Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Zone change 81-15 - Mola Development Corporation - South of
5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 1► IMCTS The following list denotes thn potential signiticant environmental effect;: that could result -vith implernentation of the project and whether mitigation measures are included within the project. POTENTIAL MITiGAT ION _IMPACT INCLUDED IN EIR Extensive grading for building pads, Yes. Review of grading plans by CitySfaf f, rt ,ds, levee improvements, Fakes and ether landscape amenities, g,.ircgus (west side) ,;,yid, natural resource ponds. Geotechnical/Site constraints relate to Yes. Submittal of further soils study and ground-shaking intensities, high lique- structural engineering studies for con- faclion and differential compaction struction guidelines. potential, expansive soils and saturated peat subsurface condition. Alteration of existing di ainage pattern. Yes. improved storm drain system to be constructed based upon County and City requiremm;ts. Site within f load hazard area. Yes. Levee improvements and raising o building pads to achieve 12 feet msl minimum for finished floors. Numerous lake amenities affer potential Yes. Submittal of the water amenity water quality problems. management plans for review by City. Loss of vegetation characterized as Yes. Development of a new freshwater coastal brackish marsh with direct pond and eventual saltwater marsh in displacement of wildlife including for- resource production area. Also, review aging habitat .or a rare species. of wetland modifiction by the Depart- ment of Fish and Garne. Initial mitiga- tion to (i.e., the freshvmter pond) be considered only partial with respect to habitat lost. Potential incompatibility of higher Yes. Conceptual plan inclines numerous densities in project with adjacent single treatments to reduce impact on adjacent fam. ily neighborhoods. residential areas. 36 5.0 (continued) POTENTIAL MITIGATION IMPACT INCLUDED IN EIR Potential incompatibility between pro- Yes. Fencing and screening will separate posed residences and existing oil rro- the two uses. Chic t i on. Additional traffic loading on Beach Yes. Rcadway improvements to Beach F. Boulevard and Adams Avenue primarily Boulevard and Adams adjocent site; impacting the Beach/Adams Installation of a trafi'-c signal - at intersection. Minor but cumulative Beach/Memphis intersection; submittal impact on congested intersections along of trip distribution analyses for review Beach Boulevard, north of the project. by City DPW. Proposed residential structures fronting Yes. Noise attenuation measures will be r Beach Boulevard will be within the required and are specified in the Specific projected 65 CNEL contour. Plan. tX Proposed structures would be highly Yes. Numerous design and landscape r visible from surrounding areas and from treatments are proposes] to minimize Beach Boulevard. visual conflicts. Increased demand on public services and None proposed (Net revenue surplus facilities. anticipated based on previous analysis). s-. w rw 37 M 6ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT In evaluating the potential alternatives to development of site as proposed, the following were considered: o No project - maintenance of the existing uses of the site O.e., oil production and open space). The primary effect of this would be to preserve future land- use options for the site. o Reduced Densit - the existing General Plan would permit 800 residential units 1: on the site. no alternative concepts at lower densities have been proposed by the applicant. Alternative densities (higher and lower) were discussed in EIR , 81-2. For the sake of evaluation, a lower density option .. assume 3 d.u. per gross or 180 units - could be constructed as a single-fami!y development. This alterna- tive, although probably not financially feasible, and not actually consistent with the proposed General Plan Land uses, could offer the opportunity to substantially reduce some of the impacts associated with the proposed project. I o Commercial and Elderly Housing options - both are options still retained within the project as a substitution for 50-60 d.u.) to be located in the northwest corner of the property. The elderly housing would be 50-60 units in structures not to exceed three stories. The commercial would consist of approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of office commercial plus parking. The effects associated with the impact of the plan on other areas of the site would not be altered. o Retention of existing onding area - this alternative would retain the area e ined by coastal brackish vegetation. The all ernative would require the deletion of one of the major components, the three- and four-story structures {..a Immediately north of the mesa, as well as severely impair the proposed circulation system of the project. The above listed alternatives are compared in Table G with respect to the Impacts that would occur with the proposed project. The applicant believes that compared to other alternatives, the proposed plan represents the best economic, environmental and planning response to development of the property. 38 TABLE G COMPARATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ~ (As Compared to the Impacts Associated wish the Proposed Project) Commercial/ Reduced Elderly Retention of Issue No Project Density Housing Option Ponding Area �i Landforms No Impact Slightly reduced Similar impacts Similar impacts grading r- Geology/Soils No impact Similar con- Similar con- Similar con- Geotechnicai straints straints straints Hydrology/- No impact Some level of Similar impacts Potential for Watr • Quality drainage nuisance water improvements quality problems and flood without im- protection proved drainage required, system Biotic Maintenance of Similar impacts Similar impacts Preserve exist- Resources substantially ing values/- degraded wet- preclude Suture land area value of enhanc- ed areas Cultural No impact Similar impacts Similar impacts Similar impacts -•- Resources Land Use No impact More com- Mi;for alteration Possibly pre- patible with of proposed land clude develop•- adjacent resi- use patterns ment of 400 dences units on west side 39 TABLE G (Continued) COMPARATIVE IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (As Compared to the Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project) I Commercial/ Reduced Elderly Retention of Issue No Project Density Housing Option Ponding Area Transportution/ No impact Reduced ',!u fic Potential for Impose severe Traffic levels increased traf- constraints to fic with com- access mercial/de- creased with t elderly Air Quality No impact Reduced air Similar impacts Similar impacts quality impacts c; Noise No impact Similar noise Similar impacts Similar impacts constraints Public No impact Reduced de- Similar impacts Similar impacts Services/- mand Utilities f Visual Maintenance of Major public and Similar impacts Visual degra- t. unsightly private views of dation of conditions site altered existing area could negatively F inf luence ,new resl dences 7.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND tit S - . L -T i For a discussion of Growth-Inducting Impacts, Irreversible Environmental Changes, and the Short-Term uses of the Environment vs. the Long-Term Productivity as related to the , proposed project, please refer to EIR 81-2 on the General Plan Land Use Amendment deAgnating the property a Planned Community District. ka �a t•� s � i • I r � f• I t I • MI 1 i w.. r. 41 4r 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED City of Huntington Beach James A. Barne:;, Development Services Mike Adams, Deve;opment Services + Carl Huy, Public Works Tim More, Police Department Eric Scharlonne, Public Works Huntington Beach Elementary School District Bob Landi California Department of Fish and Game Bruce E. Eliason Jack Spruill >` County Sanitation District of Orange County Hilary Baker Southern California Edison { Ralph Coolidge Southern Calfornia C-3s Com2any Jack Allen Mola Development Corparotlon ;i t; Frank J. Mola Peter E. van Elten Richard A. Harlow and Associates Dick Harlow tt Danielian Associates Will Hanes Lifesca es Lydia La Desna i., • Dun Greek Associates r" Victor Rollinger Surenrirr Dewan T Carl McLarend Associates Ernie Vcsques Douglas_ E. Moran Co. Eric Chase Action En2ineerinq r•! Bruce Packard Baseline Consultants, Inc. � Richar.. P. Cousineau 6 � Individuals Responsible for P eporing the EIR � Jared Ikeda, EDAW, Principal-in-Charge b- . Charles Pilcher, EDAW, Project Manager Steven Nelson, EDAW Gayle O'Brien, EDAW Dawn Muniz, EDAW Pam Milby, EDAW r, Christopher Drover, Archaeologist Vince Mestre, Vincent Mestre Associates Hans Giroux, Air Guality Consultant - h � 1. I M'y trl w r r.. 43 9.0 REFERENCES Several general planning and environmental documents and/or studies by subconsultants were used to prepare the EIR. These are listed below. Sources of more specific deta are cited throughout the report as well. ti City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land UsM Element Amendment 81-I, Environmental Impact Reprot 81-2. June, 1981. Baseline Consultants Inc., Geology and Seismicity Investigntion, Molo Development Project (No. 550-050). June 24, 1980. Action Engineet ing Consultants, Addendum to Preliminary Soils Report, Investigation for Alternative Foundation Design, 155-acre site, southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California (W.O. 2651010, May 31, !980. Christopher Drover, Archaeological Assessment of the Molo Development on the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, September, 1981. Basmac iyan - Darnell, Inc., Traffic Report for the Mola Development Project, July 9, 1981. Vincent Mestre Associats, Noise Assessment for Molo Development Project, September, 1981. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, Seismic Safety Element, October, 1974. 1 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, Land Use Element Background Report, August, 1976. City 9 of Huntington Beach Noise Element Background Report, August, 1976. City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach General Plan, as amended through March, 1979. t 1 44 t I i .r I I j .. APPENDICES � ► I is f � h Appendix A Comments to the Piotice of Preparation i L � COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREAk COME 794 \wr � L40•2910 4 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ti -- :� 962. 2411 P. f ©OY. E1127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CM.IFURNIA 927M IM04.7 ELLIS AVENUE (LJCL.ID CIFF•RF.I.W. SAN oicao f nEr_wt.Y) HUNT1tiGT• PLANNING (kPI. August 211, 1981 WJG `z P. C1. pox 1�0 City of Huntington Beach �1•u:�i:�lon �cach, t.i• ..Ltr�B I Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Jameg R. Barnes, Assoclate Planner Re: Development in Location of Adams and Beach./Environmental Impact Report Preparation t� The area under consideration for this development has been !Waster planned as low density residential with a flow coefficient. of 1 ,550 gallons per play per acre. ?.f the projected Slows from the project are anticipated to exceed that amount, flow reduction measures applicable to residential facilities should be incorporated. Tho Districts operate tw6 treatment plants, one in Huntington Beach and one in Fountain Valley. There Its adequate capacity to treat the flows from the pro- posed development. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to r call. j Hilary J. Baker Sr. Engineering Aide HJB/jo • , RECD vt AU C 2 8 1981 f'rtiY'rt7►;T Br 4C�1 �Y ORANGE COMUNTY TFtANS:T L71STR;C;T AUrun t 6 , 198I NUNTINOTC!N BEACH PLANNINI DEPT. Mr. James Barnes AUG 10 1991 City of Ifuntin;;ton rcacll P. q• Llox 190 P. 0. Box 190 Huntington I;each, U. 9204II Boor ;Ir. Earcic n: SUBJECT": I:OF BEACIVADMIS itFSIDENTiAl, I)EVFI.OPiI�:I"r i f Thank you for fors,,a:!ing copy of the Flotice of Preparation of att I Envirannental lnpact Report for clevelopment cf tht•: property located at Peach Douluvard and Adams, Stroat for c)t!r r;-vlc-;; .-Ind comment. We would ahpro.clate the developer cons-Ad^ri.nt; transit acce.s.s ALivy and facility needs for the project during; the hreparal. iutt. of the DFIP and In jwc-.ject platinir,c, and c:r:;i s;rl. OCTI) strtf f velcorlvs the oPlinrtunity to work •rtith thl� d(-Volopor and city :;rrlff d;Irinl; the aI �' elnd hnp,-. that we v,,, ' N-- e" iussl i;f.ance to y'otl. prE'-EioVt'Zc)pnC'I1t rL 1 lie look forward to discunsink, the Project Curti:?r %:!Lll c! t:y and dttVClopc r roprC':;ontat (xos. Pl.E!ww cnllt:acl tt n1lou.ld yGU I1_'lve arly g1.1estIolls'. Sincerely, Di cic iftnu I E:nvi.ron-mo.nrnl Coo;-d_tnator I%I1:tiil�'I, f 112:2 ACACIA PARKWAY_! i.1r, UOX_3FJ05 + GIV!DEN k,F OVE., GAL117011MA JNU.17 • 1111f)NC (114; 071•620a 31ATE OF CALIPORNIA MMUND G. SROWN 1R., co.grM&P AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 O 51REET �V+ �G�! +`J BEAC. -�.,. P.O. DOX T91S SA01",ENT0, CA 91417 PLANNING I)EPT. AUG 2 8 1981 . P. O. BOY. l�?0 August 21 , 1981 Kinki:�on Beach, CA -926U SCH No. E1080664 James R. Barnes - Associate Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: Your August 11 , 1981 , Notice of Preparation for the V-00 Unit Planned Residential Development Draft Environmental Imp;act-, Rcjiort has been review- ed. The Regional Programs division of the Air Resources Board and local govern- ment decision makers need to be aware of the i ndi vi dual and cilimul ate ve ! impacts that projects might have on the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards in Orange County. I Enclosed is a reconmended outline t,rhich will assist you in the preparation of the air quality analysis for thc: proposed project and will provide the information useful to atlr revic��. I For additionalinforr^.ation. please tong+ct Beverly [Daniels of Ply staff at (916) 322-38,06. Sincerely, Michael D. Redemer, Manager General Projects Branch Enclosure cc: J. Stuart , SC AQiID K. Fickett, OPR i REf.D�f-dENDED CONTENTS Of7 AIR QUALITY ANALYSES The preparation of general plans , general plan amencrrnents , and all environmental impact reports (EIRs ) are subject to the environmental - • evaluation requirements of the California Envi roniiiantal Odal ity Act. As a result, an air quality analysis is needed as part of this evaluation to help inform decision makers of potential air quality constraints and F impacts of all proposed project (activities subject to CEQA) altr_-- natives. Therefore, to inform and to help assist decision makers in. assessing potential air quality impacts and measures to minimize these impacts, we recormnend the following information be included in an air quality analysis . This information is to be tised as a guide in the preparation of EIRs for proposed projects. i1anS of the items listed n,ay I be satisfir- ed through incorporation by reference. Those pollutants listed und?r Section II may or may not be applicalla and are not to be considered as all inclusive. I . Environmental Setting A. Conditions affecting air pollutirn potential (the following items need to be discussers as to their relationship and/or effect on air Pollution) 1 . Meteorology and Climate a . Wind rose (plotted ''-Ind direction and speed) b . fltrrospheric stability C . Seasonal air flow patterns d. Inversion characteristics 2. Topography w.. .JK .., II . Im act of Project Proposal and Alternatives A. Stationary Source Emissions (Tons/Day): 1 . Carbon Vbnox i de - 2 . Oxides of Nitrogen 3 . Total Hydrocarbons 4 . Total Su,pended Particulates 5. Sulfur Dioxide 6. lead Q. (•obi1e Source Omissions (Tons/Day) : - 1. Carbon Monoxide 2. Oxides of Nitrogen 3. Total Hydrocarbons 4. Lead III. Mitigation Measures for Project Proposal and Alternatives A. t•leasures considered for the following sources: 1. Stationary 2. Mobile B. Measures incorporated for the following sources: r ' - 1. Stationary 2. Mabile L .. I Y NOTE: t•laterial 1 .> available to assist you in doing ar, air quality t (' analysis. T�-i obtain a copy of, "Procedure and Basis for I Estimatin.q On.-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions," contact Ed Yotter, TSD, at (916) 322-3984. Also, the Frans and Projects Evaluation Section of the Air Resources Board is available to answer any concerns and questions. The number is (915) 445-0960. � �. � aLA , t STAII Of CADFORNtA--RESOURCTS A';ENCY _ EDMUND G. t�ROWN 1R.. Geveleor DEPARTMENToF�•FISH AND GAME 350 Colden `bore Lon 1' Beach, Ca 1 i f n r n i a 90B()2 s (213) 590-5113 HUNTIN'GT"'i BEACH August ll), 1981 PIANf I NG" DEPT. AUG 1 ? 198 ,r Jim es r t Barnes.r P J t�., 1 . 1 rt,c.,, Depnrtrwnt of Uevel ailment. "ervicen, f. 0. COX 100 t�ur.ir► !can Beach, CA �2r.IB City of Hue.CinF,ttrr ',leach � 11 .0. Box 190 - Bunt inl;ton be,nrli , Cali.fnrni a 9?61;R Dear Mr. Barnes : T}.e Nat ice of l'repsm_t ion of a 11raft EAR for L111: 411-i describes a propo.al to develop an 800 uni* plaww(l re;idertial drvelopm,nt within a 60 :tore site located in liurlti_nf;tcn Helc:h . We have the foliowing r.ommi!nts for your consideration. Our primary concern for this propored project is the potent inl ienract ,tpon thrt existing fre-,hwaLer pond lncaLed within the project sitn. tilt: have previously rec.orranc•ndod that this resourco 1w set- as ido for wi loll i ft, purpnses in the event. that. tsrhrm devrlopr.ent:; are proposed v;ithin tho site.. The pond providf^s motel, tleedod aquatic :roil wot lane habitat . for wat er- „ssnciated hird-, and i., utilinvtl ouch yr.:r as; a rrst. inl; and fe.editm, ,1rvii f n r inii;rnt inl, wat,.'rfw. I . Ve stig ;est that. urban an.1/or t-CSO.trce production (oil pumping facilities ) mhould hr set back from they powl 'r, edge to provide a buffer none no Iw-,!; than 100 fvi!tt c:ido so that urban vncraacltme,nt and unau►:horized human or doniest i c pot i nt rug: i on would not cause. excessive nciverse impacts to biotic resmircos, of Ow pond. Additionally, if thr puffer zone could be pinnted with native t es: an,l :shrubs it would ,,rotiido additional hnbitnt for wildlife. We urge- the City to condiLi1;1 ally developments to :t`ISUre, lire servation of the pond and to p:-uviOf' A rt!ctura l lv landscaped buffer zotte as components of the pro jec! The -water c;,ia l i t y within t.lie pored r,httu ld be protectc,d to instery that n productive .tn,, safe environvit-nt for fish and wi Id l i fe would cunt. ittut. btu hrovi%ik,3. In addition tv. the above ccl,tcerns, v,i recommend that the Following; items be included in `.he l,TR : 1 . A complete: of fll,r•a and f.lutra within the project nren should be Provided . Particular er,Phaf- is should he placed upon identifying rare, c,tldanpered , and 1--:01y ,mitluo that. utilize the site. 2. UnCU{t,ontntloet of the ,lirc•ct , indirect, 'Met C'Mittltttive impneu; which would adversely of f,_ct hint is rv,c:ur ce s within .Iced adjacent to the. project site should be in,. lucit�d. i I Mr. J . Hnrues August 10 , 1981 3. All a1s;i(1ssinent of potential urban growth-in(lucemont fnct.or,; attribtitab'In to the project tol,ctl►er with tllit, affect: (.•t £iorh and wildlife rt�aource:, ;should he provided . Any alterat. ion within the hil;h waIor rtark of ;, strt!w-thccI or Ial:c ►rill require not ili cat iotl to tilt, l)en;:rtnient. of Fish and Game i3ursuantr to either Section IfOI or 1603 the Fish and Came Code. This not ificaLion and In- subsequent ngreement tnus: he completed prior to coulmvc ncernent. of the streambed alteration, since thin: SUILC: laW TIM)' Cl'clUli'(! significant char,,,.es In pro Jett features aCssocinLed with strnaIns or rtreambc!cls . For this reason, we strongly 1.rgo eonp l i.1nce wi -_h this c,.de section prior to finalization of Chs� sIrecifit, project design. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comrrsnt on this; project. If you have any quentions, please contact Jack L. Spruill or Kris Lal of our Environmental Services staff at (713) 590-5137. r i Sincerely, r s , j Fred A. Wort-hley Jr. Regional Manager Ragiott 5 a I i I i Specific Plat r�! r. i i BEABRIDGE SPECIFIC"W" PLAN w i t M M r I _ TABLE OF CnNTE14TS - . '?. II1'iI;NT AND FUP,I'USE B. SPEC::IFIC I'L?'.; S11LIID:\hIES C . EfRtZI;I)I1:II:N'i'.��I, ASSESSM)? IT I D. APPL' ICATTO'N PROCil-DURE. 1 . Ccrv.i t (:)n a]. Use Permi c 2. S, uc P.-Lan I*'CgII i--Cmc'II t 5 3. Pro—lininary GradinU Plan Requi_r.e►.-cnts 4 . Floor. and Elevation Plan i1cquiremencs 5 . Tencacive 'i'racc slap 6 . rLaC_'1.iont :?E?qui2:oI!:entr, I L I':�OO D I RO'i'F CT T 0�,i F. CIC;CI.1L.\ri`ICN I 1. Perimeter ScrecL 2 . Tncerna 1 Circulation 3 . Access co Adjacenr. Proporty G. '. I iFI'IC Cc :1TROL I:. TIVVISIT �'1CIL111'Z£'S 1 . (;I:OLOG�-/FOILS/SL.IS-ITC.T I'Y IT . HYDROLOGY . I&XISE '•! . RI;St)tJPCL P120F)UC T I ON 11I ETtS iV . F',STINDLII'III•IENT OF DT.:TpITC'P I1111:.1S 0. DEVLi,CP'•IE:N�i' S`I`iuJU�+:�i)S 1 . Uses Permitted ; 2 . Density Standard 3 . Building Iir CjhL: 4 . Site. Covertige 5 . Por. ima ter Secback i 6 . ©uilding Separ acion arld 5ec1>CIcl. 7 . Mli ldil)q BUD—. 8. Common Clpom 5PTI CC J. I•iain Itecrear.i_on Areci - 14inimum Size 10. Private CU,),-,n Sp}tcc 't"i1MA. UI CONTE'L)TS (C:ont,'n) 11 . Min.ir;mm floor Ark-a 12 . r r 1 vaee :+ccc s3 ?o%, 13. 11a eking 1^ . I.andscal)i nq +w? 15 . Adu'ross Sic-ins 17 . Cable T.V. ~ 16 . .ire Hydranu Syscer: , 19 , ;.c..,nClry A r- oias l '. . Lighring _ 1 . Privaco s1'oracle Space 22 . ,:;c.t���i- it::c ti�aror SySc.cr;;s 23 . Signs 24 . SC17(----c is Sj •7n. 25 . Srztcer Trees 26 . Trash Co.'_lecr_ion Areas 27. Vehicular. Sc:orare 28. Comv:on Areas 29 . Appearance SLanCards i: . 1Ioi11.C)tti' I ;S Iil, CO:• IU :II Y ASSGC:IP%'-"1 ):,', t T-r?I o D E.X!IIDITS Exhibit, A - Peferen-o map - 1'ol lowing P i:�o. throe E-.hibir- 13 - Poi•irix-r-or I,andscL-t1,e riuEfer - Fol l.owi;l'? Vago ten F;;;hilai c C - Oil 1'rndurr:i can/l.,anO..s(.-al)e Buffer -- Follov.,ing page eleven ,• w 'VF } ibt n P).r+n for : outhwarer : o. I oo 1 do i SrZOMIDGI; SPI,CIPIC PLAN i r�IOvrmfi ER 1.G , 19 I3 1 A INTENT AND PURPOSF: - On Jute.: 15 , 199]. t:hc! City Council Of t",,-• City of JILM -AtletLon Deac:h iidopted an amendme,IIt: to the i Lund Use Element of the (Iencral Plain. This amcnc?ment desig- naterl the 60� c,.cros of land loc a t- tl at ':Ite southeast carrier of: Adam; Avoniie and Beach comint.tni. t.;. The General. Platt Document , 1,,-md Use Llr!ttent- Amendment; 81-•7 , states that the P.larzttecl Co ►tnu::it:�� desictmition is to br_ im- plemonted through adopt- i.on of r.t Specific Flat: . ?1 S13ecific Plan inc.luOes and d, script.iv;-? maps which are move detailed than t.hu General Plan , but do not incl.' d(_t the det:l] 1 fC mel .iit On anplicat ion for specl-Fi .; development turaposal . Th-: following wero iidr)pted to provide di.reCt_iorr for prepartition of a Specific Plan : 1 . T110 a r-crL-: OaS t: Of t.hc ►1.'L-Moe Comity Flood Control C liar..^.►l adjacent: to the, c!%-'Ist:ina sinvile titmil.y residential. t:j'i-ct`: Ili'. Chi it lc,,,,., dc!rl:;lty resident.1al dt'sion With ad(:luau( set l:iacl: to bL lfer title tv.o projects. 2 . The area Last and J TITIC'_diate].Y adjacent to -he fl.00cl control ch:;nnel be of a tltedium derisi t:y residential clesicl;r . 3 . All uI itP, e ant of the f lc,od control channe? be clus.- tered to .�11t�:� for a ma:: imum wrojuit of open space. i F•y Iforal units not to exceed four hundred (400) ea nt. '' of the Channel. 4 . Thr� area t,e .t. of UIL! flood control chat,nel hL of a high density desicjn . This con- cept sltould Lake advantaUe of the natural topo- graphy for developmcn t. and simultaneously pre- serve Lhe Pondi ng area .in a n:at:ural state. ( It was i understood that ii roconfigurat.ion ar: the Ponding area would occur to pormit the pond to be com.,,.)at- ablco with the surrounding residential use chile enhancing t_ke t►i su�: l. aspects of the arec: . ) 5 . Pi:sidentia 1. units,s, he clustered thr•et g1tout. the pro- , jest zlrot-1 %.'h icll a 1s,.) thc` continuation of r0.'-Cl11'C('. 1)rodu t i ozi ct iviti ,::: . Total units for i� the cwo r,i 1 l project not to exceed e-igh t. hundred (800) . ih:? Seahr.i cicjt, Sr;oc.i .i Plan i s: <iF,e,ic,nt Ci to me(-2t the :f;.1amning rcc u,;.rem nts of t_ho ik;e E'le-ment or tl,(-2 GQ11(:t-Z11 1'lt:ra . It i:; ir;t��n�3ca to !;c:_vc il'; a tiencraI Set. of Condition arl`] rCcjh- ic:tlUns th'i t Zi 11 1 11I.—ovIc-It.C' t_Clt'. C r' 'Aorl .; Cjl?ve1.Opmont of the prop- erty and provide :1rUC't. aCr; for hroy)C-irinc, a pl-On for develOpme:'.t: whirs 1)rcv.iding 5;uf f ic.i.eW- f Ic_•xi1711ity t n per'n.i t design area- ti vi tY . ,,.. B • SPLC.Ii'1`� PlAii i'ht' Sep bridge specific 111 an encompasscs that ar,2zi -,; del intiaLud on t le w .,,) in subsection l) hereof and C1[:^Cr Llx!d in .`uhs.oction (h) hereof . � ( a) Area' Mar; ( ArJAM3 AK J do �. rj BRIDGE P E C I F I C .r:i.� 4L A N �+ CF r- •' • ,(LTA,i`-_-!{j/:�\ ''�;`.r. --� • i' tj LLJ.. 7/1 _ yt icic f�c Plan (h) 1,00,0_ 1)'- include!; the real .yr r•(-.ciC ► ,' C i t.. of Hun t i nq tarn F3e!_:c}a as per�.11'Ci'. � !i 1 i!IaC1 2lt1 S_•1 . map i i +•c: in !)�c)t: ;irid 12 Of i'i.a.-ca1 riia►�s , lIl t}1(• C)f 1 ?_Ct� C)r is}1C: LUi'. Jli- . }�i'C(ii c}t': of said could"; ar,d �a► c:�'a. :5 tri ���_�� .: i c 7 of :,L1faLitl�L0it �st'ach ��s !)�!r. I117;�] filed ' ^f i oL c:YI� 1Ca p(:)ol{ M 1 , I)iIC.1�' i :lrl )� + 1 Il C Ili • oL ' C,]Uf1L-'' of ll: C;0kmt:;' . See �'. L•'IJV.rROtlPtE;tli I:SS'1f Il, i.i^.c1� �tivi.ronrler,t I;,,},act Report � i - { ( Lin 81-3 ) siwil }.)i: cc)"- i�]��rc.c1 ��:� rulfi ? tint; t~}1c r•,:c�uircd cr1-- � Cc►:• '-1•:� `.• •:aUr_icarr, :+;3C`C] L 1C' Pliln Vi t•C1111-neIlta l %asscs!71•..CrI1 - II ' Ji11J-.i '!'}1C? C1 +`..;� F�.1c�at::1 `.[I(J LC�i .�:lbfa :•1!C��OI: ('7. . ty CoU"C" be Tea}yU;"i 'J1.!? kff �'Ift Such mi_t .q atilon � ;i�;? ,s which halve ='• 3 EXHIBIT A REFERENCE MAP -----~---A DAMS AVEC 0 m w C#At C m --------- >-F Ly ' 1 'I m . Iwo., i I z Rr _ 1 ! W 45 Subarea B l Reduced Building % > 1 Height Envalope -- RESOURCE r 1 PRO UCTION •,�%, e E RESOURCE.RF �•,.' 1 PRODUOTION -; a.. 1 1 . v 1 ` 1 1 ubarea Al � j ♦ 1 F ` 1 i � 1 AREA E �A A 1 130 1 1 1 ------------ APE A 18 � 1 1 ' RESOURCE PRODUCTION20 1 04 ENTRY � RESOURCE` Y' ` f ; PRODUCTION �I I W I '- 1 4 1 Reduced Building E 1 Height Envelope 1 , - i � ► 1 ! •Wr C Perimeter Faetb®ck measures may be required as conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit (s) and/or Tentative 'Tract .for Specific d v`lopmont projects with .r,. the specific plan area . U. APPLICATION PI:OCEMURE - Any request for a sieve lopment n l shall lie accompanied panied h an a l i.ration for a Cond- propo.�a.. � al c � L Y Pf� itional Use Pcrmit and Ten to live Tract Map. Such applications shall include preliminary site plans , rrading plans , floor and elevation plans and a s":ztemont of st,ntist.ics . All plans snap. be submit.tod cOM-Urr.ently and shall meet tht! following rec;tairemen is . 1 . Corlcl.i t^ i nna 1. U_-eYPerin i t •• Any proposed development v"iith.ill the rpe�cific P1 ;In circa ho subject: tc) t.h+.t approval. of a conditior)ai i providccl ill Art-icle 984 of the hunt=i.ncTton Bea( h Ord i mince Cads . 2. si. tc-_j,I to - Si to I) Mns, flhal l inclu(le the foIlov. irtc; : ( ,t) Loc.!),Aon of: all I rc-)pc).ed St:rt)CtUrE`s ; (b) Pr ,liminar), land,xapincj propo.-,al- showing till' lr_)cc�; ltJ!l , j:):d ypt� of 1-Aant. vvtterials; ( C) LUC;.I :].t:il of pell striae val}:1•l."l}'s ; (d) Circulation, pa Ucr)ti of vehiculr) r traffic; (e) structural street s,2ctions of all access ways ; ! (f) 11",P Ei,- of Outride lighting; (q) Si zr. and ].cc<Ztiort of n;a`.iiLc-nand' and storage f a C i 1.itie., ; (h) Type , size .trod location of: tract. areas ; ( i) Size and location of. }ar_ ivat:e pace areas ; ( 11 IJ of r_om:nrn (�pc�;: tspace areas ; 1,. . oc,if_.io;i of All vChi,c-10 PLIrki'19 ; -4 - ('l ) Type and locar.i.on of fonces zinc, Signs ; anc: (r1) Layouc sho:ring proposed sewage, and water. • facilities . 3. Preliminary Grading Plan Reciui.remcncs - Prel irrii.nary grading plans shell indicate ehe following : (a ) A full. _invc!nrory of the. nat-ural features of sirs, including all. crces e::ceeding a dig- meter of six (6 ) inches ; ' (b) Pre.l iminary soils reporr_ and chemical. analysis `I h of Lxist:iwJ ;Oi ; condir-ions ; j (c:) Cnu j:nc fill propo,.ed on trhe rite; i I WD Proposed si!rfacf, cirainago of c:ie lice ; ' (c} Grounu i,lool- clo irions of all proposed ( f^) I11ii ._,•-CrnC�� in zi.t,ishcd cJr.-ici�2s OR the 7-ice anc�. c7rad ,-!S On '11mr.r- ing p.OLIc. cy; UT1C!,:2r(,rC?1111c1 (h St:nt:m,-,en-. on quanti-ty of c :c,-Avatcd wain—e-rial . 4 . Floor�I'M:-! Elevation 1'1c-in Ite!EArei:ic!ncs : Floor and elf!-vat-ion plans shall indicato t1vto following : (a ) r,raposecl iziaterial' ; to be' used on all. sc>:l!ctures ; 0)) Color, of .31.i o-:v_er. for materials ; M lic i gel c Cl:' all Ibui lding an&/or scruGcures ; prc,liosed for heating and cooling of i� l 1 building's . � . 'i'r.nc.acive _'.71race :lap ?C'quirements - it:rlCavivc. Lracc maps n.lial l i.nOlcatc clic. `oll.oc:inq: (a) SuffAciont: clescript ion co define the locacion ant? 1.,nuncar.ies Of LIIC proposed sc.1bd.i.vision; (b) ENiscing r•,ar.clrial topography with contours ac ante i-vals of c,.