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 (8)
I 121 Zone Changes Se-tbridge Specific Plan - Beach/Adams - EIR 81-3/ZC 81-15/CA 81-16 I I , I, y; ORDINANCE 110. 2606 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 930 REFERENCING SPECIFIC PLANS Tie City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended by adding thereto Article 930 entitled, "Specific Plans ," to read ae follows: 9300, SPECIFIC PLANS . The following specific plans are on file In the offAce of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : f (a) Seabridge Specific Plan. ...a (b) Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan . SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PISSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 day of..__F 1963. .+� Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Atto ey REVIEW AND APPROVEb: INITIATED AND APPROVED: at I • _7 City dm stra r -ctor ve opment Services ahb 1/26/8, (2) ' � 1 " • Ord. No. 2606 STUE OF CALIFOIU4IA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON bEACII ) 1 I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly rilected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Funtington Beech and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington DE+ach is seven; thit the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 71h day of Fiebruary 19JL _, and was again •ead to iaid City Council at a regular meeting thereof held an the 22nd__ day of February , 1983 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all tht, members of said City Council, AYES: Councilmen: Paltinson, MacAl l i s ter, Mandi c, Kelly I NOES : Councilmen: Thomas, Finely,_ Bailey ABSENT: Councilmen: None �I City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City i of Huntington beach, California I ..J � r s ORDINANCE NO . 2546 AN ORDINANCE OF7 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM C014MUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT , RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION , LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO- DUCTION, AND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIS'I'RICr , COMBINED WITH 01 OIL PRODUCTION TO SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF ADAMS AND EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD ( ZONE i CASE NO . 81-15 ) I WHEREAS , pursuant to the state Planning anti Zoning Law, the Huntingtan Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Coun-. il have had separate public hearings relative to Zone fCane No . 81-15 wherein both bodies have careful.ly considered all. information presented at said hearings , and after due con- sideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council , the City Counc{3. finds that such Lone change is proper, and consin- tent with the general plan , NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The following described sixty acres , more or less , of real property, generally located south or Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard, is hereby changed from C2 , "Community Business District, " RA-0 , "Residential Agricultural District, " combined with of ). production, R1-0 , "Low-density Residential District, " combined with oil. production; and R1-01 , " Low-density Resldential District , " combined with 01 oil production , to Seabridge Specific Plan : Parcels 1 and 2 in the city of Huntington ahb 1f6/82 1 . r Beach as per map filed filed in Book 154, paces 11 and 12 of Parcel Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County; and Parcel 3 In the city of Huntington Beach , as per map 11.ed in Book 41 , page 24 of Parcel gaps in the office of the County Recorder of said county. SECTION 2 . The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 906I , District Ma:; 13 (Sectional, Dis- trict clap 12-6--11 ) to reflect Zone Case No . 81-15 , described In Section 1 hereof . A copy of said district map , as amended hereby is available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall, take effect thirty days after its adoption . PASSED AND ADOP'PED by the City Counc.0. of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th ,-_ day of April 1982. r o Mayor _....� ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORti: I - City Clerk ' City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ` ` r' rector oC Devel.o ment'" City AdminI fret p Servtees r-- 2, , t / PLANNJNG ZONING DM 13 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 12 --6w11 . , fMf ITY •'•r•1^ r 1• IM ofH-1 •. • rtt• •w Lr.a •f.+•rw •-• •••+• II •r C OF J•{ . { •.f1 ,1{. •• •.r• ••. • •• t t ••r i '� N• BEACH � r IJ '.• t 1 '• 7♦' �l a�I1•'a••va�ar HUNTINGTON . ••113 ' • 1 '�� •! i.}I t:L� gPIMa !I..•,M.•.'f•M• 1 ! •• �• • 1.9• J•+ ��� moo... {rrl •w• •row rt••rr ! • It .. 011ANGF , COUNTY, CA1.1FORNIA •;.: _.... L...... ..•... AY[tVt)LD BY ZONE CASE' 7 {t nil owrr� •c.r a•�� rrw• �•••{+ m 1•l,H,,t,7.Trl.t37,J{•.!0\ixs+1,MI,all.�.a.l3,.!•••1{•{7••4 •{ ••r!•{i ,7lc war, 4IItw1 a• 17. � r.T �,7!.I;,• it r,7i-04!r6b:711.••• , q H .H r• r 7 • a n, taArr ••t,•••a of 19" l AOAtus -- rrt0/01 �•___1 l_ i RAt1 tl� RI RI_ ,t RI / �"fh �,i�� t .t ! / , O�p�" RI q, R, RI 1, RIt. RI Rl� f f Iq� �' R1'� •1 1i I ��s RI RI �r ' R1 r RI RI All L ._J I z / RI ! RI t I RAu1 /j �rltl R1 `• RI fWTZ • .. Fa, RI URt RI R1 Owl t• F` RI tit RI kI • , ` a l �t'..�t•JfcCF.R'! RI f RI Do $ RI j sit ' �r R1-Q R, ' r�- ." Rf ____ . --- CF_E (' . R l r l RI f i R R I • ' •� R I r =� Gz O, Jal At RI a �. RI / RI , `u•r1 'I f� RI --, ,j ! �j tt•A �RI �JII II� I I � RI rCF•R RI RI * , I ,; �•� L.' ll. j11 • JA RI RI �pi � !, _._•.{a. r . • Rt --.J L Li I FI ; F�1 1 �►tir.� Rt R � RI In.,a'A,ts_rt RI RI CI r..� _..�._. .. __�.� •� _..._._ �._._ _ At ! I ...,a• r , f Y I CF-E tw , - R1 „I Fit 1 RI RI At fit y R1 { t ' •� At I �Ij f RI L... ;xl.._J► 1 ; Rf RI RIID !11 t Ct �( J sit •ram I p $rd. No. 2546 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTIN(MfON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the Whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the forern ing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the , 15th day of March 19_.Q2 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th _ day of April 19 82 , and Was passed and adopted by the affirmative vota of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: nouncilmen: MacAllister. Finley. Mandlc, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinsen, Bailey .�4/"o City Clerk and ex-officio Cleric of the wit Council of the City Y of Huntington Beach, California i I ORDINANCE 140 . 2550 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 13 TO INCORPGRATE SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held a public hearing on Seabridge Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report No . 81-3 or! January 19 , 1982 which was continued to February 2 , 1982 , and concluded on February 17 , 1982 ; and Adoption of Seabridge Specific Plan , covering sixty acres more or less, located south of Adams Avenue arid east of Beach Boulevard, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit.- A , is the most desirable method of providing regulated development of the area included within said specific plan in accord with the objectives set out in such specific plan ; and On March 15 , 1982 , after notice duly given, hearing was held before this Council on Seabridge Specific Plan and Environ- mental Impact Report No . 81 -] , and the Council find. that Such specific plan is necessary for the orderly, regulated development of the real property included within Seabridge Specific Plan, and finds that the policies and procedures set out in such specific plan are satisfactory and in agreement with the general concept as set out in the city ' s General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : 1 . District Map 13 of the Huntington Heath Ordinance Code is hereby amended to incorporate Seabridge Specific Plan . I � 1 . I I 2. Seabridge Specific Plan , attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved , and copies of such specific plan shall. be maintained ror inspec- tion in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of _ , 1982 . �LCC Mayor _ ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM : City Clerk � _ City Attorney 4 REVIEWED AND APPROVED- INITIATED AND APPROVED: 71 City Admin, strato Lrector of evelopment Services ,J ,rd No 2550 STATE OF C11IFORNIR ) CnuNTY OF ORANGE ) se CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1 , ALTCIA M. WESMORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the Cite Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Euntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of March 19 82 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5t h day of April _ , 19 82 and Was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council . AYES : Councilmen: MacAllister, Fi OU, Mandic, , Kelly NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: Patti nson. Bailey City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hurtington Beach, California r •• 0 RESOLUTION 110 . ;095 A RE.S0LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINOTON BEACH ADOPTING SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN (BEACH/ADAMS) iJHEREAS , aftc-�% notic? duly given r.ursuant to G; vernment Cote section 65500, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearing on "'eabridge Specific Plan onJanuary 19 , 19R2 which was continued to February 2 . 1 Q82 , and concl udea on February 17 , 1982 ; and Such specific plan provides !'or Ievelopment within a 60 - acre site, located south of Adams Av,--.ue and east of Beach Boulevard; and On March 1 , 1982 , after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65507 , 11,-L1ving was held before this i - Council on Seabridge ;specific Plan , and the matter Having been cons Jered, the Council fi ;ds that such specific plan is consis- tent with the ci ty ' s general. plan , and would not be detrimental to the general. health , welfare , safety and convenience of pe.r.9ons working or res.ld tng in the immediate v is ini ty; and The Pl anninr Commission has recommended adoption of the .S eabridge Specific Plan to this Council. , NOW , THEIIEFORE, BF IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that Seabridge Specific Plan , as incor- porated in the document attached hereto , and by this reference made a part hereof , is hereby adapted . PASSED AND ADOtPTED by the Ctty Council. of the City or Huntington Beach at a -egular meeting thereof held on the 15th day ofMarch _ 1982. AIT I .ST leel Z_ ..� Mayor city a ht) 2/19/82 1 . ti REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: d Ad Ci. y AttornPyity IIJITIATED AND APPROVED: irecto o Develop.nent Services i II �• 1 Res. lio. 5095 STATE 01' CALIFORNIA ) COLMM: OF OitA.tiCE CITY OF 111MIMTON, BEACH I , ALICIA M. WENTtdORTH , the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of huntington Peach, and ex-offi.cio Clerk of the ` City Council of said City, do Ferehy certify that the whole ii=.ber of members or the Ctty Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; . that the foregoing resolution was prised and adopted by the ufflrinat'ive vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting tocreof held on the _J�Jtl. _ y d F. of March _ � , 1��? by the following vote.: AYES- Councilmen: MacAllister, Pattinsnn, Finley, Bailey, MFidic. Kelly NOZS : Counciltwn: Thomas I _— Amur: Counc i lmnn Bone City Clerk and ex-officio C?tsrk of the City Council of the City of Ilintingtoil bra.-11, Cal,ifo►als REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ION fit@ Fc:bruarV 1- 8 , 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council !yuhmittedby: Charles 11. Thompson , City Adrninistrati (f, i Pre�wred by: James W . Fal i n , Director of Dev`lc.pment Services -w Subject: 'LONE CHANGE. NO . 81-15/CODE rVfEND.',1ENT NO. 81-16/1^N rR0NMFNTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 81-3 ( SE ADRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) . Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternctive Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration are code amendment and zone change applications which would establish a specific plan, on 50± acres of property located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Cominission and staff recommend that the City CounciI certi : , EIR 81- 3 , approve Cork' Amendment 81-16 by resolution and Zane Change 81-1. 5 pursuant to the attached crdi.nance . ANALYSIS : e plir_ant : Mola D: velopment Corporation 808 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92699 Location : The subject site is located south of Adams Avenue and cast, of Beach Boulevard . ReCuest : F. zone change and code amendment which woulr, establish a specific plan on the subject site . Planning Co.0 . ission Action on February 2 ,__ 1982 : ON MOTION BY MAHAFF EY AND SECO'NO BY KENEFiCK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 W S CERTIFIED AS BEING ADEQUATE FOR RECOP'UMENDAT:ON 'r0 THE: CITY COUNCIL , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTP.- AYES: Ke:nef i.ck , Paone , Winchel.l , Porter , Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Scliumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None Plannlnv Commiseion Action on February 17 , 1982 : ON MOTION BY PORTOR AND SECO14D BY KENEFICY ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15 � WAS APPROVED FOR NrCOMtMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNC.TL FOR ADOPTION Page 2 BY TIS':.' FOr r,owiNG `'11"T . : AYES ck , I-, inche11 Porwr, Paono , :.ih:ffey NOES : Schum'-i.her. ABSENT : Banni too ABs,r,,IIJ ON MC,'rIO`1 BY POR'I'Ef; AND SECOND Ii'c' Ff:►.lE.F'_C'ir CODE. AIIENDMEWr NO. 81- 16 WAS APPROVED FOR F2r.CO:•Lti1I :JUA'►''Ii)fJ TO 'I'NF: CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION iY RESOIX T ICN (RESOLUTION NO. 1282 ) , SY THE FOLI.OWIN v(;'rE : I AYES ,. Rene f ick, Ili rrchn 11 , Por(= , P`nlie , '•I;nha f fC.: NOES : Schu;n3c he r ABSENT: Bann ist_er- ABSTAIN : hon•2 DISCUSSION- Ire June, 1981 , the City Council aclopted Land Use Element Amendment Nc . 