_117 ORWEAMSI&M CC- ariTVb, 3C�O axVtS 140A Said hearing will be held at the hour of f .M. , on 102w "OV_5 , in the Cooncil Chambers Building of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California All. interested persons are invited to attend said hea.rtng and express their opinions for or against tine prt iposed � 78-3 7 Further information may be obtained fiom the City Planning Department. Telephone No . (714) 536-5271 DATED this day of • CITY 'PU NNIEG COMMISSION By Huntington Beach Company 9110 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92M 17141 OHM351 C�RI '•yU"r�ti��,c r zf4o F December 21 , 1978 11 ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 SEACLiFF PHASE IV Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth { City Clerk a Honorable Mayor and Council Members : We hereby appeal the Planning Commission's December 12, 1978 approval j� of Zone Change No. 78-4, an adj ustment. of zoning boundaries between a portion of the Phase IV pro,j !ct and the existing Huntington Seaciiff Golf Course. We oppose the Planning Commisssion's conditions of approval which have been suggested to be affixed to the zone change and request that the City Council give favorable consideration to the zone change request as filed. a We are also requesting a continuance on the zone change request until the January 15, 1979 regular City Council meeting in order that we may present all necessary information for the benefit of the City Council in their deliberations. A check in the amount of S75 to file the appeal is attached. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very tr yours., . J .E 'lE anning Coordinator on behalf of A. J . Hail Corporation DJE/h Attachment r Huntington Beach CoMpalty 2110 MAIN STREET, iIUNTINQTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 9 CCLER /y CITY OF HUHTIFICTGtI DEACH► CALIF. December 26, 1978 DEC 26 2 11 i Pa' 1C APPEAL-TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We hereby appeal the Planning Commission's December 129 1978 approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37, a division of 300 acres of land into four (4) parcels. Specifically, we oppose conditions of approval Nos. 1 , 7 and 8. We are also asking for clarification from the City Council In regard to the specific meaning of condition of approval No. 5. It is our understanding that this condition is intended to include only that portion of 38th Street adjacent to the proposed Phase IV development and not the full right of way from Pacific Coast Highway ' D Garfield Avenue. We, therefore, request your approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 78-37 as applied for, subject to the Planning Commission' s conditions (excluding those opposed) and with the understanding of condition No. 5 as expressed above. We respectfully request that this matter be considered concurrently with our appeal on Zone Change No. 78-4. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. VejEA )y yo , D. ECoordinator on behalf of A. J . Hall Corporation DJE/h Attachment ($75 check) fy Huntington Beach Compa 2110 MAIN STREET, HUNTINOTON BEACH,CALIFOR141A O CEiVEO 1T1�)iiaic l 4. Y cLEnK city of HUNTI11GT411 HACH. C:-! t'. December 26, 1978 OEC 2'S 22 4-5 APPEAL—TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0, 78-37 Huntington Beach City Council 2000,Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attention: Ms. Alicia Wentworth City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Council Members : We hereby; appeal the Planning Commission's De3ce6ber 12, 1978 approval of ! Tentative Parcel Map ilo. 78-37, a division of 300 acres of land into four (4) parcels. Specifically, we oppose. conditions of approval Nos. 1 , 7 and 8. We are also asking for clarification from the City Council in regard to the speicific meaning of condition of approvai No. 5. it Is our understanding that this condition is intended to include only that portion of 38th Street adjacent to the proposed Phase IV development and noT the full right of way from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. We, therefore, request your approval of Tentative: Parcel Map No. 78-37 as applied for, subject to the Planning Commission's conditions (excluding those opposed) and with the understanding of condition No. 5 as expressed above. We respectfully request that this matter be considered concurrently with our appeal on Zone Chznge No. 78-4. , Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Ve y'trd 1 y yo .., r . •'J ,1 /Er,)E XA- i66 Coordinator on behalf of A. J. Hall Corporation DJE/h Attachment ($75 check) State Dept. of Fish and, , A J. Hall Corp Zf: #7@�4/CSJP 77-23 350 Goldens�:ore Avenue , 83115 'Vickers Street ST 100671 10068, 10069 Long Bead, Calif San Diego, Calif Oct. 24, 1978 (Jli) 90802 9211h California I 23-231-15 Cana]. Water-� "', *Mmtingt on Beach Caapany Douglas W Parsmis Quality Conttol Board 2110 Main Street 19821i. Oma n Bluff Circle 6633 Indiana Avenue Suite.'l Huntington Beach, Calif �iuntif Riverside, Calif 92506 , 92648 92648 Attn: Yaneisro Velez r• 23-•181-OG 23--231--16 Q'�e County Sanitation Djstrick Huntbigt on Beach Cmlpany I Iyxm S Wward •: . Tax Division 6551 M=Ling Tide Drive 10844 Ellis Avellm Rmntai.n Valley, Calif 225 Bush Street Huntington Beach, Calif 92708 San Francisco, Calif 94320 92648 . 23-231-09 It. B. F.l.mmtary School James A Rizzo District 1.9861 Ocean Bluff Circle 770 - 17th Street Hut Ungton Beach, Calif Huntington Beach, Calif 92648 92648 23�-231-10, H.B. Union High School Dept of transportation District 12.0 So. Spring Street 1902 17di Street l os Angeles, Calif 90052 liunf ington Beach, M l.if Attn: Staff Assistant - B 92648 23�-231--1.1 110-014-39 kbLert C Snyder Amiioil USA► Tnc 19861 Ocean Bluff Circle' P.O. Box2828 Uiunt.i gton Beach, Calif 288 Junipero - 92648 Long Beach, Calif 90806 23-231-12 Envi=mental blanagw=t Agency John V Kasser Santa Anal f 92601 '19851 Ocean Bluff Circle . ftunti.ngton Beach, Cal'! Bob �'isi�er 92648 23--231-13 Amigos de Bolsa Chica 17041 Courtney Lane Haley E Nh s HuntiMtran Beach, Calif 92649 1.9841 Ocean Bluff Circle anti rxjbcn Beach, Calif. 92648 23 231-14 L`�'� of �� Voters 815 Catalim Avmw 0%vas J Ryan Seal Bead, Calif 1.983.1. Ocean Muff Circle 90740 UwtLng, ion reach, calif 92648 JEW-- - - - - - _ Ole P 04 x SIT Ave . A, - �-"-- ��. � t^ � C� . � � fir• �a- _ ... 30 A µ..me �•.�.�, c.�s co Vet lr c ,. C f � r i i E E OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street , Huntingtoc: Beach, California 92648 L fT �zi r i I I I NOTICE Of'PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL TO APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO.76A./ NEG.%TIVE DECLARATION NO.78.119 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 78.37 i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hwring will be hold by the City Council of the City of Huntington Bach.In the Council Chamber of the Civic Confer,Huntington Beach, i at the hour of 7:30 p.m.,or a:soon thmselter at possible.on Mvrday the 15th day of January,1979.for the purpose of considering an appeal flld to the Plannlr+g Commission's approval of Zone Can No.78-1,being o Change of Zone from ROS(Racrwlrunal Open Space District{to;12.PDQ[Medium Density 1'tanrred Development combined with oil production) on 2.8 acres along the western edge of Swell"Golf Course north of Pal n Avenue,approxitmvily 30M ft.west of Golden- west Street:Ind an appal filsr:to the Planning Cammiasion't approval of Ten- tative Parcel Map No.78-37 to permit the division of opproxi- mateiy 300 acroz of land located watt of Paoldernvatt Street and north of Palm Avenue Into four (41 separate Arcels. Council will also consider Negative Oeclaretion No.78.115 in conjunction with sold Zone Case. A legal description is on file In the Planning Departtnent Office. All Interestrd persons are Invited to attend said hsering and axprasatheir opinions for or against told appeals.Further Information may be obtainW from the Office of the City Clerk,2000 N%In Street, Huntington Basch,CA,92M 17141530-6226 Datrrd:Janue y 2.1970 CITY OF HUNrINGTOPI BEACH BY; ALICIA M.WENTWOR'TH City Clwk Pub.i/4Ao Hunt.Beads Ind. 00, �v CITY CIF HunflnGTon BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • P. O. BOX 190. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 1714) 536 5?71 T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council ATTN: Floyd G. Ralsito, City Administrator t:ROM: Planning Department DATE: January 11 , 1979 SUBJECT: D-le AND RELATED ITEM D-1 f CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 15, 1979 During the agenda review on January 11 , 1979, Mr. Belsito requested that I communicate to the Council a recom+nendation on Zone Change 78-4 and Tentative Parcel Map 78--37 as a follow up to the applica"t` s letter rn- questing that both items be continued to the February 5 , 1979 Council meeting. I stated at that time that it would be the Planning Department' s recom- mendation that the City Council take action on Zone Change 70-4 at the January 15 meeting but that the Council could continue action on the tentative parcel map until after the Planning Commission had acted on the remaining applications for the Seacliff Phase IV project. Action on the zone change by the Council at your January 15 meeting would allow the Planning Cowission then to incorporate in its action the proper conditions of approval to amend the boundaries of the projects pursuant to such Council action. Wi tho%it action on the zone change, the Planning Commission would be unsure as to the ultinate boundary and con- figuration that the project should r:tfla :t and in its findings would have to find the project inconsistent: with specific plans of the City of Huntington Beach, if approval action were taken prior to the Council' s resolving the zoning for the project. Mr . Belsito also requested that I commiinicate this recommendation to the applicant, so that he would bey aware of a possible City Council, action at your January 15, 1979 meeting. Also in regard to the appeals fcr the none change and the tentative par- col map, I wish to point out that an error- was made in the supporting information attached to the staff report. The memo from J. Barnes dated .January 5 , 1979 , stated that there would be an Approximate: Ravings of 118, 000 gallons of gasoline per year should the City pursue the extension of 38th Street from the project to Garfield Avenue. This figure should be corrected to reflect approximately 35 , 000 gallons saving: by roquiring that dedication and improvement. Respectfully submitted, /Acting ames W. Pa 1 in Planninq Director {' 1J W;, :d f I v I R3-0 R4-0 •- Rv3-0 R•.-01 RQS-0• ` P lance' area ..A.• _ R4-01 •`�.� ,ram 1 1LH 0a69 'f •�_Gi-0 10068 • `� 2-PD-0 ..R1 ' C1-0 c �: � • r R3-0 / +.+ f Pld.'L*lf[Y� wyl ' r�_.- ..--.. �� - a't2-0 [ F / Tr 10067 w ------ Ro- H2-OZ '�, M2-02 ` - =A. TEUTATsVE TRACT 10061 TENTATIVE TRACT- 10069 J� TENTATIVE TRACT 10069 Ct 44 !I TIONAL USL PEIN&I T 77-23 E ,one R2-P0-0 �,� MwTFMCTAi1 UACM !'! AMM KPT. I ` ' y • mod " I TO: Planning "Cojwtixalon FROMS Planning Department DAM November 7, 1978 SV=CT: SSACLIfF PHASE IY 7y_ 7 T'ENT�►T�_IVE TUC NQX MA8. TZIET&TUX VMT1102 IOU20 jZP'LICMT: A. J. Hall Corp. Z E: R2-PD•-0. 8305 Vickers, Suite "R" --Q•�•- R?.••PL•-01 , San Diego, California 92111 RCS-0, R3-0 gUQTHjEAs Walden and Associates, Inc. GEL'4ER& PLAN: 125 E. Baker Street, Suite 125 Planned Community Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626 FXxAT.11M ON: LOCATION: West of Go.ldenwest, rcorth of Vacant and Oil Production Palm - ZONE CHANGE REQI2EST: DATE ACCU,42,: Jan. 16, 1979 Change of zone from ROS--O to R2-PL-0 MUPATQRY P>tt}G_ESStE?G Dom► Continued Err Consent ACRl; E: 2. 8 acres CONDxTxONA USE PMIT IRAQ„UEST: O 'E t'& Q: Nov. 11. 197? 533 single family and MdDhM8.Y -P.8SCM2jSL4G p=-. townhouse residential units Continued by Consent EAGE: 114 acres x' .U.IV.E ph -cgs. MAT rQu tsT 5. 1978 4 1 n is MAY1WtYlFAX h "Ss I NG_ PATE November 2..4 , 197a AICIMAL:: 300 acres ti rr , Y Paqe Tv.o 0 7* TE�iTATIVE 1RAgJ HQ� 067 2M 1�MS"M. Nov. 11, i97 190 lots; one lettered lot MANDATORY ARQCESS,IVg DATE: (Product 8) Continued by Consent AC AGE: 41 gross acres TENTATIVE TRACT NO. I0068 ME ACSEPM: Nov. 11, 1977 one lot (Product C) MAM,tYIT DATE: Continued by Consent AC 19 . 4 gross acres TENT8TIVE TRACT NO. 10069 DATE C ry � - Nov.Nov. .1. 1977 147 lots , one lettered lot C DATE: (Product A) Continued by Consent $AF,AcE: 53 . 6 gross acres I i 1 . 0 ESTER ACTrQN : If the Planning Commission finds that the project is not prejudicial to the Local Coastal Plan, staff recommends approval of the subject ap- plicationswitb findings and conditions as suggested. Staff further recommends approval of Resolution of Intent No. 1237, initiating a precise plan of street alignment for 38th Street from Palm to Garfield. 2.0 GE'NERAL__IFIFMtrt UM": The subject applications were processed in conjunctivn at the request of staff so that all issues could be discussed at one time. Specifically the proposals are as follows: 2._1 2ONE OMQE 78-4 This is a request to rezone 2. 8 acres along the western edge of SeAcliff Golf Course from ROS-0 to Fi2-PD-0 thereby adjusting the boundary between the course and the proposed development . 2 .2 OhMITTIONAL U.5Z PEE1111T 77-23 This is a request for a three-part planned development consisting of 533 single family and townhouse units on 114 grosa acres of land at an overall density of 4 .67 unite per gross acre, Page Three 2. 3 TENTATI' '. L 1SA This proposed parcel map would divide two existing 300 acre parcels into 3 parcels and a residual parcel to allow for furthtr subdivision as a planned development. 3_1 T. y'` I0 67. 1006J. 10�K� These tentative tracts constitute and subdivide the three product areas of the planned development . 3.0 -1s4UES r` As a result of extensive staff, Commisnion and public review, the following significant issues have surfaced regarding this project. 1 . Impact of this proposed development on the Local Coastil plan. 2. Feasibility and acceptability of proposed drainage system. 3 . - Availability of adequate sewerage capacity . 4 . Acceptability of. prononed circulation system including 38th Street alignment, interior access, and parking . 5 . Park requirement implementation. 6. Treatment of scenic highway and special street .landscaping. � Y p 7. Location of Product C 8. Applicant' s regt:. st for special permit to deviate from certain code requirements. 4..0 Ems+RQ=!1 ET&I gS Environmental Impact Report 77-6 was prepared by the consult�nq firm of Ultrasystems, Inc. in conjunction with the Planning Department . A draft EIR was distributed to governmental agencies and interested members of the public during a 45..day review period from December 1, 1977, to January 16, 1978, to solicit comments regarding the project. The public review period was extended for an additional 137 days at the request of the applicant so' that discussions, could be ?told with ageLcies objecting to certain aspects of the project. During the course of the review period, project design modifications were made by the applicant to mitigate impacts identIfted through the MR . Major areas of probably impact that were identified in the ExR ,include consistency with the Local Coantal Plan, project, drainage and its effect on the Bolsa Chiea, traffic impacts from a proj*ctod 5, 130 additional vehicle trips per day, sewage system capacity, archaeological -esourcen, and compatibility with the County linear park and the Balsa ica wildlife area. Co~nts were received from public agencies and private individuals on All of these areas of concern. -A Page Four The Final EtR is composed of the Draft EIR as it was circulated for review, the comments and project changes received during the review period, and the City ' s response to the connent.s. This docent was transmitted to the Planning Commission on August 24 , 1978, for final consideration . A supplementary .study of the feasibility of the proposed drainage syr*em was conducted subsequently. That study , gCgll gi_c„ and , XAr a2 :on c Agagaa.- Ment by Geotechnical Consultants is proposed as amendment to the EIR. Appropriate mitigation measures suggested by th,. EIR are incorporated as condition9 of approval . 5.30 E E N USE, ZO N B T,IM: The 114 acre project area is currently vacant or in oil production. It is zoned R2-PD-0, R2--PD-01, R3-0 , and ROS-0 and General Planned as Planned Community. To the north and northwest, the area is General Planned as Planned Community and Planning Reserve in un- incorporated territory. The zoning of this mixed vacant and oil production area is R3-0. To the west and south, the area is General Planned Planned Community and Resource Production. Existing zoning is R2--PD-0, R4-^0, R4-0.1 , M2-02 , R3-0, R3--01 , and CI--0 ; and existing use is vacant and oil production. To the east , the area is General Planned Open Space, Planned Community, and Low Density Residential . It is zoned ROS-0, R4_01, R4.-0 , R1, and RI -0; and it is utilized for a golf course, oil production, a d single family development . A portion of the area is also vacant . 6. 0 ST,ATISTICAL 111FORMAT10N: 6 . 1 Number. of Units 5.33 6 . 2 Area of Project 114 qr. ac . ; 99 .6 rat ac . I 6 . 3 Density 4 . 67 du/rac : 5 . 3 du/nac 6. 4 Unit Type f2 Bedrooms 145 un. 3 Bedrooms 224 un . 4 Bedrooms 138 un . 5 Eedreoms L: Eedrooms per gross acre 14 . 42 ;-•�droums 6 . 5 Site Coverage (allowable 45% ) 20% 6 .6 Common Open Space Provided 1 , 050, 474 square feat Required 561, 20 0 square feet 6. '7 Private Open Space y Provided 1 , 062, 964 square feet norlu i red 170, 050 squa ra feet maximum i i Pane Fivc 6. 8 Parking : Frodura Provi'ed: 825 575 437 Required: 478 618 490 i An individuAl statistical Eumrrary for Each Product Area is included wlt�-h j project plans submitted to the Planning Commission. 7 .0 - S HDI�VIgION CdM11 Fes: I The Subdivision Committee met three times on the project . At the first session on December 9, 1977, Commissioners Finley, N*,%- 3n, and 5latea listened as staff representatives ,reviewed street layouts, sewer capacity, and special landscape treatment. Genarell . the Committee concluded more information was necessary. Can J'anl,3ry 20, 1978 , the Committee including Commissioners Finley and Newmar. reviewed proposed revisions to the 38th Street atiynment and parking provisions in Product Areas A and H. The Subdivision Committea, consisting of Commissioners Finley, Praril , and Stern, :net again on August 18, 1978 to consider revised plans . At that time, major issues discussed it:c:luded the. proposed drainage system and its effect, on Bolsa Chica and existing and proposed sower rapa,citiets . The Committee asked that involved agencies be contacted again for updated information on these projects . The Committee directed staff to find a suitable way to insure that special landscape treatments and meandering sidewalks are incorporated into the project. The Committee discussed generally the issues outlined in Section 3.0 and Concluded that further review of the project be conducted by the Cumnisslon as a whole. .A Planning Commission Study Session was scheduled to review Phase IV. As a result of its discussion and the presentation by the applicant, the Commission concluded that a Resolution of Intentlon defining a Precise Plan, of Street Alignment for i3th Street be adopted in conjunction with any project approval . The Commission reviewed the applica.it' a request for special .permit. in general , no opposition was voiced to reduction o: minimun, side yards and elimination of trash en;,lassuros in Products A and P or rrduct.lon of building separation requirement and waiver of building bulk provinlons in Product C. Commissioners were concerned , however, about parking shortages in Products B and C, and elimination of recreatirin area requirements in Prcducts A and 0. The Planning Commission rr,et again on September 12, 1978, to disclias this project . in ,point session with the Recreation and _Perks Commisiicn, the Commissioners concluded that action on Phase IV cannot be postponed for development of a comprehensive parks plat, that determinatl,bn of 38th Street alignment could be a major City contribution to progress on the Xinear bluff park, and that. then linear park can anxi ist 1st filling neighborhood park needs but not replace individual neighborhoods narks. Meeting indepmndontllr, the Coirwhisaloners suggested that full dedication and imprevemeot of ,38th Street be required ana Noted to in- vestigate means of securing additional bluff top properties to contribute to the linear park. �, r Page Six 8 . 0 ANALYSIS : Prior to action on the various applications constituting Seacliff Phase IV, the following areas of concern inust be thoroughly addressed : 8 . 1 Impact on the &oval C,2as,tal Plan The proposed development is generally compatible wlth the General Plan and exiat.nq zoning. However, because the project site lies entirely within the Coastal Zone, it will be affected by the local coastal planning efforts underway at the direction of t►e Coastal Act of 1976 . Upon certifit.ation by the Coastal Conanission, the Local Coastal Plan will superce-de all previous plans for thin area . Though work on the Local Coastal Plan is underway, a coastal element kc the General Plan is not anticipated prior to April , 1979. Several coastal issues are being investigated as part of the LCP for this area: protection of new potentials , potential for low- and moderate-income housing, impact on adjacent sensitive areas, potential for visitor serving facilities including parking, and potential for oil/gays facilities expansion . The development proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with the policies of the Coastal Act . Considerable provision has beer. made for aesthetics, open space, bluff setback, and scenic highway treatment: and residential use is not ter se prohibited . Because the ultimate coastal plar. is not complete, however. a key segue becomes the impact of decisionmakin, now or. future lapping options. The commitment of � P P 114 acres to a particular use at this time may preclude p7 ').nning decisions (when the results of coastal research is known) and, thorefore, prejudice the LCP. While literally any recision could be said to in some way limit future planning options, certain specific facts are important in this cage : 1 . The size of the project area . 2 . Its Location adjacent to a sensitive area whose ultimate utilization has not yet been determined, and 3 . The incertainty of future needs for this area ror natural resource production and/or processing. on the other hand, this project guarantees continued options for bluff park planning, does not restrict public access to any waterway or public resource areas, and provides a desirable aesthetic environment in an area planned for residential use for some time . Prior to determination on the project itself, the Commission should conclude whether the project is prejudicial to the preparation of the LCP. 8 . 2 Drainaae Considerable discussion has taken place regarding the feasibility and desirability of the proposed drainage system for the project . The main issues are irimediate and long--term capacity, impacts on water quality, and impacts on the Bolsa Chica. The final drainage proposal arrived at by the applicant in conjunction rrith the Department of Aublic Works, water Quality Control District, and Csllfornia Department of Y:.sh and Gamma'` involves utilization of the natural drainage course enhanced by throe • 00A Page Seven !� t' retention/percolation ponds, new culverts at 38th Street, improvement of the channel from the culvert to the Rfalsa Chica , creation of a drop structure to slow water velocities, and reconstruction of the road below the bluffs. A special geologic and hydrogeologic assess- ment of the proposed system was conducted by Geotechnical Consultants . Inc. This study found the proposal technically feasible and the Public Works Department has concluded that it Is adequate for the proposed development and can be expanded in the future to accommodate additional projects in the area . The Regional water Quality Control Board has granted clearance cf the proposal , and the State Department of Fish and Game has concluded that the revised proposal adequately addresses its concerns regarding impa^t on the Qolsa Chica provided adequate maintenance of the system is insured. 8 . 3 SuXe CavacIt,Y TWO alternative sewering proposals ha-re been considered for this project: either incorporat!.on of reaches 3 (mrtlon) , 4 and 5 (portion) of th-, Sanitation District Master '.?lan under reimburse.mt with the District or con- struction of parallel liner, to the existing City system. For overall economy, the Sanitation District reacoymnends participation its the Master Plan facilities. In either instance, adequate sewer. ing depends on approval and completion of Reaches 1 and 2 of the PCH trunk line now pending on appeal before the State Coastal Commission. Because the nature of the development and its sewerage options are consistent with the Sanitation District Master Plan, the District is not recotrm;ending any delay in project approval . Consistent with previous Planning Commission actions on similar projects , the sewer issue is addressed as a recommended condition of approval , prohibiting recordation of final maps until the coast trunk sewer or acceptable alternative is approved . 8 . 4 38t_, gtreetAlignment The proposed alignment of 38th Street through the project areas repre- sente the culmination of negotiations among City Staff, Coastal Com- mission Staff, and the County Environmental Management Agency. According to county and city staff analysis, the alignment is a minimum of 100 to 200 . feet to the past of top of bluff as defined by EMA, and the County staff has concluded that, the alignment is sufficiently set back from bluffs edge to not interfere with tiie proposed linear park. Analysin of the alignment by Planning and Public Works Departments as well as Planning Commission Study Session concluded that it does not preclude future street, options either :forth or south of the project area. As requested by the Planning Ccvnission, Resolution of Intention No. 1237 is included for adoption to Initiate a Precise Plan of Street Alignments for 38th Street from Palm Avenue north to Garfield . 8 . 5 Ieterior Cirgu atiQ,g In the EIR and , throughout staff� analy;jis considerable attention has been focussed at street widths, turning radii, entry drivers, and emergency access . The proposed plans constitute revislons to original proposals designed to address the impacts identified and are acceptable to staff . rroduct A incorporates 32 foot aide htreeta with parking permitted on j one side only. All turning radii will be designed to Fire Department • '00� 1 Paqe Eight standards, entry drives have been expanded to allow additional stacking, and all driveways will be a minimum of 20 feet to relieve on ntreet parking pressures . :o improve circulation and access, Product B Interior streets were revised to include median planters to discourage illegal parking in areas where parking bays did not exist. Entry drives along Palm Avenue were lengthened and widenad to expand holding capacity and facilitate turning movements . interior circulation in Product C was revised to incorporate minimum and exterior turning radii and added exits and emergency access . With these changes, all Product areas meet minimum street width and turning radius standards . However, the Fire Department is still concerned with emergency access to the project and is recommending (by memo of Sept . 11 , 1978 attached) that its concern fo. reduced reuponse times be noted in the Final Public Report on the project . 8 .6 Parking Products B and C do not meet minimum parking requirements. Product B is technically 43 spaces short though all driveways are at least 20 feet to accommodate parking needs not usually possible in planned developments . On the other hand, availability of guest parking is restricted by the street configuration and cluster nature of the development. Product C is approximately 53 spaces below code requirement. The applicant designed the project in this manner to comply with Coartal Commission staff direction . Because of the greater density of this project, its typical PD design and the minimum access provided, parking for this Product may be a cri ticC-- issue. Despite the apparent differences in coastal staff and City parking standards, the Coastal Commission has not officially required any parking reduction in projects approved to date. The applicant has requested a special permit to vary parking requirements for these two product areas . 8 . 7 Perk eguirement_s The Phase IV project will generate approximately 8 acres of park dedication . Because no park is currently planned within or adjacent to the project, the land dedication will be taken at a later date to be used as designated by the City Council . The Planning Commission and Recreation and Park^; Commission have opened discussions regarding parks in the Seacliff area . 8 . 8 Scenic Hiahways 38th street alring the northwestern edge of tI.L ".oject appears in the Scenic Highways Element as an extension of Ed. 3 Avenue and is designated as a local scenic route. Though a specific fit., . ,_.:;entation plan for the scenic route proposal has not been prepared, the intunk bf the prograr. is to beautify certain, streets with intensified landscaping, medians , increased building setbacks, height requirements, etc. The Saactiff IV proposal along 38th Street incorporates t.heae features to great degree: landscape buffers are provided, landscaped berms instead of perimeter walls are proposed, building setback is considerable, parking areas are adequately screened, 38th is being designed to includes landscape inedians. street landscaping is intensified. 1 Page Nine y 8— 99 .St.L4-t. La_nds n9 The applicant is proposing intensified landscape treatment including meandering sidewalks along all public atrects . Though staff recognized the aesthetic attributes of the proposal, the Public works Department rejected the idea : n view of maintenance costs involved. The Sub- division Committee directed staff to pursue the special treatment, however, and the applicant has agreed to assume all landscape maintenance if the City will accept dedication. maintenance, and liability for the meandering sidewalk. The City Attorney' s office hai determined that ouch an arrangement is passible, though cumbersome, and perhaps unnecessary since the City can leave both sidewalk and landscaping in private ownership and require public access to the sidewalk without liability or maintenance responsibility . This is staff recommendation through conditions of approval on the tentative tracts . 8 . 10 JocatjoP of product C Some concern has been raised about locating the higher density product close to the linear park and the Bolsa Chic& . This issue: --�however , involves conflicting principles. on the one hand, the proposed location conforms to General Plan locational criter,,% in terms of arterial access and recreational facilities . It also overlaps the R3-0 zoning area originally intended for even higher density use. on the other hand, it conflicts with General Plan criteria calling for. lower density buffers near sensitive areas and proximity to business and institutional uses . In an area where urban uses could be made Jnconspicuous , this product offers the greatest building bulk and highest densJ:ty of the three product types. A decision to relocate this product area could necessitate major overhaul of the entire project. Some impacts can be mitigated by the suggested condition to fence the west side of 38th Street to restrict access to the sensitive areas . 