•:o (2) fcee up co :51t, grade , five fco-L tip co 10`. grade , aria ten (10) fecc aver. A c ra 040 (c) I,C7C,A[J.QIis , Ilar:es , wi.dchs , and C�L•c�c.ef of all. scrc!ec!-, wi.chin or a0jac:ent to the propo sCc:i (d ) layout and nur..bei- of each lot prolpc�se(, i1r1�? 0.11 CIim,ensions of cac h said loc-.; (c ) OmA iiries of all liuildi.ric;, on subjecc: lice ; ! f} Arcnis of: propc�rLy subjec. c ro inundac:iou nr overflue: and locarcion , width , and r i. r�--cuirm c, ,: f !ot•r o ` all. wr.nc-rcourses , (rj) vocation , widcli , alZCi purpose of all e -- sclriq artcl/() I" -ropost.,cl C?aSC_"Icmll::> oil oI.- contiguol-Is L"U c 11 o t71]o a v l i;10:1 ; (YI) 'J'!'��lC':11 `;C.1'::•t�t f'-.t:Cl:.lt)1: ; :IIiC� I i ( i ) 111 c,:•:i.scinci or ah.- ndonod. nil f:icld wells and apw-vcni17 ci: , any( Lilt' proposec' treatrr.,nt: of stic}1 ir1C11. 1T .1C'r . Ci . Qcatf.'.Ii?enr-�!!tvl:.t yed - 1% Coca .- d s,cv Geri onL ;311a 11 also b-- inc.-InOcd conca i n inch Oic fol luwinct i.r? Eor1!.e.1:iC)r,� (a) D-, scanco from r.he p.ropor. ry c:o on., known, gfeolog cell hazard ; (►)) Gross area wichin the blue line border (are-a boundr.y ) of the cent:.Irive !racr_ map; (c) dem lot ar(,'4t (i . c . , care:.:_; area minus all puI)Iic and private anti/or driveways) ; -6- I M (d) Umnber alicl type, of emits and number of b ed r.ooms; i (e) Total number of unit::; and wimbor of; units and per cj ro:,:: acre ; ( f) Floor area oC cf-lch 1.111it; (r�) Arcaa rind riinjmum dimension:: of private patios (opc..ri ;;Dace) and bal conics ; (tl) Percentage 7: s:i+.:e euv!?rage by all buildings ; ( i) r;iuni�er and type cif. covered parking spaces ; ( .j of ojI cxI par}; in(I (Y;) Amount of im ib.1c common open and recreational r.pace provided , u::.ing regulations, set forth iIl tier. article ; (1) 'Types of rCiICL-cation facilit:.ies proposed ; and (m) Sc bred ile ,ancl :;c'cfuenc e- of dove Iopinunt; if pro- posr-,d in h. FLOOD PhO'I'E'CTION - All. c?cvcaloh:nent c•;zchin Hio. specific: Plan shtall conforrli to Flood ln:;t:raticc Adrninistration (171A) f loot-t pr:otoct. i m, ret;uiveniont s st�b�f_,et. t.c� �Spl�rov;��. of the City Diroci:or cf P"IM is 1.4,C)l , F. C-IRCUL,ATION for :;t_r.e��t:�; and drive:; shf-111 be as follows - 1. hrr- imc ter SLreinis Sci•c_'ct r.i ,jj, --of-way for Adams Avenue and Pozxr�h h(.: (1,..!dic:aLod as pu:)lic streets and fully improved to city sLandarcl, . z . Internal Circtulation -- Cti-mulation wit-Alin the Spec:ifl.'; Phan A:','aa i;ha . 1 be such that. a collector st:.7:ect (s) ( ot►noct: i nq Adom n Avenuc! wi i h M--.-ic h Blvd . :;1ial 1 be j)rovidCd. The point of :intersuc-t-Jon of flie main collector with Beach 131vu . an,I Adk-i s Avenue ,Jiall r-onform to the align- w rnrnt shown. curl j -- 7 - 1 �►� All itzternal stroot., and drives ,hall be privately owned and mai,-itained . Tfie st:.111clI-0-6s for such streets .�rtd drives , Including width and const:rucLion , shall m..,�et the r(-.quire9ent , of the Director of Public Eorks and c6n£orm 'to Hie requirements, t of this Article . 3 . T,cces, to Adjacent Property - Street, acid/or dr.l* vvs within t hi, • spccJ.f is flan"a'reii shall - not lie per.mic.Led to connect with tyre 1oc.i1 'stye o-t_, wit:h.iti t:hr_• adjaccnt * siticlle family areas 'to tile east and south. G . '! RPFPIC CONTROL - The '?cpzirt.rpnt of Public Sdorks shal). determine the need for traffic control devices ( ie : traff c i signals ) . Such dctt�- rmination shall include the appropriate time of installation and the fair share participation for the Seabridye development. E '!'h�� cieveloprr ;ball ni-ov rile for the in�,tal.l.ati can car -ny such i:nprovcmv,nt:: prior to i.ssu,a ;ce of. bui.ldi.nq Permits. 11 . TRANSIT FACILITIES - Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at, locations designat-ed b}• the Department. of Pub- lic Works . Tha dcsiyn of: such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department Public Works . 1 . CLOI,OGY/SOIbSJ SEISMIC'IT The following gcologv, soils and seismi.city meaaurc-s sh-all be Limp Toyed prior to tl-ie 'issuance of bui ldintt pormi cs : 1. Submittal of a structural, engineering study eva 1-- uatrinci proposed foundati.on designs with respect to ground shale- i ing anti liquiticarion l izardc; on the property. The studv shall be ,iubject to the review and approval of the, Departments of i fPublic Workr, and Development Services. Foundations and struc- tural componets of tho buildings shall be (Icsigned ac:coi-Vng to recommendations contained w.i thin the structural. e:nc;ineering t-.udy. r � 7. . Submittal of a roils .study detiilinn grading and site preparation recommendations. This study shall be subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Devel- opment Services . Grnc:iriq and si. t;e preparat.ion shall be accomp- lished in accordance wi t:h .'-ocorninenf,ations presented in the Soils s tud_y. J . HYDROLOGY - A c:,z tc, r managomr.nt _;ysterri with respect to maintenance of water (Ilin ..i ty for bot•.ti the Lrrien.itN, lakes and the freshwater ponc1 slia 1 .1 tic :iovelop•-ci 1_+*► .fie applicant: and approved the Dop rtment. of Public Workt, . K. NOTISF - Prior to the: of building permits , a noise study conducted by an i.icou::,t:ic► l engineer to determine existing ambient nni:3c levels can ? chins Avenue and Dc.ach Blvd . shall be submitted the Development Services Department for review. Structural designs for proposed residential units shall be re- vievied and design riodi.ficat i ons r.ecomi• -�nclyd in the noise study shall be incorporates into the project r.lesign - L. PERIMME:R fltlrl"::R - A l_tlnclscaped Iniffer shall be provid4d along the east and south property liner, Such buffer shall be i I _ I designated to visually buffer this project from the adjacent sinctle family areas with intensified landscaping in the manner Shown on Exhibit- "i3 " . A peel ininary lane scape plan implement- ing this require-awrit shall be submitted along wi-th the a3 pli- cation for a • Condi t iorial Usc • Permit ( s) and% "or Tentative Tract Map( ;;) . The fill.-ill T)Inn shall he approved h�_.► the DepartrlcnL of Developmental. Services . M. RI'SOURCE PRODUCTION AREAS - '!'he Tollowing require:llent-s shall apply to the areas desirirliit:ed on Exhibit "1" as Resource Production lltrca,; . 1 . Z'f1C' �zr��.-+�: nru�c�rlt: l}► denignat.(A for Resource Pro- duction shall he to the owls rs of the re.,-; Lnt;i.al unit. I as part of their pr!riut-went: Upon Space wht- n cll l oil produCi ion 2 . r'l accounts .;hall he estzb - l_ished in t}lc: cat the. Ass,:)ciat:ion for the i'mp- rove-ir'tnt. of hr. nL:hwt ion .-irvas . Such itsprovements Shall be fir, tt1w, re^qu i ro;Tonts of this, t=eCt ion . pric,r- t:0 .1-:iS:l�:nC'E� of hui!c]Lnu pc_rmits, the developer shall deposit into such Account an artiount or monoy as dewed nece- Ssary by the t)l'part:;nent of Dc!vo,!o:.rl;ti'nt: Services to Cover the cor;t of install inq such inprovcmotiLs . � . Active r.,rc_Lluct -!1.on of t:l1L oil £icl.c3 r,i1.11l he pEr-- ijdLLud l.c., uunLitilu,.� wi.UhO uL guilt-,} acivursul,y fjticuLod ley WIC new devcl.opmt`llt. . -1Q�- rw EXHIBIT 8 Perimeter Landscape Buffer Plan �lirnk - �`a + �t�,•it y Section B-B 4� B 4 . The pro- ject shah be de5ictnc:�1 ,o the oi.l pro- duction sloes not: create an incompa;:abL! relatIcAnship with the proposed new developments. Screening of the resource ` production area while oil operations operatioris are taking place shall be accomplished in the mariner shown on rrhibit "C" . I 5 . Upon ternination or zibandorlment of the oil pro- duction within the areas designated as "Resource Production" or upon relea_cc by the ei.l leasoc of the area presently ur- der production such areas shall be improved as follows : (a) The Gres:!, east: of the I'lOod Control. Channei (Area A) shall be itni�rc)vecl in a manner that is compa,t~able with the recreat.i011 and open space requi rumen is of the fut-- Ulf_' (b) The ;heal-) of the ,'loocl CnnLrol. Cl.iannel (tlrCca r�) 3}icl �. t)(' llll�)2'O��CCl as it i 1.�t01"e'.C3 fnc r sh per Exhibit Z) " . 6. Anr applicat.ian for development of Areas A o): F3 shall inclucle the o(c n.kjn for uturc development of i-hr: pective resource pi-cAtic- t: i on arse; (!.) pursuant to the. rec;ui.��o mcnt:= of this section. N . ESTIIBLI:•Flrtl;t` T OF DISTIICT ARE MS -- The configuration of the property for with this Spec). f i c Illan is prepared is such that there are tt~a ( 2 ) dist_ irct- ,ircia�, . These areas are deli.n- at:c_e oil the Specific Plan t•,,:.p shown on Exhibit .. A defxript: i.ve of development: standards for these areas are; included in the sections thw t. Follow. " O. DEVELCITIME111T f7TA `3P1 RDS, - i rrp•�s� cl clev�_�lop'il�'Sl� within t }:o --1 .1- EXHIBIT C z .011 Production/Landscape Buffer pile , 3 AL 1 e. ' � w .,�... 7� ' "' �� yid--' �--^. - :_- #�i. �E-__ � -.._ -. ^-- •. -_ vim vw dOK� 7A4L • t� 7XAL AV&A s/ra-ss cUMAr � 1-• 1 � . r *44 • r r �• AyZR jwAoz~ GOW !AIWA AAWY Jdilts' J%!O' Seabridge Specific Plan shall comply with the following standards : r , 1 . Uses Permitted -- The following uses are permitted h►ithin' the specific plan area; t (a) Area A - Attached residential units and related recreational facilities; (b) Area B -- Attached residential units and related recreational facilities. The, area designated as Subarea B1 within ,Area a may be developed with office anti/or commercial uses subject to 3 the requirements and standards set forth in the C4 District. Density. Standards - , (a) Area A - Vie total number of dwelling units within Area A shall not exceed tour hundred ' (400) : such units shall be clustered to allow for a maximum i .amount of open ;pace . M Area B - The total numl:er of dwelling units within Prea B shall not exceed four hundred ( 400) , flow- ever . if Subarea :3.1 is developed with commercial and/or a."'fice uses , th maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed three hundred fifty (350) . . 3 . Building .height - The maximum building height shall be as follows: Area A -r Thirty five ( 35) feet except within Subarea Al where the maximum building height shall not exceed trlenty five sQ (25) feet. (See Exhibit A "1 yt Area }3 - Six (5) stories or seventy (70) feet. _ f. 4 . Site Coverage •- The maximum building site cov- erage shall be as follows : Est Area A - Forty five percent ( 45%) Area B -- Fifty- percent ( 50%) ., 5. Perimeter Setback -- The minimum setback for all F' structures over six ( 6) feet in height which are located along x . j the perimeter of the project: shall conform to the building set- back set forth in Exhibit "A . This requirement shall not , apply to entry monuments and landscape features: G. Building Se ar.ation and d Setback •- Area A - The minimum building separation or distance between buildings and :,access ways for Area A shall be as follows: (a) Between buildings, front to front, twenty five 12.5), f t+ _• (b) Between buildings, rear to rear or rear to front, twenty (2 0) feet-. ( c) Between buildings , side to front or side to rear, fifteen (15) feet . (u) Detween buildin:,ls , sidc tt.) side , fiftccn ( 15) feet. (c) xn order to provide for obliquely aligned build- ings , the distance spec-ifi 'd ii))ove may be decreased by an C'Jual or distance at the other corner. rn no case shall the { t� separation be less than ten (10) feet. O , (t) Distance between detached accessory buildings i shall. not be less th i, ten (10) feet. (h) Distance between open parking spaces and any ground floor area of a building used for human habitations shall not be less than ten (10) feet. (i) Distance between vehicular access ways and. hab- itable portion of the ground floor area of a dwelling shall not be less than fifteen ( 15) feet. ' (j) Distance between travel lanes on vehicular ; r access ways and garages or parking strucL•ures shall not be I , less than five (5) feet. Area B - The mi.niumum separation, between building, I � - and between buildings and access ,,rays for Area D shall con- form to Uniform Building Code and Fire Code requirements. All 7. Building Bulk - Area ?1 -- The following design sLandards are recom- mended for controlling building bulk within Area A. (a) Building lengths should not exceed 180 feet. (b) Building exterior should be provided with offsets in the building line to provide variation . (c) ©ending rooflines should be de!Acined zo provide i tiariac:ion. Area 11 - The following 00--i.ign st:aodar-dr, are reCOr4r'cr�r?c_d for c onc:rc1ling buildiI1g ljulk wir.hin Arf!a U. (a) Building exteriors should be provided with offsets in flier Imildinq line to provi.Je variation . I -1 a - (b) building rooflines should be designed to provide variation. • "" j 0. Common Open Space - The site plan shall be de- signed so a maximum number of units abut open space. Open Space areas for recreation and leisure activities shall �,•, a be provided according to the following standards : 01 r i OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT i Area A AREA B 800 sq. ft. per unit Unit j1p Open Space Reguirement Efficiency & Single 150 sq. ft./unit I one Bedroom 200 sq. ft./unit Two Bedroom 325 sq. f t./unit Three or more Bdrms 400 sq. ft./unit tr.. (a) The Resource Production Areas may be used to satisfy fifty percent (50^) of the common open space requirements . (b) The common open space areas sha2.1 he designed and located for maximum use by all residents of :the project. (c) Such areas shall L•e fully inprove?. Irnp rove mart ts may include paved surface; , landscaped areas, water areas, and recreational facilities. (d) Recreation and leisure areas shall not be located within ten ( 10) feet of any ground floor dwelling unit wall hav- ing a doer or A-,inflow. AlEo , such recreation and 1-Asure areas 1 shall have miniumum etsi,io-nsion of evency (20): feat iT c!:ey are to be included within the open space cal.cuI.-Itions, (e) Lot coverage by rccreation buildings and other recreation structures 0all. be inc?uded within the open Space calculations . r� 4 ( t) At . least one (1) main recreational area shall be provided. Satellite recreation areas may be distributed throughout the specific plan area. } g . Main Recreation Area -- Minimum Size -- The min- imum size of the main recreational area shall not be less than ten thousand (10 , O00) square feet. � •a r : (a) Two or. more of the following sliall be provided t wi chin 'iche main recreational area i .;wiinminq pool, I rti spa , satina , tennis: court, basketball court , putting green, play-- ground equipment, volleyball court, lawn bowling , outdoor cook- , . . ing facility, or similar facilities. (b) Residential units shall not be located closer to the main recreation area than ten (10) feet. Where such { 1,..A residentialEmits do riot have windotas or doors located on the same level the setback may be. reduced to f ive (5) feet. � 4 i (c) A clubhouse shall be provided in the main recre- ation area. Such clubhouse shall contain facilities to meet the recreational needs of the development. Additional club- house (s) and/or facilities may be located in the satellite rec- reation areas to satisfy this requirement. 10. Private Open Sues -• Private open space areas , ` q in the .Form of patios or balconies shall be provided for each unit. Such areas shall be located .-adjacent to the unit they are intended t o serve. The minimum size of such pation or balconies shall niece the following standards : ....1(... I (a) Where patios 'are provided, tho- minimum areas shall be as follows : •°�' ' Minimum Area** Minimum Unit 'rye (Scl. Ft. ) Dimension (Ft . ) Efficiency/or one } ( 1) bedroom 120 i0 r: Two (2) bedrooms 200 10 Three 13) or more bedrooms 300 10 (b) Where balconies are provided the minimum area c; + shall be as follows : Minimun Area Minimum Unit Type (Sq . Ft. ) Dimension (Ft. ) 4 Efficiency/or one ' (1) bedroom 60 6 Two ( 2) , three ( 3) or four (4) bedrooms 120 6 ** This area may lie divided into two ( 2) separate 'areas ; however, neither area shall contain less than sixty (60) square feet . ( c) Two story units aihich are provided with a patio at the lower level are permitted a ,ten percent (10%) reduction in the patio area requirement if a balcony having a minimum area of sixty (60) sq. ft. is provided . balconies which serve as en- trances or exists shall not satisfy this requirement except where entrances or exists arc for the sole use of a particular unit. -17- 1. Minimum Floor Area - Each dwelling within the development shall have the following minimum floor area: Area AA Area �B Minimum Floor Minimum Floor 'Unit Tyee Area (Sc Ft. ) Area (S3.Ft. ) Efficiency 450 450 One (1) Bedroom 650 600 Two (2) Bedrooms 900 800 Three (3) Bedrooms 1100 1000 Four (4) Bedrooms 1300 1200 12. Private Access Ways The following standards shall apply to all private vehicular access ways : (a) Private ways serving as access shall be provided I� with a minimum paved width equivalent to not less than two (2) twelve ( 12) foot wide travel lanes . d 1 0(b) Access ways exceeding one hundred fifty Y ( 5 ) feet in length but less than three-hundred (300) feet in length, shall be provided with a curbed turn-around having a. minimum radius of twenty-two- and one-half ( 22�) feet or a "Hammerhead" turnaround per Fire Dept. Standards ; c Access ways exceeding three hundred feet ( 300) feet ( I Y g in length but less than six hundred feet (600) in length shall be provided with a curbed turn-.around having a minimsxn radius of. forty ( 40) feet, a "fiammnerhead" turn--around per Fire Department. Standards, or ar intortyincj loop circulation system; d Access ways exceeding six hundred (600) feet in ( ) � g ' length shall be provided with an, inter tying loop circulation system; . A turn-around meeting the- requirements of- the.- Fire Department may be permitted Uliere a loop system is im- practical. ical. (e) Exceptions to the above standards may be grant- ed, subject to approval of the Department of Development h Services and Fire Department. 13. Parking, - The required parking for the units within the Specific. Plan Area shall be provided at the follow-- ing ratio: (a) Efficiency and one (1) bedroom units shall be r • provided with two (2) on--site parking spaces. One (1) space shall be covered . The remaining parking space may be uncov- V.- eyed. (b) Dwelling units with two (2) or more bedrooms shall be provided with two and cane-half (2;1) on-site parking r•. spaces. One (1) of these spaces shall be covered. The re- maining ( 11,-) spaces may be uncovered . (c) Developments that are designed and restricted to use by persons fifty (50) years of age and older shall pro- vide parking at the following ratios : 1. Efficiency and one (1) bedroom units - one (1) parking space 2 . Two ( 2) bedroom units - one & one half (1h) parking spaces (d) where i)arking spaces are provided on a drive approach to a carport or garage that: is designed for the ax- clue ive use of :the owner of the garage, or carport, such par).-• ing shall be credited totoard opcii parking requirements . _. (e) All parking spaces required by this section shall lia discr.ibuted a;, convenient locations to serve boCh • residents and gues c s . E (f) All required covered parking shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of the dw* e?ling unit is is designed to serve. (g) A r,.aximun: of 25" of .all open unassigned barking spaces within Area A may he for compact cars; a maximum of 40% of all parking spaces within Area B may be for compact cars. (h) The access , dimensions, and Lurning radii for all parking shall conform to the provisions of Arcicle 979. 14. Landscaping - The purpose of this is to in- sure a more pleasant living environment through the use of plans and decorative design elemonrs . (a) All setback areas fronting on or visible from an adjacent Public screec , and all recreation , leisure and open are-as shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. (b) Permanent irrigarion facilities shall be pro- vided in all. landscaped areas . (c) One (1) thirty ( 30) inch tree , or equiv- alenc , shall be provided ons.ire for cacti residential unit. I 4 Seventy five percent (75%) of the total requirement shall be � thirty (30) inch box trees. Tne remaining twenty five percent (25%) of such requirement may he provided at a ratio of. one (1) inch for (1) inch chrough the use of twenty (20) or cwency-four (24) inch box trees. Ad' dicional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well balanced landscaped developmenc. (d) A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Departwent of Development Services for approval prior to the issuance of building permits . 15. Address Si ns -- The placement of address cumbers shall be at a uniform location throughout the development, and the placement of such numbers shall be approved by the Department of Wevelopmen c Services . 16 . Cable T.V. - 1vo e:;cerior celevisi:on antenna P shall be ermicced. �A common underhround cable service to All dwelling unics shall be p:rovic?ed• �4 17. Fire Hydrant Systen - A fire hydrant syscem shall be installed co provide an • adequace fire floe. The 1 adequacy of such system shall be approved by the fire marshal afc,ar review of plan-, and engineeri.n(j calculations have been ••� submitccd. Plans shell be submitted and approved prior: to the ' insurance of building pormi cs, and any fire hydrant system shall 1),� in operacion pr -)r ro Ov Cirnr of construction with any coml.)U icible liincer-jals . i lg. Fire Protection -- All fire protection appli- ances , appurtences, emergency access and ocher applicable ' requirements pursuant to Chapter 17 . 56 of the uunti.ngton }leach Municipal Code shall meet the standard plans and specifici.cions on file with the Fire Department. +` 19. Laundry Areas - Where laundry areas , other than those located within indivia.ual dwelling units are pzovided, :I such areas shall be located to minimise visual and noise in--' ' trustion both within and outside the project. 20. Lightina - The developer shall install. an- on-tice ` lighting system on all vehicular access ways and along major walkways. A lighting plan shall by submitted for approval to the Director of Developmental Services. Such lighting zhall. be directed onto driveways and walkwayswithin the development i and away from adjacent. properties. Lighting shall aisd bP insc�n11ed wi chin all covered and ellclosed park .ng areas . 21. Private Storage s2a_ce - Where the proposed dev- elopment is to be constructed with other Char an attached garaga for each swelling unit , aminimum of one hundred (100) cubic :feet of storage: space Shall be provided for each dwelling unit. 22 .. Seder and Water Systerr►s -- S-we.r and water systems shall be designed to c.i.ty standards. Duch systems small be located within s:r.ecrs, alleys or. drives . I i I� In no case shall indi.vidual newer limes or sewer mains for one building be permitted to extend un&.-rneath any other. building. 23. Signs - All signs in the development shall conform to applicable provisions of Article 976 . jai !4- 24 , Street Sic ns -- The 6eveloper shall install _ on-site street name signs at the ntexspetions of access coal►s , '� as approved by the Director . of D,,!veloprrtent Services. Screec h,1 ra.,es and signs shall. be .approved by r-he Fire Department. Y 25 , Street Trees -- 'street trees along Beach Blvd. and A.dants Avenue shall. be provided pursuant to city standards with twenty (20) inch box crz?es planted at approximately forty- five (45) foot intervals. A plan showing the type and place-- . � scent of sur_h_ trees shall be approved by the Department of. , public Works and the Departnent of Development Services . t An equivalent alternar_ive to this basic requiremanc may be permitted subject to approval of this Department of Devclopr,sent ` Services . 26. "-'rash colleccion Areas - Trash collectier% areas shall be provided within two hur,dr-ed (200) feet of the units oicy are r.o serve . Such areas shall be enclosed w. or screened , and shall hc situatcici in order to minimize noise ands vis-.jal .intrusion on adjacent property► as well as ;,o elininatc fir_(-- ,tad and c:(i ac;jaconr- sti:uccures , zndividuail w r )-il's)Z coil ect. inn shall be perini " ccd thy, ititent of chis ♦N serr.ion is iueu . eel 27. Vehicular SStora - outside uncovered and • unenclosed areas . for srorare of goats, trailers , recreational III vehicles and other sirtil.ar vehicles shall bl:� prohibited un- less specifically designated areas for the exclusive storage . A of such vehicles are set aside on the final 41evelopr,:ent plan t and provided for in the F.s;sociacion' s covenants , conditions , + ? and restrictions . tthere such areas are provi.d%.-c:, they shall + be screened from vi ea: cin a horizonal plane from adjacent areas wall or permanent) by a combinackon o!: six (6 ) foot high r;.asonr} Y Div , a maintained landscaping. 26. tor^�.t��n Areas -- Common open space shall be Corm-- duaranceed by a restrictivc cov nant describing the open space and its maincen.inca and improvenene , running with the land for the benefit of residents of the development. T=!e developer shall fi.IL. %-Ath the De )arrxient of Develcpment Services for recordation w.i ch rile final "tsbdi.vision map , legal documnts wil i.ch will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designates purpose , as approved on the final development i plan . I All lands to be con�eyed to the homeowner' s association shall be subject to the righLt of the yrancee or grantees to enforce n. aincenance and improvencrits of. f.Ile common space. I I YCj 29. Annearance Standards - The following standards shall be considered by the Planning .cot.v.1i.ss ion ashen reviewing a development proposal : , � � '". (a) thrchitectural features and general appeararec�. a€ the proposed development shall enhance the orderly and harmonious development of the area or the cornmun= a. ity as a whole. (b) Architectural features and com}7limenrary color: shall be ' incorporated into the design of all vertical y i exterior surfaces of the buildings in order to create r I an aesthetically pleasing project. M, (c) Particular attention shall be given to incorporat- , . i ing the design , including colors , of signs in.co. the Y overall design of tlie- entire development: in order to achieve uniformity. (d) vt!liicular access ways shall be designed with land- r scaping and building variation to elimi.nate an alley- like appearance. K. II02VII✓oW13I:1tS ' OR C(),t►•lLt4ITY ASSOCIAi Ioi1 -- Approval of all. development-. Prof. gals sltall he subject to submission of ,a . legal instrun,,nt; or inscruT;;ents sect-Ing fo!:th a plan or manner of permanent r:,trC'. anti maintenance Of upcn opac;es ► recreational ' � � striatrent shall. be � s7rE'.c�S , 3:tCi C'CJt'.lrlUn2c} fa.Cll] G::C3• 110 ..,Llc.l •1 it ;�ecc:ptal�lc� un ci 1. -�upLcIvccl b% chc '�.i ty 1+cr_c�rney a,"; to legal roam and ef.fcCr j►n,-1 by y t.hn Director of Dev lopinental a!:.,rvicr.-s an co . , po err. of the cq-,,,'Ll S;p.3ce areas . :zttitabilit1lr -r f0 c.� 1- c ;;re ::r.�1 u. I� k ' -If- the common open spaces are to be conveyed to a homeowners ' f� i' association, the developer shall file in declaration of cov- enants to be submitted with the application for approval., that will govern the association. 1 . The homeowners ' association shall be established prior to the sale of ':the last dwelling unit. t ' 2 . Membership shall be manatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. . t' t 3 . The open space restrictions shall be permanent. 4 . Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into ' the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for each project. 5. If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require: one or more final maps, reciprocal cov- enants , t- a enants , conditions , and restrictions- and reciprocal management and maintenance actreements shall be established which will cause a merging of incrr_mentns as they are completed , and embody one homeownerr, ' association with common areas for the total development. ,I It. APPROVAL PERIOD - Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 984 , Conditional Use Permits, each Ccnd_itional Use Permit author- ized under this Article sh, .1 become null and void within three (3 ) years unless a final tract map huu been roc:orded . with the Counry Recorders, of lice on ary porr.ion of Lhe approved Plans WiLhilt such chrr":? (3) year1)t ►'i.od. -26- A �1 iM f t {;t i 1 > , t dix C Geotechnical and Salle lnvestigatom i r., r! I r , r . onsultots I • SOr'!5 E$vW QEERNVG--OW#WLRWS GEOLOGY 15307 MIN14ESOTA AVE. ' PARAMOUN T CALIF. '�0723 (213y �33-5152 � � w ,w June 24, ' 1980 i <+ Project r:o . 550--050 liUNTiNGT^`I BEACH Action Engineering Consultants PIANNING DEPT. _ 5402--A Commercial Drive ' Beach, California 926�49 /a(Irr :� 1981 Huntington Re; Geology and Seismicity Investigation p, G. Sox 190 0J PSola Development Project H,U-dir.k an Btach, CA 52548 Southeast Corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California Gen;:lemen. This is to present the results and co;Iclusions of an engineering geology and seismicity investigation performed at your request at t.e above referenced property . . The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the Exist-- i I ► t ing geologic conditions as they would apply to the Contemplated I development, which , it is understoodr is to be an extensive townhouse project, No high rise or critical facilities are planned, to our knowled5c. To this end , portions of ;.wo days were spent in the field performing erformin surficial examination and geologic mapping of the II -x � site and contiguous properties . In addition, subsurface explora-- tort' work, which consisted of logging four backhoe pits , was .