81-L ehanoi.nci the General Plan designation on the subject proper t y from Resource Production , General. Commercial, and L-)w Density Residen- tial tc Planned Community and directed that this designation bey im- plementer: through the development of a specific plan . The City Council approved the General Plan Axrcndment subject: to five policies intended to guide develonnient of the specific plan. The five Fool is i.es are stated in the attached January 1.9 , 1962 Plannin:,i Conu7ission staff re- port. The Seabrielc}e Sl,ecif ir. Plian w-is prunared by the, apf.ili.cant aria submitted to the Depa ri:ment of Devel.onment Services for review. City staff pro- vided to the applicant general qu idel ines per t.� i n ir.g to the development of the specific p1dT1 prijr to the conuanenc.e',':`� nt. cl work oii the dCt "urlent . An environmental impact r. pporL (EIR 61- 3 ) was pt•epiircd , a:,sessinci the draft specific plan document- ar:rl a site plan for development of the property (see env ' rc)nr•.l+_rltaI status) . The EIR pre--�,c:rlt.i cl C�f:'t.111E.'CI tiS`iE'SS" dent of thu exisciri:i onvironro2rital scatting , the project , project- related impacts , alternatives , and int or.,Ie d t_o mit.iq.ete advorse er.%,Ironmerital impact. . Fie.t►• i.ngs were h�.-:ld by t*n fllannin(: Cor.missi.on ern the pzojc-.ct at its January 1.9, Febr•u,ary 2, :tr.e:'. Feh;-u. ry 17 , 1982 rec;ular ime-et.incis . At the ; February 2 meeting , thi_ F, r R was recommended for certification and the specific document: wilt► (-iven an irl-depth r-e'View by the Planning Coinnis- sion. A list of 29 concerns was compiled from the Planning C'orriission ' s testimony . These concerns are a&.Irusserl by th,� app-.- iccant i -i the.' attached letter dated, '-c-Druary 10 , At the February 17 Flanninq Cori. ission mcetinq , the applicant ' s re- sponses to the issur�; id#zntified b-, the Planning C:or mission at the Frbru�zry ? mv.�!tiny e.crf, pre%s ,nted . The Coc;ur,i ; .ion ceancurred with tl,�� r(.2visiong sugq(I !;Led I)y the. applicant. and stated sorrC' uldit_ ion.il con - c urns which lizAv e bcen responded to in the a t t.-:che:3 letter subm i t LeI by the ippl irant cl it.f-e. F0)roary 111 , 1982.. The, .. ppl c--. n h.is al:-o sub- C1 pa.,e 3 mitted a revised specific plan document which incorporates all oi, the rovision5 Ur,."vio'u sly `iuggest(!1'J by stai:C and th(: Planning Com- i?1I EN'1 I R0N%1EN'1'..L STATUS Environntunta'L Impact Report No . 81 - 3 prop: ic3r; ; an assessmorct of th,:! proposed specific plan and dc!ve loprnent plkir.s for a 74 -1-un i L residen- tial project on the site . Thy- .residlential proj.2ct. is subject to the approval. c-f tentati•re tract. .1 cor.;litional :use pormi ;. applications by tht� PIanning Cormiss:.on. Prior to taking action on the code Sr-i�Cific and zorio change - pig l ; :- tons , the City COu^cll. must dete°rriine that.. the! environrio- ntal .im,pact report is ad(2gUate and conforms with the re- quirements of the California Environmental Quality -NCt and State ETR guidelines . The Pl.anniny Commission , at its February 2 , 198 hearing , recoinmen-Jod that the City Council find the ETR as being adequate anal in conformance with CEQA . in the attached letter dated February 16 , 1982 the State Department of Fish and Game claims that the City I s responso to they i.r comments expressed in a letter dated December 29 , 1991 iG inad�iyuate by stand- ards of CEQA. Spec .ificaily, the nepartment. of Fish and Game cites a recent court decision. (Cleary vs . County of Stanislaus) which requi.es that comments received by a Lead Agency be responciod to in detail giving reasons why specific comments and SU:J�3elSLiOnS were not accepted and statincr factors of i.mporLance war.-ranting ar. overrides of the sugge s t i0ris; . i On February 25 , 1982 City staff met with representf:itivel of the State Department of Fish and Game arid State Of ice of Planning and Research to d i.scuss the City ' s response to Fish and Goame ' s comments . 7t was agreed that thn City �.�oul d reorganize and expand its response to emphasize more clearly the reasons c.,hy specific suggestions con- tained in the! Department of Fish and Game ' s cor,_m, rnt_s we:•e' not acceptpd . The- Ci t y ' s reviseld", response to Fish and GafTt' ' s corT:lt ents is attached . FU"DfNG SGURC'E Not applicable . AI.rERNATIVE ACTION - Alternatives available to it-he City Council reva rcl ing the propos-:�d specific plan area to deny the appl ica Lions or modify provisions con- tained within this specific plan document in any manner det:,med appropriate by the Council. . SUPPORT.INC INF'OR.'-TA 'ION : 1 . Area Map 2 . Planniinn Coru,ii._;sion Fib. 17 , 1SI82 staff: report anti minute 3 . Planning Commis on Feb . 20 1.9821 stiff report :end minute 4 . Planning Commission Jan . 19 , 1987 staff report an l minutes 5 . Ordinance ( ?.one, Ch .inde 81 - 15) b . Resolution No . 1282 (Seabridge Speci.f.ic Plan) 7 . Letters from Mola Development CorporLlt.ion dated January S , February 10 , and February 18 , 1982 B . l?IR 91- :3 9 . Letter received and dated Feb. 18 , ?9a2 10 . Let-ter from State Department of Fish and dated Feb . 16 , 1982 11 . Ci.ty ' s response to Stair, Department of Fish and Gamo ' s comments 12 . Final EIR 81--3 JWP :JRB: d f I 1 r s� . � 1 1 i �1f_J -*�0;1 I 1 _J n, I+1 C IL Rl Li R' ii i t71 �^ _!•s,.. .�S �. r _i.�s� ¢!.¢�I.� y! - o ..f, t �- L...,,t• ,r ..,. _. —�J�I I ---- -' _ �.: jI RI I RI t' c! `�:_''�---�h ! LL Rl --_ --I--__-"A _"�1-ZC• .�-� 1 � jji^Rt �.� �-C i •�/ t DrS`�,C t Z f "n i`-� // R f-Q 1 A' R I ►�! F, ' •r I j.rJ qL Ali Rl A 1 i.0!f_ `"y ; 0 n.... ,' i =�2-L 1 ♦ 1 �?,! I :.•�zl ,�.�.--J ;-- i I L �� Fes.^.".'(:l� Ri i R Rr� _ , '�-•�•Q---S—"�I� _) 1 �� 117' �•(._.ya.—=--�;J � r �•, �f1 ( ' { R r � I ��t I• Jr1- t� ^� f 1^ -{-AIL //% ' � -�,s/:l'�-R� Rt �•. i ff----'- �� � L_. I_. Jf{1 s �`� 1 /r•� W ((}} �� � n_. NI P! LL} ;I Cs + d ; `^ Pi �►� Al ;'j �� ;i r R� �-�y __ =/j /r r � J•`___-��_-- ---R---�'- ,,I �— � � R, //�. ,I 'C:D''j •3�` rSFC C ��"�. —; i r • o IL Rr F�LAN� U •M}I v I •r - --� 11 - t_ y. 1_rL - -� RI �I R! i --�' 1,� r rar=�;- , r 1 RI°••f 11`-— -�-�- �` �� I ��. P.] �; -. r , j~ � �1r1���• k 1�( s �t! ! ' 'l ..r. ` '-'•,,. - _L R RI Ell - r: _tin__) Fi ° r r ovi pi Ll 40 RA-D. RA-0l . RI -D.R1-01XZ 7-0 SEAMIDU SPECIFIC PLAN .�r MUNTFNGTOM BEACH PLANNING DIVISION tfu%li-Lh.�la{_.t `_ - `''' huntingtdn beach clevelopm#At S@fYiCQS ciepttirtrrt@nt STAf f _. R IE O RT.. .. - - .._..�......�...__._...�._...._._.. r" TO: Planning Coirmlission .'R0M Development Services DATE: January 19, 1982 1 I Z 0 N E CF1ANGr NO _81. 1 5/COZY--- REPORT Na . 81 - 3 _ ,AF?PLrC`=�t1'',' irlola !`,:vclopr-,.ent Corp. DATE ACCEP'i' --D 80:3 Adems Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 9264e Gecer: `7r 1 , 19n1 i REQUEST To permit a chan�ia i n i:, ,';DA'iG_?l� f i�0C c�SSTNG [)ATE : Zone from R ^�-O, R1-01, PA-U, 60 c7"f s fror, certification RA•-C1 an-3 C2 to Seabr idge of tr final FIR Sp;-ci f is Plan . ZIME : F:1 -0, R 1 -01 , RA-00 LOCAT__►N 5ubjec.t properties are RA -01 anti C2 locat:•-�d uri the southeast GF,,:_i•:RA1. PLAN) ,-c;rner of I-dims Avenue Ii 1. 3n,^,�ii�CGrr;;��n r. t}• r and Beach nou 1 e-va rd . ACRF'A0 60•� -� E:} ISTIi:�� USE : Vac-a n t;VCSC-)tircc Proct.icr i on 1 . 0 .,GCGF_STF.D ACTION : Staff recommends that the Plannincl Commission reconviend to the Ci t}- 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 . Stiff further recommends that the Commission ;ecommend to the Council that FIR No. 81--3 be certified as adequate -.ind in conformance with tr,• State FIR Guidelines . 2 .0 GFNFRAI, INFORMATIO',3 : I Code tLnertdii:ont- No. 18- 16 and Zone Change No. R1 - 15 would establish a Spec i ` ic 111.�in on 60 f acres of proper t'y locatt-d south of Adam, r OL v Nwe CA 81-16 & zC 81- I5 January 19 , 1982 Page 2 �. Avenue and east of Beach Boulevdrd . In June, .1981 , the City Council adopted Land Use Element ;, endment No. 81 - 1 ch,_:nc;i nil th,• Genel ,.j 1 Plan designation on the property from Resourco Production , General Comtr,nrcial and Low Density Residential to Planned Community, and directed that this designation be implemented through the development uE a Specific , plan . The City Council approved the General Plan Ar,crid-enu subject to the following policies intended to guide dove lopn,or.t of the spociEi c plan . 1 . The arf.a east of the flood control chann%, l aJjacenL to the exi.stitiu single farnily residential tracts be of a low density residential design with an adequate setback to buffer the two project 2 . The area east of and immed Lately ��:ij��cent to, the floor! �_or:t:rol channel be- of a medium density resident. ial de.-, icln . 3 . All units east of the flood control channr!l b, clustered to allow for a maximum arr.ount of open space, total Unit,-, not to exceed 400 east of the channel . 4 . The area west o the flood control channel h- of a high density residential desic.,n . This concept should ti 'c:eadvantage of the natural topography for develop:iient and siniu l t�snenusl y rre.serve the pondin area i.n a natural state. _ 5 . Residential units be clustered throuclhot:t. the project area which wc.uld also accown!c-date the continuation. of resourr_t. production activities . Total units for tht- ov_•rall prrcje-c � not to exceed 800 . The Seabridge Specific Plan. (distributed wait pro:!Pared by the applicant and submitted to the_ City for- rfaview . City staff pro- vided to they applicant genera] guiOe1 i. 11C:i pert_axri.ir;k.i to thst developir,'_nt of a Specific Plan prior to commonc.e,mzent of wort: on t'he docu;rcent . An Envi.rortm.- ntai Impact Report. (Erf2 81 - 3 ) w;- s p.relst-irt26 asset,sing the draft Specific Plan document and a site plan for dcrvelol:mr.nc of they site ( see Section 4 . 0 Fnvironwental Status) . • ht'! Frf; presents,, a detailed assessment of the existing environmental settinci , the pvoject , project-related impAc: ts, alternatives and mea �ture-s intend#.!d to adverse env ironme, t a l impact .; . i C S Ur•12-V"\ 12' OF' ISSUES : The: major issuv!; of concern rega-dirig Code Aoienclrr.rnt ;:o . 81 - 16 (5c ,- bridrie Spe(-if .i c Plan) and 'Zone Change No . 81- 15 ar. (2 as Eoll.ows— 1 . Whither the proposed project .is in confor.wace with tho City ' s General Plan . � CA 81 --1 h b Z C 81-15 � ."• January 19, 1982 Page 3 �1 2 . 4het_her the proposed proje-t is c-ansistent with the policies adopted by the City Council to provide guidedance, for the de- velopment of a specific plan . 3 . Whether the propo:;al incorporates mitigation measurez presented in EIR 81-3 . 4 . 0 SURROUNDr;JG I,AND__USF.S, ZQNIN(; AND GF.NFRA_i., PLAN DESIGNP..T10!4 : Subject Properttvv : GENERAL, PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Comrmunit,, ZONE : RA-01. , R1-0, R1-01 , C2 LAND USE: Vacant/oil production facilities South of Subject P � �e►-t� GF,IERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Corunercial/Low Density Residential ZONE : C2/R1 LAND USE: Comierc?al/single family residential. West of Subject Property: 40 GtNF.Ri,L, PLAN DESIGNA,'rr0'I : Medium Density Residential ZONE: Cold Town Specific Plan LAND USF: Single family horses North of Subject Prc_�rt_y_ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial,/Low Density Residential ZONE: C2,/R 1 LAND USE: Ccmn,erci.al /sing1c £am:.ly residential � East of Subject Pro ) -.---I GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Low Density Residential ZONE : Ri LAND USE: Single family homes 5 . 0 F:h'V rRON,�tFN'-I. STATUS : In July, 1981 , the r)evel.opi►jant Services Department was requested by the Mo.la Development Corporation to waive the initial study process and proceed directly to the preparation of an EIR for the projer, t . They environmental consulting firm of EDAW, rncorporated was engaged to prepare the EIR . EIR 81 - 3 p, ov i�los an assessment of the proposed specific plan and 0development pl .-ins for a 7.1.1 -unit residential project on the site . 11 draft FIR WAS pi-c.p,ared and distributed to pub is age.•ncies and indi— .a vic, aaLs for a 45-ddy review poriod ending .Tanuary 4, 1982 . CA 81- 16 b ZC 81-15 January 19, 1982 Page 4 The enclosud final EIR which consists of the draft EIR, comments and re -:orn.mendations received on the draft EIR, a list of persons , organi.- zations and public agencies con+menting on the- draft FTR, and the City ' s re'suonsLs to the significant environmental points raised during the rrvie%q and consultation procv,ss. Prior to hiking Diction on the Code tUnendrnent (Seabridre. Specific Flan) and Gone Change applications, the Planning Con;rnission must determine that the Envirormiental Impact Report is adequate and confor;.,s with re-• quirernents of the California cnviren ,e✓ntal Qu-- '. .ity Act and State EIR Guidelines . 6 . 0 A►7ALYSIS : The Se3bridge Specific Plan was prepared by the applicant with consul- tation from Development Services Department staff and the EIR consul- tant . The Specific Plan contains r•ecjulations which will implement policies appl ied specifically to this site by the City CCounci l 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 orie docucreent tailored to the needs of this particular site . The Specific Plan divides thc! site into two areas - Area A located i east of the flood control channel and Area 8 located west of the flood cont:rcl channel . Thp. development standards for Area A provide for this construction of up to 400 attached residential unit.i of medium and low density design . Sub-area Al as delineated on Exhibit A, of tho Specific Plan , contains provisions for a reduced building height envelope requiring a lower building height (maximum 25 feet) and greater seatbdc:k from adjacent single fiamily homes for all nnit.s located alone the south and east property lines . The: applicant pans to de- velop Area A in its entirety with 400 one and twee-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 within the~ project . If Sub--arena 91 is develc,ped commercial, the Specific, Plan rt�qu i res th-it the total numl.