8 Reapps fog: Special Permit, City Planning Department standards contain provisions for deviation from code requirements in order to promote batter living environ- ments, facilitate inmtative design and site planning, and create an aesthetic environment . The applicant has ¢orwarded a request for seven special permit items which he feels are necessary to achieve his design concept . In summary, staff recommends the following action on those items : 1 . Approve reduction of minimum side yard from .15 to 10 foat in Products A and B because the zero side yard concept is used and adequate average separation between units Is provided. 2 . Approve elimination of trash enclosures in Products A and- 8 because each single family unit can adequately be served individually . Page Ten 3 . Approve 43 space parking; reduction in Product H because driveway design is greater than typical Planning Departrr.ent Projects , guest parking is located tht•oughout the project and a true ratio of 4 . 5 spaces per unit is provided which exceeds nooml atandards. 4 . Approve reduction of building separation requirement to 10 feet at corners. of buildings in Product C because of tuilding oUset, adequate average separation, and architectural features . S . Deny reduction in parking requirements for Prodk .ct C because of project density, design., limited on-sight guest parking potentials , and minimum accessibility of units from on-street parking. 6 . Approve elimination of recreation area regeI er►ients for Products A and a because of compensating private open space provisions as well as excess common open space . 7 . Approve waiver of building bulk provision for Product C to allow 8 units per building and two story end units because the intent of the code is met by building design, varying elevation and offsets . 9 .C r4ECQWff.NDATI NS : I if the Planning Commission finds that the project in not prejudicial to the Local Coastal Plan, staff recommends approval of the subject appli- cations with findings and conditions . { qi 1 . Approve Environmental Report 77-6 as amended to include the nt Impact p k po letter fro Fis= ,�e of October 31, 1978, Sep 2. Approve Zone Change 78-4 with the following :'indingsi 1 . The planned residential development zoning is consistent with the City' s General Plan. 2 . The proposed uses permitted by the R2--PD-0 zoning will be compatible with surrounding land uses . 3 . Approve Conditional Lisa Permit 77-23 with the following findingn and conditions . FINL'INGS : 1 . The proposed use of property is consistent with the General Plan. 2 . All desigwt and improvement features are proposed in compliance with City Ordinances, standards, and special permits granted by the Planning Conuni-+sion . 1 . The site plan received and dated October 18, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . 2. All details and amenities of the development an shown on the site , 1 plan and supplementary plans sh&ll be c,.)natructed as indicated �� I Page Eleven within the development, in,•luding but not limited to open space and water areas, textured pavements, fencing, schematic elevations, materials and colors, recreation facilities, pedestrian walkways. oil island treatments, etc. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, all exterior building elevations shall be reviewed and approved by tie Planning Department . 4 . The MR' n and association rules shall set forth provisions for restriction on the storage of recreational vehicles in open fparking spaces. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits , On developer shall ` submit a final landscape plan .for roview and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 6 . Prior to start of construction, the developer shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenje and Goldenwest Street .in accordance with the specificationa of the Director of Public Works . 7 . Prior to issuance of certificate of occuoancv, a caved, tw1moor, -ry emergency access such as that existin; note - shall bolablk i.. a manner satisfactory to the Fire Chief from tits termination of 38th Street improvements north to Garfield Street. 8. All garages within Product C shall. be equipped with automatic garage door openers. 9. I.: the developer proposes to provide air- conditioning, the insulation in ceilings and exterior walls shall be a mi.nimiim of R-19 and R-11 respectively. tf no air conditioning le be provided, the insulation in ceilings and exterior Vklls shall be is minimum of R-13 and R-7, respectively. 10 . All bmilding spoils stash as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11 . A chemical analysis as well as tests for physical pr:-.petti*z of the soil on the subject property shall be submitted to the City for revsew prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. The .structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall bo constructed in ci=pliance with the State Ac+suatical Standards set forth for all units that lire within the 60 CREL contours of the properZy. 13. Energy saving llghtinq, such as high-pressure sodlum vapor lean, stall be used in recreation areas . 14 . Low--volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucats . Page Twelve 15 . Crime prevention to.' '-dues shall be applied to the design of . the project (e.g. •, singie-aTlinder locka , etc. ) . 16 . Construction tecr:niques recommended in the geotechnical investi- gation shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Community Development . 17 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval , a fully dimensioned site plan for all lots within the subdivision . 18 . Prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots within the subdivision , derailed calculations based on final building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Building Department for review and approval, insuring that interior noise levels for all structures sty 11 not exceed the California Noise Insulation Standards of 45 db CNEI. . 19 . *Provisions shall hN contained within the CCzR ' s authorizing the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association to impose fines on violators of the parking restrictions . 20 . Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 77-.23 shall be null and void if zone change 78-4 eves not become e:f ective . 21 . Prior to recordation of Final Maps , CCbR' s shall be submitted ' to the Planning Department for approval. 22. Prior to issuance of certificate or occupancy, fencing .00U be installed on th:� northwest side of 38th Street to prohibit acaP.sg to t1he sLwr=xxWvj o.0 operations. bluffs, and marsh area unless the area in held in ownership by a public agency. 23 . Product C shall be revised to meet minimum parking requirements as set forth in Section 9362 . 1E of the Huntington Baach ordinance Code. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to recordation of Tract 10068 . 4 . Approve Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 with the following findings and conditions : FIND,T N0S: 1 . The proposed parcel map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed parcel map is in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and Supplementary City Subdivision ordinance . CO .Q TIONS : 1 . The tentative parcel map received by the Planning Department, on October 5, 1978 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approval . N Page Thirteen 2 . A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Departmtnik of Public works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder . 3 . dater supply and sewage disposal shall ne through the City of Huntington Beach at the time ,-:f development. 4 . A copy of the recorded parcel map shelf be filed with tho Planning Department. S . 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 to total right-of-way of Palm Avenue. 6 . Approvel of. Tentative Parcel Map 78-37 shall be null and void if Zone Change 78-•4 does nest become effective . 5 . Approve Tentative Tracts 10067, 16068 , and 10069 with the following findings and conditions. Mae following findings and conditions shall apply separately to each tract but are listed jointly here for ease of reference) MUM: 1 . The prop78ed subdivision is consistent with the General and Specific: Plans applicable to this property. 2 . The design and improvement features of the proposed ,subdivision is in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the States Map Act and supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. 3 . The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development propnial 4 . The design of the subdivision and its improvements is unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems . 5. The design of the subdivision and its improvements 'do not conflict ; with public easements . CM1_ 05.4 1 . The tentative maps received October 18 , 1970 shall be the approved layout subject to conditions of approYal . 2 . Palm Avenue, A and B Streets, and 38th . Streitts shall be d di6nted and fully Improved to ultimate right=d"Z-wax'•,• 3 . The borders of Tentative Tract 10069 and Tentative Traot .1006' g shall be expanded to include the full rights-of-war of Palm Avenue and 38th Street, The borders of Tentative 'tract Wo. 1O067 xhsll be expanded to include the full right , , f-tray of Pala ivenwl. , 3� • 1 vi Page Fourteen 4 . The developer shall submit a 25 -year hydrology and hydraulic study and 100-year calculations for the protection of structure • -� per the Orange County Flood Control niatrict r"uiraments . 5 . Final design of drainage system, retention basins, and channel improvements shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and the California Department of Fish and Ga" prior to recordation of a final reap. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the project, 6 . .sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be subject to l City standards . ` 7. Vehicular access rights to Palm Avenue, 38th Street, A ano B Streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at private entry drive intersections . 8 . Street rights-of-ways dedicated to the City for A and-9 Street shall include + 40 feet back of curb to back of curb. All straet landscaping and meandering sidewalks shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Public access shall be provided on perimeter sidewalks . 9 . Street right-of-way dedicated to the City for Palm Avenue shall include + 92 feet south from back of curb on the north in- corporating an 0 foot off-street bike trail on the south in lieu of sidewalk. A meandering sidewalk shall be provided on the north side of the street which shall be owned and maintained along with intensified street landscaping by the Homeowners Association . Public access ahall be provided oti this perimeter sidewalk. 10. 38th Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to its ultimate right-of-way . A meandering sidewalk and intensified street landscaping shall be provided on the east aide of the street and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association . Public accnas shall be provided on this perimeter sidewalk. 11 . No final map shall record until the Pacific Coast Highway Trunlc Sewer is approved by the California Coastal Commission or an alternative sewer system acceptable and designed to both the City and the orange County Sanitation District standards is approved . 12. All entryways from public streets shall have a minimum 30 foot curb radiuo. 13. All inner-turning curb radii shall be a minimum o2 "'.' feet and outer curb rad4.i shall be 45 feet . 14 . In Tentative Tract 10069, landscape planters with -,parking on one side only shall be enstended in a perpendicular fashion an each end to denote parking area. .r- 15 . Median bretikes and left turn lanes in both direct moons shall be }pro- �3'� vided In" ''alm Avenue at each entry point to Ten'tativer Tract 10067 , f,,age Fifteen '-- 16 . The developer shall be responsible for installation acid maintenancv of berming, landscaping, and noise attenuation treatment south of Palm Avenue. 17. Prior to recordation of the Final Maps , thlu developer shall file with the City a letter of agreement to accept drainage from public streets into the private drainage system. 18 . Approval of Tentative Tract Nos . 10^67, 10068, and 10069 shall be null and void if Une Change No. 78-4 does not becomis effective . 19. Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall provide two minimun: travel lanes of 12 feet from curb face to median curb face. 20 . Detailed plans for noise attenuation on the south side of Palm Avenue shall be approved by the Planning_ Department prior to issuance of building p:-rmits. ted b these subdivisions shall be secured b 21 . Park debt generated y Y dedication of .land from the property owner at such time and in • such location 3s agreed upon by the Planning Commission, Recreation and Parks Catrmission, and City Council . 22 . off island wells shall be converted to common open space undex +? ownership 3rc� maintenance by the Homeowner ' s Association at such time as oil operations cease or prior to recordation of the Final Map, a revised site plan showing incorporation' of those areas into the development shall be approved by the Planning Department and the CC&R ' s shall include provision for annexation of these areas . 23 . Three-foot maintenance easements shall be provided in Tentative Tract 10069 and 10067 along all zero side yards unless the Homcowncrz Association will assume all exterier cnni.ntesiance responsibility . 24 . A drainage system maintenance plan for percolation-.retention ponds , culverts, channel improvements , and related facilities stall be developed to assure facilities wiXl maintain design capacitie$ t,a assure continued effectiveness . This maintenance plan shell lie approved by the Department of Public Works and California Department of Fish and Game prior to construction. Maintenance of the drainage system other than in the public street system shall be the responsi- bility of the Homnowner 'sq Association tend/or developer. 25 - Tentative Tract 10068 shall be revised to meet tninitnum arking requirements as set forth in Section '9362. 16 of the Hutington n Beach Ordinance Code. The revised plan sliall be yubm!teed to the Planning Commission prior to recordation of the Final map . 6. Approve Resolutlon of Intention No. 1237 Initiating a Precise , lan Street Alignment for 38th street from Palm Avenue to Gar, iel S� � rcet� --- Page Sixteen At r. me„at8: I . Area Map 2 . Draft Ordinance , Zone Change 78-4 2 . Resolution of Intention. 1237 4 . Applicant ' s request for Special Permit Approval dated August 29 , 1%97c 5 . Communication from County. Sanitation District Oatnd August. 24 , 1978 6 . Communication from California Regional Water Quality Control Board dated September 7, 1978 7 . Excerpts from .I.Q 1Ca1 and Hy and xedendum 1 dated September 13, 1978 8 . Memo from Chien James E. Ge: spach, H. B . Fire Dept . dated September 11 , 1978 90 Commu:z.1cation from Orange County Environmental ,Maoagetreat Agency dated August 14, 1978 10. Memo from Environmental Council dated August 15 , 1978 m 11 . Communication from Coastal Comission. dated April 15, 1977 12. Communication from California Department of Fish and Game dated Octorar 31, 1978. !i MF: gc i i u* R3-0 a-{R; R3-0 1 -R4-Ji ' R4-0 ; f �` ROS-0 R4_01 ROS-a'' jr IOQ53 _ ` area I- I-01i .. 2-PD-0 HUI- I J-1 R3-0 r ~ Pia-nn Area "8" ':ems' 1006? •-- iTD - �-•-`-. . . -.-,ram- � � ! 1 ..w....r�.....n.i.n�we TENTATIVE TRACT 10067 TENTATI'E TRACT 1 COGF TMtRi iv.. ,...._T 10069 C04011TIONAL USE PERMIT 77-23 Zone R2-PD-la .gk^rp c Tcpq a K M 1�i1t TE Ti�1i SEA" lt"w " am. 01; , AN U!?!r ; 1!,'il!►'� ; (,( ' !'ilt. t: I'!'y' ,�. lli;�} !' ; Il�,'f'+ ►11 iS!':r;;'I! P►r�il:rll�l 1�G '!'ll} ; N'T i Nt.;': `f;; i+i: ;'; ; ;!;1 ! 14A11 i1Y AIM11-.1NI11 ! roc li':•� : : l :a 1U(� , '1 {1 •.}{l...ff` . (� ! 1?t.i 11 Ut: (.�i? �'tI,1r1�;;: r.►I' Zi)1J I!Jt; i 1�+:�l: itc;(:rt ;AT I U1I :�i'n('_ I) 1 :''i i; ? ? "I' ✓;�J;;�,' F") t; !'1''f ('11i:' 11i`t Ui:1 r};E IT IT I1I_ . . ,,},.1 , ,•, i 011. 011 i'ii0i'!:fl...Y ' "�r `''i= + NORTH PALM AVEWI,�- A::(1 4::;;'1' D i I . r;r 1 :: _, ^ I r)rIG EDGE (}F t iU .J ..�ti...�'1' 1 ., ,L.. )% , SEACLIFF GOLi' r:OUitSi. (%U1JI: CASE it'0 78•-41 ►1IlE,R11.A:i lit .;i ' Lilt- 'aria oning .a , � - �t1t t:G ,: �•, ,!' , .:!1f; lriC; � t.hc IIun,tIr►k�t.on L a c h, 11 1 c;0;;im 0ri ,1r1ci l(it nt. ingtorl beach !:Ity C ��:c1 '1�.ic1 :,2par:i t ut.l f c Ii(:-nv! n1,-.; r•c�lat±ve t.0 ,:c:!l:: cai e tJc+ . 7il -1: „tic,rcIn t:ot1., 1,c',c1i.- 1'1, Ily c— t:ci'�� -i n : �rr., tla r�:;�.`r: _ 1r)11 :.tftrr dur Cori— at :.icierat ,lor1 r71` !. tlE' ". ; +} lrlf'", T"'.d r'c'+' "i'1r`ril�i3t. On:S r>�� �tiE' 3'l�lflrllfl� +:OTrm15;',1 :)j; 'ATI(I ;1i". ( '.' I (1^r1Ct? [1r �`;:t,�!�}./`il to aald C11.Y Council i Lhe f 9 1 t y Couni: i 1 find:; t h:I t Uch "onc, chalip_. i . }!z'o !•r, and con. 1 s— ttrit :with the Fern(-_ '."II pIi. n IJOh,', ,'}iEi?:i;rC►??� , t:he '.;it:;i Council of the Cix;, of Huntington SF.C'T ION i . 'Phe f'oll.owini; d: scr•ibe(t Heal property located north of T'.:11m Avenue , appi,ox lmately t hloce, thousand ( 3000 ) feet. west, of* (J )_denw1 st Street alonh the S ut�:we;;tern edge of St"sClifT -10l C CrJ►..i:5f' , is hCA"Cby changed fvom ROS-10, "Hocreation Gpers Spacn c ambinvU with o.t l nroduct :an , to R?-Pb•-0, "Medium llrrislty Panned :} , 1..c. rltlal 1: < < lu,r.nLrt D.! ;; t. ,• 1 .+ i t.h cif product iorl : In the City o!' 11untingtor: beach , :.'minty c,I' Grange , St,at;e of Call forsnia , th('.'S t r)O.vt ons of .9ec- ;ion 3 Township b Sout,h , Fringe 1 , wef3':; , S . B . H.M. , as shown on a map recoteded In Boca 51 : pig;fr Ili of r�Ii:3ce1].jt3n>ncuE3 rfap;; , records of said cnun'y , more particularly described as fal:c t /78 t Pitrt �: 1 tJ�i. l : Huirl fill :lt. t:tit r,��T't.i��_'t•1 y te:•rtlrius of tlt:tt� �rur:,c� shown a:; rlor,Lh 0001 ' 'Fi" Wt_1;3t. , 60 . 76 feet can a r,iap rocurded in !.'Ook 97 , payee; 35 through 37 i ilc i t:s i ve , of Recol`ds of 'Survey, recov:f s of' 0;'..ngc ('Outtty ; thence alor)g t.trr: "ExIsti •ic, use= f'erinit Dou►tdary" 7Inc- .as ohuwn on oald maj; , north 321 31 2�" wt:�l. , 1i�Ct . 00 feet. ; thc-ricc, north 4` 31 ' 21 " wept: , 470 . 21 rest ; thence ".'"na d butindary .,out.h 121 10 ' 2 i" east , 6314 . 79 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Contains 0 . 456 acres . i'arcel No. 2 : Eegirtr,ftif; ,it. t_ h(' :;nttt: }t,•r•?;� Lc't•-1in1J.1 of t. ,ailt courne .:;,own :3', nc� r'ti: : `�"t. ; ' , rr °•,::t ► 3G3 . 6s :'o t Oil a Ma`.) ;t1 tYtl'Uu�;,t 37 , ilic, 1;,;;l'.'r! , 01' Rf!co1'•tl:; Cif ' :,U!'�'c, , :'�'CUI' !:: O: r7r�.rtj,f,' C:4ulity ; thence alor? ., th r' ! 1 Ir,i' ►� r'�•r' `4 � L line ia:3 ShOwn on S,i Ji d ma[i 7 1 •rr c +•ra s t , 3a3 . 63 fret; ; *. ht�r,c:� 1r:a!► irt .. .:, i;f t , 461ti?. ► l; ���� �.nSt , 7 t ; '. 'tc•r,c ri,,;t.C, 30 , 1E►� pest 161 . 1Fi f�_r.t; ; s:tic:nc�' ;u1itr, t+ t`" ' ' � ,:' t . , t,hert ciut. h 1.i° ? 0' C. t�.'I ._ L , �' I1 . 1 : :'t r:'t. :>,t1d boundary lints ; thence 110ns' -7" cl bourit•tjrf lute north 22° 0 13t' wc� :3t, , 210 . 00 i'E%t't. tJ t }1t' CUirtt o1. beginning . Cont-air-Is 0' 711 Yrarc•el ,tit,. _� i:; �►- in,It .► t . . t�• ! I;�' :._, l t:c: t,,t l ly tt?r- rnir1u:; ^ref�h � '37 ' tt7" wept , 359 • 3 feet on a ❑: i f, e(i 1r) Hook 9 7 , Pages 35 throu(;i; 37 , ir;.' luslvr_ , c�J• 1{c� .. . t•�1;; k)t' ;'ut• � t, :i ., t•e~'c o I•d!j o!' Orange +'Conte ; tht'r1c't:• :"ilc�mv ` he "Exl:; trip Or{� PC I'm ' �� � � '.�/" 1 ., .• :• .,. •s 1 ., � north 5 , . 33 c:' _ , it.nt.'. r�,. :•trl 31 west 5� . 7 f�t. , c. ,-' .r1p, ;�s .l:t t)ourit,Fi'?" line south 35 29 ' t+'� c:r,st , �7� . t:� 1'c�t'L ; Clt►'ttr.t� sa!rt:h (�� ul t 55" "'t: :3 t , j . (i c. i�:'r'i. ; t. :C ►'-�:c_ `.i O u t li �i �' i ;! 1" 2 46 f :'£ }, t. +"! !a.1 ici d ar. y Jne ; then 2c. aIong :ia1(: ::c)tInCJ3x' tI ttt :i ):'�•i, y j° :�t� ' •: l" iAc_: ti , 1190. 65 fec,•t to the Point c.,f b'�.�;.; ' n n i.r,t•; . Ccint,:a'.ri� 1 . 677 acres, ECT 10 �? . hf. :'i Esnrt ink, c t f t C1 ty of Eiunt f 11gt.c;} lseat•h � ,3 h� reby dirt-'cted to change Di:rtrlr.L Map 3 (St-etional L' i -tric t. i;�tji 3-r,_11. j t'() ;n�:u:•Pot• it ' the ont• Change desc I•iheu In Section l tivreof, arid as maid district map sh311 have been ,mended , the s:i^t' sha] 2 be ! fu " I force and off'ect and be a part .w or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . A copy of said dis r t;rict map, u, arr►cncled hereby , It; available Tut' Inspection In the office of the UJ Ly t: %:)•k. SECTION 3 . Sucr lon 9061 , 0l ::te lct. Kap 3 Lhe,rcof , its hereby amended by 'Lone Ga ei No . 78-11 . SECTION 11 . Th-,ka ordinance nhall take effect thirty days i r v aftPi its adoption . The (...ty Clerk shall cert;if, to the passage of this ordinance and cause same `.o be published ' ` hin 171fteer days ;Ifter adoption In the fIuntington Beach News , a -ekly news- paper of general circulation, printed and published I. 4untington Beach, California . PAaSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of HLInt tngtan Beach at a regular meet'-rig thereor held on the day of 1975 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOAM: City Clerk _ -7 City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVL") : TIATED AND APPROVED: Its Administ rator �Cct`�ng PlannMs Mector i i SEC 11 O N A l DISTRI M A t' so 3—6-11 . •rw w .w ..I•. (AT)" 011" ,.11 IN••. •►tia. / •• 1Noff tog i•�w��l.:rL1«'T •iTilr.w . ��..•Nr.• .•.r1 M`M• too HUNFING'TON BEACHsteel, -4 A& 0 111-41,11 1.40, W,400-Mlk V"t..t. a ..o. a."..�.. O%fts*WWI ( ) If AN (: I•: (: () ( 1NTN' , (: A LI I''MINIA 'y """'""""""'.'". 1164011NO 61 1011i EAU • . w.1 r•..7 1 171,1►.fW,l•{p••.1••7•7.11 N •N)III to+•/1 I,h 11,11 11 11 ."1 11 I{►7 1M N I. 11 M 1 'I •'•'•' n 1�•.1• ••.� ..L+�. • 1 A r 1 •••1 r.I, •) �. I1 fit; • . � 4,11•Ittto •IsvR `•/• Ivor- + • N•1_1N•.• � .�.. • ,.. .�: 7 R3-0 \ �. � •`fit.• i•w ,1 ROV-O `t •Y .11 Y1 ' -♦:l ►� ROS-0 All t R3-0 y t f24-a OS-o �R Al \. . 7 ,� col �,=a• ! 1 V Rio R11 / tier` : -•1 ► �•• 1 �►. ROs-o •,4r�,� R, pet It Its ROS•0 10 ' 1•y 1.1 �1rw•n -'Fit-0 11.R� y w 91 . � ►1••' '�• .�wrsa -� •. f i .i� _f AIR;. � , • 1 Lei 1ri i 11w,1 1 , Ro S•v ��'{r'• '•• `~ as. so, . ch I I \ RJR'© 1'�,,�.•\` �•,•1`• a ( �'� /� �' 1,I�n 1• ' RI•Q l 4 410411-0, Q_ ♦�, l [ ' • znNE CASE NOR 78-4 A ltl:Sc)I,tl'I HM M' 1NT1:N'I' I ()PJ TO M I't' 1 111' r, VItla' I SK f LM4 ( ' ;,'I'I11:1-V ALIGNMENT 11M Ifl'I'1! :.'f ltl:;:'I' I'ItcIM PALM AVE'NU1: TO GA,ItI'1 ELD WHEREAS , Section 9821 . 2 of the Huntington ©oach Ordinance Code requires that the s'lanninq Commission adopt a resolution of intent to initiate changes; to previsions of Division 9 , and WHEREAS , determination of an alignment of 38th Street from Palm Avenue to Garfield St recut i ;: no-cess.:ary to insure long term acct-ss and circulation in the vicinity , and WHEREAS , determination of an a l .ionmont for 38th Street wriuld assist in the plann ; ny and acdui ;;ition of a linear bluff park by establishing an eastern boundary , and WHEREAS , determi ►i -.t. ion of an al ignr,ient for 38th Street would assist in future lard usc� and circulation planning efforts , NOW, THEAEFORP. , ©F IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby di 170Ct the ini t. iaLlon of proeecr?inns to establish a Precise Plan of Street Alignment for 38th Street from Palm Avenue to Garfield Street . REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Seach , Cal :: fornia , on the 7th day of November , 1978 , by the following roll call vote : AYES: I S : AU5EMT : ABSTAIN : ATTEST: James W. Palin Ruth Finley Actinq Secretary Chairwan i Auttt«t 2'1, 14173 � SFACL1FF - PHASE IV 1 C i ty of Hunt ingtnt► Deach Plwininy Departnx-nt 2000 Main 5trret Huntington Beach , CA 92648 At tent inn: ?4nnica Florian Door 1*�; . Florian - As disc,,%ed At nur nx•t-t i nq of Autiu•,t Vo . 1')78 t 11, fnl ltr+inq &1VA- al items arr rrrlut-Ovd umler Ott- ltrttyisinns ril (hi, City of Hunt - ington He cls PD S t.indartis , These rvilur_r t s are re ferenr_,-d to you t:y the list dated Auqust 25, 19,8 to the f Iannirah Coo—ilssion ,attached) . I . Sideyard separat Ion and setback. from i•nterlor property lines ; Products "A" t: "8" We .ire asking that the setback-, from pruprrty 1 iric- bo #V on one s i dr and 10 ' mini mute+ on the rt hvr, As we 1 I .1% serarat i on between %t ruct ures be se: at 10' . Thcsr regtws ti .ire necessary for our concept of a ze rn lot 1 i ne devr-iopm-nt . Tbr. 10 ' s 1 deyard which is created has no intrusion From the neigliborintl structure, thus produc rock a very prrvate area with the recli net cif sepaiiit Ion from adjacent clt•-?I 1 i nets wh i ch arpe.ars to be the bast e I nt ent of the code . In addition, for Product "S" She i0nimum distance betwuen hog-&-s is 10' 0". This occurs only at a point due to thty "radial" design of the cluster. In fact , 31on T5 of the uni t,s wi 1 1 be separated by 151 0" or more. The ave rngz distance between units is between 18' to 20' . Because of the staggering" of home pads, this dlmenslon Is often greater , Thery are ra w i ndiriit nprn i nys not the s i tle wal Is an at least one of the hor,x:s end only the from door .and "sidcl ight" will be lor'.ated an the other , thereby cllnihating concerns for the prctectlrin. j 7 . 1 r,►-,I► F Isc Its,,ur► ,. ; ('r tithir.1•, 1►A1r I. "it" Wt• a I I. 1'villie-.1 i tl11 111.11 1111- 11.11111 1 voki-111 I,►1' I 1 ,101 r'IIC lit,"Ilr e% Iso ►4.1i vr11. 111r P1414111L', "A" r. "I Ill Jeer i` 1►;s.ic.il ly .1 sin(IIL. 1.1141 IV dt!ye Iopnx-nl , tit(I i I a%Ii cnlsi a i wei % miy I►1- Is,1 tit 1Ir,-11 In etch i ndi vidita I uni I its tit(, 4'jaraq,- or sideyard , and Iruved by the reslllent to the curbside when required. 3. Parking Requirements; Product "5" We believe the oroposed parkiliri of 860 cars , incorperatinq two cars in the attached 9aragc. t 381) st,i 11 s) , the cars on each drive- way ( 380 stalls) and 100 guest parkirlr- stalls is more thin sufficient to meet the day to day parking denonds. Accordi nrl to ex i s I i ng orrlf nancvs , 625 car s t.0 1 s are requi rcd (3.29 cars/hone-) which nx an5 386 tal is in the artarbeel garaims ynd 195 stills provided throutihout the site . The total required 625 % taus is Iletern►ine.rl by nnly giv:rstf onr-fourtis ereriit at the drivrway of each home. 11.1(1e1• this tmthl)Ill, the• ec►rrent plan only Includes 575 stalls : 50 cars below the required ansoui►t . It i�; rssir experlencr, Ihnl in Ifu. Sir►11Ie family sit-lached ciuster eoncopt5 , 2C ' dri voways are y1iru_ra I ly qi van full credit . which !toneratrs a total 860 stai is (4. 5 cars/hoev) ' 145 stalls above the current requirement . 'rcrefore , request a special perm) t for this Item. 4, building Bulk/ Separation; Product "t" The cone (5.5161. 10) calls, for they n►axi mum of six urni q per building and , of these six. two units +rust be single story iJuring the course of extensive consultation with thr planning department , we heard a brief hi s fory of this law. Apparently there had been a prervious devc loporrit or too which feeures long ugly barrack,; like rows of C(?wnhou5c.•s . These resulted In an ordinance Intended specifically to prevent had design of this type. The Iaw was per fact ly we1l- rrrant but , tieing written for a particular type of housing, tended to be rather arbitrary and inflexible . We feel that the spirit and intent of the or0nance hes been followed in the design of the buildings , which have a high degree of offset and breakup without necessarily duplicating the confiquration desrribed in the ordinance. fit connection wl th the Dui Ming A►ilk bui 1eilnq separation special Ist,rn►it is another 1tt:sc . At the pe+lestrian %pace off nf each c0rnrr or the typical cui -de-sacs the mimlox a e;learnnce. measured diagr+rtaIly, is 10' which the interdepartmental review thought was In conflict with the separation ordinance (S.9362. 7) . We refer this linsto.3 d to the Building Bulk Ordinance. The .rills on rinser side of the space should be considered as wo parts of a single buildinq, jolncrt by architectural elements above the second floor firm . .47 _ l. '/. P.11 lt ir111 ; P'1 odill ( 11�►I tote f:i I (t( Ilunl ► 1►,111111 ftt•,Il h 1 t ,Itli 1c '. 1►.11 t intl .It ) t.1t i<1 l�f 0 prI Intl 1 , 1(11 .1 1111 .1) 11t r111n l..l) '. toll '. I iI'. ttlrll,•V►'1 t11,' {(Li'.I .lt t.l)!11111 '.'. l(1f► � it, till• inivIt•'. 1 (7f it y1 )tIj it, 11".'.1'll ( lot' vI -.11.11 ivil.wl of 111 ('I,1'I`\•, I 'dl' .7hrIi1111 (1f ll.-Iv; iN) 1 ►"Illi evil fit: th,• C,11 S . l►,1% 1 null colvtl Ilial tIwy tl(m)d ,)lr;ut)v►' tin nt)# r ! il.►tl ? . 7.'., rat 1)rr utsiI . Tht. ciff1` ',l stCc it, 4? cors . Thv parkim, i -, dv( ,imioii at ? r. .11111 Ill-ar1ccaIly .111 fleas 41VAi I a h I v fl)r n.mlt, .rl.l 11.1VC h(•.". r1 •.(1 u-wd. A form 11•S,oilllltq !,lntl'.c,ipc ,1rr.,-11, cu111d he translated into 5 or 10 extra car,- but they necur ,llc►nq 301h Si reel where the project nec A a landscape buffer . To us thi % seeruS I ike a lsnuncl- fonl i ;h w,ly of ,I,m?ni lit, c,mr s . A stutly pre- 1).-lred last y(:•mr• by Mr. Jaime hracllfran, a rvputalt e-lff is cons111 (,1nt ,,); Ili rluch exllc•r•ienee in res illum iol part. inq rrnv► xnt s , i ntlieatt•d that 2 . 75 rani wcluld he acct•t)t ,ii+ lt•, Itr h.1sed Ihi % opinion 1)r the sn. 1 I s i 7e of i llr units i n hot h arv,1 and bc11room r_nunt . )Z further ctln,,hie ration v,oul (1 he file ilrlr k i ml a lorirj 111r Four pt-r i l,c ir. r S t rc"!t t: While this parking is not strickly cnunt.mhlr , it il, . rlevrrtllrIcs.. . raviilrahie ,mod very bell distrEhtlted for ktsc by visiting guests who tlli tlht chno%r to hark there . Thi•,v car% would have' a rem i4rect ot, the p,mrkino siI oat i(jn i ►1 Art•.1 "C", Also, Ihr ll,tll, itiq for 1hr nvrr - .11 i Sr•.1e I i f f pmit•et hums Resort• llta:l the lotoI irlllti r1,J nulr►ier of e.lrs , .in ndl l ; ► i on.-1l c i r►unr. toned wh i ch 1,etlt•f i t t, the• Dori, i ml in Area " 11 b , Rccreatinn firva, Product % "A" 1. 11011 P Bcc,mu•.e thr Product. "A" .1/ill "11�� ,111' •1,1 1t ►'t1 t• 1 t Ct►ur ►' . tt. nni � tnurts oml lartle ol)(•n spuacc•s onll also hc-c, ime Ilrl•y .►rr . 1144114; family type rtc,vc fupnlCrot 7 we re(itiest that the rrqui rentent for a recVreat mar, area of 10,nOO squire feet he waived, the privtmlr ouell %pacc,, are, of a sire which would allow private rvcreat Inn arcat itic ludi ► q swi,rninq pools , which cl ir:lnatcs the need fot a colrmunal rccreat ',on area . 7. See i tem 4 above . 