� •- published gc�o- performed. Additional time was spent, rc.�e: arching p logic and engineering documents considered pertinent to the site and general vicinity. Action Engineering Consultants - 2- 550-050 According to the Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element, the subject property is within an area suspected to be underlain by traces of an active earthquake fault, in order to determine whether a traoe of a fault is present in the near surface soils, x.. four exploratory 1:.renches were excavated* and the earth mat©ri.als encountered were carefully examined and logged . Orientation of the trenches was made in order to intercept any suspected trace at nearly right angles. GEOGRAPHIC P.ND GEOLOGIC SETTING a The subject site is a large rectangularly shaped parcel measuring approximately 1350 feet in an east-west direction and 2000 feet in a north-south direction , situated i=ediately south- east of the intersection of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard$ As can be seen from the Vicinity Map , the site is located on the • western border of, the Santa Ana River Gap, with ' the Huntington Beach mesa generally to the west, but impinging onto the property in the southwest and northwest quadrants. At present, the pro- perty is extensively used ,for petroleum recovery and many oil wells , dirt and paved roads , and pipelines were observed on the W- site. An orange County Flood Control channel traverses the west- crn portion of the site and a pumping structure for this channel w_ ., is situated facing Adams Avenue . Extens�,ve residential construction bounds the eastern and southern boundaries cf the property , as well as acrosu Beac'n -� , w Action Engineering Consultants 550-050 to the west. A co:racne rcial nursery is situated dr_ the southwest corner of the site and a gasoline station on the rorthwest corner. Maximum relief on the site is about 30 feet , however, the r najority of the property has an average elevation of 5 feet above sea level . A small, presumably intermittent , lai.e exists in the west central portions G.6 the site , west of the flood control channel. and east or Beach Boulevard. Location of the property relative to streets, landmarks, ti t and general topography is shown on Plate 1, vicinity Map. Plate 2 depicts the surficial geology and the location of the 3xplora- i tory Trenches. Logs of the exploratory trenches , as recorded at the time of excavation, are presented on Plates 3 and 41 and the general sub- surface conditions as presented on Plate 5 . Plate 6 depicts the ,.,., location of the site relative to known major faults in southern California and to the recorded epicenters of earthquakes with fs•ti magnitudes greater than G . "A SURFICIAL DEPOSITS - import'. has mantled much of I; r� Previous grading and on going import'.' mpor the property with loose fill deposits • It is estimated that the r � maximum depth of fill , exclusive of abandoned wells and channel r backfill , is on the order of 6 .feet• The project soils engineer would have identified these areas . Action Engineering Consultants 550-050 _Quaternary Terra ce Deposits (Map SyMbOl Qpu) Exposed on the southwest and northwest corners of the site are reddish brown, fine sands , silty sands , and gravelly sands assignei to the Lakewood Formation of Upper Pleistoce age. These sediments are the typical constituents of the Huntington Bench Mesa, the main portion of which is loc:aMed westerly of the site. Re.ce!n't-Alluv um ` Mantling the vast majority of the property are alluvial de- posits consisting of clayey sands , sixty sands , clean sands , clayey • Ana River and its tributor-- silts and peat, laid down by the Santa � i, ies during the recent geologic past. Numerous oil wells on the ..! site have penatrated these deposits to an average depth of 150 feet. Underlyinc the alluviunLis a very thick sequence of Tertiary sedimentary rock, estimated to be on the order of, 10,.000 feet. i Basement rock, probably Schistose , is believed to exist beneath ` the sediments . FAULTS i The subject property is within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and contains four branches of this fault. According to many 1 public and private agencies, the locations of these faults are ! well documented,, and as such have been plotted on Plate 21 attached. The Newprrt-Inglewood fault is considered by the State of Califon- south of Seal I3eacl� , the � nia to be an active fault, however, i _ _J I Action Engineering Co nsultants 550-050 ietivi ty rating is questionable due to the lack of surface fault- ing. , Major earthquake faults known to exist in southern California are shown on Plate 6 . Tat _ One lists faults considered "active" , that ist faults which brea:: all formations , including alluvium, have an observable topograil=hic expression , and have undergone movement accompanied by earthquakes during historic time, or have been so designated as active by the State of California, Division _ of Mines and Geology. Those named faults , which have sF;xperienced movement, but do not break all formations and have not had earth- quake activity during historic time , but are considered potentially active , are listed on Table Two. No faults, offset strata, or indications of past ground movement were apparent in the natural earth materials as exposed in the trenches . SEISMICITY Tables One and Two and Plate 61 attached, have been developed from various sources to show the distance to known active and potential y' 1 active faults in southern ralifornia considered per tinent to the site . The sources of information include prominent. ' fiche textbooks on geology and seismicity , state and county publics , as well as data disseminated by both public and private agencies involved with earthquake measuring and monitoring. 'While not all i Action Engineering Consultants 550-050 sources agree on all items due to the "statA of the art" at the present time, the tables anal plates included, in this report are believed to present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the avail- j able data. plotted. or estimated epicenters of recorded larger magnitude earthquakes, which have taken place in southern California since 1769 , are presented on plate 6. The epicent©r of the March 10 , I 1933, Long Beach Earthquake was located approximately 3 miles f� li southeast. No surface fault displacement was recognized from this earthquake. Figures 3-2 , 3--3 , and 3-4 have been adopted from r Maxi- the Huntington Beach Seismic Safeta► Element to report the 1, Maxi- mum Probable and Credible Earthquakes , 2 , Estimated Ground and Base Rock ElOtions and 3 , Estimated Peak Ground Motion For 1933 j Earthquake. SECONDARY SEISKIC HAZARDS Liquefaction.: Ground failure due to liquefaction is con- ` sidered +likely since groundwater lies at or near the existing surface and the near surface soils appear to have the characteristic of siIscepti bility to such phenomena. EarthquakeInduced Landsaides : Ko existing 1 andslides which could be reactivated by aarthquake forces are prQsent on the site. No inmiinent slides wore observed or, the t;ubjoct pro- party or on jnM0dia4-Qly adjacent properties . ,} Action Engineering Consultants -7- 550-050 Dif Ferential Settlement : Tr,e possibility of differential settlement as a xesult of earthquake fo-xcas is considered moderate because of the presence of saturated peat deposits beneath the property. ' Tsunamis : The site is located approximately 1 mile fr.;m the ocean, with numerous structures , and residences situated be- tween. Such a position effectively precludes it from the t ; effects of a sei.=ic sea wave. f CONCLUSIONS jThe Probability of ground surface rupture is considered slight because the faults knoum to underly the site are not con- sidered active. The risk fr.Dm potential liquefaction, and dif- ferential compaction , however, is felt to be relatively high and the soils engineer should make recommendations to rtiticate this s►r potential hazard. Provided this is accomplished , it is conciudeu that the proposed site development is feasible from the engineering I geolugy point .of view. Respcczf ul ly submitted, BASELINE COti SUl'TANTS ... Richard F. Cousa.neau, CEG 321 RPC/jm (5) Action Engineering,, Consultants TABLE ONF. Active Faults in Southern California , Closest Point Date of Mlos t Distance From Fault _ Recent Activity I ntensity ,, Site (miles) Elsinore 1938 5 . 5 25 Newport/Inglewood 1933 6 . 3 0 .1 Norwalk 1925 4 .7 (estimated) 15 San Andreas '!948 6. 5 51 San Jacinto 1940 7 . 1 50 San Fernando 1971 6 . 4 55 Raymond Hill M M 33 Whi ttier 19'1 3. 2 21 J TABLE TWO Faults Considered Potentially Active i1i Southern California Closest Point Distance rrom r , Site (miles) Fault Malibu coast 50 Palos Verdes 11 Santa Monica 35 Sierra Nadre 35 FIGURE 3- 2 `!AX1�biU,1 PROBABLE AND CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF IiU`TTI+JGTO\ BF.AC11 Approximate Probable Maximum* Dis%ance to Maximum Rupture Length Correspunding** City of Estimated Magnitude For- Range of Maximum Maxir.ul Huntington Total Fault of Maximum Maximum Probable Credible Bea c ?. Length Historical ::arthquake Earthquake Earthquake Earthqu-nkt . . • ` - one tmi ] e- } (km) bart.hqu.,kes (km) Magnitudes Magnitude Masr,i tuck � ,• :., 0 94+ 6. 3 45 or less G . G-7 . 6 6 . 6 7 . 6 'T ICI►un4 M (1933) �. - ittier 21Y 103+ 3 . 2 S1 or less 6 . 8-7 . 7 6 . 8 7 . 7 -tnorc 25? iRO+ 5. 5 90 or less 7 . 2-8 . 0 7 . 2 8 . 0 — — (1938) SOi 33 0+ 7 . 1 155 or less 7 . 5- 8 . 2 7. S S . 2 .� (1940) (Seven quakes of M greater than 6 . 0 since 191.1j) 4504 6 . S 225 or less 7 . 7-8 . 4 7 . 7 8 . 4 (from Garlock (1948) Fault S/L t?icy su€.- . - t ton by bet. and Smith (1966) that the primary causal rupture at depth for the w1: 1 c1: c-��: �� RcneTated or. a given fault ha; a maxi.mun, length of l ess than half w F I GU RL EST NATED GROUND AND HASi ROC:: M;OTI UK CHAR-4CTER I STI CS jM:-X1Mt M PROBABLE EARTHQUAKES CITY OF HUNT I N GTON BEACH Estimated (l) Estimated(2) Predominant (3) Probable (4 ) Distance From Maxialun Maximum Period of Duration of •_ausative Causative Estimated Base Rock Ground Base Rock .arthquake Fault Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Motion Shaking Fault (Miles ) (Ricliter) (g) (g) (Seconds) (Seconds) ,te'.Pdrt- i11g1C, ood 0- 3 6 . 6 0 . 65+ 1 . 0 0 . 30+ 39 0 . 9 (4) ` ittier 21 + 6 . 8 0 . 21 0 . 30 0 . 30+ 22 _l _ snore 25+ 7 . 2 0 . 20 0 . 35 0 . 35+ 30 :: Jacinto 50+ 7 . S 0. 10 0 , 18 0 . 4 ;+ 40 San An s S 3+ 7 . 7 0 . 10 0 . 20 0 . 50+ 46 Schnable and Sved , 14?� i 1:ittiliese:1 , et a] (3) S'led , et al , 190`9 r.4 j GCOI ngi cal Survey Ci rcu? ar 6 7 2 , I 972 1 �I FIGURE 3-4 ESTIMATED PEAK GROUND MOTION FOR 1933, 'MAGNITUDE 6 . 3 LONIG BEACH EARTHQUAKE IN CITY OF HUNTINGTO`J BEACH � Modified Peak Ground* Peak Ground Mercalli Velocity Acceleration Location Intensity In Sec. (g) A. Low areas within Sunset B..ach , IX 15 0 . 6+ Bolsa and Santa Ana Gaps within _ one mile+ of coast and areas of 0 . 35 to 0 . 70 *f* peat and—organic soils . . 0 . 53+t B. Inland areas of TOcunt alluvium VII - IX 7 -15 0 . 3 to 4 . 6 *t more than one mile from coast with intensity decreasing with O . 15 to 0 . 70 �` ** incrcclsing distance from coast . 0 . 27 to 0 . 53 t Higher elevations of Bolsa Chiea VIII 7 0 . 3± ** lesa and Huntington Beach Mesa. 0 . 15 to 0 . 35 *t* 0 . 27+t Esteva and Rosenblueth (1964) . ** Mbdi Pied values based on `•iatthiesen , et al (1972) . t*t Tay -cn f.om :nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes , TID-7024 , United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1963 . ;l fi�f::lJ1 ' It;;4 . VICINITY AIAP y �w, !° i�.1{� y ty ra' •�" •fia .• 7r/ �\\. ! f 4 !. -_r _.. ,�� 7 w • n�`"�?+ t• "�' \.�•:LL-1•"►t j �• 1 � t,;ot•I.nlo►'y l , _ - _...._ [{j/�t�( v,, I • ► a " . • i . III ► i►••q.V..•/ -t ••, t.. - ►_' 1 ' - V11^t,a'r.�YyotanA ,L�o 5�...t� � � 1 � _._. __ 1 •. '1 • �•••�I-~ • ~ .... .-.I. S1-iiL.t � ,i►i j° °i'° "°�« .°, � Q � J t � \': �� _._. Vt 1:�� 'yam• ,_ o a o° �so: Qr• y � Sod J V .,, .� ; ; •' ` �•`_C i1. • ia•�, ' rV { i►n°I° r� 1`�o , r .�:• /h/.^ I ._,.•y„lf � ►, I' 1 t t �r ..,1 �.'�•w - ••r�� 1 I � � .....�:a .-�--•,ter._ �.a__..�_ .}I,`�'a L+i_,�..7�1F�.► / 1�t t `l �_. 1�•.•+, �;..• to.:,.•h4 �.�.y/;. t/ • - f7 Go 'o- t' (....' I`.�-,ti-♦ • LI Lx i, ;� \. r i t_ i ` valL�r„ _ n"_.: h / �� t• . 1 J • 1 , J •{ � •�pr•NAii T.J� 1 JC ___1 AYI. � .•.+.�a•v_..�.•rse►ea-�(— � '��` , _•- 'v' *C,,' A'� ! .f..t _I r�aM ` .. „ate._ •I Awl h,�/►,�^�• ��*. .�!_..�s�` 4-��� ,,C '_.J y,ti:!1 ,I i - � �' - �.` O' t t1 ,.....,._t<.•� r� •"I .w ; •_! _ _ 1 • ' !.= l.►,/j:Cr � .as_.,t-:��t,_rc.._ _ �� \� .- - -1 ' .1 ��' _ ..... -' . •s a.,�.o• t , � 'I. C I jHU�T1+'Y?\TGT04r RLA }� -' + y • _J.iS _„ ' �.-=1 - .t TLANI•_..—•a..,,=...._�. .._.. ._•L r.r. —i1VC_^__:.� :_�•.�- -pp .I �`\�,{ � •;yb-'i:filr� t ,' �'•' � I r ,. •�TI ... .. a 1i yam; a o'..°• °Is __-. � � • AVC , �•�`'\•y � � �•.Sld.�1�' ••t-r_'1.' 't La i`�....r .�--Y ! ; �r: 'a^„ta► , f' �� � ` 1Y1''I , . t1'atrr `' �,�,n(v• J" w ,r_ :G. _.... •- •' I ..._ It jf% �'�.' �'tanks • -�. •l S NV 1r r ir�ti� 1„`nv J,• 17. tool n n rove-lo rent Proporty i os 550 05-3 Huntington Beach , CA. .'�.-..�' ."..�. P L A%T E U L... E3ASELH i+r.w "r P��juXb • 4 I t t ' ; t 1 12, • I RECEIVED" � o r T 2 2 198t EDAW INC. ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY SOILS REPGRT _ s NENt'OR1 E'EhCN INVESTIGATION FOR ALTERNATIVE ; J FOUNDATION DESIGN, +55 ACRE SITE ' SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARMS ; AND BEACH BOULEVARDS ,y HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORM A i l , y 3 i v CCNDUCTED FOR: MULA DEVEI-OPMENT 417 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA I if . ACTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS -- 501LS CNGINEENING AND GkOLOCY cJ f' 402•A Commercial Drive Huntington Beacll, California 92649 Phones; (71 1021 (213) 598.8579 March 19, 1981 _._ W.O. 265102 Mola Development 417 Main Street _ Huntington Beach, California Subject: Addendum to Preliminary Soils .Report, Investigation for- Alternative Foundation Design , +55 Acre Site Southeast Corner of Adams and Beach Boulevards } Huntington Beach , California Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, a supplemental investigation was performed at the subject site. The purpose i ' p pope of the investigation was to determine the general engineering characteristics of the soils at depth and to provide specific recomnendatior;s for design of timber pile, foundations for the purpose of ele- vatin; living areas above flood pinin, elevati;,n . �:� i Our Preliminary Soils Report, 14.0. 265101 , dated May 31 , 1980, was available for reference. ' FIELD INVESTIGATION ! ' f A field investigation was performed on January 20 and 21 , 1981 , consisting of the excavation of a total of thirteen (13) exploratory test borings by truck- mounted continuous flight auger equipment to a maximum depth of forty-four (441 ) feet. As the test borings were advanced, the soils were visually classified 4 by the Field Engineer. The soils encountered are consistent with those as described in our above referenced report. Logs of the borings are shown on Table 1 . Undisturbed simples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained by pushing cr driving a sampling spoon into the material . A solid barrel -type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.50 inches with a tapered tatting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. ' Mold Development W.0. 265102 Page 2 The barrel is lined with thin brass rings , each one (11 inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil 6Plow the depth of boring approximately twelve (12") inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in air--tight containers and transported to the laboratory. NATURAL CONDITIONS Natural ground encountered below a depth of twenty (201 ) feet, which is the subject of this report', classifies as SAND, fine, silty, and CLAY, silty. Soil ' conditions as encountered appear uniform. Ground water was encountered in all of the- test borings at a shallowest depth of thirteen (131 ) feet, as shown in the Boring Logs. No caving occurred in any of the excavations . ! C' LABORATORY TESTING Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine of the strain control type in which the rate of strain is 0.05 inches. per minute . The machine is so designed that tests may be performed ensuring a minimum of disturbance from the field conditions. Saturated specimens were subjected to shear under various normal loads. The results of tests based cn ultimate values are presented on Plate A. Consolidation tests were performed on in-situ moisture and saturated specimens of typical soils. The consolidometer, like the direct shear machine, is designed to receive the specimens in the field condition. Porous stones , placed at the top of the specimens , permit the free flow of -rater into or from the specimens during the test. Successive load increments were applied to the top of the specimen and progressive and final load settlements under each increment were recorded to an accuracy of 0.0001 inch. The final settlements so obtained are plotted to determine the curvcs shown on Plate. B. Expansion tests itereperformed on typical specimens of natural soils . These tests were performed in accordance with the procedure outlines in U.B.C. Standard 29-2. Results of these tests are presented in Table II ar,d indicate the soil to have a high expansion potential . 9 Mula Development W.O. 265102 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of our investigation , the proposed alternative timber pile foundation design is considered feasible provic;ed that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design of foundation system:, and are imple;lcented in the field. FOUNDATIONS The proposed structures may be supported by driven timber friction piles. Design values are given on the pile capacity chart on Plate A. Uplift forces may be considered as one-half (1/2) of pile load. Lateral support for piles may be provided by cross-bracing with adjacent piles. t The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil 34 conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings. If any variations or undesirable conditions are -encountered during construction, or if the proposed r ; construction will differ from that planned at the present time , ACTION ENGINEERING Y� CONSULTANTS should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recorrm- j �• } endations contained liere are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project: and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary 3J steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such �n recommendations tLe field. o This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. We apprF..:iate this opportunity to be of service to you. a" Respectfully submitted: + ACTION EUGINEERINGr CONSULTANTS, INC. }IORMAN B. 'THORNHILL PAUL S. RICE ' t PRESIDE11T STAFF ENGINEER Reviewed By: BRUCE A. PACKARD RCE 13801 VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING PSR:sb SUMMARY OF SHEAR TEST QA,T'A W. O. cn 23 ' r r Kl - i �i 1 Lw 3S w a o a . " �' f� W urn Ln n. g 1 �c Ix o a E � r i c _ o I in C1 �y nl Ns M SHEAR STRENGTH IN L, BS.! SQ. FT. ' — = ' aiN�i� .aw:i..c .:.a:.ST �Csa.J �rcJrc.' .`w.i�' :►.uK r -- ^ :s kq�. M.. — i r».� _��► —._. s.r. 20 3o fo �-a i p 1� i O ��/ /2 /✓r'¢ -eel¢ i BORING N9 - DEPTH j CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE GURVF,, lo { 7 3 C,- o 7 Z Y 02 0-?� a�� C�5 os as 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.D 8.0 I0.0 ?4.Q NORMAL LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE_ FOOT •�s w PL ATE: -..:t on 1e PREPARED F011 � ACTION `` --- ENGINEERING .�wK o«nc• CONSULTANTS . t M , I r� x a t 9 4� •S O '—' ,. 1v, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UPLOR ATORY BORINGS BORING ' PREPARED FOR �" ••_ /I�QLr1 ��v�`c ,�n.ys�E"it�'T" ACTION ' orocR, ENGINEERING �� �'d•+ CONSULTANT; Mot a Development TABLE t l.t7g of Test Borings Test Bori nq fl 0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist. - TAII r 5.0 - 9.0 CLAY , silty, %-lot - BROWN 9.0 - 19.0 CLAY, silty, ►-let - GREY 19.0 - 22.0 SAUD, coarse , sea bottom debris , verywet - GREY _ 22.0 - 27.0 CLAY, silt sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY �. y y 27 .0 - 37.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very Viet - GREY 37 .0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY Water at 19' i Test Boring 92 0.0, - 5.0 SAND, very tine , silty, moist - TAN I 5.0 - 13.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN 13.0 - 21 .0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY 21 . 0 -- 32.0 CLAY , silty, sea bottom debris, very wet -- GREY 4 32. 0 -- 40.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very Viet - GREY ' Water at 15' j Test Boring ;3 •� 1 0. 0 - 10.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN � 10.0 - 14.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN ; r 14.0 - 22.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY 22. 0 -- 36.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet -- GREY { ?� .1.6.0 - 41 .0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris, ver-y wet - GREY Water at 14' Test Boring 04 {� 0.0 - 11.0 SAND, eery fine , silty, moist -- TAN 11.0 - 2.6. 0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY 1 26.0 -- R.O CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY 38.0 - 40.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very Weft GREY Water at 15' 9 Mhla Development W.D. 2,65102 TMLE 1 (Continued) Test Boring_ k5 0.0 - 8.0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN ' 8.0 - 11 . 0 CLAY , silty, wet - BROWN 11 .0 -- 24.0 CLAY , silty, wet - GREY 24. 0 - 37.0 CLAP, silty, sea hottnm debris , very Viet - GREY 37.0 - 41 .0 SAIM, fine, silty; sea bottom drullris , very wr;t. - GREY Water at 15 ' :. Test Boring 06 , 0.0 - 5.0 SAND, very fine, ,s i 1 ty, moist -- TAN 5.0 - 10.0 CLAY, silty, wet -- BROMI '' 10.C: - 26.0 CLAY , silty, wet - GREY 26.0 - 35 .0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY 35.0 - 41 .0 SAUD, fine, silty , sCa bottom debris , very wet - GREY Water at 15' Vest Boring #7 Y 0.0 - 6 .0 SAND, very tine , silty, moist - TAN 6.0 - 8.0 CLAY , silty, wet - BROWN 8.0 - 24.0 CLAY , si 1 ty, Fret - GREY 1 24.0 - 36.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY 36.0 - 41 .0 SAND, fine, silty with sea bottom debt-is , very wet - GREY Water at 1"' Test Boring #8 . I 'j 0.0 - 6,0 SAUD, very fine , silty, moist: - TAN 'a 6. 0 - 9.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN 9.0 - 27. 0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY -� 27.0 - 38,0 CLAY , silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY 38.0 - 40.0 SAND, fine, silty, sea fro t tom debris , very Viet - GREY �- x r Water at 13' Mol a Development W.O. 265102 TABLE I (Continued) Test Boring 0.0 - 4 .0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN 4.0 - 5. 0 CLAY , slightly sandy, organic debris , moist -- BROWN 5.0 - 21 .0 CLAY, silty, wet -- GREY E 27.0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY 38.0 - 40.0 SMID, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY � 1 i Water at 14' Test Boring 910 f 0.0 - 5. 0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN 5.0 - 5.5 CLAY, slightly sandy, organic debris , moist - BRO14N 5.5 - 11 .0 CLAY, silty , wet - BROWN 11 .0 - 27 .0 CLAY, silty, wet -- grey 27.0 - 39.5 CLAY, silty, sea bottor, deg ';s, very wut - GREY 39. 5 -- 42.0 SAPID, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY f Water at 15, Test 6orinj ►i11 0.0 - 5.0 SANND, very fine , silty, moist - TAP( 5.0 -- 12.0 CLAY, silty, wet - BROWN 12 .0 - 33. 0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY 33.0 - 39.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris, very wet - GREY 39.0 - 41 .0 SAPID, fine, silty, sea bottom debris , very vtet - GREY blater at 16' Test Boring 01?. 0.0 - 6. 0 SAND, very fine, silty, moist - TAN 6.0 - 8.0 CLAY, silty, writ - BROI-41 6.0 31 .0 CLAY , silty, wet - GRE1' 31.0 - 38.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very fret - GREY . 30.0 - 44 .0 SAND, coarse, sea bottom debris - GREY Water at 10' 7T _ - i -Mola Development N.O. 265102 TABLE I 4 ' Continued Test Boring C13 0.0 - 5.0 SAND , very tine, silty, most - TAN 5.0 -- 12 .0 CLAY , si'Ity, wet - E3R0WP1 r 12. 0 - 28.0 CLAY, silty, wet - GREY 28.0 - 30.0 CLAY, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY 30.0 - 39.0 SAND, Nne, silty, sea bottom debris , very wet - GREY } . 39.0 •- 43. 0 SAND, roarse, sea bottom debris - GREY h Water at 12 ' R i i z TABLE II Test Boring Depth in Expansior. Expansion Feet Index Potential 1 23 93 i{i 7h > •* { k 4 35 98 High 9 26 101 Nigh 11 30 105 9 ' 12 40 55 Medium � *tt r � a , 7 two i� i t i i i I Appendix D ' I List of Wildlife Species I i I� � _ I J' WILDLIFE LIST The following is a list of birds observed at the pond on-site between 1/29/77 and 10115/80. The list, compiled by Chris Schumacher and Jf,-un Shif fer, was provided in a letter to the Community Services Commission, City of Hunti%'on Beach on 12/4/80. Although uv .r time vddition5 could he: mrnde to the list, it is on accurate listing of "representative" birds and the diversity of species expected to use the Site. Eared Grebe Gammon Egi ct F-orstc:r's Tern Pied-billed Grebe Snowy Enrel Caspian fern Double-crested Cormorant Greni Blue Heron Mourning Dove Moilard American Coot lock Dove Pintail American Avocet Belted Kingfisher American Widgeon Black-necked Stilt Common Crow Shoveler Semi-palmated Plover i4ockingbird Blue-winged -real Killdeer Loggerhead Shrike Cinnamon Tc-il Solitary Sandpiper Starling Green-winged 'real Ylillett Audubon's Warbler Canvasback Greater Yellowlegs House Sparrow But flrhead Lesser Yellowlegs Western Meadowlark Ruddy duck Block Phoebe reed-winged Blackbird Hooded Merganser American Bittern Brower's Blackbird White-tailed Kiie Lond-billed Dowitcher House: Finch Sharp-shinned hawk Knot White-crowned Sparrow Red-tailed hawk Western Sandpiper American Goldfinch Osprey Wi lson's Phalarope Savannah Sparrow Merlin Common Snipe Song Sparrow Arnrricun Kestrel Colifornio Gull k i I ., 1 �yl r I ,"i I - �I I I r ,"Pendix E Archaeological Report i I i 1 I� I p ENV:InONMFNTIIL IMPACT Mlil,.LUATTON: Archaeological Assessment of the M:Aa Development on the Southeast Corder of Adams Avenue ana reach Boulevard in Huntington Beach , California by: Christopher E. DrGver Ph .D. Consulting Archaeologist EDAW Inc. Design. Plaza , Suite 20 Plewport Leach, Ch. 92660 n� for: The City of !1untington Beach Mol a Development 1 September 1981 a blanage rent. Summary An archaeological recoras search and wall;--ovor survey were undertaken on 1.0 September for approximately GU acres of land comprising the ',Iola Development located on the southeast corner of Adams Avenue .and Mach Boulevard in ttuntington Beach , California. These proc.eduro— were designed to ascertain whether any cultural, resources might be impacted by the eventual. resi.dentiral , attached and condominium land use propcsen .for the parcel. A surface survey conducted ' on the subject property an(] a check of the archaeological I, records on file at California State UniversiA- Fullerton by the author were accomplished . This wort; was undertaken in accordance with the City of Huntinclton Deach ' s desire to record and protect cultural resources . .1hile ►n few specimens of marine shell were recovered from the top of a small bluff in the so.ithwostorn corner I of the property , rn direct evidence of permanent prehistoric utilization a cl b demonstrated .for the project area. human ut�.l� � txon co 1 e p 7 The majority of the cubject property lies in the Santa Ana River Flood plain an-1 includes an active drainage with an assoc. toted fresh-salt water. estuary. Such an area is not readily conducive to human occupation prehistorically. Due to the sensitivity of. :surrounding bluffs to prehistoric human oce:ipation and the exi,tance of archaeological site Ora--.15fz immcdiaLely south of thr-, subject property, it is suggestod that archaeological grading observation accompany any earth moving activities on the bluff top in the south-- wentern }portion of the parcel. t field Procedures Field techniques consisted of an on-site , systematic survey conducted bly the author on 10 September 1.0131 . The property was inspected utilizing north to south transects approximately 50-100 feet apart. While as much as 50% of the topographically lower portion of the property was obscured due to dense, low plat growth , the bluff-top (area of most probable prehistoric use) was readily observ- able . Effective Environment The project area in question is located on the westernmost edge of the Santa Ana River f.loodplain at j the transition between the lower topography of the floodpiain an6 the higher topography of the river terrace . A small portion of the river terrace is included in the southwestern corner of the property. The lot•:er portion of the project area is tr.ansected north to scuth by a chalinelized stream drainage . 