�er of residential units allowed in Ar ed 9 be rechiced to 350 . Presently, the applicant plans to develop Area B (exclusive n ` Sub-are:, 131 ) with 344 units .located xn sev i a 1 structclrt.!S uC) to four stories in height over parking garage:s . 'i hR! SEie:ci f is P i.in re(pil atlons provide for an open space concept which includes extensi,ve l:indscaping with specimen trees and ponds located throuethotit_ the, interior of the development . Exhibits providing for rlreC i f i c t:rodtntont of setbacks and visual screening are contained CA 81-16 & 2C 81-15 `� v January 19, 1982 Page 5 within: the Specific Plan text. A natural salt water marsh desiclnr-.d to the standards delineates; in ExhibiL D of the Specific plan will be developed on the site to mitigate tht: immediate loss of a degraded coat. to l m::rsh habitat area within and surrounding an existing pond . The Spec-ifIc Plan provides that existi.nc, resource product-ion arena: be deeded to Hie homeowners association and deve:lopod an part of their permanent common open space when all oil prcduct�inn activity has A speciol int-_•rest boar ing account %,ith fund;; initi�illy deposited by the applicant, ;+ill he established in the name of the homeowners asso- ciation foc eventual improvement of the resoUrce production areas . The staff has conducted a detailed review of the draft 5pecif. ic Plan document and is reco -mending the following chances, many of which have been agreed to by the applicant (see ,attached letter. frorn ,•Sola De- velopment Corporation dated January 8 , 1982) . 1 . Page 1 , Section *A, rntent and _ Purll�jse. Cho ngc: title from "Intent and. Purpose" to "Purpose' , _ _ 2 . Add a c.'er".initi.ons s%.-ction to the: Specific Plan text . 3 . Pace 2 , Section A4 . Tho portion of this which is i n paren� thesis shall be placed as a footnote at the bottom of the page . 4 . Pace 3, Section C, Environmental _AF-se ;sment . This section sh i_il be deleted Errm the reoort: . 5 . Exhibit A, Referenc,�- t-lap . They rW,p sh,:il l b(.? rOvi sQd to i r.cl ade the following : a . The s trects opposite the main entries will be Shown on tht: inap . b. The drilling islands and thc: main; of'f- i Bland wells will be shown on thp map . c. The rc-doce-1 bu i ld i nc, height envelope: shall. be clari f ie.:i . 6 . Rigc. 7 , Section f,, L1c�:cL.1.�2t_���tiQG. This section shall be re- wri tter, a.,; Eollows : All (ievelonrnent within the Specific Plan area conform to all Eedera ) emergency rranacsement agencie, ( F'EMA ) flood protection subject to approval of the City Director of Public Nlorkr ; . 7 . F)a;lei 8, Sect i on G, Tre, f f is Control . The :iec-ond paragraph shall 5,, re v i scud to re.id a�; E�?To•�., c`��'I'Ei�� developer shall provide for the future inst�c; lation of any such improvemonts prior to the ins+.anc_c• of L�uilrling pc-rmit5 . 8 . pa" I . 8 Sot:t. ion K, Trant': it. Fa iI iti �'. s . Provi .ilon, within this see:t ic+n ,h•: t 1 be roe , t t,c,'.1 to �includ;, review by both the llepart ir.�nt: ( G r CA 81- 16 S IC 81- 15 January 19 , 1982 Page 6 of e?ublic Works and the Orange County Transit Distrlct . 9 . Page 9, Section T. HYdroloo,L1. Provisions in thisSection shall be 11 revised to include: review by Moth t'ie Department. of F,ublic Works _ 3nd the Department of Development Service, . 10 . Page 9 , Section L,, Perimeter Buffer . The list sentence shall be revised to read as follows : The final landscape plan sh.al l be approved by the Department of Derverlopmerit Services . 11 . Page 10, Section M, Resource Production A4-e:ias . Sub- section i shall be revised to read es follows; The areas presently de5iq- nated fpr resource production shell be deeded to the Association at; part of the permanenL common open space when 311 oil production activity has ceased . SuLsection 3 shall be revised to read as follows : Oil production activity s`,all be in compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance: Code. Sub-sr!ction 5E shall be revised as follows : The area east of the flood control channel (Area A) shalt be approved according to the preliminary landscape plan: submitted with the application fear. de -Flopment . 12 . Page 11 . Section 0, Develovmz� . t Standards . r ' a . Sub.-suction 1 (users permitted )tted ) shall. be rt--vised a:, follows :: A footnote shall be: added to Strh-sections A and 8 to indicate that. oil production within the oil drilli.ncl islands on Exhibit A shall comply with provision:; o[ tht -01 district (Article 969 ) of the, Huntington Deach Ordinance Code ii-,d than areas de,iigmited as off -island well sites shill be subject- to the re',,uirements of the "0" di.:strict: (t,rticle 968) of the Elunt i ncc ton Bach Or d i va rice Co(!,! . b. Sub--section 3 Mai ldimj fleir;ht ) ; this section shall hE: revised as follows : Area 13 -- f. ivc storie��s or 60 :ear_ t . I C . Sub-suction 4 (Site Coverage- ) ; tlii :; .:ecLion sl:al ! be revi: erd as follow, : Area A - 45 m cf net acre_t,wet ; Areli 50': of net- acre.j;le . I d . Sub--sectior. 5 (Pcrimietev Setback) ; the la:.t. sentence shal 1 be revised to read as follows : This rec•liiir-ei,ient shall not apply to entry mc►nu;tints, landscape: feature:.; and. structures intended for safety sir public u.,,e . e . Sub,secrion 6 (Hutldinq Sepirdtion arid this section shall be :evi se: d as follow,; : Sub-s ,ct i on D; between buildings side- to-side, ?0 feet . Area F3 : he mi ni:,iurn seoaration bc- tweer: buildings Shell be 35 feet . f . sub-section 8 (Comn,)r: Open Space) ; this ,c.-t- ion shall bc, rc►- vised pis follow:, : Aro,j f3 : They are,i set. .aside:- for eorumm open spacer sl•a;e 1 1 be Cr;u i va 1 ,,rit to 40, of the; habitable area CA 81-16 b 7.0 81-1 5 January 19, 1982 Page 7 0 of the residential units . 9• Exhibit A : This exhibit shall be revised to include a 10 foot planter area along the: property line . 7 . 0 RECLIMUMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning? Commission r. ecc-r,-�,ier,6 apprcva t to the City Council of Code Amendment No . 81--16 (Seabridge Specific Plan) by Resolution, and subsequently by Ordinance subject to the fo to-win findings and with the revisions in the Specific Plan tent ,as st✓:tcd 1.11 Section 6 . 0. staff also recommends that the Planning Commission re- commend approval to the City Cou11C'i 1 of Zane Change, No . 81 _ 15 st:5 j ec t. to the following findings . FINDINGS: 1 . The Specific Plan is in conformance with tht.- City ' s Genordl P1,3n . 2 . the sped., ic Flan con;gins regulations ne:cess,iry to i�nple,�� nt specific policies set forth b�. th:; City Council for development of this site . ewt 3 . The SpecificPlan conti3ins re:gulatiorts which effectively ri:iti:tatt� adverse tai impacts idanti hied in EIR 1 --? . ATTACf-VIENTS : 1 . Arua Map 2. Seabridoc, Specific Plan (distributed pL-ewi u.sIy) :3 . Environr,F!ntal Impact_ Report No . 81- 3 4 . L�•tter from Mola Development. Corporation datt'd ,70[Mary 8, 1982 5 . Ordinance (?.one Change Na . 81.- i5) 6 . Resolution No . 1282 ( Seabr. idge Specific Plan) topo '1 `1 r mute-, / fi . H . PI innlnq, Commission January 1q , 1982 Pall I � The Corvi,-ssioncrs di:icussed the riced for, a - least, a seven fc;IJt at)r-url for the front-entry garage for safety reasons . Cohan i ss i i.,ners did .igreu that the property owner should be- •ant i t ! e�: to t! e SamF: advant,igou of the rmr-,or rebidences beLng built . Cor,jrlssiomc.-r F'��mc:fick stated that with the cost of housing, we. need to ;1:ake it possi6ie for people to stay in their hoales and remodel . A !ic),rION WAS MADE BY MIMAFFE:Y AND SEC0NDED 11Y BANNISTER To QVF.F:RULE THE BZA DENTAL OF coriDrrTONAJ_ 'EXC1rPTION 81 - 49 AND APPROVE: S.z,�1 :, THIS MOTEON PAIL.( 1.1Y ':'H : FOLLOWING VOTE : AYrti : Porter , MahaEfevf Bannistcr NOES : Ke_nefick, Wi riche 11 , Schur icht:r AHSEN'I': Paone ABS),"IA I'J : No nt✓ tit •-' T ►� 7 f: Arty SFc:t4)lJQFC� H rj . �..� r A, nc ON WAS .���D . 11'1" is� .E. � � .NLN 1 � DER TO GVEF rRU ., : rf;r ©Zl�. GENIAL AND APt Z()'.'T: CONPITIO AL F.XCE:71TI"ON NO . H 1-y9 W!'I'H Tfl�: FOLLO INN] :r.`IDTtiGS AND CONDI"•roNS , BY THE F'C?LLOt•i.1,NG VQ^_':: : 1 . Based on t.e ,t iviony to the P' .mn , nrl COW.MLSSLur; ;, t �:ht_ nUh ! zc hearLn-,) , tht-' Cor-mi ,:zsir)!! has u�'te rrr: LrtE �i thr.• t_ exception,ii c i rc!irr._:ti,irlc_c ; do t:�:: L :,f test w,)u ld deprive t.:he subject property O : r1:1':1 C•nc' t'(: ?QI �)P l7t) �': =1C''Jr)e't't; Lt_' ; 1 (� �: C1f: 'iLC , n1tl . 2 . Tht, O: Fat:opt i nn 3 i - ` 9 wou l :1 not con- ytLt,C1~e' : VL inconsiz;t.-mt_ with limitdtior:i Lq)on in tht� 1 . 'I't:•�, Site � ti c , an3 , 11 b the approved layclut , i x v-ot th.zt the Cidditior, at the r►ur r), the lbw -- Ll inq shall be pttrmi. tte-i to encroach only to 'within. eight (8 ) f o: the r"e:_tir proporty ling' . i 'I'h�� r1c"w ;•;_T�:�c ddit ,e.ri will be e'qulppvCl wL. t.1r an autornc-1t: iC � .;ar3(I•� door opelixr .. Saiei �opt4n•�r shall b` installed and opera-- ti. r,r prior to final .111spectlon . i,Yl:;i ; is _,rtez-, �1a1�'raf fi'y , Rann : ste': , i:Cnt.'c iC� %-, r1chell , schulnscher . �r,, �• ,•11��� � ,f. �,� � � 1 _, ! r, 't �i rL'�l.�V'-�'�.._'�•'. !J(�J..__U i ! is�'� C� _ aC',��_u. l�1_---• ... • t a M1nUteS, H . B . Planning Commission january 19, 19t' ? Page 3 A code arr.endrnent whim establisi.es a Specific Plan setting forth development eritevia for 60+ acres at property loeat_;,d at the south- east cornet- or Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, and a r f.►►quest-_ to change the zoning, an the: iubjeet property from C2 (rrrrirnurnity Rusi- nes s District ) , RA-0 (Residential Agricultural District combined with oil productions) , Rz,-OI (Residential Agricultural District com- bined with oil production) , R1-0 (Low Density Residential combined with oil production) , r nd R1 .-01 (Lori Dens.itl lies District cornbine:' with oil production) to Seabriage Specific flan. Also con- sidered was Final S►iv i ronmental Impacs_ 17o . 81.-3 which asseswes the envIronmental effects of the code amendment and the zone chanoe . Jim Barnes introduced Mr . Charles P.ilcher to the ::omviission who gavF: an oral report or the highlights or the FIl? wr,ir. h h.i,s cor��T:,any, FT`AW, Inc . , prepared . Chairman Winchull op►'ned Chu public: hearinq . Frank Mola , the appli - cant-, gave a prepared t-ined pre leritatic:: of the: p'coject . Richard Harlcw also spoke in favor or approVinr; th,.� EIR along with the zor:r, change and -. -ide zimenciment . They f o i lowi ncl persona spoke t n cppa.s i tier: to t1:e cc'rt if :cation r f the F?K anJ tht approvd.I of: the zone ch jr. je and c:o;.!e a!oencirr,er.t- : Da.: L t ,p i , Re.5 er.t_ Jim Y.ee_' f , R0:- ..ider.L ;lohn t-orclono , Res i r en t' irwi.n of L'r.viror mic.-ntal F',oard f•t1 Rc :•°� 1J: Re_:irlent The train i s:sut'-s r:A i jed in t hl! test imony t3g1 nS t dFlprovs l 'WC'L t? as f o.l 10.41 1 . rrnnulc: t: at' 161' 0 r:e4 resident:: in the urea with 80 t this figure was q u,_,st. toria'd ) k:'lemT ntary ,c}tool children enteving the lociil school dLSiXi��•t . It was brought Lo the � t*er:Lton of the Corn-- w,). ssiori :Pec! 'rsrnn l~lementd:-v Sclioz�l 1•i34i recently closed . Low •, of par 4 1 jr; .? and o,et1and ar'e, . ►_) _ 1 1 t -• w: t:;i or ioinal Gonera Plan Find overall image of the: aruo . Oc►posi tion tia high den-Sity Ln the area . 4 . Ob1f_ction of I: h U. S . Pepactment of fish and Garr,- to tle adeaudey of the FIR . tor; n;. Through exi :;t: zn11 residences . 1 V1 fj Mim%iL%�s , H . B . Planning c_WPJMis�,ion January 19, 1932 PagL i I I 6 . Deterioration of rev-,azning scenic corridor . i 7 . Shadow effect of buildings on solar access . 8 . Will engineers design bu.i lAings with fault lire talcen into con s %derati,an . > 9 . beet.. for bikeway, equestrian e t- r_ar. tr3i 1 ;, ( tc . , along the flood control channel . 10. 10% addition to traffic volume on SUrrounding major arteria.Ls (Why were figures t,lken from 1978 data and not r. ece:rlt computer figures? ) _ I 11 . Will-) WLU r)a. l tOr "OL')t?n W3te'r system" ? Poss1b) e water w'a:it.P_ . 12 . Regarding sewerage - .if flood cant:rol c harine? is built too high, project w1.11_ be undet w(-0-or . 13 . Against remov,31 of cox< t1ng euca1Yptu:, tr�Losi . 1 '. In th,;: 3L'tii :.S ttilre.ltt`nt`C: . Tht' public hearing wLl `; c` osed . The coti_-;orl�iu:i Was that due to nublIC test lmlcny, they would L't'e ll:1t'O:tlfC�rt�3l):�! about de.311nt7 with the ar)plicativn'; lintil more clarification ',J;_, prest_nte,i . A1sk� ment. ianed w .,s burial of th.- o 1 1 1 i nee prior to d�_,velor-,i:',trnt . Sniff st,,j t. ,,d"' that (7llt.!SC lnrl i O this na.-urt_ could' br: det3lr. w-, ` h at the time of t�,,_, tent at lv' tract i ppl _, cili* lord . ON t• OTfON' BY PORTER A:;U SFCONM HY L:ir NN'STER :1'1_1N CHI'ANCIE NO . 81- 15, C(""'c• `:o . 81 - 16 `1D I;•!E'ACT FIZE- CURT NO . 8I -3 WERE C01'TT:`:U"c:n TO THE M:._T I;:'1 1 ziq �, Hy `l'FIi: Fo r r.t�W-- I N G V()T c: : AYES : f3annlr�t��r , =:::!n�� : ; ck, (rinc'r,c�_ 1 , Poet►.'r. , Schum�lcYi�ar, NOES : A R S'rA i `k-)n t� C :),NDI ALONA:_, U.SE I EPNI,':' W . y 1 - 30 � �nl i -.-inch; ke N,iI I_:_ ThE`f on_C,t rLer A request to Perviit tht. Cl()r;(';i: lUn oL :'lo►l: than four (4 ) coin-opvrate'd ilRi'u,sem,:mC devices t1 be for public use ,•lt property located an the f aF-t side of Dr-)lso Chi (-,,'J Street , nor." th -of Warner. Avenue . •i'hl' pa:� 11�: tl•�'..+� ini.) h;! '� i)1Jt_'n :Cj . rht':'�7ri C'?("tt.'• , til'..' ilL:it : 1C'•an�. , :;r�Q.K!' illry un t ..lvor" or err .felt incl rho arjrll '_ C,; t ion . .''� � ri lei 1 �.C: hc,ii 1 nq !«,_l,S I 1 � •--- huntingtan beach develapmVM services department STAf f �.�RJEPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: February 2, 1982 SUBJECT : ZONE CHANGE NO . 