111Gse i tetllc arc interrelated. i A. .1 . HALL CORPORATION App I i cyan t i:nclosurC ����,�.y `�� M vi rl J. 11.111 tiunfingtan ptAWNrins d")M wr,► stuff ,..................J r �. TO: Planning Commission l'ftOH : Planning Department DATE : August 25 , 1976 SUBJECT : Seacli£f TV Special 11arm.it• floqui:, L The applicant for Seaclitf IV will be seeking a Special Permit under the provisicns of the City 's PD Standards (Section 9317 and 9367) . Though a more detailed discussion of the variances requested for the project will be presented at the study session, the applicant has asked that the Commission be informed of areas in which Special Permit is being sought. At this time these areas involve: 1 . Reduction of minimum side yard to ten feet Because of utilization of zero side yard concept .in Products A and A . 2 . Elimination of trash enclosures because each unit can be served separately in Products; A And D . J . Reduction in parking requirement for Product D since all driveways are 20 feet. f 4 . Reduction of building separation requirement at corners of buildings l in Product C because of dnsign factors (submit drawLngs and typical floor plans) . 5 . Reduction in ,parking requirements for Product C tQq comply with Coastal Commission direction of 2-1�4 spaces per ul►it . 6 . Elimination of recreation area requirement for Products A And D because of existing golf course , tennis , and clubhouse facilities . 7 . Waiver of building bulk provision for Product C since intent of code 19 mat in design of atructure . MF: j a 400 AtZh Am, COUNTY SPt,1.. f, AT10N DiSTRICTb OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 'ra` P. A. sox w27, rGUWT414 VR.LLrV, CALIFORNIA 1427gIJ 1004.1 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFr.RAMP, DAN DleGAG sigtcwAY I August 24 , 1978 HUNTINGTON 8WH P"NNING DEPT. I AUG 3 01978 City of Euntington Beach P. 0. Bot 190 P. 0. Box 190 HuMineon bonh, GA 92548 Huntington Beach, CR 92648 Attention: Monica Florio» Assistant Planning Director Subject: Seacliff IV To date, no formal agreement exists between Sanitation District No. 11 and Huntington Beach Company regarding the construction of a. portion of Reach 3, Reach 4 , and a portion of Peach 5 of the Coast Highway Trunk. The District is presently awaiting of l outcome of a decision for a permit for Reaches ] and 2 of the t State Coastal Commission, to be heard on October 17 . Until the October 17 public hearing and other necessary decisions (Bolaa Chica acquisition, LCP, etc. ) , the District is not committed to a fixed route of the Coast Highway Trunk in that location. .alternatives the District nay have to consider are: (1) a route up uoldeA West Avenue, (2) a route up through the golf course, or (3) no Project. Therefore, in regarde to local sewer facilities, the Huntimton Beach Company may have to: (1) build the facilities as requested in our January la letter (Master Plan) , (2) build the facilitiea as proposed in their EIR (with the exception of the line in Golden Went Avenues that wc:uld have to be Sized to District's Master Plan) , or no project (because of questions regarding the outcome of the Bolan Chica acquisition; I,CP, rjl-v. ) . rn conclusion, It iu Lhc WaLrI t ' ij Iiit eiii titil t t. do' Iny Ns•i I founder] projocte until it can obtain appruvnin for Um Knsl.vt � Planned facilities or visa versa . What was scan in our initial i OURTY bAATAmm UpjTMM City of Huntington zach com".CAW* 04 Auquat 24 , 1918 4 am JIM Page 2 l ids{ fit IS Avr M I/ I CA*011►!N 31A&W. CAL W CWW o V)POW It lot 013.3411 proposal to the Huntington Reach Comoanv was a wav to Lava the Districts , the City, and the Developer some money and avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities . This was all predicated on the ability for each entity to obtain the necessary funding, regulatory approvals, and timing-construction coordination. Yours .very truly, Xennis H. Reid, enior Engineer DMR:mee CC,. Huntington Beach Company 2110 Main Street Huntington. Leach, CA 92648 Attn: Gunard Johnson California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Robert Joseph M11 Of fAll MIJA Vt•.PU11fV% ,rl, (MUM 0 blo*w J1. Gwei'm. . - ..r�;.m .,.7�. -.C��,.e�-,rr• �r.:r,,a�+-•ee,r_z.��-L. f � •.wta►. CALIVO[ NIA REGIONAL WAILR 01JA .►H CONTROL BOARD-- SAi TA ANA REGION ' INDIANA I*41114, SUIIR 1 kjl0t. CA100 MiA MOM September 7, 1978 Mr, David Walden Wald.-n Z Associates , Inc. 125 Ci)rt Baker Street, Suite 125 Costa Mesa , CA 92626 Dear Me. Walden: Seacliff Project Based on tllt! 000lting far•ilitim pr•onnim ;oiicli still also be designed and op-rated a- percolation ponds , we believe that Seacliff 1V should not affect. water quality. There- fore, clearance for planning pu-, pose; is granted. In reviewing the percolation test data, which was included with your submittal , we gvrrstion the factor used in the report. The L(idwi g mod{ f ic,3tion procedure, as nonnally � applied in seimgc system, , requires a factor of 21 rather than the 3 utilized. furthem.-ore, i L may be more prudent to apply even a larder factor, since a clarif#cation process precedes the percolation of sewage whereas in this situation because the pond is basically a desilting structure this will markedly reduce t►11:, percola Li on rates found during lean water testing. Prior -o any construction activity, please provide for review and approval the final proposal for erosion-siltation control for Seaciiff Iv, If there are any questions , please feel tree to contact this office. Sincerely , )ohn M. Zia adzinski i Sen.or Engi veer cc: State C,epartment of Fish and Game City of Huntington Beach, Planning Departmnt A� t,xcerpt,s f!'orn Ger ,� ac nd� . �.. t. prepared GeoterhniealL lttn,n V70 t G2 13 G1 C � s . G GENERAL STATEMENT S.1s =d upon the findings presP.Med 6-:1-ive, It is considered geo- tec:hnicatly feasible to percolate Increased storvn rtrsoff waters or•- iginaling from the prr*losed re,sidantiat deve lcPment through a prop-r erlh designee urtlflclal rechurge prc•:,ram. For Cle approximate x. a I .acres of aval l ebl a pmdin&t rW eno un area, hyd- ogeotc 9lz and climat- ic ccnd(tlons indicate n system, depending upon design, Cculd reduce direct stnrm runoff into tla! Boise Chlca wetimids by as much as 60 acre-feet cin an average 6-n-ual basis. Our findings indicate that perr eablr_ strat& lies w1thoin several fert of grevnd surface In the drainage swale north of K1re property and that tha pesnm. eabi If ty iss sufficient anc-igh ths.s e: percolatii;-i pond with a surface "Ma 01 lot 000 �t2 will be ccuffic.icnt to pej••coldt� the :-xc�as nrnoff water. Due to peak 24-;heur !nlenshy, 25-»ivar frequency storms routing me m.ich as 50 acre-feet of sto:Yn water Into she r etenticn basin sreas, the most sl_m!ftcant c:cncor,n will be the cngfneeo irtq design of an infii- trutlrri system which ovitl bypass thews pariozi1r. wak Howls and yet 1 retain u porticn of the deal^ viater for percolation. Seacancertly, a �-{ol '-de»tfried crrer®lion and naelntananees program will be tnocststttsry i to maintain percolatla-i chtiractor-Isticss tend injactILM capacities. ? • rMrr The existence of over 100 fe ct of coarse-grained depost;e to-- cated at loam 20 feet above the highest recordad water table con- ! diticns in the Huntington Bauch mosa wlII provide ample storage V7810Z 14 and the safe discharge of Injected waters. Duey to t19a topogrvohy and geology of the percelation area, It is inconceivable that they in. jected waters wit surface either an the va11ey floor or upon the slopes of adjacent bluffs. Based upon perine abillty values of 1000 to 2000 gpd/ftZ for the Alpha Aquifer, we anticipate the effects of percolating the proposed storm water volumes in raising the ground water should be limited to within an area of 500 feet surrounding the ponds. Known natural hydraullc gradients for the area as well as possible barrier effects caused by the Newport-frig I&wood fault zone indicate a subsurface northward and westward flow of parzalated wa- ters toward the Bolsa Chica estuary. Oue zo the presence of extensive confining beds of Imv to non- existent infiltration capacity throughout the entire project area, hl,%-• torical quantities of deep percolation of rainfall have been Ilrnited to the topographically lower natural drainage channels north of the site which expose the upper pei"cable strata of the Alpha Aquifer tortes. In the past, Wie natural Infiltration capacity In these areas is Mri- sidert"d limited due to Boil and or-gariic cover as well at the lirnitec! dv rat i cri of flow. 3. 0 JLJEJJ=JMJION MTES 6UP QESy9V C I F_RAT Of the several methods of artificial rec+wrge described, a combined seepage pit - infiltration gallery system would appear � the most feaslble approach to the specific hydrogeologic conditions of the area. Although the shallow Infiltration shOls prtwide a mesa,; of by-passsIng the surface confinIng beds (e. g. , =arse of I I�rsrww�w�a�r GEGTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. DerkelNy. Uurbank • hjiWl Ace:► • e;Mufh (.dlilurr.r-% Walden & Associates September 13, 1978 125 East Batter Street Suite 125 Costa Mesa, California 92626 At tent ion: Mr. David Walden 'V78102 Subject: Addendum No. 1 . Soil Investigation and Percolaticn Tots . Seacliff IV, MunGrngton Mearh, rMallfornia. Door ir1r. Walden: At th.• request of John Z►vsacl.inski of the Wat^r quality Control Board, Santa Arw Region, we have re-evaluated the desItin loading rates and results of percolation testing for the praposed percolation ponds. As discussed In the revert, the values employed and the factors of safety used were based, upon an oocrations -rind m► lritenance program to perindica.11y scar•- ify the percolation ponds to insure that siltation would not reWuce inHilrall:n capacities. Since, as Mr. Z,:%sadzinski points out, such maintenance work may not be possible ,after every runoff period, It may ink►eed b,D more prudent to apply a larger factor of safety to insure thot adequate percolation occurs. Our report c•oncludod that an area of 101000 ft2 r:ould be sufficient to percolate a voiume of 14 acre-feet over• a 4 to 5 day period hosed on a fac- tor of safety of 3. It is our understanding that design can al:ow for a total of 2, 6 acres of porcolattcan pond area (120, COO fC2). Assuming A more conserve- tivr. design loading rate of 100 gal/ft2/day, A factor a! safety of 15 would re- suit fcr percolation over a 5 to 6 day Park-J. We feet that th'o tong-term In- filtration capacities of the ponds can be rna lritained when c exnbined with a wel l- dofined maintcriance proclram, tt►ereby pr•twidin additional f4etors tat safety. g Y ,l �I �l I I i 1021 fail thc'"3210n 00Q1LWAr4,VC411011• C.rllraln►i 93001, PhpnA: t40SI 643.2203 I - f GIC WaIL11.11 F1 A.L.':aCialvs 2 Mr. Davi d Wa lcion Vic will remain avalla le to provide additional geotechnical Input during the design phayc of the erosiat-riltotion control , if requircd. Vcry truly yours, G TL(i-! IC, L C 'ULTANTG, INC. Ravi d f (: r� ncr Engine cr' .g Gcolog st #969 DAG:jw j, i Fd fin' "` in intal L4oundl `' CITY OF HUN71NGTON BEACH 04w700.010d0414" PU'A OffiCe BOA 190 Huntington Beach. Calitoinia 926,18 Too Planning Commission Date t August '15, 1978 Topiot SaKelitf IV, Final EIk and Project In reviewing the final EIR, the Environmental Council finds that the majority of the numerous oommento from different sources appear -to have been addressed by Westec . A few brief issues need further address before we would 'oonsider this as a gill disclosure, complete Final. E IR . 1 . The text 1ndieates the possibility of a 6. 6 magnitude earthquake, but does not indicate what will likaly happen at the site If this oueurs . What "g" forces are axPeeted7 What structural require- ments should be imposed to minimize damage to atruetures and lives? 2. The impact of the sewage generated is not yet adequately dis- cussed . Full diameter flows projected indicate a high probability of impacts on this development and on the community, pet the effect is not explained. Where are the critical dreao? The timing of this project with lnstallaticn of the proposed Coastal Trunk � Sever le not explained . 3 . Are the tax revenues diacuened in the 9ooio-Economic section pre or post Proposition 13? AAA 4. While there have 'been a number- of modifications of the original (main body) of the E'IR , including many spelling corrections► minor sentence ehangas , et.c . , there hae Gal been a ahaege in the a3ain body, or even a reference to the changes in the Appendix re; rding the deletion or 30 urtico , the increasing of parking by 41 . the minor change in 38th Street aligmmnnt, and probably other changes as Nell. The reproduction of the f1guree in the smAll acale in the Appendix does not help to clarify these issues. Th'19 causes ni may ous ap- parent inconaiateno lee in the report. 5. Similarly , the treatment by Westee with their frequent remponse "Incorporated by reference" does not seem to be a satisfactory hAndling of a large number of comments this statement ;,efers to without some kind of notation In the original body of the report to draw the readers ' attention to the comments in the Appendix which frequently clarify or amplify the original text . hany connultantr including, West:eo (see EIR 77-91, Won ) use italics in the margin or in the text to clarify such cross-references or changes. The minor changes proposed by A.r Hall (page 214 ) are insufficient to make thin a reasonable proposal for this prominent location In the Coastal Zone. It gee the strong recommendation of the xnv2roname!i- tat Council that this project be denied at tnis time for the following reseor:s r a. The drainage issue is of greatest environmental c(incern . The prov1s2on and proper Maintenance of siltation bneLns do nut ado- , � a. quately protect Soler G'hloa lowlands and eventual dlapo- sltion into the eht .atirrg SfAte Ecological Reserve of both a signitl- cant inereaBe in quantity of water (due to loss of natural perco- lation of storm water with 4)% or more of the land covered by � hard surfaeas ) l as well as a significant reduction in the qunlity of water entering; Che area (due to fertilizers , peaticideesp residen- tial gutter residues, etc . ) In moot of the rent of Huntington Reach and Orange: County , the developer does not have the "privilege" and economic benefit of gravity flow da aposal of the storm runoffs storm drains must be constructed , and the water must be pumped . Gravity flow drainage directly to the ocean could conceivably be accomplished for this protect a mere 800 feet to the southwest (extended offshore, and designed to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Hoard standards ) . b. Sewage volume projected from this large project that could produce :ull diameter flows In the existing system is not acceptable environmentally, or in Health or engineering ways . It Is therefore recommended that approval of this project be delayed at least until adequate sewage lines are constructed in the area . r., The density of the development proposed closest to the bluff (Product C ) continues to be objectionable for the following reasons i (1 ) the undesir eable precedent that would be set if high density development were ollowed to occur along the bluff, with the increased potential for the same along; the rexaiaing miles of bluff to Central Park (2 ) the heavier impact on the Linear Park by the higher density residential development, as well as probably parking Intrusion beyond Product C because: of the significant parking deficiency In that area (3 ) the visual Impact of high density development both from Paelfic Coast Highway and the Bolsa Chica lowlarda, and from the perimeter road and the o4unty linear park . d . Coastal policies intend to darer all projects over 5 acres until after the Lecal Coastal Program is cort.ified for the entire city . Of additional interest in this project area in the future of resource (oil ) recovery expansion in the area . Approval of thin project at th:.s time would eliminate some of the options of the Land Use planning in the area e. Whlle there. is a 14% reduction in the number of -unity in Product C (the high density development ) , there is still. a 40% def ie 1 ency in parking in that aroal even though there is more than what is re- quired in the two adjacent products. Parking in multiple wait areas throughout the city 1s a major problem, even when pserkinF spaces do most city re:quirementt this great deficiency n; ) t as be all ood . If "his project Is approved, numerous specific MI tigat l on Measurea as proposed in the EIR should be included as Conditions of Approval. STAN O/ CA11(e4N1A-•S1SOUK1$ AGENCI' 10MY"D R MOWN A. fiM.rr ••s -s«7t:-.a Mm,LSA.t'. t.04wc. uua.. .�. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shorn , ;1; ,, „• ,, � 'i )ng Beach, CA 90602 t4 t 213) 590•-51.13 October 31, 11178 �I r 1 Ms. Monica Florian, Planning Director Department of PL&nat.ng and Fhvironmental ftesource:s City of Huntington Beach P.00 Box 190 Huntington Reach, CA 92648 Dear tki. Florian: We have reviewed the revised drainage system proposal preprered by Wulden and Associates Grid Ceotechnical Consultants, Lnc. for the disposal of excess surface runoff originating frura the proposed Se,,.cliff IV Planned Residential Development. We cr-ditionally accept the percolet ior.�reaterition ponds de:scribod in the "Geologic and Hydrogeolog;ic Assessment." prepared by Ceotechnical Cons,-At Inc. for disposing of excesa surface waters originating from,, the project area. ` We believe this drainage plan could prewide significant protection to the c.3astal mareh environment and to our marsh restgration fAcilitias xithi:r the Bolas Chica Ecological Resorve. Our concurrence with this drainage plan exists only if the fallowing wcasure-.s at-a incorporated into the pond syaten. 1. :'ha threa plaruied percolatiofr-retention ponds a-,Ust provide: a total storage CApaCity of 31.x and one-half acre feet and be utilized for the di3pcsal of excess Surface writers origina- ting only fr on) the proposed "Se scl i f f I VII d nvelapnent. The two ponds located a;. the most dewr,stream location should be de31gn*d to provide at least six acre feet of storage capacity and mot be ftsly operational prior to co+n ancernent of grading in the upstream area. Additional pare ilat.iah--rert ant ion ponds with a total s',orage capacity of at least six acre fAAt or the &Haunt of capacity nccesaetr, to prevenc additional surface flows rm;at be p.-vvidod as Fart of the drainage plan for future u.►bar-r-comercial development within the remsining undevelopod areas of the Seaaeli f f planning area. 2. A drainage system meinteenmice plan must be developed Lo saeure that percolatior�'retention ponds, culveets, channel iarprova- mer.ts, and related facilities will maintain design capacitie3 to a5surG continued effe=ctiveness. To ensure that the percolation-retention basins are maintained in effective con- dition wes reco,�mend that staff gaages3 be ;xrst &Ued within the ponds and near their respoctive dams to meu,aAre the depth of sediment eecumittationn. Aecurulations of aNtimart,s should be ren*vad and transported to appropriate dispo3ai sites freequent.4 .SM . ..10` Mo. Monica Florian 2 ' October 31, 17113 eno,igh to retain full storage capacities and percolation capabilities in each pond. Sediments should not be di9Fosed of within Bolae, Chica ur undeveloped areas adjacent: to Sencl.iff IV. To be acceptable, the plan shall include an enforceable cotwittment that the system will to operated and maintained in perpetuity. The project sponsor is responsible for developing and implementing this maintenance plan. 3. We request opporttuiity for Department of Fish and Game represents,-- '' tives to inspect the final design and specific maintenance plan prior to construction acid to inspect the completed drainage system periiodically insofar ass it may affect R-Aso Chica Ecological Reserve. The basic intent of thin le.-ter has been to provi.dn your agency with our avalu- ation and comments regarding the revised drainage plan for the prapoaed Sencliff IV development. However, in order for the FJR to comply with Late requirements of CEQA by proriding pertinent information to decision makers, we believe the revised drainage plan and our me"ure:s for drainage menazement should be fully rm addssed in the EIR or an amendment.. This is ne.^_cssary since there has been si&ni iicant change in measut e:s for cor trullinE excess nurtace flow. We also believe that our measurer, for the mitigation of wildlife habitat loasear the use of native plant materials in landscaping programs as defined in our May 16, 1978 letter to Uic City of Huntington Beech, and the piopost-,. -irainage plan all inust be adopted by the pro, ect 31s0nsur or full a;,xplanation of why thoy were not adopted mist be cont;aiiled in the EIR prior to certification of the EIR. If we can be of in prvviding additional infornation in thin matter, please contact Mr. Brice E. Flliasort or Mr. Jack L. Spruill of our Diviro mr_ntal Services staff. The telgftnee n:urber i:j (21.3) 5-9CL-Mq- Sincerely , Robert D. montgomery Regional Manager Region 5 i v� TA , HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION P NON S AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA Ken and Rhoda Martyn, Co-Presidents SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON SEACLIPp IV .a DATES NOVEMBER 28 , 1978 4 We strongly urge you to deny SeaclIff IV tonight for ' r. a l ollowing re as ons o 1 . Drainage Despite the assurances of the developer and David Waldin Associates that Seacliff IV drainage problem has been re- solved , the urban runoff from the proposed Seac!Aff IV still flown on to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands . The EIR on Seacliff IV states on page 42, "Urban runoff from the golf course through the existing drainage Culvert on the nor- thern portion of the site has already damaged a portion of one of the remaining salt m&rehes , and runoff from the project could generate further deterioration. " The proposed settling basins for Seacliff IV will become silted , thus preventing the urban runoff from percolating L,Ao the ground , as promised . Quyid WAIdIn gLJ§e J the Novgmb, E 14 publici on Zelcliff....IY..&hilt thg p�j�f could engineered i ,t IhrpA „end cam, out tom can in the M 1 . The Huntington Beach Planning Commission should insist that Seacliff IY drainage be handled this way . You: Commission has repeatedly staged that you wanted to determine the standards you wished -to impoae on Stacliff IV development , rather than turn these matters over to the Coact al. Commission to decide for Huntington Beach. Further degradation of the sensitive Bolse Chic& Wetlands should riot be tolerated by the City of Huntington Beach , lawlct that Seacliff IV runoff be carried in the ocea:� outfall. 2. t Stregt .�,�ergll should be .pi'eo ise of d it U212r.200 At the November f pub is hearing yyour' ing � s as that 38th Street should be plahn� first . ?I*"' * Soles • Public H`a. g on Seacliff IV November 2d, 1978 Amigo® de Bolva Chico. Page 2 insist that this be done . The future alignment of. 38th Street roust recognize that the Coastal. Guidelines state clearly that upland support facilities and vista points must be provided in the Bo3ea Chica area. The Coastal Guidelines also state that the Balsa Chica bluffs must be protected . With serious bluff erosion occurring in Upper Newport Bay , San Clemente , and Capistrano Beach , all road construction and rea ldent ial development in Balsa Chica should be sited well back froa the face of the bluff . The precise: location of 38th Street needs adequate community and tech:.ical input . Thip muet be accomplished before Seacliff IV is allowed to forward . 3 . Product C Product C is grossly unsuited as the development closest to the bluff .. It is :ffenuive in bulk , does not conform y to the FD ordinance for bulk, and should be eliminated entirely from the Se acliff IV Planned Development. Numerous comments in the EIR process , and staff , told the developer that Produc,, C was objectionable on the bluff , but no sig- nificant change has been made . Your Commission should give clear direction to the developer now that Product C must interface with the Balsa Chica lowlands in a harmonious way and not intrude on a aens itive coastal habitat . Page 154 of the EIR on Seacliff IV suggests relocating Product C au one of the project alternatives . The EIR statess "Both the City' s Open Space and Conservation Element and the Draft Local Coastal Program recommend that development adjacent to the Balsa Chica ahould maximize open space and scenic resources in order to be cc mpl.mentary and compatibly: with the recrea- tional and open apace ame3nitlea of the Bolaa Chicp marsh and ©1;:TT area. This recommendation includes the softening of the urban edge through the uc.e of open space buffers Rnd LOW D 11Y S IU G, By locating Product C adjacent to Seth Street which will ultimately be used an ocenic access to the Balsa Chica Nark sites , the project harehene the con- tract between the naturul biotic enviroruaent of the Balsa Chica and the urbanized development of the Seecl if f IV c ommuni t- - Placement of the single family development of Product B in the northwestern corner of the site where Product C is presently proposed to ~ Public Hea ring on SAaclfff IV November 28 , 1978 Amigos de Bolarti Chica Page 3 be located would provide a grnduae,ion of intensity from the Bolea Chica marsh , to the bluff , and on through the Product areho within the project. From a scenic as well :au an ecologic standpoint , thin would render the project :more compatible with the adjacent open space land uae . According to information prov_de(I by the County Recreation and Opel, Space Department , it in common practice for a 100 .foot gricr-.hult buffer to be lo- cated on either side of the rca.dway thz ser vee ass the point of interface for a rug i a_ d a :iouaing development . The current pro is t to plan. particularly in thy- v ic- nIty of r"" r t.��u, makes no provision for c:uuh a buffer on io.c pro%)ect side of 38th Street . " 4 . The Local Coastal Progi ar+. We would like to Qoint out again ( as , v �iid in our January 169 1978 and our i4ovembcr. ? , 197h wr. ;.t;:en comments to the Planning Commission ) that Sea-- tiff IV should not be approved until the Local Coastal Program of Huntington Beach has been certified . Page 29 of the Elfi on Seacliff' 1Y points this out succ irlctly t "THE PROJECT 3:0� w 1 TH. 'THE' PLANNING INTENTIONS OF THL COASTA", Cr;,h'MIISSION TO T'FYhi; NEjMi DHVELOPMf IM!i OF FIFE ACRE: Oti NIORE z N THE BOL:;A CHICA VICINITY UNTIL I CERTIFICATION OF *THE 1,0CAL COASTAL PROGRAM. " 1n fairrness to the time and reaourcu commilttent of the de,reloper , the staff . and the concerned ,public , you should take definitive action tonight- -no hail'-way m+: aoures that end up costing the public and developer warted timti with ccni.,L�ed hH ,'- apprava1B or half-denials . Given the over ri.d. ing, i:•,Jor•tanck: of the sbOve four reasons to deny Seacliff TV# we urge the t you take action to deny Seacliff IV . I 1 '? NNIER•DI'~PAHTMENT COMMUNICATION ION ►!lw�rc.taY.�t�tt To James 1•1. Pa I n Fmill J i.n harne!; Subject Seacliff", Phase IV C'i rculatiotn Gate ,ii rmLry 5 . 19+) Alternatives Pursuant to our iriflicat•(_'(1 l ;i savings it; t,ct�] 1 vc.►fli cic� ; i lt':� t.rit�r�'l.c rinci c,-:2 s��l i t►� c t1:,..::,�,ctt io -for cars traveling fa:orn :c-aclill f IV to (.:a dill(: Avcirtur' ':111 t:ht_`_ 3,1! "h .`.`.t:tr(.et ext:ensior. AcC'ordlt]CI to Figure 17 of t:hi' dr af`. !' iI•. , �;flli;'•'):% Li' :2C !' f`: �(} � i of t:li.' total trigs nc'r day oenc ra ti:•c")1 .. t_r;ive ! co i,,irIl-uld ha:/nun vii3 21%ilrn A,.- `'taue iit]!1 rarficl�? A%,,m c t_-nnn�'rt: ion . '1111 :, . 123, 470 tries, nor yl:!Iiii, 1 3 ' , � i2 . ..1 ,.. r.. ; lc:r, t: r :t', �' It ii r,+•r yea-tr. The ar• nun't of rlii`i!)1 inn L13t't1 ; rt;- iit2`:C);'.ti�L'Lii' :i i]� :r2(; tlll� ICat?^. would be apprnxii-sately 142 , 306 With t:hi, 3Nt.1; r .I - I S"'i t4?" a lip r(`:.ir',a1 • ! .:S (1r t fll } t,l' �f>.`. Ire'. i i�`ti• Yi tt I1C?I�! • the hrn f-,f: lJ wouI1i t r:l'.'�.' I t: �ii) t' (.' 1 �: '1 IV, !l1t:1 Vl�l %'tt: :• t :'t'.e'! �'fiL :v i ul �. n -lnn �(,ir •� 1,! 4 r •� ♦ .e - •i:i i2 ii i`!}_1 ,• IY. !,I ! s :'c) :� i r ,� .�rjy '� ', �� i � ,.• r r! � • vi•ht�-1 1'1a1C': trit�i:ili`C1 t'll�f f•+�.!! . l Il' a. �ourlt o* � . .2: ��1 t i':.. ;,`it''l. f r7UtQi17IU11E'_S t::il`JC!11r�C: t Ill :+ rauLo- would t)t_' 9i11..U115 . Th(� 467 , 200 t_ ,: ) ns per •;+ .ir t :.-,) In,t to !"•lr 34t;11 :;t : ►.4't Wi 1. 1 ""No j ? , ��'!L� vc,hl('10 : : Ic; Thii_ r►lllilber of otallons c)t_ i_Jilti ail.,vd will 1.`t: a pproxi!7'latuly 14-R,- , ya 11 ons . 3S)'r 8 JS t 1 a� CITY OF H9►!NTIN GTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ia.wrrw ur,01A(N To Jim Pali.n From Jit7 Barnes S Acting Planning Dirvctor. Assi,tans Planner Subpect Seacli.ff IV Circulation Date January 8 , 1979 The distance from the middle of the project vies Pala Avenue , Goldenwest Street, and Pacific Crust Highway to the point erherre INCH would intersect with 38th Street is approximat,,ly 2 . 5 miles. The distance from the. Middle of tha project to Pacific Coast Highway via the 38th Street extension is 0. 5 miles. According to Figure 17 of the draft MR , approximate y 260 of the totrtl, d trips per day generated from the project would travel. the above-mentioned routes . The Palm to Goidenwest to PCH route would result in approximately 94 , 900 trips per year and 237 , 250 vehicle miles traveled per year . The amount of gasoline for automob.i.leg using this route would be approximately 15, 81.5 gal-ons . The 38th Street to PCH route would ie,ult in approximately 94 , 900 trips per year and 47 , A50 vehicle miles traveled per veer . The amount cif, gasoline for'automobiles biles using thhis route would be approximately 3 , 163 gallons. JRB/s i 11 I V r CUTY CW HIANTINCATO" BEACH I; INTER.DEPAR'i MENT COMMUNICATION l/VIlMVG10ti K�tN To Plowing Commission From James E. Gerspach c/o Jim Palin, Director Division Chief Subject SEACLiFF PHASE iV bate January 10, 1979 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL As stated on numerous occasions, during the various planning meetings for the Seaciiff. Phase IV, the entire project has been designed to the minimum acceptable standards for access, cirailaf.ion csid parking. Since this is the ccse, it becomes critical for Fire Deparime;nt operations that the following items be set forth In the Conditions of Approlro; for the entire project: 1 . Recreational vehicle parking can be allowed only in areas specifically fdesigned for their storage. 7. 38th Street should be constructed to en tersest Pacific Coast Highway a-A f` north to intersect at Edwards Street. I'. 3. Any individual living unit, which does not have a 20' driveway apron, must I' be equipp.;f with an automatic garage door opener. 4. The Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association shall be required to control parking within 1he: enure project. 5. No parking will be allowed within the cluster circle drive: of Ptvduct fl. 6. The parking nodes for Product C shall be designee+! for full traffic flay In and out of the node. This can be: accomplished by the use of either a single or double drive system designed to accommodate: the traffic flow In and out. 7. At no time, shall landscaping be allowed to encroach or obstruct any of the access drives or parking areas, 8. If at ony time, security gates are proposed within the project, their design and control system shall meet the Fire Department Specifications. 