'phis lover area also includes oil well platforms, some of which appear active and locations of top soil dumping. ,Inc area adjacent to the bluff mentlozei above appears to be an active fresh and' salt water marsh which may still be affected by tidal fluctuations . The area of standing water and mud was not purveyed. Dense , introduc cd grasses also made observation of the ground surface difficult in this area of lower topography. Cat-tall (IyLi latifolla) were in evidence near tho marsh area indicating the presence of a partial fresh water environment. c. -3- • Plant growth on the bluff-top consisted of some introduced weeds (Composites) and Eucalyptus Trees (Eucalyptus sp. ) . The low grasses (Graminene) of the lower topography were not present to obscure the obsevation of the bluff-top. Results Highly fragmented shellfish, abalone (tiuliotis spp. ) and Pismo Clam (Tivela stultorum) were found in very small ntunbers on the top of the bluff. Several fragments o:: historic ceramic fragments and chunks of asphalt were also observed. While the shell fragments and ceramic fragments might seem to indicate human habitation of the bluff, the degree to which the bluff-top has been disturbed in recent years may indicate these items were introduced. Evidence exists (broken concrete and asphalt) to suggest the area has been used as a dump which has been summarily disced by heavy equipment for. weed control. No remnants of historic house foundations or discolored soil which might suggest prehistoric occupations were found. The highly distrubed nature of soil combined with only minimal , fragmented shell specimens .and no observations of li.thics3 (culturally modified stone) would suggest that significant cultural deposits do not exist on the site. However, the presence of shell fragments , the proximity of a registered site (Ora-358) and the sensitivity to such topography to local prehistoric occupation warrant future grading observation. Recommendations it: is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be h_ �4 present in the initial phases of any proposed grading activities on the bluff-top . Such observations would allow for a direct determination as to whether any prehistoric habitation occurred on the bluff-top during the exposure I of subsurface soils. Such grading observation aetivties ` could likely be accomplished in one man/day depending on the grading schedule and should not exceed approximately i i 1 1 A S. Baxbara Loa Angeles San Die6o Deserts N. America Western U.S. Tina B.i-t--icgers 1929 Wallace warren Moriarity M.J. Boge Wallace Willey and 0 19K5 I 1 68 _1966 1966 1962 ikhilli " Climate Historic Historic ;umwi- Diea DiegueKo- Post- Shoshonean J Luise?io Prehiatori. oc 4 Yuman- Classic � �.-------- ' _� orizon IV Shashonealn o_ Lute . - dhistoric S Classic 1o,0 Pre�+i3tori . Yw n- ! (urban) ep Shoshonean D1cgue ..o I Horizon II Ansrgosa ` I Sntermedixt Formative t (food Q00 Hunting I+rp&udtfbi� oCt + `+ ° Campbell. La J011a II] pi to 4000 Horimn Ii Ia. Johan . � c I MMIngston 50 La Jolla III - .- •- - = i A,= gosa Archaic Oak IZ 1 (broad base 600n I Grove Hu-izcn Z Altithermal hunting ' collecting) Ea_ly N.zn H Gl:'US 7^00 Encl-n t= -s La Jolla I t Dr 0 L&Lre Upper San HIATUS Yo javc t a.-�S Dis�;ui to �w gam , Aicg-ait4 t Dieguio Li� Pre- I .hi c 10,000 Die�g•uito Z calleCti�g} Lover s o 24 WO Archaeological Research Facility Museum of Anthropology California State University Fullerton, California 92634 Christopher L. Drover, Ph.D. (714) 773-3977, 773-3976 Co;Laulting Archaeologist 18142 Baneta flay Tustin., CA 92680 September 17, 1981 Dear uhriss _ At your request, a records search was conducted for property located on the southeast corner of Adains Avenue and ➢each Boulevard in Huntington Deach, using the archaeological records on file in the Anthro- rology Museum at California State Jn:ivorsity, Fullerton. 1%bile no archaeolo rical. sites have been previously tagistered on the subject; property, this 60 acre parcel appears to be below the bluff line , alori, �,tiich lies an almost can.:inuous string of sites . Ora -358 is directly s ath of the subject property and, while it is heavily disturbed, it is registered as Martially extant. Surface arti- facts noted include flakes and cores and one plece of %:Orked red glass . Directly to the north of the subject- property :s the large, multi- component Ora-183. The only part still intact- is that ti�h 1i is tiaithin th,_ historic Newiancl }louse yard. Almost th^ entire City of llrint:ing`.o�► Beach is arChaeol ogically 1 , 1 tY r S r f 't- sensitive. and on1} tt.e legation o: rile st.Ljecc property mibh,. preclude finding surface artifacts. Several sub-surface remains have turned up in the Santa Amu River flood plain during grading activity and that remains a viable possibility. If you need any further Information, don't hesitate to call. I LN V1 tt. ! Constance Cameron, Curator Muse= of Anthropology Not I I i V ID rr rt n b (IW (3 rd " "r. M IN _ (SCAL fJf ACHJ CC a w _ �r r � � ° �•.tv. tI \ . i _..�l._�_.��LA rL._ �C1 L •�--�_-.•��h o -ems.-x..,���t^�,yT�'-„�''�. ..<J �� t� -� » _. u ,. -Ll'�, r -� •�J`• ai O ] �a •° ••T`w o'J�YL NK•�M r® •°�. •�' '�• - l ,. ,� a�r� \\\►, ` (u,:-e n ��• L .lA c , t-- 1 i -- J \ "� C, �• /� 'a-'s•=` 1•• ` •l J 1 � 1 � �ti t� � c c c I� �' � i T- .�,i4-.w.�l=� i "y�•ti ~-'� •-•-'j,,,��,•llL..-.�'.v.�.L�.t....�•s-.. •�+..oc a�P•w�:.•��\ f �'4'•;• •1• ���•,`�'1��a,t f� ° I �'�• T.....•,;�� j 1���ry�l�) •►1 f�L.�J. c [' ••; ' • :,�� �E "�.J•••••t >f'�\�] •7r •lam ,E--•r�--• r= ;`1 � ►» _ �-� r'- t�_�--_�y, '_ - --�-_ - • // h-d 1L � .r. I .`MarY•�s_s....c'!' S.t'W��G- • r• 0a �� ! • •••r r'�i� t k'• O \� r ti�.yJtJf J.sa. Y Q' a�r� ..� 1' aLj c �i 41. ��.1'�.u•i.�• 'j"jr1 � , >. n •r' • ,��bt \ 1rt ^ �] J2OQ � � �. \ • �jpv1C'+ - ,. ....:.. ,A •' � •_:'_-�-��.. - V vlL"L Z• '..• '•\ �' T f \ll!!•1 j t u �' b N• i / jam . ~('•�K.Zr"a`' �. �. • '�•,�i� •• i7 '�•-':�•�'��- - VL VD ! �CX•� _ �" i• v .I. :•. MI _ �M• �_ �'—•... -.� _, f .01 tlull SII••• fin. C q 44, '� 4 � Nam..• ' .+-� :R'.:Z � _--•_•.a an � _1 � _ I r-.� �.-;,.�, (� 'I` I _....,..�. � '1 f•.ji���� �7'a+�.1.N � �� ��... '• .•�• ��•�� ter to ♦in, ^ Y� �a.� ! w . ,�; �,_ L`,1 - _. .. I ._+r`•1.1 NIA•.;D' •'Si Ln LO � f •0 i•. 7 •.�,..+r�.-,• Rom,r , � � �•'. Lr . � d • •..� -_s.'n. s ` �.sr .. 7 -:..r.-�I y. .._ _,. 1 ; _ i 1 i r' .�� C• s. Gam:rt� I�q y Sump ;{ ! 1 ! "''N _1'^_. _-� raJ m MINI ELI fm Lm _ C • S-'- c — ••t •� "" r F 7 1 I .� I;d •�( Sr Y- CNANNCL .�....r.►• �r,,,.. • _ - -__ _- -_ +� r.,y r... -� v..•+-•� I a^— �, »Io# 14 (,.•M[ 'I' � -a..1 •fy .O.I14t �.+—I - ���,-__• ? „ ' � � ; � ( 1 � � i!_, :-' � Ls..�-.. ��:r.� `� � � ,I7 i �->:.rs.v ii Y-f)I� i - -. - T- I I ,sI/{� i a � _: '' �,..�a�a r-e-asr..=. _e.a.=r,. ✓......ra:�.s,se_esxnG"'.""•. 1rr�'. ',•.. l^ .. .«, {S*r::: � 1 ( �l• + s•aJ•nra saa•sr�sr.-trs•.•.v • UUS IIa�/jV - .'•S�W .-. up • rr.•r.••.+r.a:ap� t �,^ F,-L .� T —�`M.__ �l •it e. i 11• ; V..1a..rvex t .__. ••� .__ __ ! � j • •' 1 1�j � a � ..• �T".•� F 1. la•__� ) �n� r 1 I YJ j 1 f 1 • iY4 -� ''� YS. 1 • ;; ' -�._. .�1 I __.�:.-..._ti I'.+V ! _-� 1 ErJ��� � , �• . •' � • E • � 1 rrr� •'• �a.a-� ! �,_- �rJ �__� ✓s.�- .._....-- 1 �.rALLCY u� ►• 1 �I 1.. -Z-,v� ! , /. 44 •.a s'Y\f _'l. 'ti Iowa �� 1 �, 9 �i .a.ws • f)� 110•� �-„ �• `4 ��I•� +4 Y I �. ......; a7r �_-..� ....... ^� a� • n ' �-.1��•-// �j. ,"�'.� ri lr�. �� 1 6 I r-77 � 11 )yer::: `Od^`` � •{ _ t�. • r•!j 1 1 .�^: '�. •tip,. _:-. .�y.r. I�R � Lit `• , • '�•1 •`y .� -- '�`'�� T • 1 LLB .-.- �r d-21 •iiiil..r •. '�„\ •'-:���• �'..�,►_ 1 a..._-•lam , � ••a ul..w■. Txawy nrr+.,_rr•ayJr. 1� w,sl 1 \ R "f �.•.•:�enas � .� � �+� ..qr _ ^.i a�'trt �i `, •..'~��"�- �V i;�i IS yY_7"y�jv.+os.n 1 ,� _�� •• i I( �t I. E I II I I I { A2pendix F Traffic Analysis I� i BASPAACIYAN—DARNELLe INC. WiGDVF,A NG AND P1.A7+jNMG Tiamparug on. Traffic, Munki;W. Tra* 4262 Ca►npua Drive, Sul?* 1W Newport beach. Califon-la 92660 (714) 54t."40 '7uly 9,. 1981 Mr. Kenneth Mull.ens Danielian and Associates 3848 Campus Drive Suite 210 Newport Beach , CA 92660 Subject: Traffic Report for Mola Development Project• located at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Ifantington Beach Dear Mr. Mullens : in accordance with your authorization we have prepared this setter report for the subject project . The report provides a t summary of traffic generation to/from the project 6re4, trip distribution and assignment , on-site circulation , and a dis- cussion of impacts on the adjacent street system. y PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mola Development proposes the construction of 800 multiple family residential, units on a 60 acre parcel, of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adp-ms Avenue. Figure I shows the location of the project site and the surrounding street system. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site proposed for development is vacant. Access to the project is proposed via a new roadway through the site with an intersection at Beach Boulevard and an intersection with Adams Avenue. The proposed roadway traverses the project site pro- viding a link between the two intersections . in addition to the new intersections , right turn in and right turn out access is proposed at two locations on Beach Boulevard and at one location on Adams Avenue. Roadway Characteristi.cn Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue constitute the primary means of vehicular circulation in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Reach EouY.svard (State Route 39) is constructed as a 6-lone aajor arterial highyay with a raised median. The roadway is r pow"Nopm UNION nth, WA". F.P. AVE N gT- a SCITEMATIC ONLY (not tr scale) I i ADAMIS i AVE. PROJECT f �17eD S T:E E-� CG c7 8 a . i *- c FIGURE 1 " LOCATION tiT�F MWACIYJ1KW1WILL. M " 47 Campo 9"9%fPoo WI 6.00�CaiMr t► M Reel w►�r Subject: Traffic Report for Mola Development. Project located at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach July 98 1981 1'age. 2 fully improved with pavement, curb, gutters and left turn pockets at intersections. County of orange Master Plan of Arterial high- ways (MPAB) classifies this roadway as a Major Arterial . Beach Boulevard serves as a north-south oriented vehicular ::-.) rridor pro- viding access to the beach areas as well as a co=u: r route for inland destinations within the County. in the L=ediate vicinity ` of the project the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue is controlled by a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal . Adams Avenue is classified on the MFAH as a Major Arterial, 6-lane divided, between Beach Boulevard and Br .>okhurst Street and as a Frinary Road westerly of Beach Boulevard. immediately east of the project site Adams Avenue is fully improved With curbs , gutters, sidewalk, asphaltic paving and a painted median. Adjacent to the project the roadway improvements consist of asphaltic paving to provide two travel, lanes in each direction. Land Use The surrounding land use is depicted on Figure 2. Adjacent to the r project site is a service station on the corner of' Beach Boulevard and Adans -Avenue , To the south and east. of the project site single family residential exists and to the north the property is vacant but ham recently been approved for construction of the Newland Center (a neighborhood shopping center complex) . Approval of the Vewland Center project included the following mitigation measures : Lally improve the northerly half of Adiuns Avenue east of Beach Boulevard adjacent to the project site. f Prohibit parking on all approaches to the Beach BoulevarC and Adams Avenue intersection . ` ! Modify Beach boulevard to provide: left turning lanes for southbou.nd Beach Boulevard to eastbound lkdams Avenue. Dail Traffic Existing daily traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue r, were estimated from the 1978 traffic flow map for Huutington Beach. Traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard were estimated to be approxi- mately 15 percent higher while the growth on Adains '►venue is esti- mated to- be - 13 percent higher. 'Th. se: percentages and resulting volumes were -discussed with the City staff . In addition to :he estimated daily volumes shown on figure 2, recent turning movement counts were obtained from the City fur the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenge. Co"rieaA i i 1D- -`ti0 WARNER AVE. . psJ v� N 5� ' D SCMKATZC 04 LY o (not to scale) p tO - Newland in r' Cen ter ADAMS 7 7 0 0 c, 16 , 9 0 G AVE. ' Service V*' PROJECT � Stations In SITE r � Single Family `y Residential Housing �g x a w i. LEGEND XX, XXX Daily Traffic Volume FIGURE 2 EXIST12IG LA14D USE WK40YAN"RNElL, M MD 402cr�a�W* W� DAILY TftA?'}�XC Vt3LUMES Ob 1wk GdOweb M ("41"0 Subject : Traffic }report for Mola Development Project located at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach July 98 198i " page 3 r of these cotuits with BDI estimated volumes showed an. accuracy ' within two percent . Intersection Capacity, . r The Capacity of Beach Boulevard and Ad=s Avenue was calculated ' using the Intersection Capacity Utilization method. This method provides for the determination of the Level of Service (LOS) or volume-to-capacity ratio. The Levels of Service range from LOS "A" to LOS "F" . A discussion on ICU and LOS is contained in the attachment to this letter. The analysis performed for the inter- section utilized existing PM peak hoer turning movement counts obtained from the City of Huntington Beach. A copy of those traffic counts can be found in the Appendix. The results of this analysis show the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue has an. existing ICU of 0. 71. This IC[1 value corresponds to a LOS of "C" . With the addition of the proposed Newland Center traffic and the associated roadway improve-ments, the intersection is anticipated to have an ICU value of ` 0. 75, LOS "C" . A copy of the ICU worksheets is contained in the attachment to this letter. . ` PROJECT--RELATED TRAFFIC i Trip Generation: Trip generation characteristics for the proposed residential developnent are surmarized in Table 1 . The trip generation rates used were taken from the Institute of Traffic E;,gineers Handbook OTi Trip Generation. These rates were discussed with the City staff and adjusted accordingly to reflect local variations in trip making characteristics. . i • Subject : Traffic Report for Mala Developmont Project located at Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington Beach Jule 9, 1981 Page - 4 Table 1 SUMMARY OF 'TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Trip Generation Rates Residential Rates - Condominiums Daily 9. 4 trip ends per dwelling unit ` W1 Peak Hour. In 0. 2 trip ends per dwelling unit '• Out 0. 5 trip ends per dwelling u"i Pti Peak Hour In 0. 5 trip ends per dwelling unit Out 0. 3 trip ends per dwelling unit Trip Generation Summary Daily 7520 trip ends AM . Peak Hour In 160 trip ends Out 400 trip ends PM Peak Hour in 400 trip ends Out 240 trip endue A••trip end is a one-way movement either toward or away from a residence, .. Trip Distribution and Assa. nment Trip distribution characteristics to/from the. project were esti- mated considering the various land uses in the vicinity and similar projects in the area. The estimated trip distribution characteristics fur this project are depicted on Figure 3. Traffic to/from the project was then allocated to the adjacent otreet system in accordance with the distribution pattern. The resulting daily and PM peak hour traffic to/from the: project is shown on Figure 4. • 4v Project-Related Impacts To ermine the impacts of this project the project-related traffic volumes were added to the anticipated Newland Centex traffic and therr superimposed on the exi ating traffic volum n in the area. The results of this analysis are depicted on tiguree S. 1 r of WARNER AVE. �t Q VOsj _ ' a �. 5 N ��t� Ll SC1'EMATIC• ONLY (not to scale) do Ln O i ADAMS AVE. 15 OJECT % � $ITE Ln N h V t� W p LEGE14Dd .S� Xis$ _ Trip Distribution • Percentage , FIGURE 3 TPIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN wmatkayAKOARMLL. W_ 41 C MPO 0040.!eft w 1 Alrw'r`0"AN C ++M RAN Subject: Traffic Report fo:: Mola Development Project Iodated at Wu • Reach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington Mach July 9, 1991 Pages 5 The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to evaluate the potential impacts on the intersection of Beach Doulavard• and hdams Avenue.' The analysis assumes that the interaeet:ion improvemebts required for Newland Center would be completed and,,An :place. The .resulti.ng ICU for the intersection is 0. 80.• This It'U value corresponds to a Level of Service "C" Based on a review of the anticipated project-related traffic .,. and superimposing of projei.t-relat•ad traffic on existing traffic ' volumes no capacity and/or congestion problems would be: antici- pated. . i apt ,• AI�CESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION "? Access 4is Access to/from the project. site has .been reviewed and' determined to be adequate for the proposed development. This conclusion i assumes that full access to/from Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue will be permitted at the new intersections. The geometrics for each of these intersections assumes two lanes exiting and , one lane entering the project site. r' On-Site Circulation The - preliminary site pan for the proposed project has bf:en �/ reviewed and has been determined to be adequate. Traffic Control Qn--site circulation has been reviewed In terms of the need for do-site traffic Control . After reviewing the on-site circulation patterns we would recommend that stop signs be installed at each entrance to the main roadway. The installation of the stop signs' will . provide for positive control at these locations. The need for traffic signals at the new intersections on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue was analyzed. The analysis was cond%fcted using the CALTRANS estimatEd daily traff;c volwte warrants . Based on this analysis the access location on Adams Avenue will not warrant: a traffic signal. However, a stop sign should be installed Oil . '~' the exit from the property. The access location on Beach Boulevard (aligned with Me�*dphis Avenue.-) -- is estinated to warrant the installation of a traffic signal upon full development of the project. The signal installation should .r' include left turn phasing and: be interconnected with the traffic signals on Beach Boulevard. A copy of the traffic signal. warrant worksheets are contained in the attachment to this letter. Sub eetr Traffic Xt� part for Nola Oaviiapenrnt Project IaCsted at beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue in Huntington mach July 90 1941 Page 6 . SUMMMY The proposed development of 600 residential dwelling • unitn it anticipated to generate 7520 daily vehicle trip ends. During the .PX peak hour 640 trii-s will be generated (400 inbound'•vehicles and 240 outboard -vehicles) . When project-related traffic is added to the existing _ traffic plus the Newland Center traffic, capacity and/or congestion problems would not be anticipated. Access to/from the project site has been reviewed and no problems are anticipated. On-site circulation has been reviewed and determined to be adequate For the proposed project. Step 'signs are recomanended -at the entrances to the interior roadway from each of the off-efte• parking A -traffic signal will be warranted at the w.jor access on Beach Boulevard whereas a traffic ni.gnel at the major intersection on Adams Avenue will not be warranted and/ or needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. lffi •3incerely, RhSMACI'YAN-DARNELL, INC. r R , fi. arnall, Z. BED shtih " Attachments wq t r1 I � r-1 ATTACHMENT Level of Service Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue Turning Movement Counts Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets ti.l r lk'VEL OF SUVICE DESCRIPTIONS • Level .of Nominal Ran" Service 'Traffic Quality of IN (W . ►A A Lea volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted 0.00 - 0.60 by other vehicles; a]"19nal cycles clear with FA no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. gating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten percent of 0.61 •• 0.70 t a'a signal cycles have one or more vehicles 'which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. s3 C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controaled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 ,a percent of the signal cycles have one or more 0.71 - 0.80 vehicles which wait through more than one ,signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recounended ideal design standard. D •' Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of ` the signal cycles have one or more vehicles � + which wait through more than one signal cycle 0.81 - 0.90 during peak traffic periodst often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capscity; , the,snaximum traffic volume an inter-- section can accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or 0.91 - LOD more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. "1' F Long queues of traffic'; unstable flows stoppages of long dw.ationt traffic volume and traffic } speed can drop to zeros traffic volume will be- Not Meaningful ;,.. less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. N.i • . 1 t TURNING MOVEMENTS COUNT FORM B, DATE TIME AM PEAK ?:45-8:45 PM PEAK 4,30-5110. ; COUNTED BY WEATHER _ NS VOL. 01 NB VOL. cf04- B/ASLA4CIYAN-DARNELL, INC. CITY OF lAux+-e ,rky,, -Ni),, SB VOL. S l q SB vm... 11`t3 4:S7 camrm Olive,suits 6.1 N—S STREET EB VOL. 51? ES VOL. 7 2,5 Newpon U301w.t1t:(conli 92660 WB VOL. 54a WB VOL. 1 D4(v {71.)549.9440 E-W STREET A-��.�-- Auc:�tic TOTAL VOL. 2-701 TOTAL VOL. 38'! I �'dP�7��JiJ� � Qu�s�D E� �vrsD wG lo7AL ra ALA .+� . - :Qti o h is 1 to 3 t�^1 0 3`l t32 `� 30 '457 7:19 U7139 (o ►35 ZZ t�3 3 . ruo Zo 151 2? 59 3 Bg 34 1 Z5 11 I-7 5B7 --i7 D f. 14j tg t14 p 17g 1a i 5o 3o a4 3S 119 43 tt7 13 1-7 3 & t 181 Zsi- U;5 9 1 1�& 191 z1 130 155 $ Is5 - I w a1 oat= {-I Za i z4 ?�48 7 13-i 23 1 toZ Z t Lfw 7 10, 52 7 t' 1 t 15 30 9 14L 15 tLO(O 10 1D ZI Zt3 Z9 80 (p 1/ 5Cv $ O 13� (D31 8 :3t1 Q$4S 13 ►qt 10 t(A 11 Z15 Zo 24$ 25 9 /O 44 72 ! t 23 ! 3 (3:+5 1 �4 � L 147, S t Z 10 �.,33 Zo 7.6% Zo "1 5� q� "� (14 (070 :114 To _1 i :1r T� .3 � TG - �-=�t3 irm: ZI `99' 26 ?A5 n la5 ?(P 24t 10 t0 10� 75 !Z(a ?A Z25 a?-O 4 '15 TWI 14 Zoo- 7,1 2R 13 zm 35 2-I8 %3 o 10 IZQ- 8o 131 Z7. 73i- �15 4 :30 TVA Lt iq9 t'L Z37 15 Zt �e 30a 11 13 fZ -41 134 26 �. 4:+5 116To 17 1 tB 14 21c Zt 753 310 Z( 1�5 t t 2'�, 8% . f33. 20: 41 q4'? 513a 70 .13 Z2 1 196 13 zZo 13 Z10 Z 7.0 153 . /7 30 2167 913 j:15► T0-3 Z4 1(pi 3' ZT.3 t5 Z4o 71 '3c(b Z'3 12C 9 I se) SCo f93 30 309 99to S =3Q 7K.4= IL t 1I ZO Z.03 to 713"1 11-3 5 t'33 (f I3Z I Z(o $41 it _ _y '� �• _ 1 - ( I 1 -=5; . 3 � _ 2 � 13 13' � ..Jg 13 za Zla scow!""' •. INTERSECTION CAPACITY U' ILIZATION MALYSIS Intersection AJ 2nJt� 6va� Atae(-iue Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 j tA�•f; IV �� 1..� ��{1•�.Jp �r1J � � E 15MG PROPOSED �..►R,nk.No,.�. 11o+ant Y/C �S'fi-ti Lints Cap. Lines Cop. vaLM�s ��`��^•� �C. �/ '. W.3a-�:3o Ratio v+alvnnc w�+1lti V�►MC R.•_ NL 1(o00 (34 0.05 0.05+ 000 A NT 4600 • -74� ,17 '� 95 $� o, 93 a,to NR IL 04,10 * 135 29 b g.Q9 115 0, I Z, . sr 16b 0,zZ 2,15 1113?) 0, 1 12,3 ; ov ` f EL IUoo SI o. I7.o Z01 O,I # D 13 ET 3 U)o (000 .ZA do m ER c WT 3 ZOO q tD 3S 0 R S 4 18 WR 00 200 3'1 v rN Y�LLOMTIMf O i * � 14 * C1a �, , Lx1er,t c mw r 1 r+ci ol.J> t�c�1�•{ 'Ib`�L �1�5 Mnla tDEunloartO-Al wf PC+A1�KIL-: I Di3D wVr�-•�rgrww� _r �.�.�..rr. �Mr rr.�. r . � S R� Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0. 90 spy C1 Projected pl us. project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 (] Projected plus project traffic I .G. U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0. 90 r - - _ - w • _ - r N _ - - _ _ r _ r _ Y - w _ M - _ r V ' Description of system improvement: kr1 . OATS: • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (aatsoaf +er$ LaHraoM Ar.+sg. Daily Tnrffic Ser Na►1s 2) URBAN---------------RURAL_____________ hlirai+rw$a flequiraarastts EADT � 1. Mlnitrwro vehicular X Vehicles pot day an major YelrideapWdaysnM(#v.- Sotiifiri Hat ulisfird_._.,...,;. strwot (feral of 60th vwiwnatf►ritwt•stw,Msfpraasir approaches) (one A-Octic'm only) e� Nun+ber of (anon for moving traffic un each approach Maier Sow Minor Street Urban Rarol Urban Rrral 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,D00 5,600 2,4W 1,690 #11 2 or mots . . . . . . . . 1 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,M 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 or errs to . . . . . . . . 2 at ma to . . . . . . . . . 9,60d 6.720 3,200 2,240 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 at mare . . . . . . . . . . . 8,OQO 30 Ij FZ f N I Intartuption of Co+ttinuoas Troffic Vehicles per day on rsaior Vehicles per day on higher— y , aatisfird lief SaNaRsd X street (total of body volute rrinonsttswtappn eJt approaches) (otro direction wily) Hutn6erof fonts fo movingttafficaneachapproach Maier Str"t Minor Strwt Urbo" Ruvol Urban Rural I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000 8,400 10200 11150 2 at %are . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.400 10,080 1,200 $SO 2 or mare . . . . . 2 or Mo:A . . . . . . . 14,400 10.080 1,600 I,120 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 at more . . . . . . . . . . . I,000 3,400 1#600 1,120 tx� 3. Com6inatiort er. Sati 6 fi ed Not Semi sfi ed x ' 2 1Korrants 2 worrat+ts No one -arront sati sfiod but following warrants ' fulfilled 30: or more_- ..._.....w�� - MOTE: 1. Left turn mowwrneots from the Major sate$ may bo includad with minor $treat volurnes if o separate • Signal plras'e is to b• provided far the left-turn rnovvrasnt. + 2. To 6e used only far NEW INTERSECTIONS or aAer locations where actual traffic volumes cotrnot i 6e counted. TRAFFIC aIGNAL. WARRANT WORXSIIEE2 ,.• SASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. ; FOR 4302 c000p " 00".sow WI ADVIS AVENUE A'S COLDWATER LANE: Piewpon hesdr,C.utet"k 02M l TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS , (dosed rift Estiwetv,4 Avomg* Daily Tkvf is - Uo Note Z URBAN---------------RURAL-____X------- Minimum Requirements EAOT 1. Mininwrrr Yehicolor Satisfied, Not 5artisiied Voltitles pot day on 04jot Yahid"pwdaye"Now. . • sirvet (total of bot% wlu+nentinat-tcreat appn It 4 tiurn`e.r of lanes for reeving traffic oe each oppraoch approaches) (ono directive only) Major Steno Minor Strait Urban Rural Urban Rer+rl 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,000 5,600 2,4W 1,6W 2 at me ry . . . . . . . . 1 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,600 6,72D Z,400 1,6b0 • • 2 or mete . . . . 2 or mar• . . . . . . . . . . . 9,600 6,720 1,200 2,240 i1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2or more . . . . . . . . . . . , 2. Interruption of C.ontinuays Traffic . E Vehicles per dor oe r%Gior Yehicla,4 pwr day an highw.. Satisfied X Not Satisfied streettre(total of Beth wolur nrirsor•street er moos npproaehes) (one directiar+ only) Hum6erof lanes formoving trofficon each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urboh Itund 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 000 9,400 1,2D0 d SO 2 at more . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.400 10,080 1,200 850 2 or note . . . . . . . . 2 or mare . 11,AW 10.080 1,600 .1.120 i 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 or mot* . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000 !l,•ItJO ,600 1,120 , 1= 3. Coe Wnetion Safi$Red Not Satisfied. 2 warrants 2 Warrants Na one wortont satisfied but following warrants fulfilled $0: or mare_.._ - - - r.....�-.-- 1 2 c, NOTE: . 1. Left turn rwetmnnts inn the realer stsoat may be included with minor street volumes If a separrte signal phase is to be provided for the loft-turn movement. 2. To be ussi only far NEW INTERSECTIONS at othar locations whore actual traffic tolun+es cannot 6a count*d. D\ TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORK,HEET FOR dA.SMACIYAN•DAftNELL, 1NC.. - •1g1 campWo Drf", Wto at ` BEACH tiOULEV.t1RD ATMIuMPIiIS AVEtJUE tN.pert OW11.CaRfor 4 g1N0 . if 1 c I ge*flMl -j NgFin in a v In .r 20,610 20,120 ►" 10, 290 7700 16, 400 Adams Ave. MOO MOM) (1620) 2590• 2590 : 2590 in o 0 ` ti in • - Ch M CIO • r N � SCHB..UTIC ONLY (not to scale) ►'� W �d LEGEND XX,XxX Cumulative ADT -� Memphis xxt XXX Existing ADT ' (estimated) Ave. (XI XXX) Hula Development ADT X, XXX Newland Center X)T r . r ' �a■s •rw■■w�asm,•■aarla��rwn� �r�eN�•rMr���Nril�wa�r CU ^+ M Ln N � � r'1 c 04 \B%\ FIGURE- S EXISTI14G PLUS PROJECT-RELATED I ffiA5 iAC1Y/1"AX MILL,M�C� TRAFFIC VOLUKES 11r+w1"VA.awwak ON" t11��f�1�1 CO rn Adams 587/37 Ave. of— 198/19 399/43 4 Nam (45/5) 740/74 �' 620/b6�� � 195 xx.