81-15/CODE 101ENDW.:NT ;JO. 81-1f/I:NVIR7ttt�.F:NTAI, IMPACT REPORT NO. 81--3 (SEAf'RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) On January 19 , 1982 the Planning Commission continued Zone ChancJe C"11-18 , Code Amendment 81--16 , and EIR 81--3 pending the submission of additional information supplementing the EIR. Staff has coordinated with E:DAW, Inc . to prepare the attached document supplementing EIS? 81-3 . The supplement addresses the environmental .issues identified by the Planning Corratission at its January 19 meetinq . Also F_t_• tached is a revised specific E-Aan document prep r.,d by the appli- cant incorporating the suggested revisions contained in Section 6 . 0 of the January 19 staff report and a letter fro , the applicant (dated Januory 26 , 1982) suggesting options for ensu. inu that the developmc-rtt concept heincl � proposed is ultimately carried out . IIn response to the Planning? CommissLon ' s concerns regardinn, th.. conera1 intent and function of a specific Plan , staff has att;sched sections cf. 'the Public Resources Code pertainirig to Speci.fic Plans . In the st:aff ' s view, what a Specific Flan is and how it functions are best describer! by a comparison with the General Plan . The purpose of the Gene�ral Plc:n i.s to express in generai terms the City ' s planninc'I of its future environrm2rot . As its name implies , the General Plan functions as i general bluerjrin' of future development within the City . The Genera Plan is �adonte d by theCity as a legislative act and may thereafter he amended as required by changing circumstances . The Specific Plan , on the other hand, i :i a de-vice used to implement the General Plan . In the simplest sense , a Specific Plan is a more detailed version of the General Plan . The Specific Plan focuses on a particular parcel or parcels , artt:-ulates the plan:, incr con- siderations for such parcels , and imposer, requlations or controls on the vise of such parcels . The Specifi•� Plan may be adopted and arr.e.nrltd h,• legislative action, and when adopted controls all dov,-�lopment within the affected area . The Specific Plan is a bridge between the General Plan and zoning, which serves coth a tplannir: ; function anti a regul .itory f .crtcc ion SUGGESTED ACTION: Stet f f recommends that the Planning Cormmi ss ion recomr, !n d to the is i tv COMICil that Final EIR No . 81 - 3 as amends., ' be ce:•ti ,' led as bei.r.cl ad2ruate and in conformance with the California Environmental Quality .and Stat EIR Guidelines . Staff further ;;ecom lends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Councf.l that 2one Change No. 81--15 and Code Amendment No . 81-16 be adopted nubject to the findings contained in Section 7 . 0 of the January 19 , 1.982 staff report. ATTACHMENTS : 1. . Area Map 2 . Seabridge Specific Plan (Revised) 3 . Letter from Mcla Development Corporation dated January 26 , 1982 4 . January 19, 1982 staff report 5 . Ordinance (Zone Change 81.-15) 6 . Resolution No. 1282 (Seabridge Specific Plan) 7 . Sections 65450--65570 , Public_ Resources Code . JWP:JRB: df 17-115 1 Minutes, H.B . Planning Com.'nission February 2, 1982 Page 2 sk The public hearing was opened . Mr . Holmes, the applicant, preas,nted � a whole new conceptual plan to the Corrrnission which still requires ' the use of a conditional exception. A MOT ION WAS MADE BY KAHAFFEY AND SECUNi?ED BY "KENEFICK TO CON T ",'Ll CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81 -88 TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17 , 1982 , AND DIRECTING STAFF TO REFER THE APPLICATION BACK TO BZA FOR REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN , BY THE. FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Bannis_er, Venefick, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher. , Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHA:•%,r• NO. d 1--1 i/CODE A1-1ENDME NT NO. 81 - 16/ENV!P0N,�;ENTAI, I 1 �1oAC REPORT NO. 81-3 (Continued from 1-19-82) � - ��iicant Mo"a Develoyment Corporation A request to permit. a changi� in zon inrl on a 60-4- acre parcel c, '. pro- perty located on the southeast corner of Adarin Avenue and Beach Boulevarci , fz-orr. R1 -0, R1-01 , RA-0, RPI-01 an.i C2 to Seabridge Spe- cific Plan . jim Barnes made a brief presentation to the Co.^rn..,s ion . He In[nrrned the Ccr,iission that the Eriviron::;-entai Board put tre. r co,%merits re- garding the EIR and that copies were dist.r.butedt to them .or their perusal . Charles Pilcher from. EDA'e gave a Presentation of a supple- mental information packCt: which Wcl:, prepared by the firr"i in answer tc. questions asked at the lest r `c�ular meeting. The following areas were addressed : solar ta,-cess, t: a i 1s systelms , secoandary Ve- hicular access, c11mu1at. ive traffic analysis, scenic corridor. , _'e'4are � link:' c3par-- itv, le'vc-e he_i(7!'it and backwater effects, elev.l - ion of resource production ar,?as, energy cc5ts and wcstez consiimptlon, and school district conta its . commission discuss,?(i th,? above conc orr►s .� t I rcit.h. C_'orn.,► is:; l c')r,er Panne state(i that he listened to the tiipe of the public he,nr i nq and would be cl igi:sle to vote . Chairman Wiri--holl reopened the public hk�arinq asking that the public limit thei. r to Issues that have not proviously teen dis- cussed . Speaking against the adequacy of the EIR were Dar, Lisbv . Steve Olburclor, and Mi kc• McDonald . Speaking in favor, was Richard liarlow. Thar public hearinrl was Closed . c.,urnj.,;r; tor. ensued . Discussed , n detail was the question of accuriulat ive CFAf'ct;, of the sewer system. Gearge Tindall , 7f Public Works, stated that the coast trunk line will more tbar. ade- quately handle the excess . Ho fur. thFer sta'Qed that: any problems ocr .,rrirxj would pr ob.,b l y a i ;e £ron the area ti-ront fac- 1 : ;.ties, however , thin, is an onrjoiroj which the County of Orar'.t;e is well aware a . Discu.'�.iLon tonk. pl-:.-r' regirciinq what de_" !r"llnes or � Lriav!!crt uacy of the F! '' . .:3ocretar y Pa L in rern incled t hc, Cc)m ssioncr . t} E' i R 1 �i ! •:�. �n i'.ti'f.' cicrc-Ur- ��nt a rid t:;�.Z` finc�c` l f l fl at bs,' d I ,:C, t O dCt_ ' ",'llr ll U.W! •IC: 7:r1 Oi a - I 1 Minutes, H.R . Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 3 Commissioners Schumacher and Bannister believe that the increased density and traffic impacts on Beach Boulevard would cause them to question the adequacy of the EIR and stated that they would vote against it . Conunissioner Schumacher also noted that she did not reel that the study contained in the ETR on the pondincl area was adequate to address that issue . ON MOTION BY MAHAFF'EY AND SECOND BY KENEF'ICK F;WIROKIMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO . 81-3 WAS CERTIFIED AS BE7tiG ADEQUATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Kenefick, Paone, 'elinchell, Porter , Mahaffey NOES : Bannister , Schumacher ABSENT : None i ABSTAIN : None i The following items were discussed by the Ca^mission in relation to the Specl. - ic Plan: 1 . Pie iLItprn:, 1 & under "City Cclunc .l Direction" Clarify City Council direction rcgardi -tc; density in Ares A and B. 2. Page 2, Item 4,_ ura�ier "C:Lt�r _Council f�irectici�" Clarify direction (j1VP_►� U�' l: `_y Cc�,1RC1 l rC��1rCiIng �IresQrvatlorn of the ponding aiCe a . 3 . Pa qF'- 4 iten F, u:1cloz "SI e -Tila j" Item F should 5a.. : "Tyl)c and Location of Outsido- Light.incj" . 4 . Pa e . 8j ite,, G1 ur.c er- "Tr- 3ff is Control " Zevise thi G se��t.ion so that apr,rp�•a 1 o f traf f is control devic-, is Subject to the of the Planning Commission . 5 . P43CLc: �, _I t�c� -D,_ur.d,_c_ ','.> .o;, t�cat 1 nC1 R rOi:t'%�L3rE!" .add a statement under "Aj)plicat ion Procedure" requiring that all develolinent st.and-ards i.r. the Spocitic Plan be subject to t;.ar. approv�ii of the Planning Commmisnion . h und_ r_�'T_r,a`E , c-Control_" f;1 u of requirein nr `hit th,i inst., ltat . en o ` traffic siona,ls bu. or, a fai; sh.jz:e part�cipatLon agre-ectient - thi.:3 section should be revs.;lyd to require that cost of the sign..tls on Beach Boule- vard and ?1d irns Avc►nuti be financed 100% by the. developer . 7 Pauw 4-, Et:-t1on.Y,_�Un.e:f'r �- .=- 1-R : - P .C . Minutes, H . B. Planning Commission February 2., 1982 Page 4 r--• 1 r First sentence to be revised to read , " . the Deveiol)n,-,• L Services Department for review and approval B . Page 10, Section t4,, under "Re-sourco Producr- inn Areas" j Clarify subsection. 1 to indicate that property will be deeded to the homeowner ' s association ( s ) in4mediateiy . 9 . Pgae 11 , Section M, "Resource Production kreasll Su'r..sec`�i!�n S-A .�M -_:.__. _ _ This section shall be revised as follows : "The area east of the flood control channel (Area A) shall be impr;ved accordinq to the preliminary landscape plans which ire to be submitted with the application for development" . 10 . Pere 11 , Subsection 5-13 Clarify location of they restored marsh and direction given by City Council pursuant to discussion prc,sente d in Item 02, above. 11 . Paabe 12, Section O, "D veloprent__ soctvon�l -_A This section shall be rcvis;ed to read , "Attachec'l or det-a%ch ,d units and related r. ccre�ttional facility" . 12 . Pacie -' , "Density St and,, ds'' , ?1rc�3__ 3 Add standards pertaining to tc-�tal n-ember- of t?edron;%7, allnwcJ. . Clarity density in Area 11. Resvt-lrch the ;1-l~10 Eor establlsh- ms?nt of number of bcdroor s a l lowi,ble under they provi s tons o. Article 936 of. the Ordinanc^ Code . 13 . Perimeter Set.,,�ck A,Sd provisi:*n providinq 01at the crad►, differential on ad j item property to the cast C-ind south shall not: excce,�j one foot . 14 . Page 13, " Bit i ld inc; He i cLh t " Clarification on r,,ethod of measuring bu tri.i.r�� heyic.1ht. . Develop terminology to require variation in heic nt . I 15 . P.���cs 14 b15, .-Bui 1d inrz_ Milk" State,,,•!nts under Sub-Ar ea A. a . 1.:,, and c, and Sub-Are: B, a a�ri b, shall be revised to include the word " ,hal i " in lieu of the w(:)rd "should" . 16 F ,1 a 14 BuildIn Separation and 5et.b-ick ' - t ' - d e�p��r:t _ to,� hre_ ----�1- t Ar i,b- C 1. Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Rage S This section shall be 7nvised to read as follows: "Where open parking is provided on the same level as that portion of the dwelling used for human habitation, the minimum separation shall be 10 feet on a horizontal plain" . 17. Page 14. "Buildina Somaration" , Area P. Minimum separation between buildings should be increased . A provi- sion for obliquely aligned buildings shall he established . 18 . 22' a a 15, "Open Snacc, Area A This section shall be revised to require 1 , 200 square feet in lieu of 800 square feet . 19 . Page 1 5 . _ "Open Spar-e" , Area S, Subsection A This provision pertaining to a 50% credit for resource p&oduc- tion areas shall be deleted . 20 . P.� e 16, _Item S, "Main Recreation Areall , Siib ectio:7 y -This section shall be revised to read as follows : "Resident-. ial units shall not be located closer to the i:lain recreation area than 20 feeL " . 2 1 . Page 1___.�.`� ":1 pace Add Provisions re(IIII .lt'irI t:icA4 rc)Otc'.C�n i:F'q'SlrF' meats for carrion opr-n sp%1ce sha 1 l not 5--Z t sfy an}' r er,-U lremment of Article 574 and rlrtical 996 of the Ordinance Ce�e relatin-, to pare. and recreational facilities . 22 . Pa;e _13,._ "Priy_at,2_ Acces ;way_s " s ':anclai:ds for privatc accessways shell be consistent with stan- dards .in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code . 23 . Pagf 19 YPariS 517Stctior, u The provision pertaining to a credi.t for pa,hing provided on a drive approach shall be revised to be consistent with the provision ill A-title 936 of the Ordinance Code . 24 . Parse 20! "Parki nq" . Subset*i or! G The provision allowing conp<ic t parking shall be subject to furthe, study. 25 . P'a.t3E'. I <rin� SF� t�,c�ns A_ 8 rove-f- na:k i nq spacf. , �,ha l l be con t iquou t o h,I r1w e l l i nrl un i t r .i . Minutes, H.H. Planning Commission Febru;iry 2, 1 S 8 2 Page 6 for which it will serve . 26 . Page 21., "Cable T11" Previsions small be added for a common ancer,na . 27 . Landscape Corridor.. Consideration should be given to applyinn approprin 'Ce provisions pertaining to a landscape corridor . 28 . Page 25 "Anpearance Standards" , Subsection C This section shalt be revised as follows : Particular attention � shall be given to incorporating the design of signs including colors of signs, into the overall deign of the entire develop-- rr,ent: in order to achieve a uniformit.v. 29 . Page 26,_ Item L� "Ap-pr.-oval Pct•iod" This shall be revised to conform with State law . A MOTION WAS M-XDt 137 BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO LIE TA H1.: PROJECT PLAN TO THL SPECIlIc PLAN SO THAT THEY 'WOU!,D BEE ADDRESSE:) BY THE COM:41-SSION AT HE S,LN1E TIME:. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOU,O W I NG VOTE: AYES : Bannister, Mahaf fcy NOc.S : Kenef irk, P3011C ; Winchci i , Po.ter-: Schu::•a;'r,er ABSENT: Norse ABSTAIN: None Corr�niss ionev Paone made a motion to process the gone chance, condi- tional use permit and the tentative tr';ir_t at. one ticric and to recom- mend that the City Cotincil, in the form of a resolution, adopt a development agreement with the applir_ar.t. showing a specific ti,:.#_ frame. ComrnissLoner B�- nnister seconded this rrotion . After sore discussion, CarLr,Lssioner Paone withdrew his motion and Corunissioner Bannister wit.iidr. ew his second . ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY F:ENEFICK CODE As:ENDMEN T NO. 81 - 16 AND ZONE CHANGE NO . 81-15 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF rEBRUAR�' 17, 198 2 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: : AY-r-S : Kenefick, Paone, winchell , Porter; Schurnacher, Mahaffey NO£S: bannister ABSENT: None: ABSTAIN: None n Chairman Wincht., 11 called f.ov a 5-minute rccc s „ China I F,3 ; 0- rneE`r. LrI ; • renurne:i -it 1 1 : 00 PM . IL _�,_ _ P.C . � ' STA FF hur*,tir;gkon beach development servic6s JepbrtrnGht EPOR I • ro : Planniny Commission FROM: Development Services DATE : February 17 , 1982 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO . 81-15/COUE AMENDMENT NO . 81--16 (SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) On February 2 , 1982, the Planning Commission continued Zone Change No . J1--15 and Code Amendment 81-16 to allow the developer and s::aff sufficient time for preparation of their responses to the concerns expressed by the Conunission regarding the proposed Specific Plan . The applicant, in the attached letter and revised Specific Plan docurnent, has .itemized the com- ments expressed by the-, Planni.:.y Commission and presented responses to each comment . The staff has reviewed the: tape of the June 13 , 1961 City Council hearinq to attempt to clarify .direction given by the City Council regarding density and preservation of the pondin j area . In the staff' ' s view the Council ' s direction was to permit a maximum of 800 units OTI th-e entire site , with 400 units on each side of the flood control channel . Through testimony, it was understood by the City Council. that the existi.nq pond on the site would be re-configurated . After rep►iewi ng the applicant ' s proposed modifications to the Specific Plan docusion. , staff recommends they following chin; s : 1 . Page 12 DLNS ITY STANDARDS . The appl Icant has introduct-.d provisions for the maximum number of bedrooms per gross acre . Staff recomr!ends that the maximum number of bedrooms ,allowable pe_ gross acre in Area B be established at 50 bedrooms 1'.-r acre , which is consistent with R3 District standards . 2 . Pacie 13 PARi:T".G . The applicant is prop3si.ng that the. parking standards for efficiency units be reduced from 2 .spaces per unit (as previously proposed) to 1 . 5 spaces per ;snit . Staff recommends that this standard remain at 2 parking sPacOs per unit. Staff recom_r:iends that the Planning Commission rtac-rammend to the City Council that Zone Chancy: No . 81-- 15 and Code r'vnendment No . 81--16 be ��rlouted by resolution , subject to the findirgs contained in ,Section 7 .0 of the Janu.ir. y 19, 1982 staff repar. t and pursus,nt to revisirns c>z j -coo t i� ' J Seabridge Specific plan February 17 , 1982 Page 2 ...ram, suggested in the Yebruary 10, 1982 letter submitted by the applicant, and to the staff recommendations stated above . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Area Map 2. Seabridge specific Plan (Revised) 3 . Letter From riola Development Corporation dated January 26, 1982 A . January 19, 1982 Staff Report 5 . ordinance (Zone Change 81-15) 6 . Resolution No. 1282 (Seabridge Specific Plan) 7 . Sections 65450-65570 , Public Resources Code 8 . Letter from Mcla Development Corporation dated February 10 , 1982 . JWP:JRR:df �• "mot{ Minutes , H . B . Planning Commission February 17 , L982 Page 3 APPLICANT TIME TO MEET WITH 'T118 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS ON MARCH 3 , 1982 , AND FOR THE BOARD TO REPORT RACK 'rO THE COMMTSStON ON A REVISED PLAN , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES : Kenefick , Paone , Winchell , Porter, Schumacher , Mahaffey NOES : None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO . 81-•15/CODE A-MENDME'NT NO . 81-16 (Cont . from 2- 2-82 ) Ag licant : Mola Dc- ve opntent Cor�3r5ti.or, To permit a change of zone from R1-•O, R1-01, RA-O, RA-01 , and CZ to Seabridge Specific Plan on property located on the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Jim Barnes informed the Commission that the concerns raised by the hearing on February 2 , 1982 have been responded to by the appli- cant and she specific plan revise6 to incorporate those concerns . Fie also reviewed two staff recor.ur,endations for chz Age in the speci.- fic plan in regard to density and parking ratio; these were dis- cussed by the Commission and by consensus included in the specific:. plan. Very extensive discussion took place in regard to the request for a percentage of parking to be compact spaces , and a straw vote produced the fol ln„ri nq results : TN FAVOR OF COMPACT SPACES : Paone, Porter , Mahaffey OPPOSED TO COMPACT SPACES : Kenefick , Winchell , Schumacher The Commission then discussed the effect of leaving a provision for compact parking in the specific plan document, and Secretary Palin informed them that a future request for compact car parking would not require a special permit because it had been provided for in the specific plan, but the number and size and location of those space, would be a subject which could be addressed in the conditional use permit filed for the project. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONF, THE SPECI"rI:C PLAN REV[-',R- ENCE TO COMPACT CAIZ PARK i N;i; WAS TO SE, RE;-WC)RE)FT) P,S F01.r,0%4S , SY THE' 1701.1,OW I Nt; VOTF : An} allocation for conlUc2l.t: Car 1)drKL,7q JrJ4cf75 within hroa i? ::ha1 ? be determined through the conditional tire permit process for ar►y project subject: to this, specific plan when it is submitted tc: t: hD Planning] Cca rrJrt fi s s i o n f o r a El r r o v a 1 . " AY(:S : Kenn f i ck , Phone . W l ncho l l , Porter , Sct`u rl<.lche r , '.1!a l l t:f ey NOES : N(,)ne ABSENT: Bannister ,nSTAIN : No no Provision for 7,11 v:is d t .,,:us!; d ind a chartci,, r�.►c'C r:f•lE`f1�S� �j t�) lt!'! ttldt. no l`:< �.�`r (lf - tor, 'in tonn,v; �iIv--lied I,r, �'f'f'mi t I.k-od Ll .l Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 4 40 but that a common antenna with underground cable service to all dwelling units be provided. This change was recommended by consensus action of the Commission . Chairman Winchell, noting that the wording regarding building separa- tion between oblique-ly aligned buildings is not clear, asked that the wording be changed to specify that any decrease in separation at one corner of buildings should be compensated by a like increase at the other end . This change was concurred with by the rest of the Plan- � ning Commission . ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENE;FICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 I (SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) T4AS APPROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE BY THE ADOPTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 12820 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : I AYES: Kenefick, Paone , Winchell , Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Schumacher ABSENT : Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KErNE.FICK ZONE CHANGE: NO. 81--15 WAS AP��ROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE, WITH FINDINGS OUTLrNED Iy THE ST.�IF'F REPORT, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, KITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS , BY THE FOLLOS41NG VOTE: : FINDINGS: 1 . The Specific Plan is in conformance wi►-.h the City ' s General Plan . 2 . The Specific Pian contains regulations necessary to implement spec- ific policies set forth by the City Council for development of this site . 3 . The Specific Piar, contains regulations which effectively mitigate adverse environmental impacts identified in EIR 81-3 . AYES : Kenefick , Panne, Winchell , Porter , Mahaffey NOES : Schumacher A►l Fl1T: R.-Inn i stcr ABS'TAEN: None PRECISE PLAN OF tiTRFET ALIGNMENT NO . 82 -1/NE(;ATI%'1' DECLARATION 6 :•-4 Tnit: i_atrc3 _by_the City_of Huntington Reach A precise planof s, trcet ,� 1. i.clnm��nt c,hich will pr.avic'.c accessto : t - nr..rt', 01 land loc.ttr.si or, the sou.tth side of a hor. t Avvnuc approximat:cly 600 f t wF,st r,f fivach Eloulr. vard . ;ilvox DC1. 1givia !,Xplainerl th'ir. this (liffcrs from an earlier:• , a I i�lnrrrnt �rpE�r�,vc:) ft-�r. th�� ar ���i in I:h � t i ; will t.�e .a i�ulalir ir.ate,�cl E I, rlf l prLA',1t.Ch f, trt:t?t and that. iL w i i I be dvnirine(I to -iIs.) provide II - •` 0. I -! ' 1 l ORDINANCE NO . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTING'MN BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9061 THEREOF TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT , RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT , i COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION, LOW-CENS ITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, COMBINED WITH OIL PRO- DUCT ION, AND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIISTRICT, COMBINED WITH 01 OIL PRODUCTION TO SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF ADAMS AND EAST OF BEACH BOULEVARD ( ZONE CASE NO . 81-15 ) i WHEREAS , pursuant to the state Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commiasion and Huntington, Beach City Council have had separate public hearingga relative to Zone Case No. 81- 15 :•Therein both bodies have carefully considered all. Information presented at s3Ld hearings, and after dune con-sideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and al-1 evidence presented to said City Council , they City Council. finds that such zone change In proper, and consis- tent Frith the general plan, E NOW , THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follaws SECTIOtI 1 . The following JescrLbed sixty acres , more or less , of real pLeoperty, gerierally located south cif' Adams Avenue � and east of Beach Eoril.evard, is hereby changeJ from C2, "Conrnunity Bus Iness District, " RA-0 , "Residential. Agricltl. tural District, " eo;nb :ned with oil proluct ;on, R1--0 , "Low--density Rest(lential. District , " combine:l vrith o.11 protluctl.on; and R1-01 , " Low-Jensity RV:3 Ldent Lal District, " combined with 01 oil production, to 3eabridge Sh►�cifLc: Plan : ?;-ircel s 1 and 2 I.n this city of Runtln.; tori y t 1 r — I I Beach as per rnap Piled filed in Book 154, pages 11 and 12 of Parcel Haps in this of rice o: the j County Recorder or Orange County; and parcel. 3 in the city or Huntington Beach , as per map filed in Book 41 , pap, 24 of Parcel Maps in the orrice of the County Recorder of said county. SECTION 2. The Development Services Director is hereby di- rected to amend Section 9061 , District Map 13 (Sectional. Dis- tract Map 12-6-11) to reflect Gone Case No. 81-15, described in Section 1 hereof. A copy of said district map , as amended hereby Is available for in:3pection in the offtce of the City Clerk. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall. take effect thirty days after its adoption . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council or the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the � day of 1982. i t � Mayor00 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: -a-�_ ;ej City Clerk •City Attorney Q01 i REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED: �✓' 'art�� City Adm'irii. tratart, rector oV Development Services ' r t• i • I �, PL A Irw roc ,�o,'v,�G .,.._..�._. o M 13 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 12 -- 6 -11 -- 11w1 .r w�\ • CITY OF ♦+rrL1 .►.::l A�7w t101�� Cr,r C. -9. clgria:f w 1t. _ tIN.u1! 0.4•.: ►at•Of.! •J W. .r{•w ••a�-t�.�r1•/HV•. Nl.-P• j•t•• N t•►•►t 1/t1 a r•a. r-wr I •w 1.6 t, Il• t•rf ifH tl6lt{0 .; a•Y ►►I f r•r4 HM C' f■■■ram, BEACHA& U, vw a Poe (cw.1- {ltawv.. ����r���`��J r4 0 � 3431:I VA7 M11 EU NMItlwu 4t n-H oli1l 1•t 1 4^! 1Ma rw_'�, ra• --oft ita••tcwe•f-t) A• O.1 rt tent (� la{al pyil alaM,Y Nrlyt►-N ,.31 •q N o'+ =-,+�y o .• aa..a... a4'"ll sa•a•r C•'•N u.rt - t r•. , N...•li.•t:.t•r0►�rairrar ORANGE COUNTY'{ CALIFORNIA 1r., .... 11•/ata[.. M.at, U•O•t! 1►f a•a•�••IK 4r•1 cnC•r•cr VI••<• t 1•N n!! � ••wt•ra +wt+►rlYr, a.rtcr ANE04JED BY ZO#d CASE 1 r r mo wa kl!•,{al,ttj.'4•11..1•n.N•t),tt•{t t-It.1/ 111Q itrlrY l.t 7f tp •' !:. �J •..,,•I..j,h 14.•►fj !.'1 ��i )t...{1.J'.• •{-. t 't.t• ,fat 7o- v.,t •, , A J A.�r�•• 1••r•c•t Q•j0h ,l6t (� It 0 AOAwS AIII: II , 1�• JC c ` R^-l R� 14 —� R / ' ' AA-Cl �"�'r:' URI: �� ) I a RI Al Rl Rl AI /t M dl RA-CV) L 1. RI RI RI RI RI ` " �' "� �! Rl � • 1 4 rjr RI RI i R/01 q f.1 .t .. Al RI R I ,00 I •I• tAt a ybo RI mRI Ri Rl Rl t J ,ofr l = '1�1�+r— "' Rl RI RI 'RI 4.O RI Rl ICt-R Rl l RI Rl Rf i, ran" �.� RI-0 RI �IL RI __ CF_E . . •---f A I RI RI c •s+ Rl LL 1 IF �R Rl 91 i i i V. y a'.,qr • �{--_—__.•. _.�°n I< � ill 01..,/-- •/ RI { CRi I RI I RI RI L Rl Ij RI RI I fr1�.tttt Sri"� at�•�`+RI �i RI I � ,-..:w .T✓ssl' _ J • j� I ,t+—R—l- - pl T���` Ri `_ _ RI�: RI --- Rl ^R I RI Rl ar CF-E RI �: �{ ar Al RI RI I RI .— a I RI � 1 1 i Rl I L ! u� l• •-.�RM� ..._. :�- lyl Al I 1IFRI RI RI j Alj ! a i t+l �ci t j RI p� Ii �. � _ -,; _ -,�� •7 {�y c : ' 1 •I J i *Aso ...r RESOLUTION NO. 1282 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CGMMISSION OF THE CITY OF H'UNT114GTON 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 I 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 i the City' s General Plan and will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, anU convenience of persons j working or residing in the neighborhood; and I 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 reconunended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Huntington Beach, California, on the 19th day of January, 1982 , by the following roll call Tote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ATTEST : r Ti Perlin , Secret ai-`►____�.____ Grac(. R . Winr_-hcll,�Chairman RESOLUTION NO . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADO PIING SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN ( BEACH/AGAMS ) i WHEREAS , after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65500 , the Planning Commission or the City of Huntington Beach held public hearing on Seabridge Specific Plan on January 19 , 1982 which was continued to February 2 , 1982 , and concluded on y a Feh ru ry 17 , 1982; and Such specific plan provides for development within a 60 ± , acre site , located south of Adam3 Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard ; and On March 1, 1982 , after notice duly given pursuant to Government Code section 65507 , hearing was held before this j Council on Seabridge Specific Flan, and the matter having been considered, the Council finds that such specific plan is consis- tent with the cit ' s y general plan, and would not be detrimental to the general. health, welfare , safety and convenience of persons working or residing in the immediate vicinity; and The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the Seabridge Specific Plan to this Council, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council. of the City of Huntington Beach that Seabridge Specific Plan, as incor- porated in the document attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. PASSED AND ADO[r,'ED by the City Council of the City of Hunttngton Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the j day of_ __ _ __ _.. _� 1982 . lMl hwll�, . { z rE Gl.