9. The water main and fire: hydrant system shall be a full looped system designed to supply the: required fire flow for the project. JEG:cw �. ► Ilk c-: Chief Picard ! C opfain Ott �� A;'!n lr;r; DEPT. File ..1 aN 1 r t �'• 0. Sax 19A Huntington Beach, CA g4264t3 1 r i J+ CATV OF Ntowl"O VON MACH `•r INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ' rR.wTt*rG10H RtK?1 To Jim Palin From Mary Lynn Norby Local Coastal Program Subject City Responsibility to Consider Date November 70 1978 Coastal Policies in Development Processing prior to LCV Certification The following factors should be considered in determining the Uty' s responsibility: 1. The following from the Coastal Act apply to this question: i 30604. (a) Prior to certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agencit, or the V commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with I Section 30200) of this division and that the permitted develop- ment will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program that :B in conformity Frith the provisions of Chapter 3 (cormencing with Section 30200) . (b) After certification of the local coastal prog•.a m a coastal develop- a wmt permit shall be issued if the issuing agency or the cotimloalea on appeal finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal prograam, 30003. All. public rgeneies and all federal agencies, to the extent possible under .federal law or regulations or the United States Constitution, WWI comply tirith they provisions of this division. (Division 20 - California Coastal Act, Chapter i. COASTAL RESOURCES PIANVING AND K%NAGE?ff-HT POLICIES. 30200. Consistent with the basic goals net forth Ira Section 30001.5, and except as may be otherwise specifically provided in thlu division. the policies of this chapter shall constitute the standards by which that: adequacy of local ,oaRtal programs, as provided to Chapter. 6 (c:omwncing with Section 30500) . and the permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provi- sions of this division are determined. All public agencies car&ying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone that could have: a dieect impact on resourceR within the coastal tone shall consider the effect of such acci.onls on coastal zone resourcen in order to assure that these policies taro: achieved. Sanctions 30210 through 30264 are included as Attachnent A. AA i � 1 1 LCP - CityRes ns it � x November 7, 1978 Page 2 2. Any major. project in Cie coastal zone runs the risk of perrait rejection by the Coa%tal Commission even if. all City processes are complied with. Inputting LCP concerns during regular City reviews and adjustingproject plans to these conditions should prove advantageous tr, the developer, the coastal resources, and as a study base for the Coastal Element, A copy of a Planning Directive implementing this idea is Attachment B. 3. The subject of including coastal concerns in the City processes was discussed by the Planning Commission and presented to the City Council (July 17, 1978) . Council took no action at that time to , institute a specific procedure to evaluate if a project prejudices the JLCP. Staff report of July 12 is Attachment C. 4. A form for evaluating projects for effects of coastal policies is available for •use in conjunction with 2 above. A blank copy is attached as Attachment D. 5. The LCP Work Program which constitutes a contract of the City of Huntington Beach outlines an Administration Task which includes "coordination on permits that could prejudice the LCP while it is beinq formulated.. " These factors lead me to conclude that the City does in fact have a responsibility to consider coastal policies in development processing. It may also feel an obligation to afford full information on coastal concerns to applicants in the interest of time and expense. I recommend that the memo dated October 25, 1977 (Attachment 8) be updated and that minimally the LCP Checklist (Attachment D) accompany all projects processed which are to be located in the coastal zone . MLN:df Attachments: A through D 7 30119. "State tlniv It or Coll e• mea T'VersiJt a ifornia and the Califdrn a t niversity and co 30120. "Tro nt works" shall h e sane red s set forth in the 4*if Water Poll Control Act (33 1251. et . and any other felgoet-Sct Width s ur supplement Federal Wa lution Control A ro*'— •Lietland" ands withi coasu 1 zone y be covered per. i tally o y with sha water and inclu rater marshes. fresh. �'rer "•-�`:' n or close ckish water m r swamis, aaudita is, rsd tefs. � w A s Chapter 3. COASTAL RESOURCES PLANNING AND MAGEHENT POLICIES s Article 1. General 30200. Consistent with the basic goals set forth In Section 30001.5. and except as may be otherwise specifically provided in this division, the policies of this chapter shall constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal pro- grams, as provided in Chapter 6 (tormenting with Section 30500), and the remissi- bility of proposed developments subject to the provisions of this.divisiosi are determined. All public agencies carrying out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone that could have a direct impact on resources within the coa,.tal zone shall consider the effect of ;uch actions on coastal tone resources in order to assure that these policies are achieved. Article 2. Publi: Access 30210. In carrying out the requirment of Section 2 of Article XY of the Califor- nia Constitution, r..axirun access, %bich shall to conspicuously posted, and recrea- tional opportunities shall be provided for aii the people consistent with public �. safety needs and the need to protect public rf5hts, riglts of private property cvneri, and natural resource areas fr:,-c overuse. 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's rig!t of access to the sea wnere acquired through use, custom, or legislative authoritatica. including, a firs lin but not 11a1ted to. the use o! dry sand and rocky ceastai beaches to the t e of terrestrial vegetation. 30212. Public access fro+ the nearest public roadway to the thorellne and alcnq the roast shsll be provided in new develc-,ro-nt projects except tenere (1) it is Incon3ister.t with public safety, nilitary security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources; (2) adequate access exists ►;early. or; (3) agriculture would be adversely- affected. Dedicated accessaay shall no; be required :o be opened to puolfc use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept resp.nsibility for maintenance and 1iabi1ity of the accessway. Nothing in this division shall rtstrlct public ecccss nor shall it excuse the perfor"ance of duties and retponsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections G6418.1 66473.14. inclusive. of the voverm-ent Code and by Section 2 of Article %Y of the California Constitution. 30212.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible. public fatuities, including parking areas or facilities. shall be distributed throuyhout an orna so as to e+itigate against the trpar_ts. social and ntherwise, of overcrowding cr overuse by the public of any single area. 30213. Lehrer cost visitor and recreational !acuities and housira opportunities for persons of low and rn.erate Incc^e shall be protected. er+couraged, and, where feasible, provided. Cevelop."Ants providing F;,btic recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing In the rasstil tone shall be cevelo;ed in cenfdr-;ity witN ' the standards, policies, and goals of local housing eltnvnt% adopted in accordance with the renuire:-ents of subdivision (c) of Section 65 32 of the Gave.rrrent Ccde. Article. J. P_creation � 304M. Coastal areas suited for eater-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland eater area% be pratetted for such uses. 306121 . Oceanfront land suitable for recreations; uiv Shall be protected for recreational use and develop-c-nt unless present and fcre;eeabit future ricrlsnd for public tr cal,erclal recreational activities Vitt could be atccvi-odatcC on the property is already adequately provided for in the area, I 30222. The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving cocsaerciai recreational facilities de%igMed to enhance public opportunities for cwstbl recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general conwrcitl development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry, 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. 30224. increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, In accordance with Ws division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, liuit- ing non-water-depandent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors. new protected water areas, and in areas dreaged fro= dry land. Article 4. Marine Environoent i 30230. Marine resources shall be mafntafned. enhanced. and. where feasible. restored. Special protection shall be 91vtri to areas and species of special bio- logical or economic significance. Uses of tht rarine environcent shall be carried out in a manner that will sustsin the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will eaintain healthy populations of all species of cw rine organisms adequate for i long-term co-srurcial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. . 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters. strearws, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to raintain optiraAn populations of eu rine organisms and for the protection of human health shill be aaintained and, where ' feasible, restored through. azvng other reins, ninird ring adverse effect% of waste water discharges and entrainment. controllfng runoff, oreve:nting depletion of ground water supplies and encouraging wastz water reclaaation. ra,intAiribg natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural strews. 30232. Protection against the spillage of crude all. gas, petroleu* products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or trans- portation of such cuterfa►'s. Effective contaP-mat, and cleanup facilities and pro- cedures shall be provided tor accidental spiils that do occur. 30233. (a) The diking. 1:11ing, or dredging of open coastal waters, «etlands. estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in acturd3nte wtth other applicable provf:`ons of this division, witiere there is no feasible toss envfronc+entally dariging alternative, and where feasible, mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse envirorunent.sf effects, and shall be limited to the following: ()) New or expanded port. energy, and coastal dependent industrial facili- ties, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) ltaintainirg existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths In txiSt- ing navigational channels, turning basins. vessel bo!rthinq and rmriny areas, tnd boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channo!s for new or expanded boating facflt- 2ies; and in a de raded wetland. identified by the Dapertrxnt of Fish and Gar* pursulnt to subdivision (b� of Section 30411, for boating facilities if. in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is resturtd and c-aintained as a biologically prvductive wetland; provided, hooever. that In no event shall the size of the wetland area used for such boating facility, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary narfgation channels, and any necessary support service facilities. be greater than 25 percent of the total wetland area to be restored. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wet)ands, including streams, estuaries. and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities. (5) Incidental public service psi*poses, including. bu: not 11-1Ited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and ralntenlnce of existlr+g intake and tut- fill lines. (6) Mineral extraction. including sand for restoring beaches, e:cep: in envlrcn- aentally sensitive areas. 17) Restoration purposes. 8) Nature study. agriculture. or strilar resource-der.endent activities. (b) Oredging and Spoils disposal shall be planned and rtrrfed o,,t to avoid Sig- ntficant di%ruption to marine and wildlife hatri:ats and wpto! circulation. Ore4ge spoils suitable for beach replenfsh-rent should be transported for such vtirposes to Appropriate beaches or Int= sult:ble longshore current tfstf-ms. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this :n. diking. filling. or dredging In rzisting e,tuarfms and wetlanOS shalt or enhance the furtctiorll capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any al`.er3tien of coast&! wettandi Identified by the tkoartment of nigh and race, Including. but rot lip:teed to the 19 coastal �a f wetlands identified in its report entitled. "kquisition prioritiesfor the Coastal wetlands et Alifcrnia" shall be lir:lted to very minor incidental public facili- ties, restorative measures, nature study, coary rcial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of South San Diego Bay, if otherwise In accordance with this division. 30234. Facilities serving the, corr•-a rcial fishing and recreational boating indus- tries shall be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Cxtsting coe-imercitl fishing and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced unless the derand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided. Proposed recreational boating facilities shall, where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of the coeaaertfal fish- ing industry. 30235. Reavetxents, breakwaters. groins, harbor channels. seawalls, cliff- retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall ba permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect exist- ing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eiiesinate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnaticn contributing to pollutlem problems and fishkills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible. 30236. Channeli=ations, dacK, or other substantial alterations of riven and streams shall incorporate the best mitt stion reasures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects; (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such pro- tection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing develcpt*ent, or; (31 - developments where the primary function is the imprcvc:+ent of fi-h and wildlife habitat. Article S. Land Resources 30240. (a) Enviran.-vntally sensitive habitat aress shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent an such resources shall be allowed within such areas. (b) Development in areas adj3cent to envircnimentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent irpacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continua.ce of such habitat areas. 30241. The ra.xicum aMOLnt of prfr.e agricultural land shall be raintained in agric0 tural production tri assure the protection of the arras' agricultural ecor=y, and conflicts shall be; minimized tetween agricultural and urban land uses through all of the following: (a) By establishing ntabie boundaries separstirg urban and rural areas, including, where necessary. clearly Cefined buffer areas to ainin to conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By liaiting convent aos of agricultural lands around tht oeriohvey of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely IlA ted by conflicts jitri urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a log'cal and Yiable neighberht:,od and contribute to the establishrrnt of a stable limit to urban deveiopevnt. (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the con- version of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that. public servicr. and facility eapanslans and non-agrtcultural deveiopm.nt do not iespair agricultural viability. either through increased asseswAnt costs or degraded air and water Quality. (e) BY assuring that all divisions of prfne agricultural lands, oxceat those conversions approved pursuant to scbdivIsion (b) of this section, and all develommml. adjacen to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the prtduct(vity of such prise agricultural lands. 30242. Ail other lands sultable for agricultural use shall not be! converted to non-agricultural uses unless: (1) cen 0 nue+d or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prire agricultural land or eoncen►.r3te develcpmrit consistent with Sectiar :02:0. Any such permitted conversion shalt be canotM a with continued agricultural use an surrounding lands. 30243. T►e long-tem. productivity soils and tirberlandt %hail be. protected. and conversions of coastal cerr-.ercial ti.rberlands in units of correreisl size to other uses or their division into units of non-commercial siia stall be limited to providing for necessary tfrter procestinq aid related facilities. -0244. Where develcpxnt huuld adversely iroact a•rhaeological or palecnta)ogiul reseureer as identified by the State Historic preservation Officer, reasonable. miti- gation rti!asures shall he required, y i r Article 6. Development 30250. (a) rtew developeent. except as otherwise provided In this division. shall be located within. contiguous with, or in close proximity to. existing developed areas able to accoumdate it or, where such areas are not able to accorrtodate it. in other areas with adtq-aate public services and where it will not have significant adverse affects, either individually or cuoulatively, on 4oastal resources. to addition. land divisions, other than leases, for agricultural uses, outside existin3 developed areas shall be permitted only Mhere 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the _(b�e,avers size of surrounding parcels. Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas. (c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors. 3Az51. The scenic anal visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public irportance. Permitted developeent shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land faros, to be visually coMatible with the character of surrounding areas. and. where feasible. to restore and ennarce visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development In highly scenic areas svch { as those designatxd in the California Coastline Preservation and Pecrtation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local goverment shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 30252. The location and erount of new developxht should r4intain And enhance public access to the coast by: (1) faciiitating the provision or extension of transit service; (2) providing co-rercial facilities within or adjoining residential developcent or in other areas that will nininizt the ute of coastal access rrnads; (3) providing non•autorvbile circulation within the development; 1,41 providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute roans of serving the devetoprent with public transportation; (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high- intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of nex residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the annunt of develorrent with local park ac;uisltion and developccnt plans with the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new develop-mrit. 30253. New divelowent shall: (1 ) Minimize risks to life and property in areat; of high giologie. flood. and fir; hazard. ,Z) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to ero;',:!n, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or sur- rounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that wo'sld substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and Cliffs. (3) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air- pal', Lion control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development. (4) Minimize energy cemstzvOon and vehicle miles traveled. (5) where appropriate, protect special caunities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics. are poaular visitor destination points for recreational uses. 30254. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accorm. date needs generated by develaprent or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, hcaever, that it is the intent of the legis- lature. that State Highway Route 1 In rural areas of the coastal :one retrain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be forre d or rxranded except where assessment for, and pmvisioeti of, the service wiauld not Induce new develomt nt inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can aecocrvdate only a limited mount of new develeonent, s*rvlces to ccastal- dependent land use, essential public services and baSIC industries vital to the economic health of the region, stat!, or nation. public recreation, cca .vi,cial recreation, and vlsitar-serving land uses shall not be Precluded by other development. 302SS. Coastal-dependent eeveloeNtits shall have priority over other develop:xnts on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division. coastal- dependent developmtnts shall not be sicec in a wetland. Article 7. Industrial Cevelormer,t :0760. Coastal-tependen; irlustriai facilities ,h,ill be encouraged t� locate or expand within existing Sizes and ;hall :,e cernittcd reasonable itrq-tem growth Where Consistent with this division. H4.oever, where yew or expanded coastal. �d a dependent Industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accoaraaatcri consistent with ot'•er policies of this division. they ray nonetheless be perritttd in accordance with this �s section and Sections 30261 and 30267 if (1) alternative iccations are Infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (i) adverse environr.:,ital effects are mitigated to the raxint= extent feasible. 30261. (a) flulti-coMpany use of exlsting and new tanker facilities shall be .:;..: :u the csaximw extent feasible and legally pera:issible, except where to do so wat►ld result in Increased tanker operations and associated onshore develop"ent incerpatible with the land use and environmental goals for the area. flew tanker terminals outside of existing to minal areas shall be situated is to avoid risk to environmentally sensitive arras and shall use a ronobuoy syster. unless an alterni- tive type of system can be shown to be envirorrrentally preferable for a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) zininire the, total volume of all spilled. (2) minimize the risk of collision from ruver*nt of other vessels. (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible contAirxr_nt and recovery equipment for oilspills, and. (S) have onshore deballasting facilities tc recel%e any fouled ballast water from tankers %here operationally or le9a11y required. (b) Only one liquefied natural gas teminal shall be permitted in the coastal zone until engineering and operational practices can eliminate my signlficinr risk to life due to accident or until guaranteed supplies of liquefied natural gas and i r d st ib ution system dependence on liquefied natural gas are substan.i•sl ctcu5h that an interruption of service frc--i a single liquefied natural gas f,scility Uould cause substantial public harm. Until the risks inherent in liquefied natural gas teminal operaticns can �e sufficiently identified and overtone and such terrinals are fcunC to be consistent with the health and safety of nearby hunan poculeticns, terminals shall be built only at sites rergte frrn huran population corcentriticns. Other unrelated develowent In t`e vicinity of a liquefied natural gas ternint) site which is f remote fram h U»an population concentraticns shall be prohibited. At such t1re as liquefied natural gas rarine terrinal operation:: are found consistent with public safety, terminal sites only in deve?oped or industrialised Port areas say be approved. 30262. (?il and gas develo;ment shall be permitted In accordance with Section 30260, if the following conditions are r+et: (a) The developerent is performed safely and consistent with the geelcgtc cen- ditiont of the well site. r (b) ilea or eyoarded facilities related to such develcpc,ent are consolidated, to the maxie+um extent feasible and legally per--.sable, unless consolidation will nsve adverse envirowRrital consequences and will not significantly reduce the numer of producing *ells. support facilities, cr sites rewirell to produce the reserv*tr economically and with minimal environmental impacts. (c) Environmentally safe and feasible sebsea cccpletions are use* when drilling platforms or islands would foibstantlally degrade coastal visual qualities unless use of such structures will result in substantially less tnvironmentai risks. (d) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a s0stantiai hl:ard to %essel traffic might resent from the facility or related operations, aetem ined in cansul- tation with the United States Coast Guard and the Amy Corps of Engineers. (e) Such developrent will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazlyds unless it is determined that adequate reasureS will be urdirtaken to prevent darage fret+ such subsidence. (f', With respect tc new facilities. all oilfield brines a-e reinjected Into oil-producing zones unless the Division of Oil and Us of the Cepart•�nt of Conser- vation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reservoirs and unless infection into other sutsurface :tines will reduce environ-ental risks. Exceptions to reinjections will he granted consistent kith th.- Ocean Haters N scasr;e Plan of the State Water Resources i.cntral Reard and where admuati Crovisi.n is We for the elimination of petraleu,,+ ccors an.s ,rater-quality prchle-s. Whert: appropriate, noni:crirg Crvgrars to record lir•l surface and near-snare ocean, floor noverents snail to initiated in locations of new largt-stsle fluit extraction on land or rear shore before coeraticns Cegin and shall continue urtii surface conditions have stahili:ec. Costs of rani:oring and mitigation progl'&r-s shall be borne by liquid ani gas ettracti.in optrarors. 3OZ63. (a) licw or eRpanded refinLlries at, petrcr,rr*icil facilities rot other- wise consistent with the provisicns a' this division sera 1 t,-e prr:ritte: 1+: (1) ` alter•iatii•e locations are not `ctstcic are rare envlron-•entally dalrig`.nh; (?) advtrse envirorrr_r,tal efftcts .arc nitigited to the eatcnt 'casthle'. (l) it ii, found that not pernitttrg it.—O dcvelc.-c1t Mr.uld mert,rly affect the rualit welfare!; (:) the facility fs not ',err teu Jr, a hfgnl.v sctl!lc ur seis-l!aliy hAZArCTU& area. on any of the Channel islands. or wltNin or contiga^.ut tj envicon-0-+tally sr:nsitivo areas; anl, ;S} the facility is sited sa as to provide a ,-,sff10cr.t Lu`fCr area to nininize adverse irpac:s on surrounding 0,,rcocrty. 0 n_. w ' I I I � • '�r-.� t..r (b) In additicn to meeting all applicable air quality standard., rew or txpirded refineries or petrochentcal facilities shall be permitted in areas designated .is air quality maintenance areas by the State Air Resources Board and in areas where tcastal resources would be adversely affected only if the negative irrcacts of the project upon air quality are offset by reductions in gaseous emissions In the area by the users of the fuels. or, in the case of an expansion of an existing site, total site ealssion levels. and site levels for each emission type for which national or state ambient air quality standards hive been established do not increase. , (c) Flew or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall ailniaize the need for once-through cooling by using air cooling to the rAxlinus extent ftsslble and by using treated wastes waters from fnplant processes where feasible. 30264. Notwithstanding any other provision of this divrston, except subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 30413. new or expanded t:heirdl electric generating plants may he constructed in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has b to deter- mined by the State Energy Resources Couaervation and Oevelopcxnt Coenission to have greater relative merit pursuant to the provisions of Section 25S16.1 than, available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's streict area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516. Chapter 4. CREATICN. iSE!rrE?SHIP ' 10 POWENS OF CCMISSi 'i AND REGICNA41. CCi 'S'C'iS Art le 1 . Creat •i, Porbership of C ssion and Re oral Ccmi ssion 3030 There is n the Resource Agency the Californ Coastal C sion and, unt11 n later than une 30, 1979, ix regional coastal or -fissions. 3?301 The cc +I ion shall cons of the following I rtraers: (a) a Secretary f the Resourc. gency. b) Secretary the Business Transwrtation Agt y• jc) Chairperson IF m the State La s Coissicn. d) St. representat es of the publi uhn shall not be ers of any re o;tal from cormission, the sts at large. The vvrnor, the Senate tes Co.�rrittee and the Speaker f the Asseab shall each app nt too of such set (e) Six presentative from the region cemm 4 sions, selec d by each reglo 1 cocmission fr a am- r its r ers. Vithin days after the tern ation of any regional coma scan pursuan to Section 30305 the aver on the c ission shall be replaced by county supe isor or city cou flperson On shall sWe within a coastal county such region to be appointed follows: (1) Upon the err»ination o the first region comfl ssion. the 6o nor jhAll appoir.t the firs er under is skudivision. (2) Oon the r-ninatten of he second regions cornission, the Sena Rules Cornittee shalt ap Int the seco reader under th subdivision. (3) Upon the to •ination of t. M ird regional eriss)cn, the Speaker ' f the Ass", Iy shall appoi the third _ giber under this s division. (4) Upon the to ation of th fourth, fifth, an sixth regions) co•-ralss ns. the process of appoin nt of the ers of ccmissio under paragraphs M. nd (3) of this subdiy inn shall be epe3ted in that o er•. In any even:, each egionsl cat %ion's rcpresenta 've on tho coaatssion shaI ntinue to serve until a new rant has been appointed ur•suant to this s division. :01.2 (a) the appoi •ents of th Governor, the Sena qules Committee. and th pecker of the Asserbiy puriuAnt to Lbdivisinn (e) of ction 30301, shall be nod in tee following eranner Within 30 ys after the terra item of a regional ccm ion. the boards of sup Isors and ity selection ce•;r.1 ee of eace county witnir the region shall n_unira su;ervi rs or ccisncil r,refis: frca which the Govern , Senate Rules Cornitte cr Spe3ke of the Asserbly sha ap,oirt a repla: nt. In regions :otpole of three c nties , the boards o •opervisors and the ty selection ccti"Ittee each cou within the region s it each nord- nate one rare supervis.7rs or ce, cil c:a-br in rrginns c"rose of iwo counties, boards of sapervi"If i nd t"r ct selecttc--, can�+ittee each county within the r ion shali each nominate o 1f�ss t n :wo su;,e"I stirs and . council menbers. In gions con;nted of oee c w+:,.. tt, board of supervisors and City selection corn tee In thrt Ccun:y shall •or -atis o less than three supervitIpri and th a. council r ers, lerrdiattely ucon elirttin the no-ilnees, the board of sup isors and ty selection ccmittre all sen the nsrses of the nor.intes tW efth the Cavern. , the Senate pules Corn ttee, a the Speaker of the ks;rmly. wtic ev rill &;pain the r+ai octrcnt. 