-� f� M N \ .�� M :; � C4e r o _ - . ... W N '4 r r "r t t N a o �.y Li " � r SCHUlAAYC ONLY w (not to scale) w N r M NCO .-4 i-1 ^� 4kv- • Memphis Ave. 1201/77 r NOm " 1170/75 LEGL74D �i XXX/YY Daily/PM Peak Hour w . Traffic Volume a -- � N �C 7 ` /rwRawwwtawlftewewrawsie/�RwllRirrI1RR�11wRwww u a r4 H rl nameawm MIN, FIGURE 4 , PROJECT-RELATEC TRAFFIC SAS NACIYAW)AN. KLIL, MiG DAILY AND PM PEAK HOUR 4w Caw brwg� ir4 9.1 no""off^cvmwM one i �ff�T>wIF�IMM 1f I � f I I t� fApmMIX G Noise Analpis I ' Mol a Devel opulent. ,. Page I VINCENT MESTRE ASSOCIATES NOISE ASSESSMEtiT FOR MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH r� . • I. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT Introduction The proposed Mola Development Proje;:t is a 60-acre residential project located in the City of Huntington Beach. The project calls for the rat development of 800 multi-family residential units. The , project site is located at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard. These two streets are the only major noise sources affecting the site. Existing residential developments are situated on all sides of tho project site. This noi,;e . study will analyze the noise impact of the project on adjacent land uses and will determine the ultimate noise levels that may exist on the property. These levels will then be compared with applicable t City/State noise criteria and , if necessary, potential mitigation measures will Le suggested. Noise Criteria Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: The parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man. The variety of noises found in the environment. } The variations in noise levels that occur as �I a person moves through the environment. The variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalen` Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale is based on the A-weighted. decibel . A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Mola Development.,. Page 2 CNEL is a 24-hour , time-weighted annual average noise level . I Time-weighted refers to the fact that noise whi::h occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occu rri r,g at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ) penalizes noises by 5 dB, while nighttime Jlo p.m, to J a.m. ) noises are penalized by 10 Q. These time periods , penalties were selected to reflect pe,)ple 's sensitivtty to noise as a function of activity: The criterion used to assess the acceptability of community noise. levels can , vary with the municipality. Most eocranunities, use 65 CNEL as the critical t criterion for assessing the campati bi 1 i ty of residential la land uses with nog sa sources. The Noise Element of the General flan for the City of Huntington Beach requires that exterior living areas (yards and patios) for residential land uses do not exceed 65 CNEL. In addition, for multi-family residential ' developments such as this project, the California Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1 , Subchapter 1, article 4) requires that interior `noise levels -in the residential living spaces do rt: not exceed a CNEL of 45. The standards to be used for analysis in this report are the exterior noise residential standard of 65 CNEL and the interior noise residential standaA of 45 CNEL.: Noise Model The noise levels projected in the next sections of this report were computed using the Highway • Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("R14A Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ,"• 0 FHWA-RO-77-108 , December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noisy: � . level ." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL: Weighting these noise levels and su=ti ng them results in the UIEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65 , and 70 CNEL contours are found. i� 4n r • Fr 1 Mola Development. . . Page 3 f . Existing Noise Levels Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project were established in terms ' df the CNEL index by modeling the roadways for current traffic and speed characteristics. The roadways that were modeled for existing condition3 include roadways adjacent to the project and those that will ultimately serve as access streets for the project. The existing noise environment was modeled in order to establish a baseline noise level to which the future project alternative can be compared. Traffic data used to project thu existing noise level are shown in Table A. These data . are derived from the traffic study in the EIR. The traffic mixes and time distributions are ,resented in Table B. The traffic mix data are based on measurements for roadways in Orange County (Orange County Traffic Census' 1975, Compiled by EMA Development Traffic Engineering) and are considered typical for arterials in this area. Distances to CNEL contours for roadways in the vicinity of the project _ are given in Table C. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour values shown. The results show that* the noise levels + on the project site are affFctecl by roadway traffic. the 65 CNEL contour for ,e Beach Boulevard extends 208 feet fron, the roadway centerline on to the project site. i i Nola Deve1 opmnt. .. Page 4 WA TABLE A TRAFFIC DATA USED TO PROJECT era I .". EXISTING NOISE LEVELS • - ywwwwrrrrw,.�rw wrr wrrrwwrrrrrrr rwwwwwrr www wwwwwrrrrww rrr rr..w,Arr •• . ` ROADWAY 'SEGMENT EXISTING VEHICLE SPEED ADT (MPH) rrrwrrrr •rrr wwrrwrrrwrrww w.. wrwwwwwwww.wrrrawwwwrwrw.www..wrwrww BEACH BOULEVARD North of Adams 35600• 40 u' South of Adams 28750 40 ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach 7700 40 East of Beach 16400 40 Wr,rwrlw-rrrrrwrwwrrrrwrwwwwrrwrrrrwrrrrr,rrrrr./r rMY�y Mr rrr rrr . f TABLE 3 A • TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY lip; IN PERCENT OF AOT wwwrww�.rwr•w.. ..rw wrww wwwr-.wwwwww•r ww..------- � PERCENT OF AOT - VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT - wwww.wr wwrwrrwwrrrw rww ww wwrwr.rwrw+rrw wrrww /rrr Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 • . Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 rr Ww•rr rMw�. .•y�'wwrwrwwww rwrr...1.yYMw w�rr rr Nlw '. �� ' vim• • M M Mole development... Faye 6 t TABLE C CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS * NI^firwrrwyrrr+www+Mrwrrrr rti rwwr w------ wrwwwr Mrwrrw—w�wMrr ww�.Ywwwr . DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) 60-CNEL 65-CNEL 70-CNEL V►wrr rrr�rwwwwwrWrA�•wrrrM»�wwrrrr�..wrrrrrrnwrrrwwrr wrw•r.�wrrw wwrMwwrw.ywrr BEACH BOULEVARD North of Adams 269 125 58 South of Adams 233 108 50 ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach 97 44 East of Beach 160 74 34 Mr�rr�rwWW wr rMrrw—rwrrrrllr--- --- -- --- —rr Y rwww—w rywwwwrrwww * denotes that contour does not extend past roadway edge. I Mola Development.. . Page 6 -•- M II. POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS Three: types of noise impacts may arise from the project: ' (1) -- construction noise may impact surroundinr land uses, (2) project related traffic may increase noise levels on properties located along primary access, routes and (3) roadway noise may adversely impact the exterior and interior • noise levels o the proposed residential homes. Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. . Noise generated by construction equipment , and construction activities can reach high levels. Noise-sensitive land use adjacent to the project includes existing residential homes on all boundaries of the site. Adherence to the Ci.ty 's noise ordinance that limits the hours of construction to normal weekday hours should minimize any potential noise impacts.' Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses t An important part of a noise analysis is the., identification of noise-sensitive land uses that' may be impacted by the proposed., project. This would include any residential properties, schools, hospitals , , or other noise-sensitive land uses situated along roadways that will carry project-generated traffic. In the case ' of the Mola Development Project , existing roadways that will serve as primary access streets for .the project include Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Existing residential homes are located along sections of both these streets, The impact of the project on these land uses is assessed by determining M, the existing noise levels on these roadways both with and without the project. The difference in noise levels would he due to the 'Increase in the project traffic. The project-related traffic data used -to estimate these _ noise levels are shown in the first column (project only traffic) of Table D. Table E indicates the existing CNEL noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of the modeled roadways both with and without the project. . Table E also gives the increase in noise levels along these roadways due to the project only. The results show that the noise levels will increase by less than 0.4 dB. These projected increases in noise levels are iiot significant when one considers that the human ear is just barely able to discern a noise change of 3 d8A. Therefore, traffic generated by the project will not adversely impact land uses adjacent to these roadways. Mola Development. . . Page 7 t r - w, TABLE D TRAFFIC DATA USED TO ESTIMATE THE IMPACT 01' THE PROJECT AND FUTURE NOISE LEVELS 4 rrr...wrrwr.�. rrr..wrr-wr-rrwr..rwrrw--rr�r. ----- •.rw - ,'; ROADWAY SEGMENT PROJECT ONLY ULTIMATE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC r wrrrw.�rwrwww�rrrr r.wwr..►rrrwrrr..rr....rrrrrr.•..w-r�wr BEACH BOULEVARD E North of Adams 3760 43900 South of Adams 2950 33640 ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach" (nom) 10290 f East of Beach 1620 20610 ---------- wwrrrrrr rrwrrrr.M rw.w rr rrr i Emma . t - t7 r.. v«r MN Molt Developwnt.. . Page 8 TABLE E INCREASE IN EXISTING NOISE LEVELS DUE TO THE PROJECT rrYlYr�rwr�rr�.rArM�w��ww.M.ww�w ►r.�.r.M�wwwwwrrrwrwrw.��w�www•��w�wrrwwwr.r�wwr��•• • EXISTING CNEL NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FT INCREASE �<< ROADWAY SEGMENT Without With DUE TKO ,..., Project Project PROJECT ----------- wrrwwrww--- -r..ww-w..wrwwwww..•rrrr wwwrrwwwrwr.•rwwrMrlwwrrw wM•..r BEACH BOULEVARD North of Adams 66.4 66.8 '+0.4 South of Adams 65.5 65.9 +0.4 P ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach 59.8 59.8 0 : �, • East of Beach 63.1 63.5 +0.4 , • wwwwwrwwrr.rw.ww-----wwrwwrrwwrrr----rrr.•err--r.rww-wtiw.+----wwwrwrr�rrwy r,A - • ••Jt: ' I Mola Development. . . Page 9 Noise Levels at the Project Site Future noise levels at the project site and all streets in the vicinity of the project were determined using future traffic volumes .for the surrounding roadways and the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (described in the "Existing Noise Environment" section). The traffic data . used to project future noise levels are shown in the second column (future traffi of Table D. Future traffic volumes were. derived from the traffic study in the EIK and include traffic from the project and a number of other nearby proposed projects. Vehicle speeds , traffic mixes, and time distributions are assumed to by the same as 'for existing conditions. 1' The distances to the CNEL contours for these roadways are given in Table F. They represent the distances from the centerline of the road to' the contour values shown. dote that the values given in Table F do not i take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. In addition, existing legislation is expected to reduce noise levels from future vehicles by 3 dBA or more. 'This i reduction is not included in these estimates. The 65 CHEL contour for these roadways will extend onto the property of the proposed project. In order to comply with the City' s 65 CNEL noise criterion, mitigation measures to reduce the impact from the roadway noise • levels may be required. Interior Noise Levels The proposed residential land uses are subject to meeting the 45 CNEL interior noise level as specified in the California Noise Insulation Standard. Using the results from Table F. and the preliminary site plan, a 23 dBA indoor/outdoor building attenuation will be needed to meet the interior noise level criterion from roadway noise. Normal building construction practices should achieve the required indoor/outdoor attenuation. Nola Development.. . Page YO • TABLE F CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR ULTIMATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ' w wFw rw.�wwwwwww 1wYMw wwwrYY wwtiw wl�w ww wrw wwwwwwwwwrw•wwwwwwrwwwwwww ww�rwyy.Yw� DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) 60-CNEL 65-CNEL 70-CNEL Www. rwwwww.+ww.wwwwww+w wwwwwwwwww wrrwrrrw.�wwwrrrwwwwww•ww ww wwwrw www wwwww�l • y•3 BEACH BOULEVARb North of Adams 309 143 66 W South of Adams 257 119 55 . ADAMS AVENUE Nest of Beach 117 54 * � East of Beach 187 87 40• . . MrYrwrtiwwwwwwMrwwwwwwwwwwwrww-wwwwwwww--wrwwwwrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwAwwr * Denotes that contour does not extend past roadway edge. !, ; Mola Development. . . Page 11 III. MITIGATION MEASURES Exterior Noise Levels With proper site 'design "the site can accommodate residential land uses and be compatible with the Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. Measures must be designed to satisfy the City`_s requirement that 65 CNEL not be exceeded .in outside living areas. . If residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, -then mitigation measures that can . be undsrtaken include building setback, construction of a .noise barrier, or o:•ientat i on of the buildings themselves to act as a barrier. Mitigation thrnu gh the design and construction of a noise barrier wall - berm or combination wall berm is the most common wa (wall , 1 ) y of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. The greater ' she penetration, the greater the noise reduction. Building setback or a a:r!"rse barrier would easily attenuate the noise down to acceptable levels. A noise barrier must be of solid construction with no holes or cracks and have a surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot. The barrier must be long enough to prevent sound from flanking around the ends of the barrier and degrading the performance of the barrier. At the time a specific site design and grading plan is developed, the noise levels should again be reviewed to ensure that adequate mitigation has been incorporated into the project. Second-story patios are also subject to meeting the 65 CREL exterior noise criterion. Thus, any second story patios within the 65 CNEL contour should be oriented away from the roadway or may be required to be enclosed by a five foot high glass enclosure. This would apply only to any residential buildings immediately adjacent to the roadways. Interior Noise Levels The California State Noise Insulation Standards and the City of Huntington Beach require that the interior noise levels for residential units be no greater than 45 CREL. Since no specific plans have been proposed for this site, the indoor/outdoor noise reduction ret;uirements cannot be determined. The required noise reduction will depend on the strategies selected for exterior noise reductions (e.g. , sound barriers) , architectural details of the buildings , and orientation of the individu:.l units. w i Y • Nola Development. . . Page 12 Southern California dwellings with windows closed typically produce a 25 dB indoor/outdoor attenuation for highway noise. The data -presented in Table F indicates that 68 CNEL is worst-case exposure_ without any barrier considerations and siting the bu'ldings directly adjacent to 'the 'roadways.' Designing - the buildings to achieve 23 dB .attenuation will reduce "inter•ior noise levels to 45 CNEL. Such a building design is easily realized .given the ►� energy insulation requirements. . M the time of building permit application, the architectural plans should be reviewed to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. If additional attenuation is necessary, , measures (increase in window glass thickness, reduction of window area, and/or location of attic vents away from the roadways) can be specified at that time. I I ' 1 I I� A ix H Air 0-mality Analysis t�r 3ti, a�a Alt II .. i p� AIR QUALiTY ANALYSIS Prepared By Hans Giroux A'gr Quality Specialise` 26 Sunr iver Irvine, California 92714 CGirnatolM The climate of Huntington Beach, as with all Southern California coastal environs, is controlled by the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean acid the moderating effects of the massive oceanic heat reservoir. Summers ate cool while winters are mild with very limited rainfall confined to the winter months when the high is weakest and farthest south. The cool ocean currents cause considerable early morning cloudiness that changes to hazy daytime sunshine. Moderate daytime onshore winds bring cool and usually clean air ecross Huntington Beach during the summer while inland valleys are hot and smoggy. Unfortunately, the high pressure creates persistent temperature inversions that severely limit the capacity of ;he atmosphere to disperse the air pollution emissions from the large population attracted by the pleasant climate. Because of the high emission levels and unfavorable portions of meteorology, portions of the South Coast Air Basin have the worst photo:heroical smog levels in the Country. Temperatures in Huntington Beach average 630F with winter minima in the low 40's and summer maxima in the low 801s. Extremes of temperature are rare with very few days over 90oF and almost no sub-freezing temperatures. In con..+rast to the small seasonal temperature variation., precipitation varies considerably from season to season and year-to-year. Almost all the annual rainfall of ten inches falls from late November to early April with many summers completely dry. Year-to-year variations are eery pronounced with rainfall in one month of a wet year often exceeding the entire annual total during a subsequent drought condition. Winds ore an important climatic parameter because they play a key role in dispersing air pollutants both near the source (microscale impacts) as well as governing their regional redistribution and ultimate basin ventilation (mesoscale impacts). Winds across Huntington Beach are characterized by moderate daytime onshore flow from the WSW or 8-12 mph and a weak offshore flow from the NE of 2-4 mph. The daytime winds bring clean air into the area and push local emissions for inland toward Santa Ana Canyon and beyond into Riverside County. Unless the winds shift into the northwest where polluted air from industrialized and heavily traveled areas of Los Angeles blows into Huntington Beach (which happens very infrequently), daytime summer air quolity is usually very good. As the land becornes cooler than the ocean waters, the nocturnal offshore breezes develop. These light winds bring pollutants from inland sources toward the coast and cause locally high pressure concentrations near sources such as feewnys or major Intersections.. especially during winter nights. Figure I shows the strongly birnodal wind distriWtion of the summer daytime onshore and winter/nocturnml offshore flow regimes bear Huntington Beach. r BOLSA CHICA 0952-1960) N • 11 1 11 1 11 11 1 II 7••�• tm � •"� . ` iT, yY 1 �7� .!.ram ' r � '/�/7�" � w��/ NE NW '��, ,` .� ,L ����,;� ;{�{' ,t tll� III, ', j�" 1r ��j�• Ol � `�'�; ��'��� � �i�-'� � - , �{;, '`" 'fir � � � ,• `��� ` f >, >�''� S��,.►•• �.-,, 1 it;�,', �` "• �----� ��- its' � � � -�� `-•-• .I � � r, � �,//_;. �t,/ �t �11 �; t .Ill 1,:►• �� '��,�\ +,••{.. + ti. � , ,�'♦ 5E • r :, j' ��� ' �1 !11.t 111 �-� l.1� ,',i �' .•Lt������r1� ` S Mean Speed ' 6. 1 mph. Figure I. Wind direction frequency distribution (wind rose) near !-Huntington Beach. r iPIP The two primary wind features that control horizontal dispersion are usually accompanied by two distinctly different temperature inversion patterns that control vertical dispersions. When the cool summer onshore flow undercuts a deep layer of warm, sinking air in the high pressure center, it forms a marine/subsidence inversion. This inversion acts like a giant lid over-the basin until the air reaches the mountains or deserts surrounding the basin. As the oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons from coastal sources (mainly traffic) mix and react photochemically, they form the basin's Infamous smog (comprised mainly of ozone). As each source adds more "fuel" for this reaction without any corresponding vertical dilution, the shallow layer (perhaps 1000► deep) becomes progressively more polluted, especially when the brisk onshore winds dissipate as they fon out into inland valleys. A different kind of inversion forms in conjunction with the nocturnal offshore flow as the ground cools by radiation while the air aloft remains warm. This forms shallow radiation inversions. These inversions and the slow offshore drift allow for a gradual build-up of primary (unreacted) vehicular pollutants in coastal areas that reaches a maximum during the early morning rush hour. This regional buildup plus local contributions from traffic: sources creates carbon monoxide (CO) and oxide of nitrogen (N4 ) "hot spots" that dissipate when thr., sun burns off these inversions during the rnid-morning and the tea breeze returns. One weather related concern in the coastal area is the high frequency of nocturnal fog, especially in an apparent "fog pocket" such cis near the Beach/Adams intersection. Figure 2 shoves that as many as ten days per month in late fall and early winter may have fog with reduced visibility. This fog lasts from about 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. with ' several .instances each year of extremely restricted visibility. These very restricted visibility days may lead to traffic accidents during the early morning gush hour because traffic control devices are hard to see. During the fog season from late September to January, amber flashing lights at street level to warn of stop signs, signals or crosswalks may be helpful in alerting motorists of traffic control and placement of signals on corners as well as overhead may make them easier to see during the heavier fog episodes. ' Air Guwlity In order to evaluate the significance of the air quality impact of a proposed development, that impact, together with existing baseline levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" (lean Air Act as amended August, 1977). Standards are therefore set s-ich that air quality poses no risk to those people most susceptible to possible respiratory distress such as asthmatics or people with emphysema, young children, the elderly, persons already. weak from other disease or illness, etc., cal;ad "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to somewhat higher concentrations before adverse effects are noted. Standards are periodically reviewed as new health effects information Is developed and the Clean Air Act is regularly i enewed. In the current renewel proceedings of the Act, the Reagan Administration is proposing a revised definition of AAQS that requires levels of air quality to "pose a significant risk" to health and welfare. This proposal stops short of requiring a cost/benefit analysis for AAQS that .�. some business Interests have proposed, but the use of "significant risk" versus the current no risk philosophy may lead to some relaxation of current AAQS levels. FIGURE 2 NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY COASTAL AREA FOG DISTRIBUTION (, :c=aim. .. .s �: :ir ... :• i:J� is .a: is s.:: :i; a: Hi f .. .. .... .. ., ... -_H •1• - 1.: i= — S: _ :Z :i. — i �{ is CD :E= ln 1.4 ... — — .: - i'- �s. j �----• (i «.•� ::: 4 - - - - :1: •:: :1' —':ice :i: _,. ..s: .. :: _:i: is !! :►.. t •t• �N 3 i:r'• : ::: �} : : :t. •,. f7. j 1 «1• - - . . .�.'- ' . I: 7. :fi :�1: •:• ash - .... _ - {_: 1._ .i I• t :c �t r i _ - -77 _ - - it u L. - I i' :►� � 3:i' oV�oG,. :,o7j°9 # .�r«-� ���3 �s : �,: ,�;- is f __ ►� �: _ �a �v►. i� t There are currently seven pollution species for which AAQS have been estobished by the EPA. States retain the right to establish more stringent standards or to develop standards for other species or exposure times. Since California state standards predated the federal acton and because of unique air quality problems,there Is considerable diversity between the state and federal standards current in effect in California as shown in Table 1. _Y. There is no long period air quality monitoring near the proposed project site by which to determine the existing baseline air quality with respect to the various clean air standards. The nearest South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) station is In Costa Mesa. While there may be small local differences between the Costa Mesa site and the project, their similar exposure with respect to the ocean and surrounding pollution sources and very similar wind patterns should make these data quite representative of the project site. a � Table 2 summarizes the last four years of complete data. These data suggest that standards for ozone are exceeded on occasion in the summer- and those for CO and NO in winter, but not very often. The five violations of the federal ozone standard of 0.13 { ppm compares to 146 violations at Fontana anti 132 at Riverside. The six violations of the eight hoer CO standard compares to 70 in Lennox and 63 in Burbank. Similarly the two violations of the NO2 standard compares to 23 in Burbank and 17 in Anaheim. Thus, while there may be a few instances of potentially unhealthful air quality in the Huntington Beach area, both the frequency of violations and their magnitude is much less than in many other portions of Southern California. The discouraging aspect of Table 2 and other regional data is that there is little evidence of any marked improvement in air quality despite reported significant reductions from both vehicular and stationury sources. There is currently a deadline of 1987 for attainment of all standards. To meet this deadline , 1978 the AQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (STAG) deveiol-ed an air quality management plan (AQMP) that contained the steps necessary to meet that goal. in retrospect, it has become obvious that a number of assumptions used in the AQMP were unrealistic and it y� is equally obvious that the 1987 deadline can not be met. A revised AQMP is currently being prepared that will reflect current political, technical and economic realities. Its primary emphasis will be on hydrocarbon reduction to control ozone formation with less emphasis on NOx control as the other participant in the smog production process. Projects such as the proposed Seabridge Project relate to the AQMP ;through ,the population and growth forecasts used to project future emission levels. These growth forecasts are based on the General Plan in effect when the current growth forecast (SCAG-80) was prepared. If the proposed project represents a level of developn'ient that' creates more traffic than, the current general plan or is accelerated in terms of development phasing, it represents an cdverse regional air quality impact. Any single project's inconsistency with the AQMP can be baic.:ced by a lesser intensity or delay of development elsewhere in the basin, but, unless such a tradeoff can'be assured, the air quality impact from the inconsistent project represents an unimitigated air quality burden. F J TABLE I AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards' National Standards' Concentrallon' Methods Primary'6 Secondery" Method' Oxidani10 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet -- --- -- (200 ug/m') Photometry d y 010ne 1 hour -- •— 240 ug/m' Some as Primery Chernifumintscent (0.12 ppm) Standard Method Carbon Monoxide 12 hour 10 ppm —• 1 (11 mg/m') Non-Dispersive Same as Non-Dispersive i 0 hour — Infrared 10 mg/m' Primary Infrared Spectroscopy 19 ppm) , Standards Spectroscopy r 1 hour 40 ppm 40 mg/m' (46 mg/mt) (35 ppm) ; 'r Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Ava►age -- 100 ug/m' Gas Phase Saltlman Method (0,05 rpm) Same as Primary CFamiluminescenco +, � ` 1 hour 0.25 ppm — Standards (470 ug/..t2) t. Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 80 ug/m' (0.03 ppm) 24 hour 0.05 ppm 365 ug/m, -- 0 31 ug/m')9 Conductimetric (0.14 ppm) Pareasenillne Method Method 3 hour 1300 ug/m' t; , (0.5 fipm) 1 hour 0.5 ppm -- •— (1310 ug/ml) Suspended Annual Geometric 60 ug/mf 75 ug/mx 60 ug/m' = + Particulate Mean High Volume Hiph Volume P, Matter S 24 hou► 100 ug/m' Sampling 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m' rmpling Sulfates -24 hour 25 ug/mr AWL Method -- — No. 61 Mom, Lead 30 day �1.5 ug/m' AIHL Method — -- ,— Average No. 54 Calendar — — 1.5 u7/m3 1.5 ug/m' Atomic W. Quarter Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium -•- -- -- ; Sulfide 142 uglm') Hydroxide Stracts Method Hydrocarbons 3 hour — --- 160 ug/O Some as Flame lanitation (Cefrocted for (6.9 a.rr..) (0.24 ppm) P(imery Detection Using Methane) Standards Gas Chromatography Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0,010 ppm Gas Chromatog- (Chloroethent) (2 6 ug/m') rupry (ARt3 staff report 78•f1.3) , Ethylene 11 hour 0.1 ppm 1 hour 0.5 ppm �✓ Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to (gl Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility Particlas to less than 10 miles when the .. relativo humidity is less than 70% APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: t Carbon Monoxide 8 hour 6 ppm NDIR -- — (7 mg/m') »� Visibility 1 observal6on In sullic,ent amount to (8) Noducing reduco the preveiling visibil:ty --• �- tarticles to less then 30 miles wtren the retativo humidity it.less than 70% Sourcet California ARB. TABLE 2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY FROM MONITORING SITE CLOSEST TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (COSTA MESA) I (Days Standards Were Exceeded) I 1977 1978 1979 1980 ' Ozone I HR ? 0.10 ppm 31. 52. 26. 20. HR > 0.12 ppm - 25. 16. 5. I HR Z 0.20 ppm 0. 3. 1. 0. Max. Hourly Conc. 0.18 ppm 0.22 ppm 0.21 ppm 0. 16 ppm Carbon Monoxide I HR > 35 ppm 0. 0. 0. 0. 8HR > 9 ppm 20. 9. 18. 6. Max Hourly Conc. 18. ppm 18. ppm 21. ppm 17. ppm Max 8-HR Conc. 12.4 ppm 12.8 ppm 15.9 ppm . 13.9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide HR '- 0.25 ppm 0. 4. 4. 2. Max Hourly Conc. 0.23 ppm 0.30 ppm 0.29 ppm 0.31 ppm Sulfur Dioxide -------- ,---NOT EXCEEDED---------�----------------- Total Particulates 24HRS2! 10Q/4 g/m3 13/61 10/61 26/61 6/20 24HRS� 150 g/m3 3/61 1/617/61 0/20 Max Daily Conc. 202pg/rn3 !75. g/rn3 252.�,g/m 125.�,g/m3 Lead 1 Mo.? 1.5f4g/m3 5/12 4/12 3/12 0/4 Max Monthly Conc. 3.64,►g/m3 3.1 I�g/m3 1.90�g/m3 0.8?fig/m3 Sulfates 24HRSI2.�►g/m3 3/61 3 2/610/61 0/20 `� Max Daily Conc. 37#g/m 27.2,wy/m3 24.2/►.g/m 13.5�,g��m3 i ?i Air Pollution Emissions Residential developments generate air pollutants primarily from the vehicular sources tnat meet residents' tronspnrtation needs. Seconda►y sources reslilt from project-related energy demand, from temporary construction sources and from a wide variety of smmll miscellaneous sources. These emissions are typically for less of a concern than the mobile sources because they are much smaller in'riagnitUde. Air pollution emissions from ony single residential project rarely of themselves cause clean air standards to be violated. Rather, these emissions mix with those from thousands of similar developments throughout the basin. While the emissions from any single project are incrementally small, the cumulative impact from many such very small sources ultimately leads to the basin's air pollution problems. Construction Emissionsq Construction activities generate air pollution emissions from disturbance-of the soil in clearing and grading (fugitive dust) and from combustion emissions from on-site heavy- duty equipment and from off-site trucks. These emissions vary widely depending on soil, wind or moisture characteristics and depend on specific equipment used. One can use some generalized emission estimates for construction activities, but these are generally better estimates than any precise emission calculations. i-. The California Air Resources Board estimates that it requires about 300,000 Brake Horsepower Hours (BHP-HR) of heavy equipment and truck activity to build out one acre Into a housing development. Similarly, they recommend a fugitive dust emission factor of 1.2 tons/acre/month with an intensive construction duration of si: months. The ARB also estimates the effectiveness of dust suppression measures required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to be 50 percent. Based on these assumptions and average combustion equipment emission factors for diesel-powered equipment, the resulting construction activity emissions are as tabulated in Table 3. n:,t3ending on the project phasing, the 500 tons or so of construction-related emissions will be released throughout project buildout In various amounts. Of these, the oxides of nitrogen from diesel exhaust and the fugitive dust from grading have the greatest potential for a significant Impact while the rest are insignificantly small, especially on a regional scale. Vehicular Emissions The 800 units in the pl oposed development are predicted to generate about 7,500 vehicle trips per day. At eight miles per average trip, the project will add.about 60,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the basin traffic burden currently at 200 million VMT.: For typical California traffic mixes and driving patterns, these vehicular sources will add 6nut one tone of CO and 0.1 tons of NO and hydrocarbons to the basin airstream as ~'~ shown in Table 4. A smell air quality benefit is obtained by delaying completion until the mid-I980's when older, polluting vehicles are retired from service, but beyond about 1985 there Is little year-to-year variation in project-relate(; vehicular emission levels. I i TABLE 3 MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 1� Emissions' (tons/year) w ar I Year 2 Year 3 Year Construction Construction Construction Pollutants: Phasing Phasing Phasing Hydrocarbons 21.3 10.7 7.1 Carbon Monoxide 55.5 27.8 16.5 Oxides of Nitrogen 204.4 102.2 68.1 � Particulates 17.6 B.8 5.9 Oxides of Sulfur 17.1 8.6 5.7 Fugitive Dust` 214.2 f 07.f 71.4 IAt 300,000 BHP-HR per acre developed with 59.5 acres under development. 2Dust suppression efficiency of 50 percent. TABLE 4 MOLA'DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VEHICULAR SOURCE EMISSIONS Emissions(tons/day) Pollutants: 1984 1987 1990 Carbon Monoxide 1.26 1.07 0.98 Tolal Hydrocarbons 0.12 0.10 0.09 Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.10 0.09 0.08 Oxides of Nitrogen 0. 16 0.1.4 0.13 Sulfur Dioxide 0.01 0.01 0.01 r� Particulates 0.02 0.02 O.OZ Based on 7,520 vehicle trips per day at 8 miles per trip 60,160 vehicle miles INA (raveled (VMT). Emission factors from SCAQMD EIR Handbook at average speed of 35 mph. i UaI Stationary Scam.ce Emissions Residential deve;opment also creates additional energy demands met by the combustion of fuel oil in power plants and twitural gas in stoves, furnaces, water heaters, etc. For typical Southern California households, the 800 units will consume about five million KWH of electricity and 50 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. If all the electricity is generated by burning oil in SCE power plants, the total stationary source emissions are as shown in Table 5. Any electrical generation from non-oil resources such ,. as nuclear, hydroelectric or coal in power plants outside the basin will reduce the project-refuted stationary source emissicns well below 1he levels shown in Table 5. _ TABLE 5 MOLA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE Emissions (ions/day) Electrical Natu,c• Gas Generation Combus.Jc.-' �. Pollutants: Emissions Emissions Total Sulfur Dioxide 6.24 0.02 6.26 Hydrocarbons 0.48 0.03 0.51 Oxides of Nitrogen 6.00 2.56 8.56 ' Particulates 6.72 0.26 0.98 a Carbon Monoxide 1.20 0.51 1.71 r , Based on SCAQMD EIR Handbook Consumption estimates of: 4.8 million kWH electricity annually. 51.2 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. Emission factors supplied by SCE for electrical generation and USEPA for natural gas (domestic) combustion. Miscellaneous Emissions More people means mare emissions from a variety of very smr 4l sources that a•e very difficult to quantify individually, but are significant cumulatively. These miscellaneous emission sources inclu&-: I ' I i o Gasoline marketing emissions to refiner transport, store and dispense motor fuel for residents. o Surface coatings (paints, thinners and solvents) used during construction and by residents. Dry n at commercial and self-service facilities. I Y cieani9 c Asphalt used on streets and driveways. o Mineral processing to produce sand, gravel and aggregates to consTruct the housing. o Pesticides end herbicides used by government agencie., and residents for pest and weed can trot. C Structural, recreational and open-flame restaurant cooking fires. o Unpaved roadway dust and paved road tire wear. o Utility equipment used by residents and landscape contractors. o Pleasure boating. . 0 Civil aircraf t. o Waste disposal emissions in sewage treatment and landfill solid waste disposal. Ambient Air Quality Impacts While the project-related emissions can be calculated with reasonable accuracy, file very nature of the primarily mobile source emissions makes it almost impossible to translate these emissions lnuu a specific incremental ambient air quality Impact. A general measure of the significenee of project-related emissions can be derived by comparing them to the overall basin emission level, but this general analysis dnes not relate to the project's specific impact at some given time and place. i Tabl4 6 compares the project emissions in the current 1987 attainment target date with the ocrall emissions that would still cause all standards to be met in the basin. Assuming that downwind air quality is proportional to upwind source strength, the data in Table 6 suggest that the Seabridge Project may cause an incremental degradation of clean,air standards that range from 0.005% for S02 to 0.043% for CO. Since most of the pollution levels will apparently not be down to tt.eir attainment targets by 1987, the actual project re ionat air quality impact will, be somewhat less than the percentages Indicated In Table- 6. I I i TABLE 6 PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BASiNWIDE MR QUALITY BURiOEN Project Basin Re!ated Attoinrn nt Project Emisriorns I Tar et Contributicns Pollutants: (tons%de:y). (tonsYdoO M _ Reactive Hydrocarbons � 0.08 I - .506.M� 0.01E - Oxide:; of Nitrogen 0.153 800. 0.019 Carbon Monoxiaz� 1.265 2480. 0,043 Particulates 0.02.3 242. 0.009 Oxides of Sulfur 0.027 554. 0.005 iFrom vehicular and stationary so,irces - 1987 level. 2From onalysis in the current South Coast Air Eosin AGMP. No matter what the actual small percentage is, the underlying premise of the regional air quality planning process is that there can be both reasor:able, planne:a growth and also steadily Improveng air quality. Sin;.e they propuscd project is consistent with the General Plan, it is by definition consi:-tcnt with the: AQMP although the SCAG-80 forecasts used in the current AQMP update cycle may still reflect the previous Resource Prodvction, Commercial and Gov: Density Residential designation for the project site: in force in 1979 whey. the SCAG-80 forecasts were prepared. In SCAG's next population, housing employment and land use update, the current Planned Community Distr ic+ land use element, adopted June 15, 1981, will be reflected in those forecasts and the project will be consistent with the AQMP. I While the regional impact may be small and somewhat mitigated by emission controls on other basin sources of air pollution, the cericentrat ion of traffic near the project site plus existing traffic plus nonproject growth could cause highly localized air quality degradation ("hot spots"). To teat for this possibility, rush hour traffic conditions were combined with minimum atmospheric dispersion parameters in the Coltrans roadway dispersion computer model CALINi_3. The segment of Beach Boulevard just north of j Adams predicted to ultimately carry 43,900 vehicles per day was selected for micruscale � import analysis with CO used as the pollution indicator. Table 7 shows the results of this worst-case analys4 for winds parallel to Beach and for oblique winds at 450 across the; roadway. At worst, local traffic generated ro levels on the -ldewalk next to the roodway will be less than 13ppm compared to the hourly standard of 35ppm. Since TABLE 7 MICROSC:ALE CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACT ANALYSIS ADJACENT TO BEACH BOULEVARD (Results from CALINE3 Model) Hourly CO Concentration ([?Pm) Distance From Nor,-Project Project Roadway (FEET) Traffic Traffic TofuI r 0 11.86 0.95 12.81 5 11 .84 0.95 12.79 10 11.76 0.94 12.70 20 11.41 0.91 12.32 40 9.60 0.77 10.37 80 2.03 0.16 2.19 160 0.18 0.01 0.19 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 640 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3.01 0.24 3.25 5 3.65 0.29 3.94 Its 3.92 0.31 4.23 20 3.84 0.31 4.15 40 3.64 .1.29 3.93 80 3.55 0.28 1.63 160 2.31 0. 18 2.49 320 1.61 0. 13 1.74 640 1. 11 0.09 1.20 Based on 4000 VPH non-project traffic, 320 VPF' Mola Development Projects Mean Speed 25 mph. i Year : 1982. fRl neither the ru,-,h hour traffic nor the restrictive dispersion conditions last for eight hours, the eight-hour standard of `�ppm will not be threatened near the project site unless regional background levels approach the standard and the small local contribution is enough to cause a standard violation. Based Yi available background data, and the foregoing analysis, the project site apea;s to be in an area of good air quality and the proposed project will not significantly alter that situation. Mitigation With most of the project impact resulting from the outornobile whose emission churacteristics are beyond the control of local regulatory agencies or the developer, there is little potential for effective mitigation. Certain "standard" measures such os supporting transit use or building bicycle paths are to be encouraged, but they contribute only minimally in reducing the ,-roject air pollution burden. While any potential for mitigation is indeed small, those measures that can be incorporated into project design and planning should be seriously considered and include: Construction Sources o Minimize erosion and runoff to keep silt from washing into traveled streets. ;F o Perform major grading in spring when soil moisture is high. o Pave streets after major grading is finished to minimize travel on unpaved roadways. I o Enforce a 15 mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces. Mobile Sources 'j o Construct attractive and covered transit stops on Beach and Adorns. l o Encourage bike or pedestrian use to nearby commercial areas. o Incorporate recreational arcs into the project to reduce out-of-project travel. Stationary Sources t9r o Build project using conservation design criteria beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements. o Provide solar assisted heating and hot water systems a built-in option. o Use energy conserving fl-jorescent lighting in interiors and high-pressure sodium for street lighting. t V r i.� F 'i k t. 1' i i COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR t ! INTRODUCTION A Notice of Preparation, indicating an FIR would be prepared for the Seabridge Project, t was filed on July 27, 1981. The Notice of Completion and Draft EiR were published on November 19, 1981, and the EIR was subsequently filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 01080664). The formal review period required under the CEQA guidelines ended on January 4, 1982. Comments were received from the following agencies and parties: o U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. I ' o California Department of Fish and Game. a California Department of Water Resources. 0 Caltrans. o SCAG. o County of Orange Environmental Manugement Agency. o Orange County Transit District. o City of Huntington Beach. o MOLA Development Corporation. s A summary of each comment received and the City!s ►_-�.)cnse to each comment is contained below. The written correspondence received during the review is included following Me Summary Comments and Responses. 1 � r:• SUMMARY COMMENTS ANDRESPONSES _ _ Comment: Letter iron: Ralph C. Pisapia, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ^_ Service, 12/7/81 (ahached). o They are unable to respond at this time due io funding and manpower constraints, however, this does not preclude input at a later date. Response: There is no response required at this time. Comment_: Letter from E.C. Fullerton, Director, California Department of Fish and Game, 12/20/81 (attached), f� o The EIR provides a generally adequate analysis of the project's impact upon biological resources . . . The prepared plan directly contradicts the Department's efforts to preserve this wetland and is inconsistent with i' the Resource Agency's 9asic Wetlands Protection Policy . . . The Department does not believe a smaller freshwater marsh woulr; adequately compen;:ate for the loss of the existing we0ands and has no idea of when the saltwater marsh would be constructed . . . Due to these constraints, the Department recommends that the existing wetland area be retained and developed into a functional saltwater marsh ecosystem. o Any diversion of the natural flow or alteration of the bed, channel or banks of any river, stream or lake, will require noi'ification to the li Department of Fish and Garne pursuant to Section 1401-1603 of the Fish and Game Code. Response: It should first be noted that Fish and Game does not challenge the analysis of biological impacts contained within the EiR, but .questions the acceptability of the mitigative action proposed within the Specific Plan. The mitigation (for temporary loss of the ponding area and corresponding habitat) contained within the Specific Plan and noted in the EIR, entails development of a smaller freshwater marsh in the initial phase of the project with eventual development of a functional saltwater marsh in the resource production areG, once oil production ceases. Funds i for the creation of the saltwater marsh would be provided by the developer in a special interest bearing account in the name of the Homeowner's Association. The Department of Fish and Game suggests that the ponding area and corresponding vegetation be retained and developed into a more functional saltwater ►harsh. The Implications of the suggr:stions require r.� direct deletion of approximately 150 residential units in area 8, west of file channel, with the possihie prohibition of most development west of the channel if the access :oad adjacent to the ponding area were to be restricted. As the marsh, area is currently in a degraded state, Its visual character would also retract from adjacent housing. As the City has previously indicated no interest in the site as open space (refer to page 7 of the Draft EIR tc-,:T, there is no indication of the availability or 3ourcet of public funds for enhancement of the: existing marsh. Further, as the marshy area is currently in n degraded state, its usual character would - detract from adjacent housing. it is therefore unlikely any enhancement of the biological resources would be achieved without funding provided by the applicant. e r h possibility of The Department of Fish and Game also suggests e t � p ! y deferring production of sortie of the housing until resource production stops. The City Housing Element to the General PI in, however, stresses the current nved for increasing the housing stock, and a recent proposed amendment to 'he State EiR guidelines recognizes the need to balance resource values with current housing needs. Both the Specific Plan and the Fish and Game suggestions provide mitigation for disrup-lion of biotic resources. The decision on the appropriateness of each with respect to this site rests with the Planning Commission and City Council of Huntington Beach. j Comment: Letter from Y. Chun, Chief Planning Branch, Southern District, California Department of Water Resources, 12/8/81 (attached). v Standard water conservation and flood protection measures (as indicated in the letter) are recommended . . . consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program for use of reclairrivJ water for irrigation. f Response: Flood protection methods are being incorporated into the project as required by the Orange County Flood Control District. Water conservation and use of reclaimed water will be considered at a more detailed design stage. Comment: Letter from K.D. Steele, Chief, Environmental Planning Branch, District 07, Cal trans. o Caltrans encroachment perrni:s will be required for signals and improvements on Beach Boulevard . . . All necessary permits should be t available when applying for Caltrans permits. Response: There is no response required. Comment: Letter from W.O. Ackerman, Jr., Director of Programming and Evaluation, SCAG, 12/30/81 (attached). o Although population projections for RSA 38 are increasing faster than the SCAG--78 forecasts, staff agrees that the project will probably be consistent with the SCAG-82 forecasts now in preparation. ui red.es onse: There is no response re R p p 4 Comment: Letter from Kenneth E. Smith, Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, County of Orange Environmental Meanagement Agency, 12/14/81 (attached). o The proposed bridge crossing will require access to the levee for OCFC:D maintenance. o Specific drainage criteria, as indicated in the letter, should be met. Response: As more detailed plans are prepared, further coordination with OCFCD will be accomplished to ensure their drainage and access requirements are Incorporated, Into the project design. i Comment: Letter from Dick Hsu, Environmental Coordinator, Orange County 'i-ransit District, n.d. (attached). jo OCTD requests provisions be made for a bus stop on Beach Boulevard . . . there should he a discussion of existing transit service and descriptiun of Dial-a-Ride service. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 22) bus shelters and turnouts will be provided at locations suggested by OCTD and the City Department of Public Works, This pattern is noted in the: Specific Plan (page 8). As noted in OCTD's letter, transit service is available, adjacent to the site (Route 29) and the area is served by Dial-o-Ride, Comment: Memorandum from Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director, Community Services, City of Huntington Beach, 1 1124/81 (attached). o There is no pedestrian access easterly into Seaport Drive which leads directly to the new neighborhood Drew Park . . . this could be accomplished by a locked gate through which Seabridge residents could pass. Response: The subject of access to Seaport Drive is being considered in the Seabridge Pedestrian Circulation Plan now in preparation. The applicant will include this feature in the project if requested to do so by the City. Comment: Memorandum from [ion Nob!e, Engineering Planner, Public Works Department, City of Huntington Beach, 1/6/BI (attached). o Draina e: as the natural contours of the site indicates that the site generally drains south, but the storm drains of the project drain north, extensive landfill will be required. How would the landfill affect surrounding residential areas? o Traffic: to what degree will the southerly entrance affect Beach ou evard traffic . . . there appears to be a discrepancy between the project ADT noted in the text and in the figures . . . traffic distribution percentages for Beach Boulevard are questionable. Response: Drainage: the landfill indicated in the Specfic Plan is for the purpose of e evating residential units above the 100-year flood level. Roadways and other areas would be constructed at approximately the same elevation as found within adjacent properties. The drainage plan calls for stream flows to be intercepted by the road system and then discharged directly j to the storm system. Extensive fill will not be required to drain the p._perty to the north. Surrounding properties will not be affected, as all storm flows will be ,f. contained on site and directed to the project storm drains. Traffic: in response to the questions on the traffic study, the traffic consultant, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. will provide supplemental �b information to the City Department of Public Works. This request for r supplemental information is for clarificaitan purposes, and will not potentially alter the design o{ the project as detailed in the Specific Plan (Don Noble, Engineering Plc riner, Department of Public Works, City of Huntington Beach, 1/8181). Comment: Letter from Frank I Mola, President, Nola Development Corporation, IA/81 (attached). o A revised Figure 2 has been submitted to clarify the information l41 presented. o Tile area identifying Sub-Area Al on Exhibit A in the Specific Plan wcfs left off. A substitute map is attached to show the location of Sub Area Al. o Not enough emphasis has been placed on the fact that if it were not for the flapgate in the flood control channel being forced open, the saltwater ponding area would not have existed , the pond dried up after the flapgate was fixed . . . the value of the year-round freshwater por.i and eventual creation of a saltwater marsh far exceed the value as it would exist in the future. Response_: The two figures submitted (clarifying Figure 2 in the EIR and Exhibit A of the Specific Plan) are attached to the accompanying letters. The relationship of the flapgate to the temporary ponding and existing vegetation is discussed on pages 10 and 12 in the Draft EIR. The . � contribution of the tidal flows toward the maintenance of the pond and current health of the marsh vegetation is acknowledged, � y I i i j :.a r i I United States Department of the Interior I ,4,Nh tiu,,a�p�N ' r ■ h•ISII AND WILDLIFEA SEIRVICE: DEC ? 1981 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 24000 Avila Road i'. d. fox 190 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 HurlinCton beaci-, C-1 ",e JF3 December 2', 19BI City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: DEIR 81-3, Seabridge Specific Plan, Beach Boulevard & Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach , California Dear Sirs. This responds to your request dated November 18, 1981 in reg, rd, to the above referenced project. We are unable at this time to respond to this request due to funding and f manpower. constraints. 7111, does not preclude input at a later date should significant impacts to public fish and wildlife resources be identified, and funding and manpower resources be increased. Sincerely yours, Ralph C. Pisapin Field Supervisor S hite lif C1altfox�ri�� GOVERNOR'S OFFICE HUN ITINGTQA1 I BEACH OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH � v . 1400 rk:NTN srnareT PLANNING DEPT. y .ACRAMENTO 95a14 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. JAN r 6 1982 eo:e+�Hon �7c'lnll.a ry 4 , 1.9F12 P. 0. Rox 190 James Barnes tjurtirjaton 13C.. 0), CA 92W4; ]Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street luntington Beach, CA 92648 RE : SCIi 981080664 - Seabriu"oe Specific! Flan UIR 81-3 Dear Mr. Barnes : state agencies have commented on your draft environmental impact report (see attached) . If you would like to discuss the .r concerns and recommendations, please contact the stay from the appropriate agencies . 4' When preparing the final EIR, you must include all corunents and response~ (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146) . The certified EIR must be considered in the decision-making process for the proM--ct . in addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies ' comments by writing to them, including the Stat3 Clearinghouse number on all correspondence. i recent Appellate Court decision in Cleary •r, County of Stanislaus clarified requirement- for responding to re•riew ccmzlen s . speci_ica!1y, the court indicatad that comments Must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why _!-e specific comments and Yuggestions were not accept-d and factors or overriding importance warranting an override of the suggestion. Responses to caruients .must not be Fonclusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experimenta2 data, scientific authority or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a flood faith, reasoned, analysis. Section 15002(f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a gover=ental agency take certain acticns if an EIR shows substantial adverse enviromnental impacts could result from a project. These act{.ons include changing the project, imposing conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances co avoid the problem, selecting an alternative to the project, o: disapproving the project. In the ev nt that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agencv must make written findings for each significant effect. (Section 15088) and it. muse support its actiona with a written statement of overriding considerations Ecr each unmitigated significant effect (Section 15089) . If the project requires discretionary approlial frcm any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secrer.arf for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please con"act Terry Roberts at (916) 445-0612 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RECEIVED �? I_,Vkephle. it a.T,son � JAN .. 