��rk ' 1 MZ �i f REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: j City Admirt�s rato�r � City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: i .4, YIS—V� irecto o Development Services �I I I I 4 1 i J li I ' r*N Mot A ME 1 Oi'MEN T CO«'OIW ION/AOd ADA MS AVE.HUNT114G TON &E ACIi.CAUF 92648/(714)530.2541 6904 El CAM"O WA4 SI111E 211 CAKSOAD.CA 92006i(n4)43&.IW January Be 1982 Mr. James Barnes , Associate Planner Dept. of Development Services CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. Box 190 � Huntington Beach CA 92647 9 � Dear Mr. Barnes : Pursuant to our earlier conversation regarding the Seabridge Specific Plan , we propose to make the following changes : A. Change the title to "PURPOSE" . The third paragraph to read : "The following pol- icies were adopted by the City Council to provide direction j'-; for preparation of a Specific Plan" : A. 4 . - That portion of this section which is in- eluded within parenthesis will be added as a footnote at the bottom of this page. C. ENVIRONMENTAL AOSESSMENT - This section will be deleted . Exhibit "A" Reference MaE will. be changed to in- clude the o owl—ng: * The streets opposite the main entries will be shown on the map. Or The drilling islands and the main off island wells will be shown on the map. The arrow identifying the reduced building height envelope will be tied in with the 130 foot dimension . E. FLOOD PROTECTION -- The second sentence will be rhanued to Management Agency (FEMA) F . 3 . - Access to• Ad acent Propertless Change to reed "Prlva.te Streets and or Drives . . . " G. TRAI FIC c"urrROL (second paragraph) - Change to read "The dev sh,7iMp7ovide for the future installation . . . " a Mr. James Barnes CITY OF IIUNTINGTON BEACH January 8 , 1982 Page two H. TRANSIT FACILITIES We will be including the Orange County Tran11t MUM along with the Department of Public Works. J. HYDROLOGY - We will include the Department of Development Services along with the Department of Pub- lic Works. L. PERIMETER BUFFER - The last sentence will be changed to read: 'The final landscape plan shall be. . . " M. 1. - RESOURCE PRODUCTION AREAS - Changed to read : "The areas presently ae'signated for Resource Pro- duction shall be deeded to the Homeowners Association as a part of the permanent common open space when all oil pro- duction activity has ceased . " M. 3 . - Change to read: "Oil production shall be in compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington , Beach Oil Code . " M. 5 . (a) Changed to read : "The area east of the Flood Control Channel (Area A) shall be improved according to the preliminary landscape plan submitted with the appli- cation For development. " 0. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - 1 . Uses Permitted - A footnote will be added to sub-sections (aT and( to indicate that oil production within the drilling islands shown on Exhibit "A" shall com- ply with the requirements of "O-1" District ,' Article 968 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . ?he areas designated as off-island well sites shall be subject to the require- ments of the "0" District of Article 968 of the Huntington Beach Code. 3. Bulldin2 Height -- Changed to read "Area 8 , five ( 5) stories orr sixtyfeet. " 5 . Perimeter Setback - Last sentence be revised to state : "This requirement shall not apply to entry monu- ments , landscape features , and structures intended for safety or public use. " G . Btiildincl Separtion and Setback (d) Is to be revised to states. "Between buildinus , side to side , twenty ( 20) feet . '' 6 . Area D -- The minimum separation between buildintis shall average thirty five ( 35) feet . 1 Mr. James Barnes CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH January 8 , 1982 • Page three 1 8. Common Space - OPEN SPACE REOUIREMENT AREA "B" - Changed to read : "The area set aside for common open space shall be equivalent to 4011 of the gross habitable area of the resid- ential units within this area . In addition to the above changes we will be including re- visions relating to spelling and other minor clarifications. All of these changes will be pursuant to our prior conver- sation with you. f Very my ours , MOLA EVE ours , CORPORATION F a J. Pre ident FJM/cd w i r i j f• J Mold DEvELCPMENT CCMICOAT)ON/908 ADAW AVE.NUtMT GTON BEACK CALIF 92AAS/(114) 53&23hc 6994 EL C4N:ONO REAL SLATE 21L C:AR►.S8AD.CA 92000I 4)4M-11-57 February 10 , 1982 "'i i►VGT' f:EACN ('+ •ANTS ING DEPT. Huntington Beach Planning Commission FEB 1 2, 1982 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 P. p. Box 190 Re : P Seabrid9 e Specific Plan HucY�t�"tvrt pftth, CA 31648 Bear Conuni s s i.onera: We have attached a revised draft of the Seabridge Specific Plan. This drai:t incorporates :many of the suggestions offered by the Planning Commission at the February 2 , 1982 meeting. In order to facilitate discussion of our proposal, we have listed the comments recommended by members of the planning Commission and our repoonse to the comments . We have also not�ud in the margin , the sections which have been changed (see Specific: Plan document) . I. Pale l�Items I. h 2 , under "city Council Dirac ; ton" Clarify City Council direction regarding density in areas: A and A . Comment: 'Re believe our plan Is consistent with the criteria adopted by the City Council. when Land Use Amendment No . 8.1-1 was adopted. 2 . Page 2 , Item 4 , under "City Council Direction" Clarify direction given by the City Council regarding preservation of the vonding area . Comncnt: See # 1 . 3 . F� F, 4 , r `em D, "APEJLT ATION PROCEDURE" Add a under 11APP"7 1r_XVrON PROCEDUP=" requiring than all firy lopmonr.. in the Specific Plan be sub jeC4 to thcr anvt*ov, of the P ? ..,rtnLn,3 Commission . ,� {� H . B. Planning Commission February 10 , 1982 Page 2 3. (Continued) Comment : The intent of this recommendation is unclear ; however, we will revise the plat~ to require Planning Commission approval of all. exceptio►is to the basic requirements . 4 . Page 4 , Item f, under 0. 2. Site Plan Item f should say : "type and Location of Outside Lighting. " Comment: We agree and have made the change. 5 . Page 8 , Itert G, under "TRAFFIC CONTROL" Revise this section so that approval of traffic devices are subject to review of the Planning Commission. Comment : We agree and have made the change . 6 . Page 8 , Item G, "TRAFFIC CONTROL" In lieu of the requirement that the installation of traffic signals be on a Fair share participation agreement. This section should be revised to require that cost of the signals on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue be financed 1.001 by the developer. Comment: We agree and have made the change. 7 . Page 9 , Section K, "NOTSE" First sentence to be revised to read, " . the Development Services Depdrtment for review and approval . " Ccrunent : We agree and have made the change . Page 0� 8 . ,Pa 1 Section °1, under "RESOURCE PRODUC'TYON AREAS " i Clarify Subsection 1 to indicate that property will be deeded to the homeownor' s association (s) ir:�mediatety . Corunent : •ve agree and have made the change. 9 . Page 11, Section M, " RESOURCE PRODUC'TIUfJ AR-2-AS " , Subsection 5 ( a ) This section shall be revised as follows : "The arf—a east of the flood control channel (Area A) s!zall be improved according to the prel imin l ry landscape plans which are to he submitted with the application for developtt,,tnt . " - V , r. H .H. Planning Commission February 10 , 1982 Page 3 9 . ' (Continued) Comment : the agree and have made the change. ' 10 . Page 112 Subsection 5 Clarify location of the restored marsh and direction given b j, City Council pursuant to discus,ion presented in Item # 2 . Comment: SPe 11. 11 . Page 12, Section 0, "Development Standards" , Subsection 1-a This section shall be revised to read, "Attached or detached units and related recreational. facility. " Comment : We agree to make this change ; however, we are proposing duplex r.nits along the perimeter adjacent to the single f 3:kli1y homes . 12 . Page 12 , "Density Standards , Area B Add standards pertaining to total number of bedrooms allowed. Clarify density in Area B. Research the ratio for establishment of number of bedrooms allowable under the provisions of Article 936 of the Ordinance Code. Comment: We agree and have made the change. For informa- tional purposes, the R2 District permits 38 bedrooms per acre , R3 District permits 50 bedrooms per acre, and the R4 District permits 53 bedrooms per acre. 13 . Page. 13 ,_ " Perimeter Setback' Add provision Frovidirq that the grade differential on adjacent property to the east and south shall not exceed one foot . Comment ; lie agree , however, we have inserted the requirement under "L. PERVIETE''R BUFFER" , (Page 9) . 14 . !PLaje 13 , "Bulldin!j Height" Clarification on the method of measuring building height. Develop terminology to require variation in height. H .B. Planning Commission February 10 , 1982 Page 4 I I; 14 . (Continued) Comment : We agree and recommend using the Uniform Building Code definition of Building I•:eight. it is &.fficuit to achieve creative variation in building I. design by ordinance. We believe it can best be accomplished through site plan review. This is available to the Planning Commission with the requirement for a Conditional Use Pernit application. 15 . Pages 14 & 15 , "Building Bulk" Statements ender Area A, Subsections a, b and c ; and Area B, Subsections a and b shall be revised to include the. word "shall " in lieu of the word "should' . Comment : We agree and have made the change. 16 . Page 14 , "Building Separation and Setback" , area A, Subsection h I This section shall be revised to read as follows : "When: ` open parking is provided on the same level as that portion of the dwelling used for human habitation, the minimum h i separation shall be 10 feet on a horizontal plane. Comment: We agree and have made the change . 17 . Page 14 , "Building Separation" , Area B Minimum separation between buildings should be increased. A provision for obliquely aligned 'buildings shall b.-• established. Comment : We agree and have made the change. 18 . Page 15, 02 en Soace , Area A i This section shall be re-r! ed to require 1 , 200 square feet in lieu of 800 square feet . ' Comment : We propose a 11000 square foot per, unit require- ment and have amended the plan accordingly . This provides an open space requirement that averagcs the lor, density requirement ( 1 , 2C0 square feet) and the medium density re,juire�nent— ( 300 scuaro feet) _ 1 H .S. Planning Commission February 10 , 1982 Page 5 1 " II 9 . Page 15 , Ooen Svaca , Area S , Subsection. (a) This provision pertaining to a 50% credit for resource production areas shall be deleted. Comment: We agree anal have made the change. 20 . Pace 16_, Item B, "Main Recrea Lion Area" ,, Subsection (b) This section shall be revised to read as follows : "Residential units shall not be located closer to the cuain recreation than 20 feet. " Comment: We agree and have made the change. I 21. Page 15 , "OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT" Add provisions requiring that the maximum square footage requirements for common open space shall not satisfy any requirement of Article 974 and Article 996 of the Ordinance Code relating to park and recreational facilities . Comment : We agree and have made the change . (See page 1.6) 2.2 . Pa e 180 " Private ?access Ways"_ Standards for private access ways shall be consistent with standards in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code. Comment : We understand this to apply to thv entry standards and have made the change. 23 . Page 19 , C . 13 . Parking (d) The provision pertaining to a credit for parking provided on a drive approach ^hall be revised to be consistent with the provision in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code . Comment . we agree and have made the change . 24 . The provision allowing compact parking shall be: subject to further study . Comment: We .cc dropping our request for compact car parking within Area A, and have modified the proposal to allow 25% of the required parking within Area 8 to be compact cars . Also, we Stave revi:;t!d the parking requirement for efficiency ncy units to one and one--half ( 1�) on-site Parking spares per unit rather than two ( .'_) spacers per unit. / r i v H. B. Planning Commission February 10 , 1.982 Pay 6 24 . Comment (Continued) : T•, Site believe the ratios of parking spaces per unit more closely relate to unit sire than the present code requirements . Also, since this parking will either be open or within a parking structure, there will be maximum efficiency of use. 25 . Page 19 , "Parking" , Areas A & H Covered parking spaces shall be contiguous to the dwelling unit for which it will serve . Comment: We understand this comment to apply only to Area A and we agree with the principle; however, because there are two ( 2 ) levels of dwellings , we propose that thy: garages and .units be within the same building rather than contiguous . within Area B we believe the 2G0 font requirement is reasonable. 26 . Page 21, "Cable TV" Provisions shall be added for a common antenna . Comment : We agree and have made the charige . 