00 I • Y r � ' CITY CHO HUNT 11146"H Inv INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION M i To Jim Patin From Mike Zambos-x Subject Seacliff Phase IV Date Jan. 4$ 1979 i This memo is our formal request that t1 1 approval of Seacliff Phase IV be conditioned to include within its Covenants, Conditions , and Restrictions, an agreement with the City obligating the 8omewmers Association to the maintenance and upkeep of all sidewalks, irrigation systems and landscaping both within and outside of the public rights- of-way which are adjacent to the public street sections within the Seacliff Phase IV development. This would not include the median land- scaped areas within the public streets nor the landscaped areas on the II south side of Palm Avenue or the west side of 38th Street. The reasons for this request include, but are not limited to, the followin : 4 i 1. The sidewalks enter upon and then exit the public right-of-way in an intermittant pattern. Z. Irrigation facilities would have to be installed in a duplicate system because of the interaction of the landscaping on both private and public property. I 3 . Due to the physical arrangement of the landscaping, it would be extremely difficult to effectively coordinate between this maintenance on private property and that on public right-of-way. 4 . The landscape plan, as proposed, in not typical of Standard Plans and Specifications adopted by the City for such areas . Even though the conditions of approval encompass all of the above, we feel the inclusion of these requirements 3n the CCAR's is a more effective instrument to insure compliance with requirements . I a City Engin r/' MZsDDS : jy i I � 1 j PLANNZNr COMMISSION r .. Saturday, January 6, X979 Council Chambers I. GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS ,i 1 . Treatment of the gully (drainage channel) between "E" Street and 38th Street. 2. Offsite drainage improvements and modifications required for development . 3. Full section Palm Avenue improvements between project and Golderwest Street. a . Future use of property along the northeasterly side of Palm Avenue between existing tennis courts and "A" Street within TT 10069 . 5 . Of f si to mai.ntenancea of the landscaping along the south- westerly side of Palm Avenue between the boundary of the project and the Amino il. operation atrip. 6. Oil well, treatment, both island and off-island areas , as to wall design , landscaping proposed, access points, and setbacks from proposed adjacent dwellings. . 7 . Median width design, on local streets along Palm Avenue. 8 . Median wit. in Palm Ave,tue to afford left turns .or northbound traffic and to afford U turno at each median break. I 9 . Possible .additional raised median on "A" Street at in- tersection with 3n th Street, and proposed width. 10. Street widths on all local streets if meanderinn side- walk is owned and maintained by the AsaGciatian. 11 . benign, treatment, and landscaping for oil wells, raised m diansi, and setbacks along 39th Street within the project I, limits in rolat.ion to its designation as n scenic corridor. ' 1 II . P1JF1rNING COMMISSION AW-S, OF CONCERN (AS EXPRESSED AT THE NOVEMBER 14 ASS DECEMBER 12 P.C. 14EETXNGS) 1 . Cede Compliance. 2 . Possible Reach 3 sanitary sewer trunk construction . 3 . Drainage of project down 38th 40-o ocean . 4. Cosa comparison between drainage to Rolsa Chica vs. drainage to the ocean . S. Park acreage dedication between project and the bluff . 6 . Possible neighborhood park site within boundary of the project. 7. Recreational vehicle storage areas within the project. 40 B. Location of product C and density. 4 . Condition that CC&Rs cantain provisions for maintenance of drainage basins. 10 . Homeowner' s Association fees. 11 . Issue of low and moderate income: housing . III . ReQi:EST FOR SPECIAL PERVIXT: 1 . Aeduction in side yard setback in Products A and B. 2 . Elimination oz: trash enclosures in Product Areas A and B 3. Reductlon in parking within thy: project . s `� It 4 . Reduction in building separation at corners of build- ings in Product C. 5. Elimination of the recreational arear. within Product Areas A and B. 6 . Waiver of building bulk provisions within Product C. IV . DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT 77-23 A?1D TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 10067, 100680 AND 10069 I14 DESCENDING ORDER AS OUTLINED : 1 . Need for revised composite site plan to reflect the pro- posed changes and to reflect action on zoning by the City Council . 2 . The treatment and maintenance of the landscaping between the front of the units within Product Areas A and S by the Homeowners Associations . 3 . Revised statistical information to reflect change in boundaries on gross and net areas and the changes in unit and/or bedroom allocations within the project. 4 . C.U.P. 77-23 : Designation upon the revised site plan of types and distribution of units within the pro ect. 5 . Tentative Tracts: Revised tentat'.ve tract craps to re- ect posse Ie changes in boundary by action on zoning , alignment of 38th Street, and treatment along Palm Avenue . from 6. Written authorizationSignal Landnark to allow the o developer to encroach upon its property for necessary s)ffs to drainage modification and construction prior to the recordation of the first final male . 7 . Guaranteed public: use of the privately owned and main- tainer) sidewalks along all streets . 8. Access easements over the priva-te drives for the oil well operations that remain . t OL -3 Minutes: H. B. Plan',,,, g Commission Tuesday, November 7, 1978 Paqe 7 E ON MOTION BY FINLEY AND SECOND BY RUSSELL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 78-74 WAS APPROVED SURIECT TO ALL CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 78-51, BY THIS FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone SEACLIFF PHASE IV m2iieant: A►. J. Hall CorMt-ation BONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 -- A change of zone from ROS-0 to R2-PD-0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 77-23 - To permit 533 single-family and `~ townhouse residential units;. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP- NO. 78-37 - A four-lot division of land. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. :.Cdv7 - To provide 190 lots: one lettered lot. (B) . TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 -- To provide one lot. (product C. ) 1 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 To provide 147 lots , one lettered lot. (Product A. ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77--6 . RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 1237 - To initiate alignment of 38th Street. Commissioner Higgins informed the Commission that he would abstain from discussion or action on the above items , due to potential for conflict of interest, and left the dais. Monica Floriam made a brief presentation of the project , outlining eight critical issues for the Commission' s information as follows: 1) impact on the Local Coastal Program; 2) drainage and future mainten- ance of that drainage system; 3) sewering of the project; 4 ) exterior n g circulation; 5) interior circulation, including the deli ee of the Fire Department that the final Real Estate Report for the project reflect its concerns in regard to their response time and parking in the pro- ject; 6) nark requirements, both neighborhood and the proposed linear park; 7) scenic highway consideration; and 8) intensified street landscaping. Other items discussed by Ms. Florian were the location of the high density Product C in relation to its surroundings and the special permit requests submitted by the applicant for the complex. Minor corrections to the suggested conditions of approval contained" in the staff report were outlined. i A. J. Hall addressed the Commission in support of the Nroponals . Rod Freeman, architect for Product C, addressed ti-e Commission to pre- sent justification for the reduced parking in that area, noting that -7- 11-7-78 - PC Minutes: H. B. Plank.,"4g Commission Tuesday, November 7, 1978 Page 8 fi it had been their intent to include the perimeter :street, which is Inaccessible from both Products A and B, as part of the parking tabu- lation for C. Ms. Florian reported that this reduction of 53 spaces ws below minimum requirements in Product C is the only special permit request which the staff feels it cannot endorse. In response to a question from Commissioner Finley, Dave Walden ex- plained the new drainage construction proposed to take place at the base of the bluff. He noted that, while the runoff from the project will follow its present natural course into the Bolsa Chica , no increase In runoff will occur . The public gearing was opened . Herb Chatterton addressed the Commission to point out contradictions on both volume and quality of runoff between the proponents presenta- tion and the EIR for the project. He cited an Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency study an the Anaheim Bay drainage area (dated August, 1977) to support his contention that a 25-year storm would reault in one ton * per hour of leads and other poisonous metal compounds being dumped into the Bolsa Chica from the Seacliff IV product areas:. He stated that the storm runoff should be directed toward the ocean and also that the project should be found prejudicial to the Local Coastal Program. v Schumacher, 6921 Lawn hive addressed the Commission in i Steve S h r, , general opposition to the project. 4e spoke in regard to the existing conditions in the area, specifically traffic congestion and the absence of small parks for the present Seacliff development, and asked that the City solve those problems before adding to them by another develop- ment. Margaret Carl.berg, representing the Environmental Council, addressed the Commission . She stressed maintenance of the drainage systems; thn aesthetic impact of Product C on the bluff line; the methods of handling known archaeological sites in the general area; safe construc- tion on the bluff top; and compliance with the mitigating measures put forward in the environmental review. She also expressed the Envir- onmental Council ' s support: of the suggestion from Fish and Game that testing for water quality be required, to begin prior to any grading on top of the bluff. • Marc Porter, prtisident of the Nome Council , addressed the Commission. Ile stated that the project should not be constructed with only one main access off Palm Avenue; that the proposed linear park ,should not be considered to satisfy the park requirements for the project; that no building permits should be issued until construction on Reach 3 of the trunk sewer has begun ; and that a finding of consistency with the .--- Local Coastal Program would preclude this project from participating in the low-coat housing objectivew of the Coastal Act. He also urged that the Commission consider the economic impart this project would have in provision of City services. _ ja -g- 11-7-7r PC Minutes: 11. 8. P1dnk".24 Commission Tuesday, November 7, 1978 Page 9 Rhoda Martin, of Amigos de Bol.sa Chica, expressed the opinion that the V-uposals would have adverse effects on the lowlands and would preclude many options for the linear park . She also urged the Com- mission to make a finding that the project would be prejudicial to the Local Coastal Program. Jeff Fillbach, also of Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed the Commission to emphasize the .importance of designing 38th Street without the necessity of having to design around an already approved project. He also agreed with the previous comments on the effect the project would have on the development of the Local Coastal Program. The public hearing was left open while Commission discussion took place. The Commission discussed the problems brought up at this meeting. Extensive discussion took place on whether or not the Commission had the authority to make a finding that any project in the coastal zone would be prejudicial ' to the Local Coastal program, and the Commission directed staff to request a written opinion from the office of the City Attorney on the matter. Rhoda Martin again briefly addressed the Commission , and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed alternative methods of handling the requests , and A. J. Hall concurred to a continuance. ON MOTION BY BAZ'1L AND SECOND BY RUSSELL ALL THE ITEMS ENCOMPASSED UNDER SEACLIFF PHASE IV WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOUR,yED MEETING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBEI't 14 , AT 7 : 00 PM, WITH THE CONCURRE110E OF THE APPLI- CANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell, Stern, Finleye Bazil , Paone NOES: Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins A MOTION WAS MADE BY C0HEN AND SECONDED BY STERN THAT THE COMMISSION 'REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THIS 114-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE 'COASTAL ZONE. MOTION FAILED PY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Cohen NOES: Russell , Stern, Finley, Bazil , Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTIGA BY PRONE AI ND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO � REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING PERMITTING AUTHORITY WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE FOR THE CITY OF HUNTING- 1 TON BEACH AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Russell , Stern, Finley, Crihen, Bail , Paone ,'V-NOES : None ABSENT: None gr r .. -13 7 78 PC J Minutes, H. N. PlanniA A.- mmission r Tuesday, November 14 , 1978 Page 3 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire , pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. � 11. A chemical analysis, as well as tests for physical properties of the soil on subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 12. nigh-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be installed by the developer within the rights-of-way of all public streets provided that a program can be developed suitable to the Planning Department, the 5 Department of Public corks, and the Southern California Edison Company. 13. Lour volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 14 . A 6 foot high masonry wall shall be constructed on the north property line Df subject property and on the east property line also, exclud- ing any portion of the easterly property line where there is an 7 existing wall on the abutting property . AYES: Higgins , Russell , Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: None ` ABSENT: None ABSTALN: None SEACLIFF PHASE 1V Applicant: A. J. Nall Corporation ZONE CHANGE NO. 70--4 - A change of zone f l-om ROS-0 to R2-PD-0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77-23 -- To twermit 533 single-family and townhouse residential units. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-�37 - A four-lot division of land. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067 -- To provide 190 .lots, one lettered lot (Product B) . TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 - To provide one lot (Product C) . TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 - Tp provide 147 lots , one lettered lot (Product A) . i ENVIROIIM3NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-6 . Commissioner Higgins informed the Commission that he would abstain frorr. discussion or action on the above items, li Acting Secretary Palin presented the variour departments which the Commission had asked to have represented at this meeting as follows : xv -3- 11-14-78 - PC Minutes, H. B. Plannin Commission Tuesday, November 14 , 1978 Page 4 Jim Barnes, Environmental Resources; Mary Lynn Norby, Local Coastal Program; Steve Kohler, Housing; Mel Ott, Fire Department; Mike Zambory, Public Works; Norm Worthy, Recreation and Parks. No Police Department representative was present. Cecil Sterling, representing the firm which prepared the Environmental Impact Report (Ultrasysstems) was also present at the meeting. Acting Secretary Palin discussed procedure, and it was determined to review the EIR for adequacy prior to considering the actual project applications. Cecil Sterling reviewed the identified impacts to be expected from the proposed project. He noted that many of the changes incorporated into the plan have come about as a result of those impacts identified in the EIR and could be considered as mitigation measures for the project. The Comir.ission reviewed the EIR, discussing the following major points in rectard to -the adequacy of that document: Soils : Mr. Sterling said that two previous soils reports done in 1975 and1976 had identified no significant soil problems, adding, hovever, that there should be a subsequent report to design for acceleration that might be expected from a 6 . 6 quake. Commissioner Stern suggested that subsidence could be a problem that has not been fully addressed in the EIR and that there might be a future need for water injection opera- f tion , ' since the area to the east and north of the project site has t experienced subsidence in the past. Mr. Sterling said that the project area itself has no history of subsidence. Drainage: The Commission expressed concern that the EIR doer not show the drainage as it is presently proposed and that an update on the drainage system m:;ght be appropriate. Mr. Sterling pointed out. that the changes to the drainage system were in fact brought about by the .impacts identified in the EIR, and that to require amendment to the EIR because It had successfully accomplished its objective in mitigating the adverse effects would penalize the consultant. It was his feeling that unless the Planning Commission finds that the change in the drainage plan con- stitutes a substantial change in the project no further EIR revision should be necessary. Jim S.rnes informed the Commission that the consultant has completed j a later drainage study and the Environmental Resources section is requesting that it be incorporated as part of the final Environmental Impact Report. He said that the issues addressed therain were acceptable to the agencies most concerned; i . e. , the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional 'Water Quality Control Board. Parks: The Commission discussed the fact that this development does not dude a neighborhood parka even though it does provide a large amount or private open space. Norm Worthy addressed the Commission to state 4� l -4- 11-14-78 PC Minutes, H.B. Planning C,.raission Tuesday, November 14 , 1978 Page 5 that the environmental document is adequate for park purposes and that his department is completely sati.ified with it. Fire Department. Concerns: Mel Ott indicated that the EIR has addressed the major concerr.a for access and circulation to the area, and sufficient facilities ere available to serve the project. He noted that response time to the area will be adequate, but pointed out that the EIR does not address final design and interior circulation problems. In response to a question from Commissioner Cohen concerning the location of underground oil lines through the project area, Mr. Ott replied that there are of concern to the - Fire Department but can be handled during the construction phase of the development. Mr . Young of the Huntington Beach Company said that maps of all underground lines are available in his office. Sewer: Adequate sewers for the project was considered a critical point by itTiie Commission , with Commissioners Bazil and Finley emphasizing that they could not vote to approve the project until Reach 3 of the Pacific Coast trunk line was under. construction. Socio-Economic Effects: Commissioner Cohen pointed out the need for updated cost/revenue studies to be prepared for the project, noting that the current ErR. does not include the post--Proposition 13 impacts the City may face from a project of this size. Police Protection: it was the consensus that the EIR had addressed the amount of police protection needed for the project; it was noted, how- ever , that the cost of that protection might need re-examination in light of Proposition 13. Aix Quality: Discussion determined that the EIR had adequately examined the air quality impacts for the project., both as the project might affect- the environment and as the surrounding land uses might affect the future residents of the project. 38th Street: Commissioner Dazil stated that this, in his opinion , is 51so a critical point, and that the Commission should innist on at least dedication of right-of-way to Pacific Coast Highway, if not full street � width installed at this; time. The possibility that 38th Street at ultimate width and carrying ultimate traffic load might. affect the drain- age into the 0ol,sa Chicn was discussed and it was the consensus that this particular concern had not been discussed and resolved in the i?IR. Housing: Steve Kohler noted that the Housing Element in in the formative ,stage and that no Local Coantal Plan housing policy has been determined. Ne also noted that the unavailability of land at any price makes location i of. low-cost housing in the coastal area extremely difficult. Mr. Kohler .i.ndicztod that is his opinion the manner in which the Coastal Commission has been obtaining this type housing in coastal projects in not the optimum method of providing such housing . �d -5- 11- 14 -70 - FCC � - --- •---------•-•---_._-. _ --—�____ .�.r.......ur - curt,.._ r Minutes , H.A. Plannir Commission ` IP y November 14, 1978 li Page 6 r� I Local Coastal Plan: Mary Lynn Norby addressed the Commission in regard a To tee LCP ana tie policies of the Coastal Act. She informed them that j until the LCP is complete there are no City policies in the area , but that any discussion or decisions made by the Planning Commission (e. g. , approval of these projects , extension of 38th Street , etc. ) would enter into the study data for the LCP. Extensive discussion took place among Commission members as to whether in this review it should consider the desires and policies of the Coastal Commission for the coastal zone, the provision of lower cost housing, and/or the growth inducing impack of the completion of the trunk sewer and the extension of 38th Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Garfield Avenue. The possible prejudicial effect on the future Local Coastal Plan which might result from approval of these projects was also discussed. i The public hearing was opened . Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, said he rernains concerned with the quality of runoff water. fie suggested the possSbili.ty that an align- ment for 38th Street throuah ,a cut in the bluff might allow drainage to Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean and might eliminate the need to drain storm runoff into the Rolsa Chica . Jack Spruill, Fish and Game representative, spoke in regard to the proposed drainage, saying that his department does not feel that the f.IR addressed the current drainage plans. lie said that a .letter had been submitted from the Department of Fish and Game indicating that it � ti could conditionally concur with the proposed drainage; however, they do feel that it should be incorporated into the 171R in order to comply with the legal requirements of CEOA. Commissioner Paone discussed with legal staff the procedure for rejecting a portion of an environmental document Afile finding it adequate in i; other areas. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMISSION FOUND ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-6 INADEQUATE INSOFAR AS IT FAILS TO APPRO- PRIATELY ADDRESS THE DUAINACE ISSUF AND DIRECTED WHAT AN AMENDMENT BE PREPARED WITH RESPECT TO THAT ISSUE ALONE AND THAT SAID AMENDMENT SliOULD ` INCLUDE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES WHICH MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF '. DRAINAGE PLANS AND THE IMPACTS SUCH Pi�ANS 1SIGNT' HAVF', BY THE FOLLOWING T' VOTE: AYES: Russell , Stern , Finley , Cohen, Bazil, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY FINLEY Z•EIE COIMIISSION REQUXRED THAT THE COST/REVENUE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO CITY SERVXCI;S TO BE PROVIDED BE UPDATED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell, Stern , Finley , Cohen , Paone NOES: Ba21l ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Hig ins a S 009 1 -6- 1.1-1.4-78 -- PC �r �1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commissior r„, November 14 , 1478 Page 7 i Commissioner Stern made a motion, seconded by Bazil , that the Environ- mental Impact Report include a study of 38th Street as a master-planned route between Garfield Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway showing the traffic impacts of that street in that configuration . Extensive discussion followed concerning the relevancy of the total street to this particular project and whether or not the traffic concerns had been satisfactorily addressed in the EIR. Mr. Stern and Mr. Bazil withdrew their motion and second . ON, MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT THE DRAINAGE AMENDMENT TO THE EIR SHOULD INCLUDE BOTH THE TRAFFIC AND DRAI21- AGE IMPACTS OF THE NEW ALIGNMENT OF 38T11 STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Russell , Stern, Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins A. J. ball and Rod Freedman addressed the Commission to req►:,est that the Environmental Impact Report be certified as adequate and i!--e project conditioned to meet the concerns which the Commission has exn7essed. John O' Connor reviewed the various alternative actions the Commission may take usith regard to the requirements for an EIR. Jim Barnes informed the Commissionrequire that an amendment to the environmental document would re uire • b c a, anotrher, pu li he ring and public input period, which he noted would be a minimum of thirty days . Cecil Sterling discussed the extreme difficulty of accurately deteriAning the economic balance of the project, given the uncertain effects of Proposition 13 , and pointed out that under the CEQA regulations consideration of economic effects Is optional and may be disregarded if the Commission should elect to do so. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMISSION , PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DETERMINED TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF A DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE ECON- OMIC INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS , BY T11E FOLLOWTtir, VOTE: AYI',,t Pioti-V- 1 1 , of ttrt►, 11n! 1 1 , llaoino- NOES P. 1:uhr;n ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTION BY PA014E AND SECOND BY BAZIL T11F COMMISSION DETERMINED TO SOLICIT INFORMATION FROM THOSE PRESENT WITH REGARD TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUE TO ALLOW A DECISION ON POSSIBLE !iODIFICATION OF THE F.IR, BY THE FOLLOWI?iG VOTE: � AYES: Russell , Stern, Bazil, Panne NOES: Cohen 1 ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins • 4 L -7- i 1 - 14-TA - PO Te Minutes , H.B. Plann£n )omeission November 14, 1918 Page +8 Mr. Paone elaborated on his motion by ztatinq that the .information should include the drainage proposal as it currently exists , the drainage impacts , , to be expected from the street through from Garfield to PCH, and other alternatives (drainage to the ocean. Eor example) . Dave Walden made a presentation of the drainage system, ci`_ ing hydrology reports prepared for the project. tie also informed the Commission that maintenance of the system will be monitored by the State Water Quality Management District. The proposed drainage system has received the en- dorsement of the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Q::ality Control Board, the two most directly concerned public entities. The Commission discussed the information presented by Mr. Walden, consid- ering whether or not it might be incorporated into the environmental impact report as a modification made b the Co:rJnission with inn analysis P P Y Y from Ultrasystems of the proposed drainage plan and other concerns. Com- missioner Bazil indicated that an analysis of the drainage might serve to substantially answer the questions he had in regard to the impacts of 38th Street as well . Tinning of such a modification as opposed to an amended report was discussed with the proponents , and Mr. Hall agreed to a two-week continuation of the hearing . It was determined that the individual Commissioners should enumerate their concerns and the applicant submit written responses for the next public hearing as well as the Ultrasystems analysis . It was stressed that the Commission had made no commitment to approve the E1R or the project i at that time. i ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL THE COWIISSION DETERMINED TO RECONSIDER THE PRIOR ACTIONS REJECTING PORTIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING Von : AYES : Russell , Stern , Finley, Cohen, Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY PACNE THE COMMISSION RESCINDED I?S PRIOR ACTIONS REJECTING PORTIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : APES : Russell, Stern, Bazil , Paone NOES : Finley, Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL EfI`% PONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 77-6 AND ALL APPLICATIONS INCLUDED I!1 5I "LIFT PHASE IV PROJECT WERE CONTINUED TO AN AWOURNED MEETIcIG ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 78 , 1978 , AT 7 : 00 arm PM , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell , Stern, Finley, Cohen , Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Higgins a~� �, O. -8- 11•-14-7R - PC Minutes, H. R. Vlannin4,. I mmission ; • ,a November 14 , 1979 Page 9 IThe Commission emphasized that its above actions were taken based upon specified docurrents being presented to contain the necessary information tos pertinent to the expressed concerns; this in-'ormation is to be incor- W porated into the EIR as modifications thereto. In ordex to provide adequate guidance to the proponents and the consultant, the Commissioners outlined their individual concerns as follows: Commissioner Paone : Parking deficiencies must be corrected; both the regional linear par:: and a neighborhood park should be addressed, with consideration of a possible park type buffer between Product C and the bluff . Commissioner Ru^sell : A definite location for a park should be delineated; the total alignment of 38th Street should be addresser], including any Conflidt with Caltrans in regard to intersection of that street with Pacific Coast Highway . Commissioner Stern . Issue of 38th Street addressed ; interior circulation in conjunction with Fire Department standards; drain- age including results of the 3Eth Street alignment; {' possible signalization Where needed with cost the I responsibility of the developer; explanation of the proposed siltation control program; low- and moderate- income housing addressed; archaeological site pro- tection; no parallel sewer proposed - construction to depend upon timing of. Reach 3 of the coast trunk line; noise impacts: and issue of RV storage - ;preferably with solution by project design. Commissioner Bazil: Sewers - only viable solution is construction of Reach 3 as a condition of approval ; 38th Street impact on traffic and drainage; drainage system -- Mr . Bazil noted that although thin teems already to have been answered i;: must be included in writing in the EIR; park needs must be addressed. Commissioner. Cohen : 38th Street precise plan should be completed prior to consideration of Seacliff IV: signalization where required , paid for by the developer; parking must comply with code.; an alternative to draining the � project into the Holsa C-hica should be considered; sewers should be started before the project is begun ; park requirements must be met; location of Product C closest to the Bolsa Chica should be re-eva'.uated ; and inter for streets must meet all turning radius re•- quirementa of the Fire Depi-rtment. Commissioner Finley : The proposed linear park must be addressei; the location of Product C nearest the bluffline may Fit adversely impact that linear }park in the fliture. -g• 11- 1,` .78 - PC Minutes, II. B . Planning" 'Corm-niysion November 14 , 1978 Page 10 ON MOTION BY STERN AND SrCCND BY PF.ONE THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO ' RECONSIDER REVISED RESOLUTION 110. 