6 1982 tate a eez'inghause EDAVV INC. '"» cc: !Gen Fe110ws, CWI1 • 11EWMRt BEACH a ' &late,of Caiifcrnia Tito Rasowrces Agency g, Memorandum To :1 . ) iri llurns , Projects Coordinator '1{1I TLWTON)(SEALn1i 28 , 1981 Resources Agency PLANNING DEPT. 7 . City of Huntington )leach JAN � � 198 2006 Hain Street :I Huntington Beach , California) 92648 P. 0. Box 13a Nor it tan Brach, CA 92648, From : Department of Fish and Game Subjrct:SCH-B 1 USO664 - Seabridge Specific Min, EIR 81-3 - Orange County 1:e have reviewed the ,ubject Plan describing; the proposed develcpment of 800 resldei�tlaal lrllat5, rercrcal- innaal fac 'UiLien, pC1Vi3CC oi�l:Il S1,:1cC and parks ; and retention of existing oil production facilities until tht! fields .are abandoned within the GO .acre project site ir( the City of Huntington Beach , Ile have the following coirments . The EIR provides a generally adequate analyz-is of the project im{►acts upon biological resources . However, we contend that approximately 07% of California' s original estuaries and coastal wetlniids haav(! been d��.:rtroyed instead of the 40% described in the document . In southern California approximately 75% of consty l wetlands have been destroyed . This stresses the need to preserve the remaining; wetlands in order to perpvturttc' the wildlife dependent upon this resource. Accoor'di ug; to the proposed residential dove lopmont plan, the wetlands Aren it will be filled and perrnaanont ly lost ; e 1 imi.naating; habitat for migratory w.arec- foul and for the endangered Belding;s savannah sparrow. In o(ir cc)f1ifflentS to the 1lot:: o f Preparation of as Draft EIR for LVE 81-1, ve stressed the need ".o pre- ' serve the aquatic vietlands .and that residentiaal development should be set back to provide an effective buffer ;:on(- to protect wetIntid resources. Tile proposed plan directly cont.aadict:; cour efforts to preserve this %ictland and is inconsis- tent with the Resources 1%gency 's Hasic bletlnnds Protection Policy. flecau se of the sensitivity and rarity of the wetlands. involved , we do na)t believe that a sumller frc sb atcr marsh, a:; they development plan proposes , would adequately currpensate for loss of the existing; vetlaand. '17he proposal to develop a Saltwaat(rr march within the oil production area nometiwe in the future Wien these oper.atlotis copse is unacceptable to us n:; there are no gun ranteCt+ oil production will net continue for as great number of years yet . We have no idea of when the propcsed saltwater marsh would be conslr:rcted . Disc' to these constrnlnts, we recommend Lhaat thv existing; wuLland ami area defi— ned by cozstal saltm.arsh vegetation be ranined and developed into a functio►:ing saltwater marsh ecosyste(, now instead of postp-)ning the development of the sal.'twater nirsh project until termination of oil ext met ion, Res iden- tial development could then proceed within the oil production areal when the wells are .abandoned. In this manner approxisaately tits. sa-;tne total aacre_aBu of ,.a urban development could be provided while .avoiding; unnecr_nntrry destruction of these import am natural resources . Also, we believe public access roads lcazd- in& from Beach Boulevard into Area A should be sHowed only if wetland resources would not be adversely affected . ahn ire • • r(._ Any diversion of the natural Clow or niteration of the bed, rhanoel or b:nk of � any river , stream, o:• Ink-! will require naLiCiCaLian to Lhu Uepartw .ent of Fin)) � and Came pursunnt to Sections 1601-C3 of the Fish and Game Cude. This notification and any subsequent ugreement must be completed prior to commencement of the diversion or alteration. Thank you for the opportunity to and comment on this projecL . If you r have any questions, please contact Fred A. Worthiry Jr. , licgional Mannger, ;begin 5, 350 Gulden Shore , Jong heath,' California 90802 ; ( 213) 590-5113. T : Director _jolt of ca'.; orni4 Vus+n►:_i, Trunst,#r.rtrjtian and Hwi;ing Agency Ail enioran ual .S To f111S1S v :1tKLEY, Uivi:;iUtt DIM' pc,.r rl.:r.:.vher 24 , 19G1 •V Department ik-95 Coordinator 1120 N .:Itreec iH_ r A-95 REVIEW GTON ©EACHUNTIN N Ssfrt-a�nen.o, CA 95Bl�i I • � yes PLANNING DEPT. Attetition: UAR111W. IIUSUM t . K. U. s'rl;i:.1.E - Cistrtc- 01 JAN 1982 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOSTAT10i'l �. P. 0. Box 190 Ht:1*1rgtan Bosch, CA 92W x 5u6jcct: Project Review Cur,s,ieuts - I'M NUi•1ut:i: Seanbri dge Specific P1;111 ;; �acl:• I ollievrird and Avenue + . $1C3niiC�fi tTttnti nT;tc�it Iie.zr:h As s tatrd In both talc corr:;!ents on Hicr Lind U:,c al.k tent A;r.cndr!e!1L 1I1--2 c:rd t1la Vatice cif Prep.lratio:t respofl::et C.•7ltzraiis ir a1 It;_'_illow;il)lt! Agency an this proposal fcr 800 re:idt�r.Liill ltnit;; . Cal.trans Eric roachnenl_ Pc:'17its. will. he regttirea fnr the pi-c.Ilosed ,ign.al at ` s;. . Bc.acit Boulevard and Aventio an -ovll a;. for any z:treet ilaprovencnts on Beach Boul e-wird . All iiecessary" purrr:it; u-ificr j,u:-.11cw,ihle Aj,. ucic.,; should be ativa-ilrble :,tr:n applying for th C .Ltz.-in; Pci'ra-it_, . Ire tlt's r-ek;_-ir41 , son-i! cla-rifieat:ion rtay hc: necc:isary In the final. dccta'-ent ctrc rtr,-: L`opax-Loin-'L of and Game's ru]e i.rl rev.tecri;.p, t;et:la:ld r:i t f 1;aLi Ori. Any other coi-c.uient.. tha- Till X. has should also be specifically in tllr_ i inal. docum,-nt . i.s for: dic tri:1flc i_tifori,;atlr.n ill the ilUCi:i:;(!:It. , GaiLrllns tlit.i no corimc!nt . t Your proposal to :inc.lucic' 1111:. :chr.lter s and h;iy!: ari a part of ttic project is a positive aspect -in Ole encouragencnt of Lrr:rt:; i.t nervic:e over the aingle--otcupont: hoine-to-work trip and should lie roil7plorunitod. 7 _ K. U. STER-E, Chief M-viromr.OmLal I'lannitig Branch Transporl_aLlrtit T)istr'.ct 'li Cluar' ipliou:c Coortiltiatur ror lnfort,lat.ion , couLac.L I)•;rrell 1100d (,1'CSS) 640-2246 ru (2 ( :1) 020--22 6 htrachn.i .L &We of California the Rosources Agency Memorandum Yo 1. James iv'. Burns Duto i Ric © 1981 Assistant Secretary for Itecourcen, !'+ 2. City of Huntington Beach H0.: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sub1cct : Seabridge Specific Attention: fir. James Barnes Plan SIR 81-•3 i ty Associate Planner SCII 81080664 �., From i Department of Water Resources Los Angeles , CA 90055 The Department of IJater Resources ' recommendations related to water conserva- tion and flood damage preventi.nn on the subject docurxnt ,are attached. Consideration should also be given to a ccmprehensive progr-ari to use reclaimed watera for Irrigation purposes in order to free fresh grater supplies for herie-- fic.i.al uses requiring high quality winter. Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief Planning Branch Southern District (213) 620-4 35 ,Attachments I;UNTINGTO a BEACH PLANNING DEFT. ,JAN - 6 1.11082 P. J. Box 190 18whokilon Beach, CA 926,18 r . t'� w To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be implemented: RESuired by law: 1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921. 3 of. the Health and Safety Code) . w, 2. Low--flow showers and faucets (California Adminintrative Code , Title 24, f' Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F) . 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations) . Recommend be implemented where applicable: Interior: '1 1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 poundu per square inch (psi.) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure reducing valve. 2. Flush valve operated water closers: reco=end 3 gallons per flush. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend Equipped with self--closing valves. 4. Pipe insulation: recorznend all hot water. lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hat water faster with less water waste, and to keep hot pipes from heating; cold water pipes. 5. Hotel rooms : recommend posting conservation reminders in rcoms .and Recommend thermostatically-controlled mining valve for k ' rest roorn�• . , bath/shower. 6. Laundry facilities: recona:iend use of water-conserving models of washers. 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or rc-ttofitting spray emitters. Recommend :serving drinking water upon request � . only*. Exterior: . �x 1. Landscape with low waster-consuming plants wherever feasible. 2. Kinimi..e use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing fields. 3. Une mulch extensively in all landscaped areas . (gulch applied on Lop of �- soil will improve the water-hol 'ink; capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. ! *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in � developing these materials. +�. )?reserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are oftan adapted to low ,vater conditions and their use anves Water needed to establish replacement vegetation. S. Install efficient irrigation systems •which minimize: runoff and evaporation and ciaximtze the water which will. reach the [Jant roots . Drip irrigation, soil mols,ture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few ae-thods of increasing .irrigation efficiency. 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge:. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. 8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste: water, stored rainwater, or household gray water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce: the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious 4 paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new. developments. This would 31d in ground water recharge. . a 11. Flood Plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground E water recharge should be preserved as open space. l Department of Water Resources itecommendatiotts for Flood Aamate Prevention ' In flood-prone areas, flood damage: prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the fullowing guidelines: 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood, .It is the State's policy to conserie water. Any potential loss, to ground water should be mitigated. 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary V and F1oodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Manageuient Agency, the 100-year flood elevatioti and boundary should be shown on the Environmental- - Impact Report. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100--year flood. 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based an ! " detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. • S � 5. Hevegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by nudflow should be T assessed and mitigated as required. 7. Grading should be limited to dry Months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. r • J i11 3 � IOUTHERR CALIFORMA A//0C 1ATt0f1 aF Gt9MMEW 600 Jouth Commonweolth Rvenue -tuite 1000 • for Angeler• Californlo •90005 . 213/385-1000 December 30, 1981 Mr. James R. Barnes , Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for the opportunity to continent on the Seabridge Specific Plan DEIR. Staff has revievied this report and offers the following comments. SCAG' s Executive Conrnittee has not taken a position on this project. As documented in SCAG' s 1980 and draft 1981 Development Monitoring Reports , the population in Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 38 is increasing faster than anticipated in the SCAG-78 growth forecasts. Since SCAG' s Air Quality Management Plan (AQ',,1P) uses the growth forecasts to estimate future emissions in the AQ,',1P , population which exceeds the forecist may be inconsistent with the AQ11P. In spite of the inconsistency with SCAG-78, staff agrees that this development will probably be consistent a;ith SCAG-82. Both develop- ment monitoring reports reconunend changes in RSA 38 to reflect 1980 census data and increased household size. If these recommendations w• are approved, SCAG-82 should forecast significantly more population in RSA 38. Thank you again for the opportunity to corrinent. If you have any questions , please contact Clark Alpers , Program Manager, Management Coordination , at (213) 385-1000. Sincerely, ' W.O. ACKERMANN, JR. / " ';;`;GT("; BEACH Director of Programming 11-, ANNiNG" DEFT. and Evalu_tion WOA:KA:wp DEC 3 1 1981 r-. 0. Box 190 f MURRAY STORM 4D DiRECTOM, EINA ROOERT G.FISHER j ® U N"r C� F DIRECTOR OF rLANNING ' 1 MAILINO ADDRESS: Y P.U. BOX 4"D �JAkN C�q F SANTA ANA,CA 93702 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING 811 NORTH DROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA FILE 1714) 834-3643 December 14, 1.983. 'I'::i 1NGTQ)'1 BEACH f; ►N il;!r;3 DEPT. DEC 18 1981 Mr. James R. Barnes City of Huntington Beacll P. 0. Sax 190 1 Department- of Development Services HIJI-I Igton Beach, CA Tk."' P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: DEIR for Snabr.idge Specific Plan 81--3 located on Reach ` Boulevard and Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach. Dear Mr. J. Barnes, > ? The Environmental Management A`ency has reviewed the subject document and has the following comment to relate: The proposed bridge crossinL will require access to .levee fur OCFCD maintenance and could be incorporated in the design. ' For drainage purposes, a ten-year system should be provided with direct access into the channel wherever Possible. It is understood by O.C.E.C.D. that 100 year flows would be directed to the pump station with the except- ion of gravity flows in which a secondary system for low flows may be required. only the areas shown in the hydrology report should drain to Lhe pump station. If the C!-iannel protection is adequate it may be pos- sible to incorporate a trail system into the maintenance roadway with landscaping allowing for an over all. improved project. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this environmental document. Please forward a copy of the Draft/rinall EIR %,then it becomes Available. Very truly yours, i ENVIri0T1ENTA1, MANAGEMENT AGENCY Kenneth E. SmI.th, Manager Environmental Analysis Division PF:Cr1l f I �I X'$`7 1'P GT0'4 BEACH NANNING DEPT. DEC 7. 1981 P. U. °v.t 1100 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT 931STRICT I�'-:`1:.:�:):, '%���'�• F' ' ��'�3 it Mr. James Barnes Associate Planner P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: SUBJECT: EIR 81-3 SEABRIDGL SPECIFIC PLAN zy Thank you for forwarding a copy of EIR 81-3 Seabridge Specific Plan for our review and comments . Since the project consists of 800 residential units and is located ad-acent to an existing bus route (Line 29) , we request that provisions be made for a bus stop on the farside of Beach Boulevard and the entrance of the development.. This stop could he on-street, provided the ultimate width of Beach Boulevard will accor„odate the bus . If on-street stop is not possible, a bus turnout will. be necessary. Appurtenant sidewalks for pedestrian access and Passenger shelters should also be provided to make using transit convenient . There should also be additional discussion relative to existing transit services ate the project_ site. It should include a descrip- tion of the Dial-A-Ride service since one option to be considered in the land use plan i:; elderly housing. If there are any questions or concerns relative to our comments, please contact me or Mike Haack at 971-6405 . Sincerely, A� ll Dick Usu Environmental Coordinator 11222 ACACIA PAnKV1AY • t'o. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GF10VE:, CALIFOFIP41A 9?642 • PHO14E (114)971.62DO / t f J, W CITY OF HUNITINGTON ' BEACH ti"•r ''r, INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION -.I Pi •ti ,hgmly G1o"11AL11 � I* " From • .Vincent G , Moorhouse ► .^, James' R . Barnes. j.ate Planner Director , •,Community 'Servi.cee I F rifie _ „ber,''211 , Date +,;``� . • '_';;. "� Draft IR "Seabridge Spe over ' Development 4 +, •`�� �, � 11 Yet perused the •'EIR for the 'sixty =t' ,'itt.; Community Services staff'has p acre "Senbridge residential project" and expressed concern that there is no pedestrian access from the project eafitcrly '` f ds directly to the new ._ : '�s�• `>,.r�' �-: M +• into Southport Drive which lea Y neighborhood "Drew Park" which serves the quarterseetion. _ :� ��ould ugg t that the ,•' `,.' I If the developer wants Privacy, s es ;•';:,. exit be a locked gate w�.th residents only allowed a key . DEPT. �• DEC ox 190 Nurtir�7;,,n Beach, Crt • r ICI .• l�Y I l�� ,y, �, ` \� r' ,t t •• ��1! �',ii •I "�: .` • i •''� 1. •,. •� , ' i(• ,�,./i••3j ♦• . � r•.: , • ♦ .�, ` �• ..y a r ., . '�,•,�as , '•1� /jyt'l. �lS r. +.r'`�`7 • 1� ''�R.�:;,.�j �j�a..y�, ��` t♦`. �•' w.1=J�16�{ . ,�',�,,,�y,�".i .I ,Y 'i i'+ r�` f,. �~frr.'�t1'1�•... ,av•.��'Lri •fC•r':1�1' a ♦. Ai•. r4a-F gyp•, a.. �" ., ,- .L�! }�.� ..�,,,, ,l' � �,f,".{r tr �_+�'•. .r1.t.�f• f. �s ,- ••;.�►' w : :._�,.� �� 's .: j' ,� 7., d� r ';• Y; ;}: ":'4f,1•s�'f EACH • : �J. � ': �i`'CITY ' OF•' HUNT'i lMG`i'O1�•t� ' �� ' ; , ,, - g.� � ,�•. 'SINTER:DEPARTMEN7':COMMUNICATION ,� i '+ `a� ►yr >•y,' i jM,•.,r ;rr r. `..C;��;'j� ., , �',Il•.�',•�.�,► u y a t. ,�r �. .i• �y`y, � IR• ' _ •:t•�. J-.'i. �T i�••Zt a/.``'i r`t N-. .i'.S �}'''+r' w••` ,. �],•S.� t'r•.✓�� .�.� ,F! �•a ��p��►bl�.�� r•! V WG1E)M IE�CH I yj�• ,p�11 • , I . ) 7VIP re „�1:• , ,.. •j.l id +f Ltd �,� 1 1,)j:f d�j aa[j i[7j - '• I ! } ",`♦•.�♦ [ •;. , •, •:'.a •. } 'a•r �11 , {, •f 7r tfj• ♦.} 1 '}•r/•� �. yr i r •� M 1•js ;S , }'. ,,^�•r ,f►/M ..lti./f�(, ,,t',�aS�t.t(f�,. ` `" •� 'i .1`a 1/T�y r,.y 1. • Ij , :G.t t- J ;:. ,.�j O �{[�_� �1 Lt (`� ti' a.�yj': S I r•}•. - 11 L. :I, t • � �:�' ••%► •• l •f `��, '{. IM�. _y w y! ♦, ! ] f Don 'Noble ' •f ,' ,r, ,'�.�. ' o g. �Jim''Barnes , , ,j. fay If , ry ssociate_'P.1n ' �'`f�'� R�♦ ry� P l a n n e r' '' •fa., ►.:G } ner Engr ,..'.Planner .,� i.•7�..`J• .�VI' ,. `J !�1r� • 7' i r!; ,tr ,1 i r•.i (?•/: �:5" �( r, r'.•: �,fir• •'� i t ,,•� • .a ,•. �,',!,it CS�.I+�,t r ♦' :•j,' 1 •�.•��. , . I•• ],�•i-L1r; '.• ,...�f ;! • J� t• r[[ ' $' Subject'",T?J-Environmental ,Impact ..Report.,':,,,i:�Date�; Ja ,.,G , lrrryyy�r�r�,,[[yyy82' eve. ^ pp •� h:.' '`•,:,1�:-'-t�' �� 'J'?•.�%'�' ,. it •+yy,.Z_ I ,T tI/ .}j; •1''rr 17 :);\•' f��s. Cr'•••,'•r.'�,[�'T"��rl;t',I'Ci•`` 1t f �•" �Q 1 r J t• •{ �;./'t .l Y�. e,l,!•�f,•,+,i q+ 'r•Yt�' `!t,[r•-•.Y:7 a•;- y j' a�J�.,�..�1.•r =/1 �wir• ''. . � ,`, �+ j4 , S���t rf.d,�•�5. .:, •,ii :]. •�5K]'wit' r"••art ✓: Trt.,.- •:1.r1�y ,y t � 1:�]�, �L • • w li~ '.'� 7�r��� .�•1 -,�'r`1:`I^'�•= � I�• �••�til.� 51' 1''a'.ay�' 't '-] �:�r.� 1t:9���\i[ , ! , 10 'following"comments :land 4 16V _SFr �Che' Pub 1 is Work s Department has .the t n� 'concerns regarding the -Environmental''•Imp.act Report ;(81-,3) ,' t' ',},;•." =ri *��: • For •the ReaUridgc Development ' . V,��.I( T•.1/ .1.•r. •i ..a /S. 7 .. +.. � LJ.�•. , ' �' 'I•.t.•`^oC t^ !� l.,`'.11_•'�' •� ••'/�riS'��a }.� f'` � _ 1• . , , 'r ',' lei •-r�ll...w.•�a1r+' � 1�� ��� �` • r�. '• �j ,1�• f'a...'.I\ �`.' •v` ! :• L. ./f ,;1.,`teL `1 .. !,-�f}.. j• f',?S'S� �iYl,DR.AI NAr :: l •' ,• i i ' :� C•.•' 1 i ^�' r f .c ✓.. •:a S /'N�` ' • 1(... -;; .,.,, { �•j,.'.•, -r,3t fl.r•.-Vr�� l•S I ,.� 1•!•', ♦'Sr •���• ' •{� �•Kl ff ' �•� f `�u"�� 1 :-'Section ';r 3 . 3 .�5 (IZraina};c-�Concupt) indicates the •proj ect y`- land •f'1oi,' -and by . gravity storm k';wi11 drain north by' overland `F•�t r'I�tl' ' • ,;, ,' contours of the land drain systems , yet the natural �;� • :k N' c •/�`...; ::�� ; `'"indicate tllat tiie site generally drain-s south . I ' ` '~''=' `'csf.i � " for the s drain north extensive land fill -T' •.+ .order site e t.o � ;:•�,r,���•.• _ ►" '''.y" �4`•� �t': ap, re aired f-fo1.r 1�'ould the: land fill affect ��' '•'��' • '� -_�� ' the surrounding residential homes , a tr�ti•' ` 7 .' To what degree w111 the most southerly entrance/exit-' , ' . i,. ,.��. :�, ,act. the 'traffic; on Bcac}i '131vd , 7 _ '•_j�x1 TY •onto Beach .I3l�r , . impact, .�,_ ��,y( a.•r , - ;�r - _ ;l _ . ' "�r2 :' '+ '•'tip. •'s � :it•+� � !? .: .?T}ie fiiT .R. iticlicares that apprnxintately 1 ,1..8 trips • .,;'.` 't'��;� ' ;� directed to Ad, Avenue anel G , 392 tri})s • wi 11 be f w f,• �.-r,; 21) When nevi eiving ,, directed to Be,-tch Blvd . (nage • . r'. tC�,; .' " j the illustrations (i . r . ' rigures) ghat reflect this c,� '• r�•� ' ' � discs y (i . c . totals there appears to }.e .a" epenc 1 . i'�_�cf • �_ {: "' ,, ;-:don ' t correspond) , ,Studies conducted by the City of Huntington Reich ,• • '' '' �' ' .":,'indicate that traffic distribution patterns for n• c L '- ��� ' ;Adams Avenue and Reach Blvd , should be rc evaluated , '-', A��-• 1- «i 1 I be generated '•'` T4 f, �;'wt': ',��:;•�> (i . ei studies ind.icato s0at trips lien r� t}ie proposed site by way of Adams Avenue , West ?;,�•n,�:, -. !+t _ `` of Beach :llvcl rind that the distribution percc*,ntages .{ ",• r r�`�;� Tor7be"ach—} vc . arc questionahle . ll! I.'. '!nRN �� r `, I '• '1• 1 -f' ,• 1� *,i;'. cc tlG orge Tindall l • . , ,, . , ;7. '�•. '•��i=r►l�` � •fj,�`".*:Tract 11673 .,�' _ , .. 7 , ! - , ,.,`s•.C[ ;`'f OIL •�,s _' - -f MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/508 ADAIAS AVE.HUNTINGTON CEACIL CALIF r64e (714) 536 2547 . . .. 6494 EL CAlA,t;O REAL SLATE 211•CARLSBAD.CA 92003/('n�1)A 38-1157 HAND DELIVERED January 41 1982 } , - HUNTINGTON BEACi-i James R. Barnes PLANNI f . ,. _,�� • ` _ _Associate Planner N a DEPT. Department of Development Services i - : CITY -Or HUNTINGTON BEACH JA h 1982 ''�.�'.i��••~••••.f. _v' -P.O. Boy{ 190 Huntington Beach , CA 9264Ei P. 0. Box 190 -;~ ,» Hundroon Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes • ; Tie have reviewed EIR 81-3 and offer the following continents for your . consideration : 1 . Some of the detail on Figure 2 is unclear . We have: therefore attached a subs t.i tute 'page that wi 11 more ac- curately present this detail. .. -�. " 2 . The �rroo: identifying Sub-area Al on the Refer- - ence Map (Exhibit A) of the Specific Plan was left of f the original map. A substitute page has been attached to prop- erly indicate the location of Sub--area Al . 7 . 3 . As additional .information , we would 1: to state '" thaL we do not feel enough emphasis has been placed on the fact • that ii it were not for the fl.apcate in the flood control chan- . :�� ._.: nel being forced open, the saltwz � r ponding area would not have existed. The damaged flapgate permitted saltwater from the flood control channel to floe:* onto the site and create a ponding situation. When the flapgate was being fixed by the Flood Control Dis- ' •' -` trict in Octoe)er, �.961 , the pond drained into the channel - and the site was to dry . Future on-site pond ng will only be from surface runoff during the rainy season. The rema:in•- ��` of , the Irear,' the site wil', be dry and unsightly. ::Y�•; ' They water amenities provided in this project including the re-establishment OF a year round freshwater pone? and the ~;� ' . • etpentual creation of at permanent saltwater marsh , by far " - - exceed the value of the ponding area zss:' it would exist in _- the future . James R. Barnes " • I INGTON. IIEACH 'j.CTTY of H[ NT STI age two -�� t in us''this••o opportunity to' comment on a Thank you for providing PP_ _ .. 40 ij•ithis ZIR.FA , -• _ .... ..',•.:-.r• ,•�.• 1 ,:, ••r •, .. .-y1,','.: �.�. ':..aS...,.���' `.► .L,-.?L•}y�{ P(�:.•�.1•�.-•.:�.1 '�,r 1 ._ . ' t•r`•�� •J^'f •y•' .7���y�'y� :�►Y:••�. r'�:";1Rw=. - `_1' • ., •-r _ . - ^� _ ,. ,• ~1..�i�- �.,,, fig {�'at f ',-,. .�• 1'�Ir�� fir: j '.-Very truly`'yours, DEVE PMENT, CORPORATION: *• �'` :- -• - •err .�� '_- ._ .;~ :. i% �C��"\ti:.t•? 'T=-F . Kola , ident •`�'u =�.fit:��: .FJM/cd • - • ' ' •• •l'. w r , .. .. •;:.t.:.�ir��r..: enclosures • _ _ - • • . - .. . ' . •- - , . . '. : .,.,.-� Tom. .. �: ;_ •. ...- - .... _ . - '. _ - . .�: ,•.. .• �,t• ,l;... tL yt i wt•t�.fit•.. •�', � - , �' ADAMS AVE 1 Ate• FI: _....,, ...•...w..... _ .... . -...w+.+_ - •_ �! CQM4tMC11M. 20 I 1 F•- W7, 45• Subarea 81 Reduced Building > s Height Envelope -------- r f ' RESOURCE 1 .w . • . PRODUCTON; °i E RESOURCE. % '$_ _1 ♦, 00 1 0.1 pRODUCr'f ibJ�! � 1 0. r 1 SubareaA i 1 . 1 AREA A 130 ------ AREA Fla �___•-__--.- ------_--_- i o RESOURCE PRODUCTION a ' 1 1 ! ENTRY T 1 1 � I RESOURCE`` ' - PRODUCTION v CO I 5 pwpl Reduced Building i i z 1 ` Height Envelope 1 1 1 E I 9 ' `JPerimetcr Setbal.k EXHIBIT A REFERENCE MAP • ADAMS AVE fMA/, , W 45 Subarea B 1 I + Reduced Building J > .+ 1 Height Envelope ---------------- RESOURCE •. 1 .a: PROWCTK7N,% r I,RESOURCE. l , . � PRODUCTION ,l __', , a • +, Subarea Al ` + 1 I 1 I ; AREA A -T- 130 ----------:-------------- I I AREA 13 C 1 o RESOURCE PRODUCTION i x i I i w I j 1 ' 20 ENTRY ; I i 1 RESOURCE`` ' PRODUCTION I I + I Reduced Building 1 � P,6-41 ► f IF E Height Envelope ' 85 CIA Qe`imeter Setback , ''ram i T N HUN ING 0 B ACH '. ORANGE ' COUNTY , CALIFORNIA .STC3RM DRAIN FACILITIES �. c'a, _�.lk. ADAMS AVE 7T 1. i NORTIFoRI UIi. �D � r l i �� tt I - --► t H S BOOTHBAY CR, nP mod too MILE 4, 'Fpx-1 t- _Z_5 i I ^� }} CA/•E NE1OU 1nUf1Y rJrl., uj r ...��. C F _R 4, J ;�,. ; • y SOU,HPORT Uf . UR• {j 2 3 .T _GQ.• �5 5EALRO K-.. ul FT'Tl ;f Sr-APO IT � v � i w w _.i...:_.1._i ! ; orl. l(ll INoia���roi Ilk- I ( 1r11nIFi1Y(t�)U n f 5rry ir 4' • (,• .. / ., ✓ � 'r { I y � t � (17i'.� ■ s� �L � ��ft.11� ir'�t1.� A��f L���.• a:�s��� •- .. - ._ INTER-E')EPARTME,N i COMMUNICATIOP! ,.., , t,L'\tlhf.(OW CIAO To C. W. Thompscn From Paul E. CookNt. ~ City A(I ilinastrator ,irector of P_.W.1-c Vorkc Subject Sally :ilexande_ — :'loodiny Cate July 13 , Contm:Lt gee Fib• „ e,u.;.,,,%ndum of July 1, 1983 tc you, Counci: +:,un►an R :t'h r i_I:1e,•• risked u!; to Lesnon`i to a list Gi aUC'_stioI s for Chri:. Christy, Wlz-ector o: sons:ructior. Frank Seabridge Project . Here arc; ansv. rs. `_ : +:11C Ui: 7: ?0:1C uL cue sec, theme: 1 . I1C.1, .,ill the ,project be: :r, . nec; " T11e o r i•t .t1.:I c, rA our: c` tLC nrope .-t- Sloped to tY:,: :youth . Be_C :u� tlil.. rec-Jred to rz:ise pad elevc-_' •_ions twelve _E '_ abo\•'-! lc t, tho. sitE: rioW drains to internal which ;:: c 11c:7Led to an underground drain s} . .—i 0-, Lch dt -,inage to the north . 't'i, 1_0 Shoal.d 1"__- ( t-r) ':LI . lei• wil-I nreveni- the: DO). ."tcannel r:�:71 0•. .. 4 ��'.ti.. r� i:; �:'; I'• ... f trora i.:hc Pi,,; ;ccC— ),ccr)r ?^.Cy lt-l� t.:7_•l:i� t CI t:iC.:_ or Prc, } �'e�"�;�.it.. ��: . .. L'•_ '.�., !x2en 1_..•t: .'(2 L or 1: u sc , to t ,1L: DO ;tI1.171i: !1:)tc7n Iit:.t (".} perri.i t• , Mo: :z r.:us ,1-ovi (!_ : i.C: 1:` c, 1-,- t F:rd ,corni f Lot;:' c:t11. '1,` . :11 1e: the 3 . ► i :C. C.1 L:t r.t: C) r .i i n d G o:1 .)r,..itiC,n? *41ola is FL. i I! 1.nq c'';:•: i_'_ L : i ..3 Llia: 2 1 L ;c, yr !7,11iz't L � o reE TJ's , er � l:w j;,l;l •I i.011 <1nU .�,_. t:iic. _oiI ? T1,. `l11-0 t rer,c7•. .. i ri1 a t:h a 1.l Fl:'1+`: L 1(hq t-J:,; Li .^ - I;',1 . i.•;is C f'_ p')n' ZiinJ, he :)1',"'��� il .:l-'f�.� ';,11 _` �,.-U�1• � al,i "�: .'1'.�,i 1 ch.:t: h'nndill(J wi1. :1 not is :}:c �Ltl_ 't'h• I'll:;-,;; . ..c: .:.. .. _ .t a: • t . :;u .1 t�;.t.�r. f"r 7;, �ni . i n h t . �::1 . �:,1••�r .l-o.l'i '• � -. 'lil. 'r'1 71�' '•7 CJ �t:� }. `�.:,.• :i'r•i�: ..(:i lti' � i_ t. � .. �. . .. �': :�1� :,c)L:r�i:}• '��1 s t:r).:r�. ►;. Lt_ t:on . a , _1 .L! ! . .1i.. i !. t: :. �. 1 ') .1 ,.�'• •r. '- 1.1 i1�� to Nr .' .J�1� .�t .�1. :':.mot` t.I• '�l':. . .. - *-7+r F,w' .77..�'v;r: . ..m ,.. •.. t Memo to C. W. Thompson Sally Alexander-Flooding Committee July 13 , 1983 page 2 8 . How will flood waters be handled in your tract an where will the water drain when it leaves your development? See the answer to question number 2 . 9 . Does Beach Blvd . drain easterly on Indianapolis to the Seder. Seas area? The southbound lane of Beach Blvd . from a point 660 feet north of Indianapolis drains to Indianapolis b•. a not into the Seven Seas tract . PEC: LE : jy �I :i 5i 1 t i i i -.. -. - r. u �.. r ., � ','•.'b! „;C;•:a .n,�.;.• ,�••<:,}:T,..-.e .:.i'. . .�v.w.. n-:. ,yt:...,1.+a+v�•�a+er.rt�e.ww.w.......�.....�r�...•w,.....���.........._ _.,w..�9 ,� .� 'f R,!'•,�. � r i� tom., •� . '� 1�•1 r� � '+ t , • �, *• , , i i I TO Charles C :Ira in i.5 :ra"::Ci2" I i oc;di n t-.i r.c: i,L:C.:c. . _';115E]C: ttiC_'i'i� ._.,1C.? f%t�:"i:��l^1.:' � 1�:1 ':11'_. :'. • : .;l .. . .. - a ` 13C.ac1; :ri:: i I li1Ci^C: � �.: C:tl:�'.,•:1�.l�: S. :1(:' .. _':::�1'!!", i' '_' �:.l: ..�I. •i':� . . . .. .. . lit G:.1., 1 ( i:lZ' _ .i' l:�f•...C}� L•:'1'.. ..c):,._, t:: :, - . �:iloticsll.: ot:t_. it :. ::l)•L:lC: :ilSC: �-.;..... �:C', .;;:C7'� ••li!' i,.�' :i',. .. ..,. .. .: .,.'.. '. .. ' •':�:wif���'C`. I"��011l..'e.l:r.::�::. (-�:: ::t:•_' ': _�,C:t: ', � :; ' . _ .. I ;�•,. '�•'' (1 ' .. •.'; '. � ''. :_- '.' .. kyi�`s' .. .yi �- .._. L, !♦•.�. !.�r,-3..'1:-..,..•r:r-wow.•4wr..u.w..................._..._.._. ...._.....r++.:.wra+.wws........._._.. Juno FollJ ny a ` :a':i;_; ; ir,,. •.. ` U. . c .^•�i_ _ : c .• ::nn ruction i.l� Qeverlc;l,men-L r. Cl 11: i•tuL' LL 1 r1C� � Jui' e pre5ti _ of c,� ad : rrt; _rte -I _ .. _ Cll -•� "or tri�,:. Ci. 1Ja fit'"sh i�a .. . i~_ 1:_' 1��e. . '';�' . ;�;`i Jan .: * r �r. h IL �.1: /• _ �.. 7 o. I f1c;- J(:iI(v ..�� . li .r. ���1.� r � noon on -hu 2tlt, an icid i. . ��• • . c E:r✓p vi l_'w t:' '•��.i . _ rr�, 1.��.�� � �1:. f ... '�.i L.� 1�.1-� _ _ l �.. ' UfC1C_ a1S F :CM ',i'.L Gi .L • r��•a^: � �St�� _ �l•. I(,t. � 1. _ I'.+1 1. /_'� .. : _ .. .. � � _ ...r .. I_ � •. _Li :J n 1 v v L U �.' c a 1. I .� ,a '1•1 ,i i`_ homes? 2 . ::f1iaL E I FIo:'•c: C;h-i iri UG i t u1',"Ic 3 . theIL 4 4 1�e sI I_1 1. '.. • � ..C. L '_' 1�.. • • ♦ �• .. v .. • {. � i � .. `. •1 � _ _ t_I I _�.. � ,. . 1 r. _ •I i oT , r � .*UArAY .)TOPE' CPT, C)F faUC)r.IC l^;�Fllt, CI'iECTOi;, r?.• n t I 1 1 '? lir s, Kt,T,0'1 JUL. 1 � 1�� ) J�PEC"Ur n� cf.:,i:"?,T;Or� t'1�lj1(MfYt3TO .1!4C :,7rDF1E513. S ry 3 �� �: � N L?L'A��.{ '� �LIr, P f), a,'•, E�i"•'3 \v ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.AGE:P:C '�� j.