27 . Landscape Corridor Consideration should be given to applying appropriate provisions pertaining to a landscape corridor . I Comment: We aq ree and have included a new. ,ection dealing with this subject. (See Cage 25) 28 . Pa ye 25 , "Appearance Standards" , Subsection e This section shall be revised as follows : Particular attention shall he given to .;ncorporating the design of signs incLuding colors of signs , into the overall design of the entire development in order to achieve a uniformity . Comment : we agree anti have male the change . 29 . Facie 26 , Etem L, "Apt oval Period" 'T'i is shell be revised to conform with State Law . Cornrnent : Wks af3ree and have made the c:•..hnge . H. S . Planning COM.Mi .lion February 10 , 1982 Page 7 in addition to the changes stated above, we have added a new section dealing with Project Signs (page 26 ) and a section that will only permit duplex units within Subarea A-1 (page 14) . 1 hope this letter will be of assistance to your review of the Specific Plan. We will be available to discuss these changes with you at the February 17, 1982 public hearing . Thank you for considering this request. Very trul7 yours , :►BOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Fran l Mola , President I cgt I —,0 MOLA DEVELOPMENT COWOr:ATONMN AOAMS AVE.HUNr"GTGN BEACK CALF 9264a/(714) :36-2517 6944 Et C:A W40 REAL SUT E 211.CA LSSAD.CA Q', Y7- J(714)438•1157 February 18 , 1982 • l:".6 i iNGTON SEACM Mr. James Palin Pt NWNG DEPT. Director F�8 1 g 19Pz Dept. of Development Services CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P. O, 133x 190 P. O.Box 19 q liur►tir`stan Beach, :A 92fri8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : Seabridge Specific Plan Dear Mr . Palin: This is to advise you that Mola Development Corporation is in agreement with the additional changes recommended by the Planning Cor.maission for the Seabridge Specific Plan at their + February 17 , 1982 hearing . For your convenience we have listed the recommended changes and our. response . 1 . Page 12 , "Density Standard" Recommended change that the maxium number of bedrooms allowable per gross acre within Area B bi'M established at 50 bedrooms per gross acre . Comment: We agree with this change. 2 . Page_i.3 , Section 6. (e) Recommended change is as follows : "In order to provide for obliquely aligned buildings the distance specified above may be decreased at one corner of a building if the seper- at.ion at the other corner is increased by an equal or greater distance. In no case . . . ts Comment : Ile agre_ and have made the change . 3. Page 19, "Parking" It is recommended that the number of parkinU spescca :or of feciency units within Area D remain at two parking spaces per. unit. C nr_nt : we agree and have made the change . . ti - , Mr . James Palin , Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH February 18, 1982 ' k e two :' . 4 . Page 20, No 13 . (i) "Parking"- Recommended change should read as follows : "Any alloca- tion for compact car parking spaces within Area B shall be determined through the Conditional rise Permit process ' �.' for any project subject to this specific plan , when it is submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. " • Corrment : We agree and have made the change. j •' • � 5 . Page 21, No. 16 "Cable T.V. "' Recommended change: "No exterior television antennas shall be permitted. A common antenna with underground cable service to all dwelling units shall be provided. " Comment: We agree and have made the change. Attached herewith is a revised Specific Plan reflecting the P 9 changes we have agreed to as well as the definition submitted for consideration with our proposal. If you have any questions concerning this proposal feel free to call on us at anytime. i Very tr ly yours , MOI�F� V'.:LC ME►JT CORPORATION Fran J. M la • Pr.es i .lent enc 1 cis ure , .'r;�1'Grc�'•� BEACH PI ANNING DEPT.Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main St. FEB 1 .1 1,0 Huntington Beach, California 92647 �► P. 0. anx 190 Re : Hola Development Beach/Adams :)n earl . • •48 Dear Commissioner: After attending another planning commission meeting, I came home frustrated. I do not know if any of you have ever been through this kind of an ordeal, but it is frustrating. ror two years we have attended first planning commission meetings, theta City Council meetings and now back to the planning commission. le still do not know anymore about this matter thin we did before. At the onset of thiq development we had nearly 19000 signatures on a petition and Packed the chamers,, both upstairs and dorm-- stairs. Uur numbers have dwindled, due to burnout and frustration. I feel certain that Mr. Mola will eventually get the approval to do exactly as he wants, but I will not give up. This is a very emotional issue for the people in our area. I know if I ever tried to address the board or commission that I would choke, but I feel all the issues have been brought to your attention previously. Please consider all the people who live in our area before you .reach a decision on the density of the new development. Our future security and happiness is at stake . I don ' t feel we have becn unreascnable, just concerned. " This has been my first experience of seeing; politics in action. I have never missed an election of any kind and I study tho issues carefully, but it seems to me our elected officials do not really represent the people. Perhaps that is why so many people choose not to exercise their reight to vote . . Thank you for all your community involvement and dedication. Linda Kcef 20161 Cape Co t tnt;e L.-irie Huntington (ic.uch, C., . 926116 SLATE OF CA18/OANIA--11SONRC15 AGENCY IOMUNO G. "OWN it..G.ve.ee. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ; ••17;`GT 7''•+ BEACH 41416 Ninth Street 1'1 ANf`:!N:J* DEPT. ► cramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-3531 FEB 1. 9 19482 P. 0. BOX 190 HUrAi-% in sac'-, '48 February 16 , 1982 Mr. James R, Barnes, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services P. 0. Box 190 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Barnes: We have reviewed Final.- EIR 81-3 for the Seabridge Specific Plan (SCH 81080664) and find that the project is relatively unchanged from that reviewed in the draft document. Therefore, the comments and recommendations provided in our letter of December 28, 1981 continue to express our position regarding this project. ' Additionally, the City 's response to our co=ents on the EIR and proposed project are inadequate by standards of CEQA. We believe that the general discussion of our recommendations for protection of wetland resources within the project site and the implications of those recommendationu upon residen- tial development does riot -omply with Cleary vs County of Stanislaus 118 Cal. App. 3d 348 Calif. Rptr. Tne court ruled: "In particular the major issues raised When the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the corsments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted, and factors of overriding importance Warranting an overide of the suggestions." We therefore cannot concur with the certification of the document in its present form and recommend that the document be revised to comply with the: Cleary Decision. Thauk you for the opportunity to review and comment on th[s document. If you have any questions, please contact pied A. Worthley Jr. , Regional Manager, Region 5, at 350 Golden Shore, Long Reach, U 90802; telephone number (213) 590-5113. Sincerely, Director t^ 1 . ti� REVISED RESPONSE TO STATE CEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME COMMENTS DATED DECE,MBER 28, 1981 At a meeting which took place on February 25 , 1982 between staff of the City of Huntington Beach, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the State Office of Planning and Research, it was agreed that the City would revise its reponse to comments submitted by the Department of Fish and Game pertaining to the biological assess- ment contained in EIR 81-3 . Pursuant to the agreement reached by the agencies present at the February 25 meeting , the :`ollowing re- vised response is focused on the Department of Fish and Game' s recommendation that the existing wetland area defined by Coastal. salt marsh vegetation on the development cite be retained and dev- eloped into a functioning saltwater marsh ecosystem now instead of postponing development of the saltwater marsh project until term- ination of oil extractiun, Residential development could then pro- I ceed within the oil production areas when the wells are abandoned. Also, Fish and Game believes public access roads leading from Beach Boulevard into Area A on the site should be allowed only if the wetland resource would not be adversely affected . The applicant is proposing to develop access roads and residential units in a major portion of the existing wetland and to mitigate the toss of this existing coastal marsh habitat by providing replace- ment marsh habitat in an existing oil production area when all oil production activity has ceased. A freshwater marsh adjacent to Beach Boulevard will be developer immediately in the existing pond- ing area and will represent partial compensation for the immediate loss of habitat . Following are specific factors of overriding importance which in the view of the Department of Development Services make the applicant 's proposal more acceptable than the alternative proposed by the j Department of Fish and Game : I 1 . A recent amendment to the State EIR Guidelines , as well as a number of other environmental protection laws , require that a lead agency consider housing effects along with environmental goals in its evaluation of a project . Fish and Game ' s proposa.I I would eliminate approximately 150 residential units proposed for near-term construction in Area B . As stated in the City 's pre- vious response to Fish and Game ' s comments , the Housing Element to the General Plan stresses the current need for increasing the housing? stock . It is likely tHa ,_ t ie unit types proposed in Area a will meets current criteria for affordability as defined in the C; ty ' s Housing Element: and thus will be consistent with another major goal recently adopted by the City, 2 . Fish and Game ' s proposal may require relocation of the main collector street within the development connecting Adams Avenue and Beach SOUlevard. The main collector street as proposed intersects Adaris Avenue and Beach Dou'levard at locations which are adjacent to ot,ic:r local streets and arc' sufficient distances from the ©etcch/Ad,vis int 7rsect: ion to allow for signal ization. c. � J Page ) Access to Beach Boulevard under the applicant ' s proposal is Affik concentra _ed at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue. This intersection will be signalized to facilitate traffic flow from the project and along Beach Boulevard . The proposal by Fish and Game may preclude this possibility , since the route as presently proposed cuts across the existing wetland _ For safety purposes , development on the site would not be allowed to take place with only one major access point. Therefore, an alternative to Fish and Dame ' s proposal may require the collector street within Area A to tie in with local public streets in the adjacent single-family area . This would be unacceptable from the: City ' s standpoint since local streets are not designed to handle traffic generated from the collector street. Other alter- natives would be to move the collector street west of the channel in a southerly direction or to construct it as proposed and compen- sate for the loss of a portion of the existing wetland. Moving , the street in a southerly direction may result in the loss of � additional units on the site . The problems associated with enha:lc-• ing the existing wetland are discussed in Number 3 below. 3 . The applicant 's proposal to provide funding for creation of a saltwater marsh within the resource production, area is a part of the mitigation measures which are offered to offset impacts ,_:aused by development within the existing wetland . The applicant has not expressed a willingness to forego near-terry, development opportunities while at the same time undertaking the expense to develop the existing wetland into a functioning saltwater marsh. As stated in the City ' s previous response, the City has indicated no interest in the site for development as a future park.. There is no indication of the availability or source of public funds for enhancement of the existing marsh . Therefore, it is likely that the marsh if reserved in its resent location would continue I P P to remain in a degraded state . From the standpoint of long-term productivity, it may be desirable to take advantage of the private financing being offered to establish a new, viable salt- water marsh which will function as a valuable biological resource I in the future . 4 . As the existing wetland is in a degraded state, its visual char- acter would detract from adjacent housing . Also, there is great probability that nearby residents would object to the condition of the situ in dry summer months , requiring that weed abatement and dust_ control measurers be taken . A restored marsh in the resource production area would be farther removes; from residen- tial development on the site, and thus the potential for intrusion and disturbance from residents of the development would be much less than if the existing wetland is preserved . Li IN"IF. Sup eribr Court orTtltt t STI XrE OF CALIFORMA ` In and for the County of Orange CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, City Clerk I's2nFf) CATlO,_N I , PUB. Hearing Amend. 83-4 State of California ' County of Orange w JAMIE J.1-WORE ; That I am and at ail times herein mentioned was a citizen of the IInited States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I � Gm no, a party to, nor interested in the about entitled m.itter; �y * W* that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the w► HUNT. BEACh IND. REV. r r ► a news raper ofrernera!circulation,published in the City of t"mom HUNTINGTON BEAC.A . tcl y„ ' i.w►tie County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the ► q1e riisemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona ride subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has becrr established, printed and pub- k' � lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for is sir t+i� , period exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the �i�wlow �. �r annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any suppler.:+it sum .