1237 , AN ALIGNMENT FOR 38TH STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell , Stern, Ffnley, Cohen, Baril , Paone NOES: Nohe ABSENT: !done ABSTAIN : Higgins ON NOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY BAZIL THE COMMTSSTON ADOPTED REVISED RESOLUTION 110. 12370, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Russell Stern ohen Bazil Paon Finley,Y► e NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins I THE MEETING W.S ADJOURNED REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING NOVEMBER 21 , 1978 , AT 7: 00 PM. Meeting adjourned at 12: 45 p.m. i t James W. P31in Ruth Finley, Chairman Acting Secretary �a IN . Approv; ' Dec. 12 , 3178 MINUTES I HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY* NOVEMBER 28 , 1978 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESEN'P: Russell , Stern, Finley, Bazil , Paone COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Cohen NOTE: A 'TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. SEACLIFF PHASE IV (PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED) i ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 Applicant: A. J . Hall Corporation Request for a change of zone from ROS-0 to R2•-PD-0 an 2. 8 acres of Seacliff IV, located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 77-23 Applicant: A.J. Hall Corporation To permit construction of 533 single-family and townhouse residential units on 114 acres ! orated west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Applicant: A.J. Hall Corporation To permit a four-lot division of land located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067 Applicant: A.J . Hall Corporation To permit a 190 lot subdivision, one lettered lot (Product H) located west of Goldenwest Street , north of Palm Avenue., P Minutes , 1I.B. Planni: 4 Commission November 28 , 1978 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 Applicant: A.J . Mall Corporation =� t To permit a one-lot subdivision (Product C) located west of Golden.- west. Street north of Palm Avenue. AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 ApElicant: A.J . Nall Corporation T- permit a 147 lot subdivision.., one lettered lot (Product A) located west of Goldenwest Street, north of Paim Avenue. AND ENVIRONMEN rAL THPACT REPORT NO. 17-6. The public hearing on the Environmental en Impact Report was opened . p F� Herb Chatterton, Amigos de Bolsa Chica , addressed the Commission to note that the drainage addendum to the EIR had not in his opinion adequately responded to the concerti of the effect of the runoff from the aroject on the Bolsa Chica. There being no othor persons to speak iti regard to the EIR, the public hearing was closed . Acting Secrr:tary Palin presented a brief history of the project to date , including previously expressed concerns of both staff and the Commis- sioners. An addendum vo the EIR now includes the drainage system as proposed. Since the Commission last not, the Coastal Commission has approved Reaches 1 and of the Pacific Coast Highway trunk sewer and a communication has been received from the Sanitation District addres- sing the sewer issue . Staff will begin work on the precise plan o: alignment For 38th Street; anticipated time for completion of that align- ment is four to five months. The proponent has presented a rev' sed plan for Product C which will permit parking to comply with code , and a meeting has been held (on November 2?) on the park dedication for the project. nave Malden reviewed the drainage inf -ion, touching upon the histor- ical drainage pattern for the area , cal ' v of the storage basins , and the efficiency of the siltation basins in ovinQ suspended solids from the runoff. water. Consultant Cecil Stei . inji informed the Commission that most heavy metals will he settled out in the siltation basins but without knowing the absolute amount of water it is impossible to develop the precise concentration of metals And chemicals to be expected . The Commisslon discussed the drainage addendum at length considering � whether the percolation from: the basins could have ar_ adverse eftieci on the underground aquifers , the removal of precipitated material from the t settling basins , the relative cost of the drainage as proposed rind a Minutes , H .B. Plann. i Commission November 28 , 1978 Page 3 pipeline under 38th Street to take drainage to the ocean, And the quantity of runoff into the Bolsa Chica after construction of the sub- ject .rroject as opposed to the quantity from the original land form prior to construction of any of the Seacliff projects . Mr. Walden said that the existing Seacliff phases had been considered in his computations brit he had not gone back to include the land as it originally existed . Commissioner Bazil indicated that the addendum had resolved the drain- age of this particular area , but any part of the remaining land that could be drained to the ocean should be drained in that direction . He also noted that the drainage as proposed should result over a period of years in much less runoff into the Bolsa Chica than presently exists. Commissioner Stern said that he feels the information is not sufficiently accurate , and pointed out discrepancies between statements in the EIR and the consultant ' s comments . Commissioner naone noted that the Com- mission in its prior action had requested that updated economic infor- mation be submitted at the next step in the process , and this has not been submitted . The following areas of concern relating to the projects were discussed : Parking in Product C: Ray Salmi presented two alternative treatments or this area , one of which adds one-bedroom units . The reduced parking requirement under this plan still leaver Product C 2n spaces short, but has reduced the shortage by about 25 spaces . Another alternative would adjust the parking into clusters , with circulation into a cluster at one i3oint only and emergency exit over turf block provided for fire equipment . Mr. Salmi pointed out that landscaping would he lost through this alternative, but it woLild provide a parking ratio of 2. 5/1 which he feels is adequate• foz that particular product. .Tim Palin pointed out that it would .require a combination cf both altert..stives to bring the area up tc, code requirements ; he also discussed the code requirement that 50 percent of garages ;.n a planned development be set hark twenty feet to serve as quest: pa rkini spares. Mel Ott said that the Fire Department prefers a treatment ::hick would provide two-way access to the narking ;iodei; . Streets : Commissioner Stern suggested the possibility that it may be adv sable to amend the Circulation Element ol! the General Plan to delete the extensions of Palm and Garfield beyond 311th Street to eliminate the rirr .] to consider any fcur -way intersections. .Tim Palin noted that this could be hrnught up as part of General Plan Amendment 79-2 . Bob Bazil acrain emnilasized the he could not vote to approve the projects without conditioning them to comply with the precise plan as adopted for 38th Street . I Sewer: It was the consensus of the Ccmr.ission that, despite the Coastal Commission ` s approval of Reaches 1 and 2 of the trunk sewer , it will still be necessary to condition Seacliff 1V to wait upon start of can- struction of Reach 3 . Parks : Norm Worthy, Director of Recreation And Parks , informed the Comm scion that up to five acres of the 7 . 875 acres to be dedicated by -3- 11-28-78 - PC � ' Minutes , N . A. Plana; q Commission � November 28 , 1978 Page 4 Seacliff IV could be applied as a neighborhood park; with the remain- 0"" der being used as a portion of the proposed linear bluff park (all of the Proposed dedication is located along 0e, bluff) . He also reviewed ` prior commitments of dedication by the Huntington Beach Company which have not been completed, as they relate to the community park at 171th and Main and the neighborhood park at Palm and Goldenwest . Commissioner Paone expressed disappointment with the amount of the proposed dedicated acreage and pointed out that the designation of that dedication as ahown in Attacisment 2 submitted for review seems inaccurate. The Commission discussed how access to the park would be taken, consi.d- e_•i.ng the danger to children of crossing 381t% Street. The possibility of providing a bridge or an underpass was discussed . A. J . fall said that the 7 . 875 acre figure is the company ' s firm offer for dedication and that precise boundaries on the northeast side will be adjusted. lie also noted that they would be opposed to providing an underpass for access to the park unless it could be incorporated in some way with the drainage channel . In connection with his remarks concerning the park , he also offered to cover the adjoining archaeological sites with two fr,et of fill, if that should be the desire of the City, and noted that maintenance of the siltation basins will be thQ responsibility o4 the homeowners association for the project. Extensive discusslon took place on the timing on the tract maps and they other application requests and t'ie vroner procedures which should be fo11-. jed. Adequacy of the environmental impart report with its addendum was agein reviewed . COMMISSIONER PAONE MADF A MOTION , SECONDED BY STERNe THAT EHVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 77-6 BE DISAPPROVED DUE TO FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFOPUMATION ON ECONOMIC IMPACT AS REQUESTED FAY THE COMMISSION, AND THAT SUPPLEMENTARY ECONOMIC INFOKMATION BE PROVT-DIAD AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE EIR PURSUANT TO A NOTICED HEARING . tAonON FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stern , Finley,. Paone NOES: Russe + L , Bazil ABSENT: Iriggins , Cohen ABSTAI?: : None Commissioner Fussell made a motion that the Commission approve EIR 77-6 and Zone Change 78-4 and request that the economic information, as well as ar&y other information which might be needed, be submitted prior to any further action. After it gas pointed out that a separate public hearing must be held for the zone chancle and the applicant' s concurrence obtained for any further continuance , this motion was withdrawn. Staff and legal counsel advised the Conunissiot, that without the appli- cant ' s consent for :ontinuance the tract m ps would be deemed approved subject to compliance with code if not acted upon at this meatina. The zone change and the conditional use permit , however, are not deemed approved 'by faiiure to act and, in the opinion of staff , the tracts �3 ' � G -4- 11 - 2R-79 - PC T ate. Minutes, H.A. Planning Commission November 28, 1978 Page I cannot comply without the cc.nditional use permit because of deficiencies in lot size and frontage tinder the base district . A. J. Hall addressed the Commission in regard to their concerns . fie indicated that the economic information; could be available in two weeks , but pointed out that it could be only a "best estimate" based on current information and cannot project future figures accurately, given the uncertainties of revenues and expenditures because of 'Propo- sition 13 budget constraints. With this understanding , he agreed to a continuation for two weev:s . ON MOTION BY RUSSELL AND SECOND BY BAZIL 1"HF COMIMISSION APPROVED ENVIR- ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77--6 , CONTINGENT UPON SUBMITTAL OF THE F.CO?10!tIC INFOR';-MTION PRIOR TO FINAL COMMISSION ACTION ► 11 Tilt TRACT MAPS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PEPJ!IT, AND MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS : 1 ) THE DRAINAGE ADDENDUM SHILL BE REWORDED TO NOTE THAT "?MAJOR PIPFLINE AND UTILITY MODIFICATIONS SHALT. BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN CONNECTION WITII EXISTING OR NEW CITY OR DISTRICT NETWORKS, " AND ? ) Till: DRAINAGE ADPE:iDUM AS MODIFIED ABOVE IS HEREBY INICORIIORAT17D AS A DART C i THAT EIR DOCUMENT, MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Russell , Stern, Bazil , Paone NOES: Finle7 ABSENT: Biggins , Cohen i ABSTAIN: ?lone The public hearing on Zane Change No. 78-4 was opened. Rhoda Martyn addressed the Cornission to question the reasf:-ns for the zone change and to suggest that perhaps that 2 . 8 acres involved 1.!, the request could he put in parkland elsewhere. There being no other per- sons to address the Commission, the public hea-inq was closed. Stuff located on the map where the several sections of the proposed change of zone were located and A. J . llall explained the adjustments were made necessary by the configuration of the development. Dave .'alden informed the Coir,,.nission that land has also beer. transferred from residential tc, cpun spare by the project design. The possibility of requiring an -1 amount of acreage to be added to the park designa- t :on was disc •d: hi-Xwever, Commissioners Russ: 11 and Bazil objected such a trace- ,f f, preferring instead that- the golf course not be decreased even by thi, sviall acreage and that; the tract boundary be ad- justed to et =-ct an equal transfer of land . Staff also expressed con- cern that the actual layout of thn course and the proposed retention basin: i which are planned to be par ' islly within the golf course would be affected . Mr. +till oropos, .s that two units be removed from the ,..,' cul -de-sac abuttin t the largest parcel which is proposed for rezoning; this would , hn saic remove the: bulk of the rezoning and would be clone to in even trade--off . Commissioner Stern pointed out that no mention had been made in the environmental impact report 4f removal from ROS zoning of any portion of the golf course. r ,Vl p -5- 11-79-78 C 44 i Minutes, H. B . Planning •ission November 28 , 1978 Page 6 Den Cole asked that the record show that at the Novenber 27 meeting the Huntington Reach Company had offered 14 . 8 acres along the bluff •-.� as total payment for their Phase IV obligation plus that: which has been accrued on previous development . That offer was ),ejected by the Rezreation and Parf;s Department because they preferred two other loca- j tioiis as top priority park sites. Commissioner Paone stated that it had not been his understanding that any specific offer of such dedica- tion had been made , but that it had simply been mentioned as a way of combining the H. B. Company ' s existing debt of 6 . 8 acres with the re- quired dedication for this development. A MOTION WAS PIADF BY PAONE ANT'. SECONDED BY STERN TUAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-4 UPON THE CONDITION THAT A WRITTEN, ArRFEMENT BF OBTAINED l'RO'I THE DEVELOPER FOR THE DFDICA'rI0k1 OF Al, ADDITIONAL 2. 8 ACRFS I'Z THE LINEAR PARK AREA. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Paone NOES : Russell , Stern , Finley , Bazil ABSENT: Higgins , Cohen ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Commissioner Stern that FIR 77-6 be reconsidered and found incomplete in areas of open space and economic information . Motion failed for lack; of a second . It was the consensus of the Commission that the zoning could not be acted upon at thiv meeting and that the developer !ehould prepare a new blue border for his mar) which would show the deletion of the two units and the exact boundaries of the land which is to be zoned from ROS to residential and from residential to ROS. This rezoning, it was emphasized , is not to result in any net loss to the golf course acreage. If the rc.zoninq will in fact affect any fairway, green, or retention basin that information is Also to be included. In addition , the applicant is to submit at the next hearing on this project the necessary economic information. The zoning information must be in the Planning L,epartment by noon on November 29 , 19778, to permit adequate time for realvertising of the modified zone change request. ON MOTION BY ^st;SELL AND SECOND BY AAa7L. ZONE: CHANGE NO. 78-4 , CONDI- TIONAL USE Yr—wrq no. i 7-23 , TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 , AND TE14TATIVE TRACTS NJS. 10067 , 10068 , X9D 10069 WERE CONTINUED, WITH THE CONCURRE!!%"'. , OF TPE APPLICAN-T, TO All ADJOURNED MEETING ON DECEMBER 12 : 1978 , AT 7 . 01) PPI CONTIt1Gl NT JPO*J SUBMITTAL OF THE ABOVE R'EQUIP'^D IV - FORMA,n 3`J , THE FOLLOWING VnTT: AYES: Russell , Stern, FinIc y , Bazil , Paone NOES: None ABSrNT: Higgins , Cohen ABSTAIN: No 0 ti `� Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission November 28, 1978 Page 7 ON MOTION BY STERN AND SECOND BY RUSSELL Ti?E MEETING "AS ADJOURWI), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Russell , Stern , Finley , Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSENT: Higgins, Cohen ABSTAIN: !lone Meeting adjourned at 1 :00 a .m. i i i j James W. Pal n - RutS F n ey Acting Secretary Chairman i :df I 1I i -7- ll --?R-7R - Pr t A-" ' joved Jan. 3 , 19*19 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED FLEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Mainz Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1978 - 7 :00 PM COWIISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Russell, Stern, Cohen , Bazil , Paore COWIISSIONERS ABSE147: Finley NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE . CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY BAZIL AND SECOND BY RUSSELL THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1-8 , r� 1978, WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Nigains , Russell , Stern, ©azil, Paone HOES: None ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN : Cohen ORAI. COMMUNICATIONS : None SCHEDULED ITEMS : ZONE CHANGE N0. 78-4 Applicant : A. J. ball Corporation To permit a change of zone from ROS-O to R2-PD-0 and a change of zone from R2-PD-0 and R2-0 to ROS-0 on approximately 1 . 486 and 1 . 669 acres , respec.ively, located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palr, Avenue. AND Y TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 78-37 Applicant : A.J. Nall Corporation To permit the division of 300 acres of land into four (4) separate fi parcels located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. ,y� Minutest H.P. P) .- 0. }g Commissions December 12, 1978 Paqe 2 At4 D '70- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 110. 77-23 Applicant: A. J . Nall Corporation To permit construction of 533 Single-family and townhouse residen- tial units on 114 acres of land located .rest of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue. AND TENTATIVE TRACT t7O. 10067 I Applicant : A. J. Hall Corporation To permit 190 lots (one lettered lot) - Product B , located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue . AND E TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1V 58 Applicant: A. J . Hall Corporation �'. To permit a one--lot subdivision (Product C) located west of Golden- west Street north of Palm Avenue . AND } j TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10069 Ap2licant : A. J. Hall Corporation To permit a 147 lot subdivision, one lettered lot (Product A) located west of Goldenwest Street north of Palm Avenue . Commissioner fiiggins again informed the Commission that he will abstain from the Commission' s consideration of these requests . Acting Secretary Palin discussed the revised fiscal .impact analysis submitted by Mr. hrquello, Finance Director, and the information from the Local Coastal Program staff in regard to the project. Commissioner Cohen presented his analysis of the figures suhmitW and said his extensive review indicates that the City will probably suffer a net loss on the total project . Commissioner Haxil agreed, but found no basis for denial , noting that the City will be fortunate if housinq can be vrovided at even close to a break even point. Commissioner Stern discussed the effect of the project on the Local Coastal Program' s coastal energy impact studies, questioning whether removal of such a barge area from consideration might not result in Toss of funding for the study. He also reviewed the possibility that the site might be chosen for a future landfall for offnhore ,o U operations . Acting as Chairman Pro Tempore , Mr. Stern requested public input on the fiscal analysis. -2- 12-12-75 - PC �' Q„ ' 1 A Minutes, H .H . Plani, ig Commission December 12 , 1978 Page 3 Druce Greer addressed the Commissi.cn to question the validity of the 1976 study on which the fiscal figures were based. lie discusbed the costs of improvements to feeder streets which may be necessitated by the extension of 30th Street and the cost of stgnblixation of the intersectinons of 38th with Garfield and Pacific Coast lliahway. The public hearing on Zone Change 73-4 was reopened . No one was present to speak in regard to the zoning, and the public hearinq was left open during Commission discussion. ?lctira Secretary Palin pointed out the areas on th,: map which are pro- posed to be involved in the change of zone from ROS to R2-PD- 0 and vice versa. lie informed the Commission that the applicant has deleted two units and shortened the cul-de-sac as he had agreed to do at the prior meeting, but that any necessary alterations t­� the golf course have not been delineated on the plan , i Commissioner Stern pointed out that the major area to be rezoned to j ROS was in reality one of the drainage basins fnr the project, which I was not really usable open grace,. and the result would be that the zone change would in effect be r:erely a transition to R2-PD-0 at the expense of the ROS zoning and the golf course. Commissioner Paone concurred that thn proposal did constitute an encroachment on the golf ' cc!irse without a corresponding meaningful trade off for usable open space; however, it was his opinion that the deletion of the two units could constitute a trade off for approximately 1 . 5 acres of the originally requested 2. 8 acres, reducing the zone change to approxi- mately 1. 5 acres. He suggested that a trade off be ;lade for this acreage by dedication by the developer of a corresponding amount of future park land . Dave Walden ; projr-?c.t engineer, informed the Commission that some relo- cation work will he necessary around the area of the drainage basin, but that no tees or greens will have to be moved. The drainage area will still be a part of the golf course, and is in fact desirable in the May of the green at that location . lie also noted that it would he underwater for only very short periods of time during and after rains. The ouh 1 is hearinv was closed , A MOTION WAS +LADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED 13Y GCHEN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION Rc:COWLEND FOR APPROVAL ZO11F C11ANGG 110. 713-4 INSOFAR AS IT REOUIRES A BOUNDARY CHANGE ADJUSTING 1 . 48 ACRES OF F<OS--O ZONING TO R2-'PD-0 ZONING BUT IN NO OTHER RESPECTS, AND UPON THE CONDITION THAT DEDICATION OF 1. 488 ACRES OF ADnITIONAL PARK LAND BE MADE IN AN AREA TO BF. DFSIritJATED BY THE COMMISSION. Legal counsel. John O' Connor reviewed the restrictions the code places on the City' s ability to require park dedication . Consnissioner Bazi1 said he would rather approve the none case as submitted with the deletion of Parcel 4 from consideration. Commissioner panne noted that approval of a zone change is purely dincretfonary in nature and could be conditioned to effect what could be termed a transfer of development right;i. -3- 12-12-78 - PC flfnutes , H. B. Planni. commission December 12 , 1979 gage 4 John Stern requested that tiara maker of the motion concur to addinq a recommendation to the City ftnincii that the zone change may be prejudicial to preparation of the Local Coant-A Program; maker of the motion did not se concur . MOTION FAILED BY T11E FOLLJWIN� VOTE : aYFS: Cohen, Paone NOES: Russell , Stern, Bazil ABSENT: Finley A13STAIN: Higgins I A NOTION WAS MADE. BY BAzrL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAI. OF Z01Ic C.IiANGE 110. j JR-4 AS SUBMITTED EXCEPT FCR THE OFT.ETICIN OF PARCEL MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE T1Y PAO1JF AND SECOUDED 13Y RUSSELI, THAT ZONE C11hNGE NO, 78-4; nE RF:C0r-*.MFNDF'D FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. MOTION FAILED BY TITF FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Paone , Russell , Bazil NOES : Stern , Cohen ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgins fit Commissioner Bazil requested that the record show 1'iis preference fc:c the approval of the roninq with the deletion of Parcel 4 is for the reason that such aarroval will assure that the gross acreage of t;ie golf course will remain the same, under that treai-ment. Alternative approaches were t1iscussed . ON MOTION BY PAONF AND SF�OND 'BY BAZIL 'LONE CHANCE. :tU. 78--4 VIAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE OF THE TWO FOLLOWING COURSES OF ACTION , WITH T1=E FOLLOWING FINDINGS BT THE FOLLOWItIr, VOTFs 1) APPROVE ZCNE CHANGE i10. 1117--4 INSOFAR AS IT RF.{IJESTS BOU?.DARY CHANGES OF 1. 4R8 AC:1F.S OF 110S 3011ING TO P,2-PO--O ZO?4ING &ND IN NO L01ER RFSPECTS , WITH TiI:: CONDITION THAT A CORRESPONDING 1 . 488 4CRES OF LAND %3E DEDICATFD BY Tim fluaI'nGTON BFACH C(:M,PANY AND AI,LO.CATEU TO PAKK ",CRP.AGE 114 AN AREA TO BE LATER DE11 RMIW .D, OR 2) APPROVE ZONE CHANGE ,'-G. 78-4 AS RrOUESTEV, WITH THr. CONDITTON THAT PARCEL 4 (A CHANGE OP CANE FROM ROS TO R2--IUD-0 ON 0. 362 ACRES OF LAND) SE DELETED FROM THE KEQUEST. FINDINrS: � 1 . The planned residential. da_velupment zoning exchange for ROS zoning, in some areas and the nor. resoondinq exchange from AOS to R2-PD-0 in other areas is consintent with the City' s General Plan . 2 . 1`he proposed u_c►s nc;rmi t Ci.a by the n..- PO-O zoning will be conpN.c ible with surrounding land user. , ibt .. OL 7 -4- 1?-12-7R - PI Minutes , H . B . F•lanning Cornminsion December 1 2 , 11378 Page 5 AYES : Rus se 1 1 , Cohen , lla i 1 , Paone �rJ ABSENT : Finley AnSrr TN : l l i Qg i n s The ('.oriimission po? let: its ner' ber, for ':ndi:' 4ducal preference be�wetn, the tv..•o alternative cour!ie5 of action on the zont? Chan:' and the roasonr; for th;7t, preference , as. follow, : Ccr.missioner Paone: Al. ter- nate 1 . The opt'it sp.-Ace allocated as a drainage ha in is not roally usable open sI);lt_`e , and this tal ;.ernativC :.'ill allow thr.' accuisition of additional part; land , Co,nnis!:ionvr 11ar.i1 Al t.er:iZt.ivC! Park rlC`': : cation requirements ary provided for in the ordinance code , and this �alternativo ;.ill allow vresent atcrea p ;.:c be retained in the golf course. Corunissioner Cohen : Alternat-ive 1 . This .alternative would :allot: i iditicnal park :Iodicatifi•: to he obtained , perhaps in the of the linen: liar). . CommissionerRussell : Alternative 2 . Cornmisnionr..r Pussell wished th-' recort'. t.r) clearly strafe that. his vote to applove the zone ehancle was a cor-+prnmi i so pormi t the rurlucst to go to the City Council . Stern : The ma ;ori. t1' of the RnS area gar: submitted by the applicant is clearly unuSahlce oppri space, and approval ^` the ..one change uncier the Coastal Act would he detrimental and prejudicial to the preparation of the Local Coastal Planning c?ffor. t:. j The Commission t h.o t rr-atmnn t of arterials on the tents t ilre parcel map anti the methcacl of mna .inn sure that the future 39th Street ( is dedicatec_ an!', lr?lC]rc?l'CCl to C-('D tri' --,51C l rCr;ilrCM( nts . The public: hearing nn "'ent.ativt� Parcel Mrjp r;o. 78-37 was opened . Jeff F'ellhach , Amicins, do it-)1s,a Chica , arldressed the Board to rears a co:irnuni cation f rr,-1 that. cr-iani :!nt ion urc;inn denial of the Seacli f f IV Ill-nircts . Rea srtns Ci. tod for this st.anri were the drainag-e into the I101sa Chi.ca , the nend for thr� alignment of 38 ::h Street to he set prior to <annroval of *hr. n&-ojoct , the unsuitability of Product C to its location nearest. the bluF , ,and the ad-erse impract wl; ich the :vnigos rr Bol s,a Ch is a fer i s wou 1,? result to the Local :'oa s t:a 1 Plan should the projects he :a-)c ro;•eed . Thera be : nq, nr� -,ther cersons. to adeire,s the Commission , the public hr_"Irinq w:ls c? osod . Commissioner `tern Iiadu ) motion . seconded by Commissioner Cohen , that Teritntive Parcel Map *,o . 78-- 37 be denied for failure to comply with th Ci rcul .at inn McTont of the Grncra i Plan in street designa- ti i or: , for fai i trre to ,acjdrrr?5 f i,r, pos s ih '. l ity of the: site being used ,;s 1 r'"Idf al 1 for nil Operations on t_hf, c itor. continental shelf, rend For its prk.-iurl i cial and detrimental effect on the Local Coastal Plan . � 1 Disci,ssion lollowed . Commissioner Cohen stwgvsted that conoxideration or anti• forthor .applications for Fencliff IV be postponed until after the Local Coastal Plan has been presented to the city. fo�anrel. 01r'onnor fnforrr.od the .'ommis lion that: denial or continuance of a prow Ject b_ise,.1 on a oo siWe future use would be speculative in nature- and woulc ra t so serious 1 nga 1 problems. `�, -5- 12- 12-7R -- PC Minutes, H . P . Mann : Commission December. 12 , 1978 Page 6 #Uwe% commissioner liazi_l pre5ented fimeres for vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption savccl when 36th Street is constructed , noting 'r f that it should -e strtt in a savinGs of 90 , 000 gallons of gasoline and s" S75r000 per yeas, to the residents of Seacliff IV in the suture . After extensive review of the procedure and conditioning of the tenta- tive oarc:el map application , Commissioner Stern withdrew his motion for denial. CAN MOTION BY PAONF. AND SECOND BY RIISSFLL TENTATIVE PARCEL 4AP 110. 78- 37 WAS APPROVED WITH "'HE FOLLOWING FINDINGS A14D COMITIONS , BY THE F 01.,LOWING VOTE : FI`DINGS : 1 . The proposed tentative parcel nac) is cons ist:rnt with the City ' s (,t.:neral Flan , subject: to fir.al adrintion of "one Chanae 78-4 . 2 . Thr_ Iironosed parcol nap in in compliance with standard plans and speci f icati.on, on file with t.ho City as well ,-Is in compliance with the State titan Fact: and SLIJ)111('r.ent:ary City Sul)divisi )n Ordinance . � CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : 1 . 'Tits- tont•ative varr_(-% ! rnfel, recoived by tl-io Plannincl Del:)artrt��nt on t�D October S , 1117"'1 , `;h:11 1 I),.. t:ho ar-)ro od layol,rt , sul)'iect to condition I cif anrrov•al pan:'. tr) rrt: let7t. boundary; line chances result- inq From ttho c irvi 1 pe(?ocpt i on of" 71 cane Chancle No, 79•-4 . 2 . parcel. rmap Wliril1 1— f. i le,-1 with and. ii-):rows! by t:hc tart►):-err tment of Publir 1-:orks ,lnrl ")'f'!)rded 0Jit h ttl('. Or.anr;e Count-1 Recorder . 3 . Cor_ ios o ,. ho -:a,rc; ! rs:e;) shall 1 . 