�.`',- �• SEGUl,AT10,v at)a CIVIC CENTER DRIVE W„,;T , St%NTA ANA, CAUFONNIA FIt.'; f 71�!I 6:1d•:G.'G ' ' Air. Paul G. Cook, uirectol• of Public Works CITY OF Fl UN TI NG TG N B E A C I.1 C 2000 TvInin Street Huntington 131-_ac}l, Cali ur:lia Dear Nf r. Cool_: i The Huntington T a11)r2't, [111d i'0lllltrli11 V:1110 "JI'llinAs az"-' cicficieltt 111 capneit,y as c --denced by their ovc i loly "t :1 r111tZlt;c_ r ui' :ocr•ti�}:: during the storm and high tide o° ?:'Inrch 1, 1''f3'3 , Bc i-:se tl-.e chin 1:: ZI'_• levoccl, If the overflow IJni-sists fol, _';Lore til'I.'1 (1 few ;i;lUtC : f'.��X'»' 1� C�Ol:1': of`1cvCe breaching ind escapo of the major pol'tiott C%! ' 1:o s torrn as. i in the channels rind con:rc,U0, t widespread d-inlag't'. Cllr: ;il-mi-s we_(. o rigim-111v c-)i1m ructecl ." ith or 65',,, of the '23-yuai- Storm l."hich %:ins tll`'n the that fancis would be m,nilahl1� for 11poradinp of thc to cur.vent ','.'ith f1CIj1CC'ilt 1lallii Clo1'e101?iZCllt. Tllt 1r1(`}i li ;:tC'r dt')t::" flood, C^tltrol i;ond lssucs togothe r with the pnz;�5 l fre (" 1a1'0PC'si'tl:: ,: 1'i serim."'1"' impacteci the flood control 11strict's :0)L,it% .o ftrfld Nuver,'h,!Less pro,;Y•css is L)c..,;rig nlnde , Attic:ht!d is :i Gran; r: •:-Ao ":tll; discuses recent nndf forthcoming projects . In ziddit. :, the, o"' ;;�;;•,,:", %'.isor.s ,,)n Nncu 1-1 , 1983 requested that the CoIps JI : ,llrillCcr. s':1dC' clim,nrl's (cope of Chnirivivl: SUinton' s lattVr to +11"! c :)s is ';t.'C<ll!` Or tilt: ::C'I'.i �115 CICfici(m", ill Cnp. C:it�' rll:!f -Is.c. i!1t: ch:xtv''..' :%n. 1t vec'd'orl+il 1911 cici.irietlr_ti- is the ±'10ol! ':is" rid• additiollrl l perniijts rr'r :-'torn. (iI nin or rmni1).l;lp. Sf:it ll`. ' inlots t', Cl(; cond1tionod Uf.ioil thc' p(_. '' ;11,itC%' i)i'U '►t11r1f; SUfiicivill' C)f, ('1li111no! �'l )I'({('(' to t:11c! Lida r'..C('c:oS ;fl,,; tl. ila s•c'ctcl+•• �_,: li�'L"lirlt ion i ...i:'c u RESOLUTION NO. 1282 _w A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SEABRIDGE (BEACH/ADAMS) SPECIFIC PLAN . WHEREAS, Sections 65500-65507 of the California Government Code provide procedures for adoption of specific plans and regulations; and WHEREAS, a .specific plan herein referred to as the "Seabridge Specific Plan" has been prepared containing the recommended contents of the above mentioned code sections ; and WHEREAS , the Seabridge Specific Plan provides for development within a 60 ± acre site located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard which is consistent with the City's General Plan and will not be detrimental to the general health , welfare , safety, anU convenience of persons working or residing in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of • Huntington Beach , California has held a public hearing in com- pliance with the State Government Code to review said Specific Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Seabridge Specific Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Specific Plan is recommended for adoption by the City Ccuncil of the City of Huntington Beach. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 19th day of January, 1982 , by the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ATTEST: James W. Palin, Secretary µ Grace if . winchell , Chairman ej INTRIC P Superior Court OF THE FsTATF:OFCAI.IFORNIA G In and for the County of Orange W� f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK ARQ�F Off'PI1BLIOAMN- Public Hearing 81.-16 81-15 EIR 81-3 State of California CountY of Orange )%a' �' > Rita J. Rich ter ). . I That 1 am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one yearn,and that I ' am rot a party to, nor interested in the ah,,ve entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer of t he t l Huntington Beach Ind. Review a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of +� Huntington Beach County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the diseminntion of local neww and intelligence of n general charac• tar, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had c: " and still has a bona fide suhmription list of paying nAncriherr, and which newspaper has teen e.tablished, printed and puh. fished st tegular intervals in the amid C,onnty of Orange for +s period exceeding one year; that the notice, of whirls the � annexed is a printed copy, hay been published in the regular � and entire imu,e of rigid newwpaper, and not in any supplement therer+f,on the following date,+,to wit: 4 i February 251 1982 I certify for declare) under penalty rf penury that thr forego• inc i�tnse and cnrrec:. j !)sled at .. . . .. ... .......... 0.4-al fn. GrQvQ. . . . . .. . 2sth Feb, OW orn' his .dnv of lr' /tii�nt►trr RED UE i FOR CITY CC UNCI�'r `ACTION I; Date February 18, 19 8 2 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Cares W. Thompson, City Aministrates Submitted by.. Charles d Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16/E IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 (SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) . Statarnent of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachtnents: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration are code amendment and zone change applications which would establish a specific: plan on F01 acres of property located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach .,oulevard. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council certify EIR. 81-3, approve Code Amendment 81-16 by resolution and Zone Change 81-15 pursuant to thn attached ordinance. ANAL. A22licant: Mola Development Corporation 808 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California 9264P Location : The subject site is located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. Request : A zone change and code amendment which would establish a specific plan on the subject site . Planning_ Coninission Action on February 2 , 1982 % ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 WAS CERTIFIED AS BEING ADEQUATE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenafick , Paone, Winchell , Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister , Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Action on February 17 , 1382 : ON 140TION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15 � WAS APPROVED FGR RECO.P01ENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION Page 2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Kenefick, Winchell , Porter, Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TI3E CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION (RESOLUTION NO. 1.282 ) , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell , porter, Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION: In Jnne , 1981, the City Council adopted Land Use Element Amendment No.. 81-1 changing the General Plan designation on the subject property from Resource Production, General Ccmmercial, and Low Density Residen- tial to Planned Community and directed that this designation be im- plemented through the development of a npecific plan. The City Council approved the General Plan Amendment subject to five policies intended to guide development of the specific plan. The five policies are stated in the attached January 19, 1982 Planning Commission staff re- port. The Seabridge SpecifiC Plan was prep?,red by the applicant and submitted to the Department of Development SeLvices for review. City staff pro- vided to the applicant general guidelines ceri:aining to the development of the specific plan prior to the commencement of work on the document . An environmental impact report (EIR 91-3) was prepared , assessing the draft specific plan document and a site plan for development of the property (see environmental status) . The EIR presents a detailed assess- ment of the existing environmental setting, the project, project- related impacts, a:i.ternatives , and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impact. Hearings were held by the Planning Commission on the project at its January 19, February 2, and February 17 , 1982 regular meetings. At the February 2 meeting, the EIR was re,-:ominended for certification and the specific document was given an in-depth review by the Planning Commis- sion. A list of 29 concerns was compiled from the Planning Commission ' s testimony. These concerns are addressed by the applicant in the attached letter •sated February 10, 1982 . At the February 17 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant 's re- sponses to the issues identified by the Planning Commission at the February 2 meeting were presented. The Commission concurred with the revisions suggested by the applicants and stated some additional con- cerns which have been responded to in the attached letter submitted by the applicant dated February 18, .1982. The applicant has also sub- Page 3 mitted a revised specific plan document which incorporates all of the revisions previously suggested by staff and the Planning Com- mission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Environmental Impact Report No . Fl-3 provides an assessment of the proposed specific plan and development plans for a 749-unit residen- tial project on the site. The residential project is subject to the approval. of tentative tract and conditional use permit applications by the Planning Commission. Prior t-a taking action on the code amendment (Seabridge Specific Plan) and zone change applications, the City Council must determine that the environmental impact report is adequate and conforms with the re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR guidelines. The 'Manning Commission, at its February 2, 1982 hearing, recommended that the City Council find the EIR as being adequate and in conformance with CEQA. In the attached letter dE,t_ed February 16, 1982 the State Department of Fish and Game claims that the City' s response to their comments expressed in a letter dated December 28, 1981 is inadequate by stand - arils of CEQA. Specifically, the Department of Fish and Game cites a recent court decision (Cleary vs. County of Stanislaus) which requires that comments received by a Lead Agency be responded to in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and stating factors of importance warranting an override of the suggestions . On February 25 , 1982 City staff met with representatives of the State Department of Fish and Game and State Office: of Planning and Research to discuss the City ' s response to Fish and Game ' s comments . It was agreed that the City would reorganize and expand its response to emphasize more clearly the reasons why specific suggestions con- tained in the Department of Fish and Game ' s conments were not accepted. The City' s revised response to Fish and Game ' s comments i" attached . FUNDING SOURCE : Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Alternatives available to the City Council regarding the proposed specific plan are to deny the applications or, modify provisions con- tained within this specific, plan document in any manner deemed appropriate by the Council . i i SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 . Area Map . i x 2. Planning Commission deb. 17, 1982 staff report and m nctes 3. Planning Commission Feb. 2, 1982 staff report and minutes 4 . Planning Commission. Jan. 19, 1982 staff report and .Unutes 5 . Ordinance (Zone Change 81-1.5) 6. Resolution No. 1282 (SeabrLdge Specific Plan) 7. Letters from Mola Development Corporation dated January 8 , February 10, and February 18 , 1982 8 . EIR 81-3 9 . Letter received and dat.f:d Feb. 18, 1982 10 . Letter from State Department of Fish and Game dated Feb. 161 1982 11 . City' s response to State Department of Fish and Game's comments 12 . Final EIR 81-3 JWP:JRS: df I -o o r / RI L. RI t o -.e." n -o 'Q��'�k O -A -O I c j a c "►; J ►•rn�n. -+RI •�.� �a �� r— r — .r.. 1 • Y �'�-o _ I�;� •_ r�f i ►r .r. RI .� R! lll... Rl ! 0 RI _ ' f RI I RI 1 4 `.�„ oRt s o� +q!-a 1t3-O 1, —� aim; * l�sr — 1 ADAMS � h �'Ic,aar` .s_2 _ + _Aa0 I j R, F;it 'sr[s a� �- RI r- I 1 RI-0 RI RI RI RI RfIf RI ,. .p.. - -1 e p sr. •-Qt� I l I P.1 RI ttttRIa Wro.b U t) .p ap I _.af� 1 A; RI I , ( � l4.., RI RI -o -0 f l,�.ea ,r"� i ,t+a•-,►`f y• '�- SPECI RI RI RI R.f • f ,n•�a - .. PL I RI 3 ' RI CF-R! RI , { . -. RF RI �1�.. r ..., . t as u _ RI-0 RI t ..�...� RI Ci! r '; m C2 + e t'a Rt RI RI RI c_ti:x --� i � I �l � � � • a� RI � RI = � Rt mil R3 to :,%� + r s • !! �• RI - •e• _ _r.J u 11 tE11 11l I L r: i1 �RI�' . CF-R 'tl Rf RI RI Rl Rt RI 1 C R T � ` o p�]�I R3 Y R] C , •�a kl t RI � RI a.,...., LOW RI __ � r •f, e r ¢ -1 �11 J R RI Rl 1 Rf :C Mil\.IOy Etl t o, ki w a Al a R! CI . ( � r i RI K"-fir d• i ' :, ' c RI RA-0. RA-01 . 1?f -0 .RI-0IrC2 FO SEAERIME SPECIFIC FLAN "Uv%n%f.f&W4 rtAC04 HUNTINGTON MACH PLANKING DIVISION untington breach dovelopart It sarvices departmentSrAf ' I f REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: JanuAry 19, 1982 I � Z.O,iNE.,rCHA&QE O, 81-15 .,, ,�E._jM ~N12PIE T NO. 81-16 /EtJVIRONA1ENTaL IMPACT REPORT NO, 81-3 APEL,ICANT: Mola Development Corp. DATE ACCEPTZD: 808 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 December 1, 19!31 REQUEST: To permit a chance in MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:: zone from RIL.-O, R1...O1, RA-0, 60 days from certification RA-01 and C2 to Seabridge of the final EIR Specific Plan . ZONE: R1-00 R1- 01 , RA-0, C LOCATION . Subject properties areRA.-01 and C2 located on the southeast GENERAL PLAN: corner of Adams Avenue Planned Community and Beach Boulevard. ACRE GE: 60+ acres EXISTING USE: Vacant/Resource Production 1 , 0 SUGQESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Code Amendment No. 81-16 (Seabridge Specific Plan) be adopted by Resolution and Zone Change No. 81-.15 be approved subject to the findings contained in Section 7. 0. Staff further reconunends that the Commission recommend to the Council that EIR No. 81-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines. 2 20 GEt:EMIj INFQRMATION: Code Amendment No. 18-16 and zone Change No. 81-15 would establish a Specific Plan on 60+ acres of property located south of Adams 00, ...� R•i M•239 0 CA 81-16 & ZC 81.-15 January 19, 1982 t' Page 2 I. Avenue and east; of Beach Boulevard. In June, -1981, the City Council adopted Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-1 changing the General Plan designation on the property from Resource production, General Commercial and Low Density Residential. to Planned Community, and directed that this designation be implemented through the development of a specific plan. The City Council approved the General Plan Amendment subject to the following policies intended to guide development of the specific plan. I 1 . The area east of the flood control channel adjacent to the existing single family residential tracts be of a low density residential design with an adequate setback to buffer the two projects . 2. The area east of and immediately adjacent to the flood control channel be of a medium density residential design. 3. All units east of the flood control channel be clustered to allow for a maximum amount of open space, total units not to exceed 400 east of the channel. 4 . The area west of the flood control channel be of a high density residential design. This concept should take advantage of the y natural topography for development and simultaneously preserve the ponding area in a natural state . 5 . Residential units be clustered throughout the project area which would also accommodate the continuation of resource production activities. Total units for the overall project not to exceed 800. The Seabridge Specific Plan (distributed previoualy) was prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for rc:vi.ew. City staff pro- vided to the applicant general guidelines ;pertaining to the development of a Specific Plan prior to commencement of work on the document. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81--3) was prepared assessing the draft specific Plan document and a site plan for development of the site ( see Section 4 .0 Environmental Status) . The EIR presents a detailed assessment of the existing environmental setting, the project, project-related impactb, alternatives and measures intended to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 3 . 0 SUN"Y CF ISSUES: The major issues of concern regarding Code Amendment No . 81-15 (Sea- bridge Specific Plan) and Zone Chanqe No. 81-15 are as follows: 1 . whether the proposed project is in conformace with the City' s General Plan. � l CA 81-16 & 2C 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 3 2,. Whether the proposed project is consistent with the policies adopted by the City Council to provide guidedance for the de- velopment of a specific plan. 3 . Whether the proposal incorporates mitigation measures presented in EIR 81-3 . 4 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USES, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: _$M]� J ect Property• GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Community ZONE: RA-01 , R1-:0, R1-01, C2 LAND USE: Vacant/oil production facilities South sf Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial/Low Density Residential ZONE: C 2/R1 LAND USE: Commercial/single family residential West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: Old Town Specific Plan LAND USE: Single family homes Nth of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial/Low Density Residential ZONE: C2/R1 LAND USE: Commercial/single family residential East of Subject Prgperty: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 LAND USE: Single family homes 5, 0_ENVIRONMENTAL SI&TUS: In . July, 1981, the Development Services Department was requested by the Mola Development Corporation to waive the initial study process and proceed directly to the. preparation of an EIR for the project. The environmental consulting firm of EDAM, Incorporated was engaged L.o prepare the EIR. EIR 81-3 provides an assessment of the proposed specific plan and development plans for a 744-unit residential project on the site. A draft EIR was prepared and distributed to public agencies and lndi-- � viduals for •a 45-day review period ending January 4 , 1982. CA 81-16 & ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 4 The enclosed final EIR which consists of the draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR, a list of persons, organi- zations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR, and the City' s responses to the significant environmental pointu raised during the review and consultation process . Prior to taking action on the Code Amendment (Seabridge Specific Plan) and Zone Change applications, the Planning Commission must determine that the Environmental Impact Report is adequate and conforms with re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines. 6*0 ANALYSIS: The Seabridge Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant with consul- tation from Development Services Department staff and the EIR consul- tant. The Specific Plan contains regulations which will implement policies applied specifically to this site by the CJ.ty Council during the General Plan amendment process . The Specific Plan combines Stan- dard zoning regulations, special site development standards and measures intended to eliminate adverse environmental effects, into ane document tailored to the needs of this particular site. The Specific: Plan divides the site into two areas - Area A located east of the flood control channel. and Area B located west of the flood control channel. The development standard: for Area A provide for the construction of up to 400 attached residential units of medium and low density design . Sub-area Al. as delineated on Exhibit A. of the Specific Plan, contains provisions for a reduced building height envelope requiring a lower building height (maximum 25 feet) and greater setback from adjacent single family hornes for all units located along the south and east property lines . The applicant plans to de- velop Area A in its entirity with 400 one and two-story attached units over tuck-under parking arranged in individual. building clusters of 4-6 units. Area B located west of the flood control channel provides for the con- struction of up to 400 residential units of high density design. Sub- area B1 located at the northwest corner of the site, provides the op- tion of including commercial uses or elderly housing wit?lin the project. If Sub-area B1 is developed commercial, the Specific Plan requires that the total number of residential units allowed in Area B be reduced to 350 . Presently, the applicant plans to develop Area B (exclusive of Sub-area B1) with 344 units located in several. structures up to four stories in height over parking garages. The Specific Plan regulations provide for t,n open space concept which includes extensive landscaping with specimen trees and ponds located throughout the interior of the development . Exhibits providing for specific treatment of setbacks and visual screening are contained i CA 81-16 6 ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 5 within the Specific Plan text. A natural salt water marsh designed to the standards delineated in Exhibit D of the Specific Plan will be developed on the site to mitigate the immediate loss of a degraded coastal marsh habitat area within and surrounding an existing pond . The Specific Plan provides that existing resource production areas be deeded to the homeowners association and developed as part of their permanent common open space when all oil production activity has ceased. A special interest bearing account with funds initially deposited by the applicant, will be established in the name of the homeowners asso- ciation for eventual improvement of the resource production areas . The staff has conducted a detailed review of the draft Specific Plan document and is recommending the following changes, many of which have been agreed to by the applicant (see attached letter from Mola De- velopment Corporation dated January 8, 1982) . 1 . Page 1, Section 'A, Intent and Purpose. Change title from "Intent and Purpose', to "Purpose" . 2. Add a definitions section to the Specific Plan text. 3 . Page 2, Section A4 . The portion of this section which is in paren?O*� thesis shall be placed as a footnote at the bottom of the page. 4 . page 3, Section C, Environmental Assessment. This section shall be deleted from the report. , 5 . exhibit A, Reference Map. The map shall be revised to include the following: a. The streets opposite the main entries will be shown on the map. b. The drilling islands and the main off-island wells will be shown on the map. c. The reduced building height envelope shall be clarified . b. Page 7, Section E, Eload Prntectinn. This section shall be re- written as follows: All development within the Specific Plan area shall conform to all federal emergency management agencies (FEMA) flood protection requirements subject to approval of the City Director of Public Works. 7 . Page 8, Section G, Traffic Control . The second paragraph shall be revised -to read as follows: We developer shall provide for the future installation of any such improvements prior to the Issuance of building permits. 8 . Page 0, Section 81 Transit F__ actllities_ . Provisions within this section shall be revised to include review by both the Department 04 CA 81-16 h ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 6 f of Public Works and the Orange County Transit District. I: 9. Page 9, Section J. Hydrology'. Provisions in this section shall be revised to include review by both the Department of Public Works _ and the Department* of Development Services. � 10 . Page 9, Section L. Perimeter Buffer. The last sentence shall be revised to read as follows: The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Department of Development Services. 11 . Page 10, Section M. Resource Pgoduction Areas. Sub--section 1 shall be revised to read as follows: The areas presently desig- nated fir resource production shall be deeded to the Homeowners Association as part of the permanent common open space when all oil production activity has ceased. Sub-section 3 shall be revised to read as -ollows : oil production activity shall be in compliance I� with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code. Sub-section SE shall be revised as follows: The area east of the flood control channel (Area A) shall be approved according to the preliminary landscape plans submitted with ;;he application for development. 12. Page 11, Section O, Development Standards. a . Sub-section 1 (uses permitted) shall be revised as follows : A footnote. shall be added to Sub-sections A and B to indicate that oil production within the oil drilling islands shown on Exhibit A shall comply with provisions of the -01 district (Article 968) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and' that areas designated as off-island well sites shall be subject to the requirements of the 110" district (Article 968) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Sub.-section 3 (Building Height) ; this section shall be revised as follows : Area 8 - five stories or 60 fee;. c. Sub-section 4 (Site Coverage) ; this section shall be revised as follows: Area A - 45% of net acreage; Area B - 50% of net acreage. d . Sub-section 5 (Perimeter Setback) ; the last sentence shall be revised to read as follows-: This requirement shall not apply to entry monuments, landscape features, and structures intended for safety or public use. e. Sub--section 6 (Building Separation and Setback) ; this section shall be revised as follows : Sub-section D; between buildings side-to--side, 20 feet.. Area B: The minimum separation be- tween buildings shall. be 35 feet. f. Sub-section 8 (Common open Space) ; this section shall be re- vised as follows: Area B: The Prea set aside for common open space shall be equivalent to 40% of the gross habitable area CA 81-16 & ZC 81-•15 January 19, 1982 Page 7 of the residential units. q. Exhibit B: This exhibit shall be revised to include a 10 foot planter area along the property line. 7 .0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval, to the City Council of Code Amendment No. 81-16 (Seabridge Specific Plan) by Resolution and subsequently by Ordinance subject to the following findings and with the revisions in the Specific Plan text as stated in Section 6 . 0. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission re- commend approval to the C,tty Council of Zone Change No. 81-15 subject to the following findings. i FINDINGS: 1 . The Specific Plan is in conformance with the City' s General Plan. 2 . The Specific Plan contains regulations necessary to implement specific policies set forth by the City Council for development of this site. 3 . The Specific Plan contains regulations which effectively mitigate adverse environmental impacts identified in EIR 81-3. ATTACRM�ENM: 1. Area Map 2. Seabridge Specific Plan (distributed previously) 3. Environmental Impact Report No. 81-3 9 . Letter from Mola Development Corporation dated January 8, 1982 5. Ordinance Gone Change No. 81-15) 6. Resolution No . 1282 (Seabridge Specific Plan) JRB:jlm i I I i F � 1 Minutes, H . B. Planning Commission January 19, 1962 Page 2 The Commissioners discussed the need for, at least, a seven ,Foot apron for the xron'.-entry garage for safety reasons . Commissioners did agree that the property owner should be entitl-:d to the same advantages of the newer residences being built. Commissioner Vpnefick stated that with the cost of housing, we need to make it possible for people to stay in their homes and remodel . A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAHAFFEY AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO OVEr*.ULE THE BZA DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-49 AND APPROVE SAME. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Porter, Mahaffey, Bannister NOES : Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher J ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO OVERRULE THE BZA DENIAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-49 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . Based on testimony presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing, the Commission has determined that exceptional circumstances do exist that would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity. 2 . The granting of Conditional Exception No. 81-49 would not con- stitute a special privilege inconsistent', with limitations upon properties in the vicinity . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The site plan received and dated January 14 , 1982, shall be the approved layout, except that the addition at the rear of the dwelling shall be permitted to encroach only to within eiqht (8 ) feet of the rear property line . I 2. The new garage addition will be equipped with an automatic: garage door opener. Said opener shall be installed and opera- ting prior to final. inspection. AYES : Porter, Mahaffey, Bannister, Kenefick NOES : Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN: None 'LONE. CHANGE NO. _81-1.5/CODE A.MENDMFNT NC. 81- 16 EI$��„1G. lmnl ::ant : � t o,la Develo pent _Corpc)ration -2- 1-19-92 - F. C.