1.,, ' i 1 n-. with the Planning r,e;.)artnen t anr'. '.1 t: 'i tho ropo rt.ment of puhrl lc Works . i 4 . ri i :--poses 1 shall be thrnugh the Citv of 11nnt in •; ! I _!ac:h at •.ht: t. i:r.(? 01 development. . 5 . Thr� of r',rrr%< I 1 and .l !:h,: 11 he extended to _nclude t:he (.-f ? It h !zt :eet and I'.alrn Avenue . The bnundary Of I'al-cf-I 2 l)}• %xtendt.,d t.r) 3ncludr' to total riclht:--oll-way of Palm Avc!nu,—• . 6 . %pprr_ ., al of Tont :rtive 1' lrcol Man No. 73-37, ?hAll be null and void i f 7ono Cha nclo 7 fl-: tzoe 5 ric t, he!crme of festive . 7 . "'he City will precis; , plan 38th Street within a period of one year. Said prec. is>e pliin shell to mxr.•ritc at Pac:ific� Coast Highway on the ,;otich and Ga cield A�rvnue and '—Iw<ards StreoL do the north. 3 ht,dii ., t lo.n of 18t_h Street tn its; full. ultimate preciser-planned width !;hall be rnade by thr rlov(. doper from r.1cific Coast Highway to Garf ,old Avenue . t'nll :;trt7oel- improvements shall he installed wi! hin tho hluo bordor of the subject map , and i.mrsrovernent of at . Ip� -6• 1 2- 12-7R - PC ( OL a Mi nix tes , H. B . 111ar ,. _nq Commission December 12 , 1978 Page 7 ` least t4.o ( 2 ) 12-foot travel lanes shall be provided in 3Eth Street from the northerly boundary of the map to Garfield Avenue and from the southerly boundary of the nap to Pacific Coast I1ighwz3y . Said dedication and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Cc'_ti f icate Of 0ccUPancy for any phase of the project to be con- structed upon subject site . 8 . The applicant shall participate to 50 percent of the cost of any traffic signals which the Department of Public Works ',cons to be necessary at 38th and Pacific Coast Highway and at Gar rld and 36th Street . AYES : Russel_ , Cohen , Bazil , Panne NOES : Stern APSENT: Finley ABSTAIN: Higgir.a It was suggested that the remaining Sezcl if f IV applications be con- tinued to another meeting . After rnn su l t�i t i on , %Mr.. Hall agreed to such a continuancc , and it was the consensus of the developer, the Commission , and the staff to review the proposal at a special daytime '4ff meeti nq . I r , r T ` ^ 0, T T T OPI �SC?CI.C5,1 31 RiIS�F.L,`. .BUD SI�COtiD BY Ar.c. IL, C. .1nI IO?IAL USt" YERlaI _ t.0. 77-23 , TENTATIVF. TRACT 100670 TENTA'rIVE TRACT 110. 10068 , 4ND TFNTA- TIVE TRACT 1005+? WrRL CONT111MED 111711 TPE CO*1CURRENCF OF THE APrLICANT TO SATURDAY, JA`1UAR'i 6 , 1 919 , AT q : 00 A .M. IN TIlC COUNCIL, CHAMBERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Russell . Stern , Cohiin , Mazll , P;1nne NOES : Nona ABSENT: Finley ABSTAIN : Itigains, Commissionr.r Parno lssked, rliat staff prepares a detailed acwnd,a for the revie: : of the tract mnvs and the conditional use permit, setting forth each area of discussion to avoid repetition and delay. Mr . 11a I I askrc? that each Corumissioner express his concerns which he would discuss at t_hc next meeting . These were presented as follows : Commissioner F', one : Major concern will be compliance with code re- quirements and Dark acquisition. Coimi ssionev Bazil : Primary r.nr.- cerns are to see that 38th Street is precise-planned through from Pacific ^oast H i ohway to Garfield im.id that Reach 3 of the trunk line is under construction ; code cnmpl intice will .also be required. Com- missioner Cohen : Drainage will be an ;ssuc -- would like to see it all. drain toward the ncea n . The precise plan will be important , going from M'tt to Garfield . The density of Product C and the bulk of that product along the bluff is undesirable. Commissioner. Russell : h'i;.1 also require strict ar3hernncc� to rode r+�auircirents; park land will be an issue ; would like a more definitive alignment of 38th Street as it rolates to the bluffline ; precise conditions will be required for any ecological problems , such as wildlife habitat: i-Apacts; hulk of Product: C on the bluff . Commissioner Bazil added that he would like �0'3 a- Minutes , II . B. Plan. ciq Commi ss ioil December 12 , 1978 Page H to see wordin« in the C'C&Rs for the project which will quarantec maintenance of the drainage basins. This wording trust absolutely guarantee that if the basins are tint adequately maintainer' some govern-t rent entity shAll have the right to perform necessary maintenance and bill the Homeowners Association for same. Commissioner Stnrn concurred wit'l the concerns Expressed , and added thc.t he would include resolution r of. the homeowner association fie some effort to adc',....erss theissue i.,s c of low and moderate housing , a more precise cost comparison between I drainage to the Rolsa Chica and drainage to the ocean, and some allowance made for storage or. recreational vehicles within the complex . Commissioner Cohen emphasized to the developer that the above concerns ►ere not necessarily the only -nes which may be discussed at the meeting when these projects are again considered , and that, others may surface in the interim. DISCUSS IOU ! "EMS : TENTATIVE TRACT 10511;'Co,,v)IrIn?IAL USF. PEPNIT NO, 78-22 Applicant : Mola Development romEny Ac- ing Secretary Palin informed the Com=ission that the applicant has submitted a revised plan for this previously :denied Mccemher 5 , 1978) request anrd has asked that the Commission reconsider its prior action. r After discussion., it wa,. the consensus of the Crr=ission to hrant the request and (i i rest staff to rer h:'?cdu le the applications . ON MOTION' BY RUSSFIA, AN!) SI'C OND BY BAZ II. THE: RVQUFST FOR RECOMSIDERA- TION ON TFNTATIVF TRACT 1051 : AND CONDIT?ONAI, (JSF PEnUMIT NO. 78-22 FI:IS cRArITrD , BY THE FOI.I.' -I l t-M, VOTE : AYES : nioclins , Russell , Cohen , Dazil , None NOES : 17011c, a195FNT: Fir�1e, ABSTAIN : Ste?vn The Chair dire--toed th,,t_ t'rte 1-em.a indel- of the discussion itemA be conti n+ied to the resit ..ar mcot incl of Dcce nbcr lg , 1978 . ON MOTION DY PAS II. AT ND SECOND IIY RUSSELL THE 'IEFTINr WAS ADJOURNED BY THE FOLLOWT LIVIr, V071r: i A1'f;S : Russell , :stern , Cohan ► Ra7 i 1 , Pacne NOES : None ABSENT: Hic;gins , Finley ABSTAIN tone � Meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p .m. ?` J. meq W. Pa J. i n J n &tc t0 Actinn Secretary O airm i 7ro Teen ,. � Ql- Aphrnved Feb. 6 , 1979 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEC—TING Council Chamb(.-rc - Civic Center. 2000 Main S•troet Huntington Deach , California SATURDA , JANUARY 6 , 1979 - 9 : 00 M-1 CO�utISSIONERS PRESENT: Russell , Stern , Finley , Cohen , ©azi 1 , Paone CWIM.,SSIONERS ABSENT : Higgins NOTE : A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS IIIEETI?iG IS ON FILE IN THE. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE . SEACLIFF PHASE IV : �P,)l icant: _ A . J . Hall Corporation i CONDITIONAL USE PEW-ITT 110 . '17-2 3 533 siriq l o -f.am4 l y and townhouse residential units TENTATIVE TRNCT NO. 10007 : 1100 1 ats ; one lettered 1-c)t Prndoct: D TENTATIVI: TRACT !10 . 1006S : One lot. - Product C TENTATIVI. TRACT 110 . 10069 : : 47 logs ; once lettered lot _...._._._ I7 r. exl u c t A LOCATI01-1 : West of Goldenwest. Street , north of I'alm Avenue . Acting Secretary Pal in presented an outline for discussion at: this moetinq , re-vieved briefly the prior. actions taken on the Seacl.if£ � project , and presented aliernativc► mntljods of handling action on the conditional use permit and the tentative t:ra .t -applications. Chairman Finley read into the record a letter from Signal Landmark oj,posinq the proposed drainzige into the Dol.sa Chica until they have had an opportunity t:o review the specific proposal to determine how t.hn culverts , drop str•ucturcE. , and no lifications to the evistinq gully might aFtect their property . wi.11iam Elowland , Senior lice Prrsident anal counsel for Signal ► indicated their willingness to work with the proponent to find a solution , but noted that their I preference would t:e to have no water :training into ` he Dolea Gap including even the- existing natural. flow. .1� Minutes , 'i .B. Plea ing Commission January 6 , 1979 Page 2 After (j15C:1!'::; 1C1C1 it war, thy, consensus of the Cormnis. ion that. any :.p prova.l would he contingent upon a firm letter of aclreement frota Signa .1 I.andmarl: to Hit, imm-o%,,ements proposed outside of tho hound- aries of this project , or a private storm dra3i,e systen, installed to carry 4raina ge to the ocean . The public hearing was oponed . Ron Hein, i;enartment of Fish and Game , addressed the Commission . He noted that therE! is not an i.decjuate year rnund supply r: : fresh water to maintain the !Iol sa Mika as a fresh water marsh; he a lsn repeated the Cepar Unent ' s position that it did not wane ally project- generated flow drain _ny iirto tho Polsa Chica . Dave Walden , encilneer for the prolr'ct , discussed the. le(Ta l aspects involved With dive'rt. inq all the wa3te!: to tho ncea n %.tncl presented the required cost hre akdevn of t-he proposed dlra i nagv s 1 s ten -as op- t)ose:l to a systeri which wc:)islr, prcvide ,ill drai.nclar'' from the tract to the ocean via-i a 38th StreoL storm drain system . After exten:, ive review the consensus rerna i nc!d thf: sa3rne - that if nd, agrverlent is reached 14ith Siena : an alternative system. to the ocean -✓ill be re- quired . The tollowinq items were rovic-weci : Treatment of_ the_ nr�i ._nacie? (hill)' : W;'.1ciCIII v-xpla invd that. the ; quliy will he :eft open� het:ween st Cents . Thc•• cleva-lt: ion of the cul- vorts is about the sanie :,nd the r;u 1 1 y e..i 1 l he lined to provent o ros i on hctween c•u l v!-.r t s . T111' a rva will b(, cormmnn open :+rca and there 1 S in need at I �?tC`ntl (1r1 wail . �F; u .irea r,in he rva i ntained l)y thc' ;%sjociatinii if the C . t.y requires it , but as of now it in the inte-ition of the do.-k-eloper that: it be maintalnvdl by thu City . Palm Avc.'ni:•c- : Sec-rot a r,' i`d l i n +axl: a i ned t h.r t the concern is- with that section (;f llala.i Avenue hot wcen the project and Goldenwe st. Street . The noo l for it f+il i :;t recut sect icon at thi , loca: inn was revica.,ed in relation to the �'otTunis,;ion ' s desire for the dedication and i.r:,;rovenent. of 18th 5,tree�t . Corm-nissioner Da1z i. 1 1:rest-ttvil a it:ot ion for al stra%- vote? , seconded by Russell : The commitment. o,, 38th Street_ will stay the same as before and in addition all offer of dedica t-ion of Pa3m Avenue to its ult. imato right--of-way width Cron t-hr.! b.ue barder of the sub3oct: l):ojec.t to Go.ldenwe.;t Street shall be made . If' for any reason the full extent. of 38th Street is not completed , full improvements on. Palm Avenue will br. made . Motion failed by the following vat(. Ayes : Ba 71. 1 , Thi se_ 1 l , Pa 0 n 0 Nods : Stern , Cohen , P i n l ey Absent !liar; ins Abstain : NOr,e The consensus c:f" they Cor-inissir.il wait; that the dedication and i,mpiove- ment of that section of Palm Avenue would be an added condition -in the maps . I Q. -2- 1 -6-79 - Px. Minutes , If . b . 11 4; s.. '=niny Comm-isSion } January 6 , 1979 Page 3 Residual _Property Northeast: of Palm Avenu<� : Jim Palin pointed out it small ( 1-1.12 acre ) parcel which is not in- cluded within the blue borne,- of the map , ntotinq that it is blocked from access to any location or private street: . He v.U:-' ,ested that it be incorporated into the development becaaune if developed as a separate unit the City would have to aila-w some tyre of access . Mr. . Young of the Huntington Beach Company and Mr . ball both indicated that they have no plans for any use can that parcel , and Mr . )fall agreed that: they could have no objections to ,amendi.nct the Flue border of the tract to incorporate thE! parr_r 1 . Corvnissioner Poone suc;rtested that after the border is amencied 010 staff could be dir- ected to initiate ZI study as to appropriate uses for that area . Maintenance of Landsca )inq Secretary Pal in inquired of the developer who will be responsible for the maintenance of the sound attenuation wall , berming , and landseaptn along the Avinoil operation , which will he c;utside the boundaries of the tract . W . Hall said that the developer will accept that responsibility , adding , however , than when he says the developer will maintain Inc' is always referring only to the project- sides of Palm Avenue and 38th Street . ON tSOTION BY STERN AND SECOIND BY COEIEI: S'I'AFF WAS DUrCTE;D TO 'rRANSFIIT A RECOWNIENDrATION 'I'O TIIF CITY COUNCII: ON THE APPFAI. OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP tIO. 78- 37 TIIA,r t, CmIEII'rION III: ADDED RE:QUIRING THAT OFF- SIV: t•tAINTF NANCE OF I.ANDSCAP11I6, ON tall: SUU'I'I1 EST S IDF OF PALM AVI'NUE: BETWEEN nAIN AND THi: 130UNDAPY OF THE ' ,I2:JII. OPE'RATIOIJ BE THE RI•:SPONS113TIATY OF TEIF LANDOWNER , BY '1'Itt I'OI ,OWING %10'11: : AYES : Russell , Stern , Finley, Cohen , Daz i l , Panne N OF.5 : None ABSENT : Eiiggins ABSTAEN : None Oil Island Trentvwnt—. The Commission reviewed with �Ir .. 11,111 the l andscapincl and setbacks for the oil .islands ;► lonrE 38th Street , takinci into account the fact: that it is designated ar. it scenic route . mr. Hall indicated that landscaping treatment will he similar to that tined on islands within the I'3eaach;atclk development , and residential setbacks will conform to City requiremvntn. Maintenance of the streets used by oil equipment as access was discussed , with a possible condition t-o be imposed f.ne• c.o,istr.uctinct those private streets so used to pt►blic street standards . : tiedian Width and Treatment: it waas pointpcl out. that- the mudlan wie.ths at 29 feet are wider t than necessary and could be reduced to 16 rO—et . tir. 11a l l agreed to such reduction except at the entrance on t', Street: to Product A, ` �' -3- 1.-6-79 - P.C. minutes , 11 .B. rLoninq Cot+unissioil January 6 , 1979 Page 4 where it might: at some future date be desi ral+ '.e to install a guard house for project. security . It was .also nct(_-%d that: .a raised me-dian r; at the intersection of A Street and 38th Street will. be necessary. Aftc:r review, it was the Consensus that location and width of med- ians will be conditioned to be installed subject. to requirements of the Del)ar. traent of Public Works . Street widths : The developer was advise d of the minimuin requi r.�ment of 42 feet back of curb to hack cif curb street width . I'ro,.• ision for insta11.1- Lion of utilities was reviewed and the developer exF :• .used his wi.l linant!ss to vro� , i e for utilities by either eCzsert. or dec3ica- ` Lion , as well as accepting full r,-s pons:ibi.lity for maintenance back of r-.irb . rt was determined that the Departnerat of Public Works should be resp.ansibl.e for' ut i 1 i t%' easCmer.t.s during the pro- cessing of the street i.mprovernrnt plans . Treatment of 38th Street : The status of 38th as a scc:nic route c.cas ar1 in discussed . Sta f f Was directed to d cvelop standard plans for l .anclsceipi n�j scenic hillh- way corridors throu(Ihout the City , to which this project wo.,•ld be expected to conform. SPFC'IAL PE WILT NUOUP STS, Building Bulk : Mr. !mall informed the- Commnission that the units in C are approximately 265 to 3,Ptl fret Beam the bluff eddts and probably will not be vi nible from Pacific Coast. 1tighway and should not affect the view from the Balsa Chic_a , as they v.ill ►_-,e oriented at angles to the streets and will havo mounds and intensified landscaping to screen them . A -'tiny Socretary Pa in discussed the intent of they code requirement for no more than six units side by side . After dis - cussion by the Commission it was the consensus that, the 2-story, 8-unit buildings not tho intent of t:hc.- cede, and by st:.raw vote of. 6-0 it was determined to allow the building bull; as proposed . Parking Reduction : Product C: The proponent has already ar. reed to meet code recluiremon is in Product c'' and has :submitted two alternative plans to accomplish that: encl . Jim Pal i n noted that lie w,a q reserving the riol:t: to review the calculations on parking i and bodroom count within Lhis product. area . 1 Product I_s : The applicant is re-questing to b- allowed to count an .additional 42 spaces, of apron harking in order r� to comply with cNie . Tho1 Commission reviewed the request , and denied the special permit by the following straw vote; !Ayes: Bazil , Rus sal l Noes: Stern , Finaly, Cohen, Panne Absent ; Higgins .1�� ,r?r+ Minutes , H.i3. PI ning Commission► "aa:auary 6 , 1979 Page 5 i Parkin in Product © rnust cernpl with cede. . g � } Recreation Areas : Architect Ray Salmi explained the recast :is why -rer- ation I)Ui ldings had been omitted from the project and outlined the types of facil- ity to be provided in Product B . The-se, include tat lots , jogginct trails, and volleyball or basketball cornets . Na swimming pool will be l provided in either A or 0 product areas . Tho Commission reviewed P the request and by a straw vote nf 6-0 determined that the recrea - tional facilities provided in Product B were. adequate. However , by a straw vote .of 0-6 the facilities in A were found in- adequate and the developer required to design similar recreational facilities into Product A as proposed for Product 11 , with a mini - t:tum of 10 , 000 square feet to be centrally located thrnuclhout the f project area . Mr . Ball agreed to this condition. Building Separation : Mr . Salmi noted that the buildings arc. set at: a •15 degree. .angle to one another and , although at the cicscst points they do not: meet. code requirements , the divergence produces an avorage far in excess of noMal building setback . Commissioner Da.it a xpr►'ss(-d the opinion that such siting would result in a more desir.•.-ablc cornp?ex. Lay a straw vote of 6-0 the lcirLmissir.�n determined to .allow the variati.cn in buildincl separation. _Side Yard Setback Adjustments : By ,t a-0 straw vote.` thi, CCiInm2 ssi on determG_ed toallow the spacial permit rcclue:r. t for xl] irstmeant in side }yard setbackr- . Trash Enclosure Elimination : By a 6-0 straw vote the Commission determined to allow the special permit request for cl. ininat• ion of trash enclosures within Product A,re.as A aiul 13 . other discuss inn items were reviewed as follows : Garage Setbacks in Product C : Althouah the code requires that 50 percent of garages be .at 20 foot setback , Product C does not pzo- vide that ratio. Commissioner Aacil noted that he- would prefer not to see parking in front of Lho •ani.ts if it can be provided else- where. The Cornmi scion discussed the problernt and by a straw vote of • 6-0 instructed Mr . Palin to review the layout. and determine parkinq to code , but not necessarily in front of the garagea . The 50 per- cent setback regtiirernent will not apply . Parks : .Tim I' alin outlined the prior recoruncttdations of the Recrea- tion Banc', i'tarks Department f01- use of park dedication to be required of this project , which is at variance with the Commission' s desire ►' that the dedication be utilized to provide park space within this specific development . Discussion on park siting resulted in the fol- lowing recomnendat:ions : 1) three acresacross 38trh Street: with i Minutes , li .A l ,anning Commission January 6 , 19;9 Pacle G access via underpass or r.verpa.s : ; 2 ) t.ho residual parcei of land and the adjacent oil island fin the future) located ncirthvv ast of � Palm Avenue; and 1 ) an interior site within the project itself . The residual parcel would nerve the existing Se.acliff projects as well as the subject project , would he easily accessible , is adjac-• ent to the oil island which could he incorporated in the future , .is adjacent. `:o an existing tennis court sand arter. ical street , and would use up a problem Dieter of property for which no oth. r use h.s been put: forth. The three acres across 38th Street was considered to be it start toward the proposecl linear parlt .along the bluffline . After discussion of the Corinis, ion ' s role in ostabl .ishing lark sites and the desirability of the propot;ed locations , a astraw vote was taken. Commissioners Paone , Cohen , Finley and Stern voted that the Commission: ask for hot:h the three acres across 38th Street. and the residual parcel at: 11alm to be dedicated park sites with the remaining portion applied a, credit to,,r,:►r�1 fut.11re park sites; Commissioners 13azi1 and Russell preferred that only the 38th Street location should be dedicateci and the balance applied as credit. The recommendation will be that the tract.-.-, Y)e conditioned to pro- vic3e the two pa rl: s i teq . I Sewers : Mr . Hal 1 proposed that- t.hc, pro )evt teat be conditioned to wait For completion of Reach 3 olf the, cnast,i 1 t rung. ,ewer , but that buiding permits would he issued as !.',ep:irtmont of Public Works veri - fies that newel' faclllt:Les, pare avcallai)1L' t (- ie_r,., .` thrC ,m. Bob Bazi ) Opposed such a condition bec<suse of the impact it could ha,.- • on the development of the already eni ahl i shyrl ;3(-wn'%.f)wn carecar, that will need t:o use Peaches 1 and 2 of the sc-wor , sayinJ that priority should not: be given to this Virgin , undo°o0lol%od Site . By a 6- 0 straw the CGrn.mission retchf irmod its intcntinn th0t Reach 3 of the trunk line shall he in cppr. ,:; t: i nn nrinr to c orti f i crate of occupancy. Rf�creation Vehicles : The Commission rrqu i red that: the CC GRs con- tain a restriction on nuch, vehicles , and the proponent agreed . l,ssociation i'e:��� : Mr . hall informed tht- c.omnds, io.-. that. he could ;tic�t give are' ac:cur�atc ficlurc cr. the prnl-lose_ d f�E`t' , , but r:io5t such projects range from low of S50 or $55 to i,120 or $ 125 . Low;Moderate Cr.st Reel:iitici : Corn*ni s sion::�r St c_-rn spa id that hi! w;Ould • 11�e to wee Some Provision Lh,at sn- ino pvrcent.a�le Of the units ill the high density Product C bo ,allrcatect through the CC&Rs to low and moderate income, housing , perhaps; by the devoloper hi.maeif or by his selling them in a block to some buyer who will maintain them as � low rent units . The percentac.le could be a f iguro of 10 perr:ent. Commissioners Russell and P.-tone fc-,l t t1lat any f icYure would be 'noth- ing morn than an indi.cat: ion to the Coastal Commisnioti that the City is aware of the problem and objected to, such a provision beirey imposed upon the proiect . Ito -��- 1'-6-79 - P. C. J Minutes, H . B . Pleanni.ng Commission January 6 , 1979 Page B ON MUTTON Ils RUSSELL AND SECOND BY STc:RN THE MEETING 14AS ADJOURNED TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 1.6 , 1979 , BY THE FOLLOWI:fG VOTE: " AYES : Russell , Stern , Finley , Cohen , hazil , Paone Nors : ?tone ABSENT: If iggins MeeIC nrj adjourned at 6 : 15 p. m. James W. Palin Ruth Finley Acting Secretary Chairman V I' I I f ' piY _p_ 1-6--79 - P . C. • 111, Minutes , 11 . 11 . Platlninc_t Commissiozi January 6 , 1979 I'.,lcl(� 7 I aolin O' Connor cautioned that i such a -wond i t is , wr_; e i riy),:)scA upon the project. it. would have to 1`c: vary :-wpe-rifle, gar; to ttte. nur►tber of units , the definition of " low" ,anti "moderate" inron,�. , and the means of enforcing they requir:emonlL . He notet1 that since the City does not presently have the ley-pert_ i. sr, LID aF1131 i Suc11 a requi revert_ i. t be bew trr tr; include w-uch ., :-c-•': sion in the Housing Element of the Genera ;. Plar. and develop a broad ahl:roac,h to the problem rather than isolatitvi it within a ringlo project . Extensive Commissicn disc(rssinn fn1lnv.,rd , ir, thr- ollow- 1,1U straw vote .against i.nc-ludin( provision of low. Cot-0. housinq as a condition of approval an the project : ti Ayes : Stern , Cohn Noes : Russel.'. , Finley, Dix zi 1 , Paone Absent : 11iggins ComR:issioner Stern ttiat i minority report. lit? transmitted in his name favoring provision of low and mculerate cost_ housinq within the pr-(.)ject . Ccmrni f; :; i,c)rlrrs Ba z i l and Finley , with the cnrl-- cur-rence of the rernaindor of the Com:nissior. , askod that stick a report con-t-ain a stat:(.-ment that: all Con'utitisioners favor" t.le con- struction of low and moderatre housinq within th,2 City and that their vote in opposition w;� s not against such hnelsirtc; hc'r se 1r:;t ragainst a *condition for which no e nforcerier.t mechanism was available at nresent. Rhoda Martyn , of Ami.rlos ci►! Prilst-i China , i,,fdros,ed the Cuaunission in oplDnsition to the -.arrant ir, of t.hr_ project: . Act. incr SeGret.,ry Pal in r:aic1 that. he will prep:irc• suggested condi - tions of appro,.-al to %C.'f l.t (`. t this dl.,; a scion and the voter of the Carnmis,inn . Thesc rand i t:i ono• l.wi l 1 he ava i lablo for the appl icavt ' review by 1.1cdnesday noon and will tat' ciistributed to the Commission in its packets Friday . Mr . Hit l l ::c;re v(1 t n r, i nu,anct- eir. ! ho ,,rovi s i hn t tt;l t ;tc� i �11�1 t. rrty i r�wa thew �,.�r;;' i t: ions and L h.:l t no r.e�: .-trues of (.-rinc,rr, or n(­ej i -:;t,c•:; will l)c� a;. the avyw tneet- inq . Ccmrnissioner Itar_i 1 askecl that the Comini s . ion ' S position on t:hr park. dedication be forwarded to the Recroitt irin :and Part:_; Depart- ment for revs e?!t h,.- their Commi ;s icn . The applicants were instructed to s,rhmit l, l.,ns for PrrKlur_ t C rirrnonstrating bedroovi count , c-a l etl l a t—i ores on gre and net arras as they may he adjusted throuclh the zoning . anti .an update on the statistical .inalysis . The` public heel r 1 nq on the Se:ar l i f f Phase IV applications war- con- t- 1nUed . moll -� ►J:; MOTION 6Y 13AZ11, AND SECOND STF11,14 C)NDITIONAL USE PE I-ITT NO . `r-23 , TT 1 OQ6? � 7`c 10068 , AND TT 10069 WERE CONTINUED WITH THE CON.- CURRENCE OF TIIC: APPLICANT 'ro THE J NUARY 16 , 1979 , MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING V -TE: AYES : Itu.''sell , Stern , Finley ,y , Cohen , Bazil , Mona NOES: Non,2 ASSr-N,r : iicjgins hlinut:i--s , tt . 3 . Plci -it Iinq C_'ommi:., ion January 23 , 19"11 r 3 . J1S1 �� i:3tain� proi,ct-.��c', For the , itc:• Oiall comply with Artic..lr s 9.1El and 9*,'6 of the 1}untin'- ton Leach Ordinance Code. 4 . 'I'Ii aI)er i--a11 p r o v i i r,2i ;e(I rr,rdian in Ycsrkt:own Avcnuc pi,r t:hr: st:--.,i d ;t , -I, o: t-he 1)art_rn.o11t. c)f Pta51 is WarkS . AYES : ! 1 , St f rrt , �':rr ! =y , Co.1lon , B a:- i I , Paone. IJ(il::+ : Unno AbSTAI '7 : IIirzcti11 TT 1C06'7 , 1()069 100 I,AIZTF'ICAT10N OF CQC:I) ITIC.) I Applicant : _ i�.�._?. ..IId11 �Cort;nrc-lt_ Loll It: Wil! blOLD-110. try thy' cf t:h!: Commi si.on that: C'o;id1tion ;mr.-w-i?tl utinn t-11,_' iillllf?i:f t '.'r'. I, ivc- 1. vat' -0,'i ut?an their- .Iat,rnval l:,iri not. rcf lr� . t ' i '_ h' ' : r,�: :3•, i:.)sa t.ho Commission in re— Cta2'cl t:C :iir.' ');1I'k After review of t prior rll scuS.., Icio, sl .l ' f c.i'.'1ct,e thr' first: and third of t It's th.-it condr itinn , reuuir-- i n!-, resc-c'l't i try` l v t:lii:' l oc.l z 3 n,i (7'f :t 3-ii(-,,- ? :'r1 rt: n i tc, at the sou th-- at7t:er1.'. COUT1C'r 5;. r-et: am! Palm A,,,, 'r;i)j:' Arl..? T:hr_' offer for t.liC4nt' l cltt _ r)r ii,'►: :!!: ri r):;c rat t_he oil 01)C'r"!t.lc)r1 19 tand oft f S t a ! .` 1 i 1 r"`..'r .'r t 1; ;1:i ? ! 1 C)!1 It-rI F.t:t` ^. i + tic' c•c'v t 's Cond i t i 0n LC',;i•-C(i 'I' 'HOU:r, I , _-SUDl:t&MMIT'i i:I.: i PPOI.t:'i'MEINT T1.: llnit2l :�^101].`'i l'Cf:�.r'1t1� Dr ._ lic-nry�.',liffman was appointocl as, the trfll.vi t'.I,'I'tIWI- to t:... I-O'W COSt: HOW' IfiO G_ 1SCU!i'S I0111 : After reviet'i of the 3L:ticq, i !.c.ms , t1le went: into study sessi,.-)r-, 11car d scu-,:siicr. of the rol. , of t.hc! and the staff in the !^ Iclnll :t',Ct pro:_1-_ss , cond!'rt. of i?1E'f?t itliii , and 1,-gi31ation affoct.inq tfI.anr►inq . Mr.-oting adjournod .at 1 .1 : 0 p.m . Ile 1 j n f'ut�t �• r i �` , 'tl ,•� F�z- Actinc; Svc rf' t-ary r Minutes, H. B . planning Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan dated December 1 , 1978 , shall be the approved layout . 2 . No more than sixteen (16) on-premise seating shall be pro- vided unless the applicant can provide offstreet parking based on the provisions of Article 979 . AYES : Higgins , Russell , Stern , Finley , Cohen , Bazil , Paone NOES : None ABSEwr: None ABSTAIN : None SEACLIFF PHASE IV: p licant : _ A. J - Hall Corporation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HO . 77-23 : 533 single- family and town- house ue si.3ent_ial units TENTATIVE TfJ CT NO . 10067 : 190 lots ; one lettered lot Product B E` TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 : One lot ( Product C) TENTATIVE T!;.ACT NO. 10069_: 1 '7 lot T ; one lettered lot Product A COmr'l1SF.l0nC'r ii2c7gl ns lnrorr-.^e3 tht, C ha l `'man - nd thu Commission that he would abstain from. participation cr- voc111q on this pro- ject and on the following TI'i 10511 to avoid iiny apoe .rance of conflict of interest . Mr . Higgins left the muetinq at this paint . The public hearing on they Seacliff: project was continued frog the prior meeting of January 6 , 1979 , and the meeting was opened for public comment: by the Chairman . Steve Schumacher, resident of the exi.stinq 5eaciiff development- , addressed the %ommission to discuss they traffic; impact which might result on Goldenwest Strect : f 39th Street is installed from the Edwards/Garfield intersection but not completely through to Pac- ific Highway, and urged the Commission to make sure t7at- 38th does not become a "paper" street . fie also discussed the means of e~r..orcing the parking restrictions within they tract: and the opera- tion of the oil wells in a manner compatible with the adjoining residential units . ~e" Ed Shockey addressed the r,.o;nr fission to s-ty that the City needs a completed coastal plan before this de-. -�Aopment is approved in this environmentally sensitive area. There being no other persons to address there applications , the publ: ­ t>';ea r tncl was closed . lt� -5- 1-16- 79 - P.C. Minutes , H. D. Ft nning Commission January 16, 1979 Page 6 Acting Secretary PaUn presented the revised condi t ion n pursuant to Commission discussion at its January 6 , 1979 mn_etinq and outlined the revised layouts submitted by the devel.ot)er. He discussed the City Council ' s action on the zone change appcal , ::he- response from the Recreation and Parks Commission to the Commission ' s desires in regard to park dedication, and the new goals, anel objectives set by the Council which require any new project to carry a quar.antee of sufficient funding for future maintenance and upkeep . Staff and Commission reviewed the suggested conditions of approval as follows : Conaitional Use Permit 77-23 @6 : Poke Zambory reported that prior agree-rents had been reached between the flunti.n7ton Beach Compiiny :trnd the City for a 50/50 participation in the cost of inst_�al.lation of .a traffiz signal at Palm Avenue and Goldenwest 5t. r,:�et ; he f'art•her informed the Commission t. is antic- ipatecl thatt this signal should be installed within a matter cf six months . After review it was determined that th#, City rhould huncr thi :, prior r.o,.-unit-rient and Condition tic) . 6 changedaccord i n(I 1 y . I 47 : Commissioner Stern sugcie - tee +_hat the t ,-.Ti,,, perio-1 t-1110, wed for f the procise plan on 38th Street should be i1lt:Cry"a from " approva of this p! eject" try "afr-'er first recordation of if f i-nal map . " V- "ornrnissiort concurred %. ith this; r-han-.—Io . it w,a, also deter- mined that the scco::cl paragraph of this rUnd tion did not acetir- ately : C .•c,rlect the o-nnission ' s intnnt. i.c)n that Palm Avenue be- tweon the project: and Geld nti�est_ St. roet F,houid ace fully dc!di- cated and improved recTardless of what: dut�.i,rmin.atio is f inijlly made on the 38th .gtrc-rt ext:�nsinn , and. �t�af f was directed to revise the condition to that e f r ect. . 18 : Commi ss i onor Stern regtiested ,-.hat ,a,.Atomat: i c rtarage door open- err be ins'.�� 1let^ on itn�,� c:nr�aclr� ��it.'► n - ny project: which does not: have n 20-foot drivc: iihron , .and tho Comni:;sion agreed to the shame; . 022 : The Corar. is lion clal'i f iCf; this condi t. ion reriarding the required temporary fencing by i n.^.I rid ,ig that. it should be required ' only ad;racent to the pro-ihc t: and not. for the full loencith of the proposed 3 8 th St rec-t .and that it cost ld be a 5-foot high chain link; or cyclone ferzo construction . 423: Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the revised floor � plans for Product C have been submitted ; the Cornsnission must make a decision on hc,'w .access to the par,kirq nodes is to he resolved and amond :_ondition 23 . Met Otr said that parking wi it be critical i n all areas and sorne control must, be worked out . The fire Cr-partment still prefers the two entries to the parking nodes aid would like all access aremn not speci fi- cal?lr dr.nigr-.atr.•d for parkin: -pacer to br_ posted "Fire Lane Ala P.arkisag . " The Commission discussed rrc.ans of enforcing -6- 1-16- 79 - P. C. Minutes , H .B. >M ,nning Commission ►� January 16 , l0i Page 7 parking rest,.* ictions and the budget rest-Taints on using City personnel for such enforcement . Commissioner Bawil suggested that the two access; drives within 40 feet of each other would not pone a critical problem off a local residential street and he would go along with the Fire Department ' n two-vn`ry approach . fie also noted that the designation as fire lanes would permit the Fire Department to cite violators . Hr. Ott emphasized that his concern for posting, should be applied to all three project areas , not just Product C . Commissioner Paone proposed that the pro(Iran for parking , circulation , and access within Product C should be to the t approval of the Fire Department , providirg only that parking count still meets code , and that all other drive.; and nccess- ways become fire lanes . The Commission concurred -with this condition, and Counsel O' Connor sugge: ted that in future the City Council might wish to address this typry of parking problem by an ordinance that would apply uniformly through- ! out the City . 2 5 : The developer requested that the wording on this coed t: ion be clarified , as it might be construed an requir ina the Homeowners ' Association tti naintain t'hr' landscaping within the stroot TTodi •'li1S . Y', t:t' i'zf? horJ' infor-med } h!� (Cann* fission thz+_ the City will. assume responsibility for landscaping within the street m(--d inns <in(! anvthinct ,:.n project side of the curb krill be maintained b}- the Association . Staff will rewrite th(, condition to reflect this . 427: Secretary Pal in point.r.d out that the n•_w 1)1 ,171 submitted for the recrea t:i oria 1 facilities in Pro:luc t r% nr;.� provides the amenities requested by Commissicri . The plan was reviewed and ,,Approved and the condition will be amended to reflect the revised plan . TentativE Tracts 10067 , 10066 , h 1U1069 #5 : The Commission directed that this cand' Lion be amended to require that there should be drainage to the ocerin via 35th Street if fcr any reasot the proposed drainage system could i not be installed (e . a . , if permission cunnct by obtained from Signal Landmark foi the offsite improvements) , 013 : Secretary Palin reported that he has met with the developer and worked out a curb radius in Product H of 42 feet , wh!ch is now depicted on the plan . Therefore lie suggested and the Co . ,:insion agreed that the condition could be revised to require a minimum outside curb raditis in Product p of not less than 40 feet . S i 017: The Commission discussed the future validity of the letter of agrcr mint for acceptance of street drainage.. it was decided that the condition should contain the term " irrevocable" and that provision for recordation cf the letter should bi., included . . lilt -7- 1- 16 79 - P .C. I Minutos, ti . B . e'lanning Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 8 #21 : Park dedication was again reviewed in light of the communi- cation from the Recreation and Parks Commission . Commissioner Bazil said that he is in favor of leaving park dedication up • - to the jurisdiction of the Parks Commission and would not agree to requiring the parks as a condition on the maps . The remainder of the Commission, h9wever , was still in favor of the original two park sites outlined in they suggested condi- tion. Timing on the dedication of the present oil operation site was reviewed , taking into consideration the length of time the oil operation may continua , the cos: of acquiring that island in the future , and the question of whether or not the area can be designatod now as a park site without credit having to be given for it . Jim Palin reminded the Commission that this blue border of the map will havc to be revised to encompass the park site , and that a commitment has already been obtained from the applicant to include: tht• oil island within the blue border of the map as well . i Commissioner Bazil sug -stod that thy, :actual site of the oil island could be designated by an amendment to the General Plan as open spice now and acquisition left until the oil opera- ' tions are ter;nir►ated . TO that were done he could endorse the designation o� the 1 . 5 acre re_:,idua l parcel as a park site at the present time , but not thtr 3-acry park across 38th � Street . 11 cer cxtensive dis-cussio;i the Commis ,: ion directed stNff to atnenr. the condition to require the 3-acre perk across 38th Street and the 1 . 5 acre re sidii.il parcel at Palm and Golden- we st- and also to pursui• the rode s i qna t ion o. the oil island to POS or some other suitable .oninq cla-,st _' icatlon via a General t'lan amendment . 024 : The Commission rf.viewed this; candition , which (it, Iineates and regulates the drainage systr.m. It was fot•nd to comply with the intent of the Commission to assure proper -Maintenance and continuing effectiveness of the retention ponds and other related facilities. #25 : Secretary Palin informed the Commission that this condition requiring a revised map on TT 10068 to meet minimum parking requirements has been met on the revised plant . Commission may either delete or clarify the condition by designating the revised plan as the approved layout , which the Commission determined to Flo. r� No further modifications to the sugtIvsted conditions of approval were made. c Commissioner Cotten stated his >:ec ling that this project will br.. prejudicial to the Local Coastal. Program , that it has not properly -a- 1-16-79 1 Minutes , N. B. L.inning Commission January 16, 1979 Page 9 addressed the issue of affordable housing , that thc-re has been little or no trade off for thc special� perm` is which have been granted, and that no weight has been given to the cost vs . revenue effect to the City taxpayers which r -.y result frum the project . Commissioner Finley also expressed her continuing concern Mahout the Local Coastal. Program, saying that approval of the project would be a pre-judgment in this area . She rioted that, although the Commission has been advised that the LCP is not within its purview, it should still have been possible for the Commission to act in its advisory capacity to the City Council by pointing out the conflict with the mending Local Coastal Program and perhaps by asking the Co,.Incil for a moratorium in the area until the LCP is ccnnpleted . It is tier intention to vote against the project Ito get these concerns in the record . A MOTION WAS MADE S�' RC.'S SELL AND SECONIDED BY PAONE THAT CONDITION- AL USE PER!•tIT NO . 77-23 BE APPROVED WITH THE. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND WITH THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS AS AMENDED AT THIS !-'.FETING. MO- TION FAILED BY Tftr FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Russell , Bazil , Paone NOES : Stern , Finley , Cohen ABSENT: IJone ABSTAIN : )i icrg ins Commissioner Finley changed he,-- vnte to "aye" or, the conditional Use Permit and will do the same on tho_� re-i teat i ve tract maps, for the following reasons : 1 ) The maps mast be acted on at this meeting or stand approved without conditions : 2 ) the Cormission has worked hard to place conditions afl6ressing the many .areas of concern . In all probability the prof t will be appealed to the City Council anci the Council will be able to determine the suffi - ciency of those conditions . THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CC)Nl vr,101tA1, USE PF.RI,I17 NO. 77-2:3 WAS ADOPTED WITI{ THE FOLLOWING FINI-IIIMS AND C(7)141D]T10NS , 6Y THE: FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDING': 1 . The proposed use of property is consistent with the General Plan. 2 . Al? desicln ,and improvement features .are proposed in compliance with Cite ordinances , standards , and spcciai. permits granted by the Planning :9mnission . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The revised composite site Flan reflecting these deta 1 is and ameni- ties, as required by the Planning Con nission and those shown upon supporting plans received on October 18 , 1970 shall be constructed -9- 1 - 16-79 - P. C . . 119 Minutes, H. B . Plann_ - " Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 10 as indicated within the developments , including but not limited to open space , water areas , textured pavement, fencing , schematic elevations , materials and colors , recreation facilities , pedestrian walkways , and oil well treatment. 2 . Prior to issuance of building permits, all exterior building eleva- tions shall be reviewer: and approved by the Planninq Department. 3 . The CC&Rs and Association ruler shall set forth provisions to pro- hibit the storage of recreational, vehicles upon designated open parking spaces within the project . Q . Prior to the issuance of building hermits , tho developer shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Native plant materials shall be utilized in landscaoi.nq programs within the project drainage facilities . The project sponsor shall. coordinate with the Depart- ment of Fish and Game in the preparation and review of these land- scape plans . 5 . All garages within Product Area C and any other garages in the other product areas which are constructed havinq less than, a 20 foot drive apron shall be equipped with automatic garage door ooeners . 6. If central air conditioning is installed in an, units , the insula- tion in ceilings and exterior walls shall he a minimum of R- 19 and A-11 respectively . If no central Alin conditioning is provided , the insulation in ceilings and exterior %,,:a l is shall be a minimum of R-•13 and R• 7 respectively. 7. All huildin spoils such as unusable lumber , wire , pipe , and other surplus or unusable materials shall be hauled to an offsite disposal facility. 8. All dwelling units shell be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards sct forth for all those units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. 9 . Energy saving lighting , such as high--presSUre sodium vapor lamps or equivalent energy saving types , shell be used in recreation areas . 10 . Low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets within the dwelling units . 11 . Cons+.ruction techniques recommended in the gootectinical report on file for the project shill be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Community Development. 12 . Prior to the issuance of building pefmit:s , the developer shall submit to the planning Department for re%,tew and approval a fully dimensioned site plan for all lots within the nubdi.vision . -10-- 1-1u-79 - P.C. Minutes, lt. B . Plana' Convnissioil January 16 , 1979 Page 1.1 13 . Prior to the issuance of building permits , detailed calculations on interior noise levels based on final, building plans shall he submitted to the Planning Department and the Building Department for review and app:ovz,l . The interior noise levels of all structures shall not exceed the California noise insulation standards of 45 dba CNEL. 14 . All surfaced .areas used f,-)r drives For vehicktlar access in , over, and through all .-areas within the vrojec..ts shall be derignated as fire access lanes and posted as such . The CC&Ps for the Homeowners ' Association shall. contain a provision to requires that the Association enforce parking restriction in those fire lanes . 15 . Approval of Conditional Use Permit No . 77-23 shall become null and void if Zone Chance No. 78-4 does not became, effective. 16 . Prior to recordation of any final map , the MR-, for tite projects shall be submtLtecl tc, the Plaanniny [)ep.tr'-mc:it fc: rcview to assure compl ianc o with all appl i c-able c:on6 i t ions of approval and to the Attorney ' s office for review as to. 1 e(ia 1 form. 17 . Prior tc final huildino, insp-�c_t_inn , temporary "encing to consist of a five (5 ) foot high chain 1 i ilk constr).:(: t. ion shall he installed on the northwest side of 38t:h Street ac; j►ace llt. tc.► the ;))most: bound- ary to prohibit access to the surroundinc; oil operations' , bluffs , and marsh area unless the area sk1J:w:jeg11er►tl,r 1?ccomes subject to the Jurisdiction of a public ►�qenc 7 pbli 1 y 18 . The revised plk-tri ! car Product. C received, a-zcl d3t,:4rl aalluary 16 , 1979 shall be the aopr ,nver, layout fnr the Minimum hat inch r"•-uire menu cn Product C. 1'a h parkin<< node shall reflect total circulation around and through Such area art(i tile desir:n of such circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. 19 . Prior to any imhroverrent:s to tl;�i� drai iv,.je channel , test 1evr. 1 ii1vest0.1tioi,s Shall }>c' m,Ide by a csua l i f iedarchaeologist approved by the P 1•�nn i nit for (;(V% .113 and OF.A 2194 . A written report shall be submitted to the ► annink*i Dr,t)ar'tment indicating the depositional character, the research potent i .i 1 , and potential miti- gating rne�asures for each site. Iitigation rrieasure!s necessary to preclude site in►F:airirent , as approved by the Planning Director , shall• be complied with. 20. The MRs and the Association rules shall c0nt.ain a provision that the Homec��,:ne�rr. ' Assn i a t lon shall be ob 1.i g.i , d for rt.;intenanrc� and upkeep of the: dralnacl(' system, n iciewaiks , irrtgat ion system , and j 1 andscapiag both wi th i•,; and outside of the vubl i c, rights-of-way adjac- ent to the public street sections within tho eacliff Phase IV devel- opment, except that the Association shall not t)e obligated to 'r naintain any landscaping , street pacing , or drainarlr syste ". locaft ed within the public riclhts-of--wale from bark of curb to b►lek of curb. 17� -1 1 ._ 1 - 1 A-7n - r' C'• Minutes, 11 . 13 . Planni . Cornmission January 16 , 1979 Page 12 21 . Recreational facilities shall be provided within the common open area of Product Area A. The revised plans received and elated January 16, 1979 , shall be the approved layout for these facilities . r' 22. tnformation submitted by the developer for consideration for inclusion in the Reel Estate Report for all three product ar.-as shall contain a statement on the obligation of the 11omeowrir.i•s , Association for the maintenance of private drainage systems and sidewalks . 23 . The land owner or hi.; designee slit-ill be tiesponsihle for the installa- tion and the:. maintenance of the herminq , lanrlscapincl , and wall for noise attenuation treatment alonq the southwest ,, rly side of Palm Avenue between the existinc: tennis court facility and the intersection of Palm Ave-ije and 38th Stret!t . 24 . All private drives used to prnvidc. inrtress and cairess for the oil operations shall he required to be constructed with a sere at section the same as thosr: constructed for local streets . 25. A raises median shall he: c:c�nrt:ruc:LUd within r, Stree!_ at the inter- section with 38th Street , of - •width and tr• comply with the specifications of the Department of Pulbl i c I orks . 26 . If the City develop!; land --capir:,; str.ndard plan!. fr+r tale scenic routes within t-hr- City y(., r r of" first. recordation of , any final ma p within this pro )cct , the install the treatment ,along 38th Slue' _-t in compliance a itll -,.7i1 pl.aans for the off island oil %.•ctls , scroviiina_ walls , and landscaping areas a-tlor•.ct that route . 27 , Street dorlic.7t .iol) tr" th., C'it_} for A :irid is Streets shall include + •12 feat , pli.s aret-i for p.,blir ut-ilities easement back of curb to lh,ick of curb. All street l ..ndscc-frAnq and meandering sidewalks shall be r n—tri and malntaairivd l)}• th.;. Tfomeow'ners ' Associa- tion . Public aacc.t�ss shall lie prov id.Ld ors pv r inoter walkways. 28 . Street right-of-way dedicated to ttit.t Citr• for Palm Avenue shalt be � 100 freet wide . This riarht:-of --ti.a y shall include an 8-foot oi'fstract bikeway on the southor 1•,► side in lieu of' ai sidewalk . A meandering sidewalk and intensified l0ndsC•1;z i nq shall bo provided on t hc, northerly side of the: street. The sidewalk./landscaping on the pro- ject side of Paalrn Avenue, =has 11 be owned and miainta fined by the 11orre- owners ' Association . 29 . A meandering sidewalk and i n tc 7 i f i ed s t rent: 1 as n i soaping shall be provided on the east wide of 38t.Jt Street. and shall b owned and maintained by the Hometiwnvrs ' Ar.sociation . public access shall be provided can this perimeter sidewalk . �^ 30 . In Tentative Tract. 10069 , lazidsc:ape planters with parkinU on one side only shall he extended in as perpendicular fashion on each and to denote parking areas as atttlined in attached Exhibit ` a . I . � 1 r. Minutes , 11 . 13. P1znn .L.-Ig Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 13 31. Detailed plans for noise_ attentIaLion on the South side of balm Avenue shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issu- ance of building permits. 32 . Off island wells shall br! convcrtod to common opon undc!r the Ownership and maintenance of the AsSCICi at_1on at such time as oil operations cerise . The .abandonmont- and clearinq of the site of all oil oper..t ion equipment. shall 1» the: responsibility of the oil operator . The Homeowners ' I',sociat.inn shali be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all lands,.-capi;ny to convert the areas to comanon open space . In the alternative , the (leveloper may , print- to th��• roccrd it;ion of a final reap, submit a revised site plan to ir;rnr-por. ate these areas into additional lots rand/or units within Prndtl(-ts A .and A . This plan shall be reviewers for ---pprn% al Faction l;1 the Planninq Depart- ment and the CC&Bs for t. Tt" pra)ec t shall i nc l ilrle provisions for- the annexation of these 711.•ea ,, . 33. Threta- foot W ) wainterwinur, ei'j orenti; s:h,tl1 !)t� prn,• ided in Tenta- tivc� Tracts 100►i7 tn(I IOGF�9 �al �>I�(t �11 .1 :.ere- :; idl -. yards Unless the Homeowners ' Association wi11 assurne all exterior maintenance responsibiIi �r . 1 34 . drainage .`:y St1`r') i11a1nte:)can('r' r71i),n fGI' l?t'r('o1atLon; r"ete.fation ponds , culverts . channel and rr' lated f:ic' l ; ltivs shall be developed to ensure facilities. will r„iint.ain dog; ign capacities to assure cant-intiod ef. fectivvner;s . Thi :, r-i�)inLon%nco plan shall be �zrsl�r )ved by Hio Depart1Tierit of t•:or}:s Irc(1 the California neflart_tnont (,f fish (-ar?(: c,ar~c' t ^ cr�.1:; 1. rtjct IOn . ''lain+en,attce of 'The draina(te system nt-hor t;h<ari in t'h.-, ,greet. s st en1 shall he the responsibility of the Hor1c'okners ' Association and/or the developer. Represent.ativos of: 1-hc i?egion.Il I-)i3i1lity Control Board rand;oL ttv, Departmc it of E*inli and �;hrt ! l Iw allow -d to poricxlically inspect the draina(li.- st:e_m 1111cl ions to the %!one-- owners ' As�;nciation :1nd/ ur t:lt}- de-,,ololaor tr. take any Faction necessary to ensure that. the- drai.nat.10 `:(cilit.ivs , re maintained in an effective condition . "Effective cni-edition" shall be clrfined a!; > ltr. t, condition which maintains the wetter flaw in Corms of Loth quality and quantity to j within Q5 percent of : 1 ) thr, standards of the- Water Quality Con`rol , F -1 rd , or 2 ) the, exi st: i nq present condition based upon measurements 1- aken within 60 drays 5111)segUont'. to the approval elate of the tenta- tive tract maps , whicheve- is H!e more restri:tive. If for any 1-v ason the Homeowners ' Association arc(1/01' 0 , developer fails to take actinn to rr.mrdy a dr•ficivncy of the drainage system within 30 days of notification of such dc- fisiency, tho City may 1 1 - 16-79 - P .C. Minutes , H .P. Plan- ng Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 14 r�r then take action to maintain that drainage system to restore' lt to ,,. effective condition and shall be reimbursed for all costs for such �..i maintenance by the ftomeowners' Associat-ion and/or the developer . 35 . The revised plan for Tentative Tract 10068 received and dated January 16, 1979 , shail be the approved plan for minimum parking requirements as set: forth in Section 9362 . 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . AYES : Russell , Bazil , Ilaone , Finley , Stern NOES: Cohen ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: Higgins Commissioner Bazil indicated his desire to have a minority report sub- mitted in his name in opposition to the requirement for the park dedi- cation west of 38th Street . Commissioner Stern suggested that a full report from tht, Comminnion be transmittal to the City Council outlining the Commission' s concerns with the Local Coastal Plan , they drrinage system, the lack. of afford- able housing , and other concerns which have been expressed auri,:;g the discussion of this project. ON MOTION BY RUSSET,L AND SE;CONP BY i3i+. I T, TFINT TI` E TRACT 10067 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDI'T 1011S AS O'.'-'I UNED BY STAf F, By � T11E FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Russell , Stern , F.inle_% 'Jazi1 , Paone NOES : Cohen ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: Higgins ON MOTION SY RUISSELI, AND SF.COiND BY BAZIL 'TENTATIVE' TRACT 10068 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Russell, Stern , Finley , Basil , Pa0zle NOES : Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : lliggins . ON MOT1014 BY RUSSELL AND .SECOND AY BAZ II, TENTATIVE TSTACT 10069 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED? BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE- AYES : Russell , Stern , Fj.nley , Bazil , Paone NOES : Cohen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins THE FOLLOWI13a FI14DIlIGS AND CONDITIONS SE AIA, APPLY SEPARATELY TO EACH TRACT BUT ARE LISTED JOINTLY FCR EASE O) ' RVXE:NE NCE. .1?� i Minutest N . D . Planning Commission January 16 , 1979 Page 35 i FINDINGS : 1. The proposod auk}division is consistent with the Goneral and Specific Plans applicable to the property . 2 . The design and improvement: features of the proposed subdivision nre in compliance with standard plans and speri.fication­, ar. file with the Ci Gy as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplerten-- I' tart' City Subdivision Ordinanc=_ . 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development: proposal . I 4 . The design of the subd=.vi ,ion and its impro%,orac tit:: is unlikoly" tc s caUsc substantial environmental damage cr ca•,as ,— ser. iour, lublic health problems . I 5. The design of the an,:l i ,a imprnvzimentsf does not: conflict ' with public casements . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : 1 . r('•: iced composite site 1:) Ian incorporating i-ill requirements of the r1anninq Corrr,ission shall he sehmitted for roview and approval prior to the recorClat- -n of any f ina ' rtap . L-O.-V1r7t?ti Sit(, plan .shall then l)ecome the approver. layout: f car cie'volonatet.t of Ten- tative 'rracts 101167 , lOC,'. R , and 10069 . 2 . s,r- )r to construction of the Styac l i f f I'lia!; ' !I., i�T �:) �!`.rt , tl traffic lgnal :,hall 1)v installe(l :it thy ints:`r'vc-ticit., of T),1lm Aven%ic antl Goldenwest Street . The costs of rur:h inst-all ;atir.n stt:tl : hc­ borne on a 50;50 ratio between the dcv 71ope.,* and ::he City of Huntington Beach . 3. If the city precise. plans 199 _h i,'ri'!'t- bot�r'1'on Pc' 1 f lc Coast: Hi.rlh•dayr on the south and Garfield �'►vpniip/ d,,,�ards Strect c•rl the north within a period' of nne yearafter recorciaticon of tho first. final trap of this project , the developer shall dec' ic-ate: 30t;h Street to its full precise- - panne c. w•i (itl, from Pacific Coast tiicillWily c._) Garfield Avenue. Full. strei2! , iml;rav�►mr.;�ts sh.] 11 t.., installed within the blue border of the subject, maps arto , in tht- event that. 38th street is so pre- cise planned , the developer shall provider improvement of oncr (1) ] -"-Foot travel latic in ea-h direction nn :38th Sti ect from the north- erly boundary of the map to Garriold Avcrr,ue -,ncl from the southerly boundary of the- nap to Pacif. ir. Codst lliohway . t;aid dedication and improvements shall. be completre(I prior to issuanc. 2 Hof a Certificate of Occupancy for .any phase of the projects to be constructed upcn the subject. site . + 4 . Palm Avenue slv.ill be cic'ciicat(A and Kull.;_' imProk' d Lo its ull�imate t rfyht-•nf-way width from its intc-rsectivn with A Street within ; Tentat::.ve Tra=:t 10069 southeasterly to it:q intersect Lon with Golden- West: street . . i ?4 r �OL „fi�g Minutes, N. B. Plainni'11 Commission January 16, 1979 Page 16 5. Revised tentat.ivc: tract maps shall be submitted to reflect the change in the boundary of the total project as conditioned by the Planning Commission. Said revised maps shall be submitted pii.or to r the recordation of any Final map. 6. realm Avenue , A and G Streets , and 30th Street shall be dedicated and fully improved to ultimate right--of-w. _. within the blue border of Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 . 7. The borders of Tentative Tracts 10069 and 10068 shall to expandvd to include the full r. iyhts-of-way of Palm .Avenue and 38th Street. The borders of Tentative Tract 10067 shp.l] be eupanded to include the full right-of-way of:' Palm Avenue. B . Final design of the drainage system, the ret.r.,-ntion basins , and the channel improvements shall be subject toapproval by the Director of Public works , tho California Department of Fish and tame , and the Regional Water Oua l i ty Contras 1 hoard prior to recordation of any final map. These systems shall be designed to provide for siltpLion and erosion control both during and after construct.►on of the project. If fcr some reason the developer is unable to construct the drainage facilities as proposed in the infOrrnation he has submitted to the Planning Commission for virain,_'%ge into the Holsa Chicat the drainage system shall be redesigned and constructed to acco►nmodate surface * � ' drainage from ..he project area to the ocean via 38th Street. 9 . Sewer, water , and fire hydrant systems shell be subject to City standard plans and specificat. ions as adopte6 by the City Council . 10 . Except where private entry drives intersect. with Palm Avenue , 381.6-11 Street , and A and 13 Streets , vehicular accesn rights to said streets shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. 11 . Reach 3 of the DisL-ri(::t 11 Sanitary Sewer trunk lane facility pro- posed to he constructer! from the project to Lake. Street shall be constructed and in operation prior to the occupancy OE any dwelling unit within the Setac l i f f Phase III projects . 12 . All main entr.ywa .-s f roEn publ ir.. st re its sla al a. h.irpe a minimum 30- foot curb radius, at locations as spec.' Lir;d by the Department of Public Works pursuant: to Public Works st:,andavd..s . 1. 3. .All inner-turning curb radii shall tie a mitt irrium of 11 feet and outer curia radii rha l l be 4 .51 feet , OxO OP”. in Prod art B which shall. have a minimum «utsidc curb radius of 4C feet. 14 . Median breaks and left turn Iane.a7 In bath d1 i sect ions shall be pro- Fly- vided in halm Avenue at Iocatxons fared to the specifications of the Dep.artmer,t of Public i:orks . 11 15. Prior to rerordation of the fin,-, I maps , tl:v- :level.oper shall Me with the Gity an irrevocable letter of ag'.,ectnent to accept drainage Minutes , 11 .B . PlannT. Commission January 16 , 2979 Page 17 from the public streets into the private drainage system. This agreement shall be recorded and a cony submitted to the City of the: recorded document. 16 . Approval of Tentative Tracts 10067 , 10068 , and 10069 shall became null and void if Zone Change No. 78-4 dces not become effective. 17 . Interior private streets in Tentative Tract 10067 shall provide two (2) minimum travel lanes of 12 feet from curb face to median curb face . 18. The developer shall be required to delicate to the City a park skte of a minimum area of three ( 3) acres between the alignment of 38th Street as shown upon his maps and the City boundary along the bluff r' line northerly of the intersection of 38th Street and Palm Avenue. This dedication shall be completed prior to the recordation of the first final map. A three ( 3 ) acre Bark site shell also be required to be located at the southeasterly corrier of the intersection of A Street and Palm Avenue. The area between the oil operation island and the existing tennis � f court facility within the Se.acliff Country Club complex shall be dedi- cated concurrently with the recordation of Final Tract Map 10069 . The oil operation island at this location shall be required to be offered for dedication to the City for park purposes on the termina- F tian of the oil operations upon subject property . Wall design and landscaping treatment around this oil island shall be submitted to the Planning Department for re view and approval action . Wall and landscaping shall be installed by the developer and the Homeowners ' Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the area until such time as the City has accepted the area as park dedi- ca t ion or has informed the property owner- or the Homeowners' Asso- ciation in writing of its refusal to do so. 19 . The blue border of Tentative Tract 10069 shall be relocated to incorporate the area between the oil operation island and the exist- i ing tennis courts at the southeasterly intersection of Palm Avenue and A Street as a pert of this subdivision . The border of the pro- ject shall also br r. elocaced to incorporate those areas zoned 112--PD-0 and to exclude those areas zoned ROS--O by the approval of Zone Change No . 78-4 , after fftal approval of said zone change. Acting Secretary Palin said that if it is the desire of the Conmi.s.ion the staff can have a draft communication addressing the Commission ' s concerns prepared For review and endorsement at the next meeting . �^ Commissioner Bazil said that .it is his intention at: the next study session to ask, for a reevaluation of the density on the southwest; :side Fi of Palm Avenue, which is presently zoned R4 . - 17- 1- 16-79 - P .r. OL