� thereof,on the following date,to wit: Apr. 21, 1983 I certify(or declare) undtr malty of perjury that the forego. ing is true'and correct. GARDEN GROVE Datr_d at....... . .... ' ...... ........ . California,thh?_?.nd...day or APr.....1 JAMIE J. MOORE '1'IZ(�' . !mature . 7 �i Fefn1 No.POP Dom? L ,� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL. ACTION Date April 21 , 19113 Submitted to: Honorable .`Mayor and City Council Submitted by. Charles W . 'Thompson , City Administrato r,i ! 1" r Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services Subject: CODE MIENDMENT NO. 83-4 (A code amendment amending sectio of the Seabridge Specific Plan) ' �/'-� 7 1"�i trr 1�'t 1'�'-. �c�7`� �:r►r Statement of Issue, recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attach,nenic STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Code Amendment No . 83-4 which is a request to emend specific sections of the Seabridge Specific Plan . RECOMMENDATION : The Department of Development Services recommends that Code Amendment No. 83-4 be approved subject to the following condition: 1 . The parking ratio for senior citizen housing in the Seabridge Specific Plan area shall be consistent with the parking ratio .in the Senior Residential (SR) Development suffix . The Planning C'(,inr,ission recommended on April 19 , 1983 that Co.:e Amend- ment No , 83-4 be approved deleting Items A through C in the attached ordinance . ANALYSIS : APPLICANT: ?Mola Development Corpora '•ion 808 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach , CA 9264E LOCATION : Southeast corner of Beach Boulevard ani Adams Avenue. REQUEST: A code amendment which amends specific sections of the Seabridge Specific Plan a) providing that ser►ior citizen housing be permitted in conjunc- tion with commercial/office uses and that de- velopment standards for senior citizen housing be established through a conditional use per- mit, b) provide that senior citizen housing within the Seabridge Specific Plan be exempt from the overall density :standard in the Spe- cific Plan, c) amend the parking ratio for senior citizen housing within the Specific Plan, d) I` `�r, change the boundaries of adesignat:ed resou�en c < < C. i J ll /1040; '30 .. L/ �� 40, f r CA 83-4 April 21, 1963 Page 2 production areas and e) establish two ( 2) subareas within the resource production areas that can be developed at a later date. PLANNING COn%1ISSION ACTION ON APRIL 19 , 1983 : ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-4 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE AMENDMENT REECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING C%MISSION: I The recommended amendments to the applicant ' s proposed code amendment are that Items A through C in the attached ordinance be deleted . AYES: iiiggins, Winchell , Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 140ES: None ABSENT: Livengood ABSTAIN : Porter DISCUSSION: Code Amendment No. 83--4 is a request to amend sections of the Seabridge Specific Plan. The Seabridge Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 5 , 1982, and serves as a general set of conditions and development regulations for a 60+ acre site located south of Adams Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. The proposed code amendment is a request for the following changes to the Seabridge Specific Plan : a. Permit construction of senior citizen housing within Subarea B-1 of the Seabridge Specific Plan. Subarea B-1 of the Specific Plan is a 3 . 3 acre parcel in the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area (see Exhibit A in the Specific Plan) that is presently desig- nated for commercial development. b. Exempt senior citizen housing within Subarea B-1 of the Specific Plan from the overall density standard contained within the Specific Plan. The overall density for residential development permitted within the Seabridge Specific Plan area is 800 units, however, there is a provision within the section addressing density (Section 0. 2b) which limits the overall density for residential de- velopment within the Specific Plan area to 750 units if Subarea B-1 is developed with commercial and/or office uses . c. Establish a parking ratio of one space per three dwelling units for senior housing within the Specific Plan area. This would amend an existing section within the Specific Plan (Section 0. 13c) which requires that developments designed and restricted to use by per- sons 50 years of age and older shall provide a ratio of 1 to 1� parking spaces per unit. d. Add 5, 400 square feet of area to the resource production area is F CA 83-4 April 21, 1983 Page 3 Area A (see Exhibit A) in the Specific Plan and add 20, 500 square feet of area to the resource production area in Area B (see Exhi- bit A) of the Specific Plan. These new resource production areas are to be designated as Subareas A-2 and B-2 on Exhibit A of the Specific Plan. The code amendment also proposes wording to determine the future use of Subareas A-i and B-2 . The applicant intends to retain these subare:,s in oil production for an indefinite period, however, at some time in the future, Subarea A-2 will be developed for residential use and Subarea B-2 developed for residential or commercial use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. e. Insert specific language into Section M. 1 of the Specific Plan that would allow Subareas A-2 and B--2 to be developed in the future. At the April 19, 1983 ,. Inning Commission meeting , the Commission acted i on the subject code av -r-ament in conjunction with Conditional Use Per- mit No. 83-7 . Conditional Use Permit No . 83-7 was a request to develop Subarea B-1 of the Specific Plan area with a restaurant (Sam Wong ' s) , I' office building and the alternative of either a 59 unit senior citizen housing development or a second office building. A second restaurant (Crazy Burro) which is already under construction, had previously been approved by the Planning Commission in August of 1982 (CUP 82-19) . As part of the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 82-19) the applicant had introduced the concept of mixed use development on the site (Senior Residential and Commercial) with the understanding that a code amendment was necessary for implementation of the mixed use concept. The Specific Plan presently allows the construction of 400 residential units in Area B (see Exhibit A) however, if Subarea B-1 is developed with commercial or office uses only 350 units are allowed. In March, 1982 , the applicant was granted a conditional use permit allowing the development of a 744 unit residential project in the Specific Plan area , 344 units of which are located in Area B. Therefore, according to the existing density standards in the Specific Plan, the applicant could either develop Subarea B-1 with commercial uses plus an additional 5 residential units or no commercial uses with an additional 56 residen- tial units. The purp,)se of the proposed code amendment is to allow for a mix of commercial development and 59 additional residential units in Subarea B-1. The proposed senior citizen housing development in Subareu B-1 is con- tingent upon the adoption of Sec"ions A, B and C of the proposed code amendment. The Planning Commission' s recommendation is to delete Sec- tions A, B and C of the code amendment. The Commission approved Con- ditional Use Permit No. 83-7 on condition that the proposed senior citizen housing development be eliminated from the plan and substituted with a 7 , 200 square foot office building. Commissioners Erskine and Higgins stated for the record that althouyh being in favor of the proposed code amendment , they felt the Development Services ' recomanendation has merit, and that a mixed use concept is CA 83-4 April 21, 1983 Page 4 feasi) le on the site. ENVIRUNMENTAL STATUS : On April 5, 1982 , the City Council approved the Seabridge Specific Plan and certified Environmental Impact Report No . 81-3. The environmental impact report presented an assessment of the proposed project, there- fore, no additional environmental assessment is necessary. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION : The City Council ' s alternativci., on this request are to either adopt the code amendment as proposed by the applicant, or amend the proposed code amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, or Department of Development Services . SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Planning Commission staff report dated April 51 1983 2. Planning Cowtission minutes dated April 5 , 1983 and April 19 , 1983 3. Ordinance 4 . Amendments to the Seabridge Specific Flan as proposed by the Planning Commission 5. Letter from applicant dated April 5, 1983 6. Seabridge Specific Plan I I JWP:JRB: jlm huntington beach developm nt servica;6-i dep-irtrnent STAFF Epos ro: Planning Comm: ssion FROM: Development Services DATE : April 5, 1963 OODE .1t•0'CYdEN'I' NO. 83-4/CONDITIORAL USE; I' 10-11T NO. 8.3-7%CUI,'D1'I'IOML IX). 83-4 -wPucArm Mola Development Corp. DATE ACCEPTED: 808 AdanLs Avenue Huntington 'each, CA 92648 March 24 , 1983 Ih C.A. lb armed Sec.t:.ions 0.2(a) , 0.2(b) , 0.13(c) MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: ME L ST: (1) , 0.13(c) (2) and I:-:-}ubit A Of the Sea- bridge Specific Plan. I.lay 23 , 1983 C.U.P. To permit construction of a restaurant, �;UNE: Seabridge Specific RD-.,V ST: office building anti 59 unit senior citizen plan housing development within Subaren B1 of tJw Swbridge Specific Plan. GI:N .RAL PLAN: C.E. To pernit a struettue wi.t1i less than the R WEST: requircxd rnir&rLun sett)ick alon-:E Planned Community side property line EXISTING USE: IJOC I ON: Subject property is lrcated on the ea.,t _.r. side of Beach Boulevard, south of irvlzuns Restaurant/Vacant Avenue. f 1CRF1lGE: 3.3 acres l 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION : Staff reconunends that the Planning Commission approve Code Amendment No . 83-4 , Conditional Use Permit No. 83-7 and Conditional Exception No . 83-4 subject to the findings and conditions contained in Section 6 . 0 . I 2 . 0 GCNERAL INFORMATION: CODE P.MENDMENT 140. 83-4 Code Amendment No . 83-4 is a request to amend the Seabridge Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council on April. 51 1982 . The Seabridge Specific Plan serves as a general set of conditions and de- velopment regulations for a 60± acre site located south of Adams =,vEnuE� and east of Beach Boulevard . CA 83-4/cUP 83-7/CE r'' *=4 April 5, 1983 Page :s The proposed amendments to the Seabridge Specific Plan are as follows : a. Amend Section 0 . 1. (b) to permit the construction of a senior- citizen housing development in conjunction with commercial/office Uses in Subarea B-1 of the Specific Plan . b. Amend Section 0. 2. (b) to exempt a senior citizen housing development from the overall density standards contained within the Seabridge Specific Plan. c . Amend Section 0. 13 . (c) (1) to require a parking ratio of 1. space for every 3 dwelling units for development, that are designed and restricted to use by persons 50 years of age and older. d . Amend Area A of Exhibit A to incorporate additioiLal. pmperty into oil. production. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-7 Conditional Use Permit No. 83--7 is a request to revise Conditional Use Permit No . 82-19 which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 17 , 1982, permitting the construction of 26 , 153 square foot com mercial;iffice complex on the site consisting of a restaurant (Crazy Burrc) two freestanding office buildings and two freestanding bank buildings . The Crazy Burro Restaurant is currently under construction. The revised plan eliminates the two previously approved bank buildings substituting a second restaurant (Sam Wong ' s) and an alternative of either a 7200 square foot office building or a 59 unit senior citizen housing development while retaining the N•lola Development office building :jith a slightly different footprint . CONDITIONAL• EXCEPTION NO . 83-4 Section 01.3 of the Seabridge Specific Plan requires that office and/or commercial uses developed within Subarea B1 be subject to C4 development � standards. The C4 development standards require that: structure be set bade a minimum of five feet £r.om interior property lanes . The proposed office huilding (Mola Development) in the southeast corner of the site is set back approximately two feet from the side and rear property lines . 3 . 0 EN TRONMENTAL STATUS: On Api. 1 5 , 1982, the City Council, approved the Seabridge Specific Plan and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 81-3 . 'rho Environmental Impact Report presented an assessment of the proposed project, there- fore, no additional environmental assessment is necessary. 4 . 0 SURI:OUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAI, PLAN DESTGNII.TION: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIC-NATION: Planned Community ZONING : Seabridge Specific Plan LAND (1SE: Vacant/restaurant i CA 83-4/CUE' 03-7/CE t�s•-4 April 5 , 1983 Page 3 I i North of Subject Propert : GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Ganeral Commercial ZONING: C2 (CommunityCommercial ) ) LAND USE: Shopping center East of Subject Property : GENERAI, PLAN DESIGNATION : Planned Community ZONING: Seabridge Specific Flan LAND USE: Vacant West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Commercial Z0'3ING : C4 (Highway Commercial ) LAND USE: Service station South of Subject Property: GCNMAL PL?%N. DESIGNATION : Planned Community ZONING: Soathridge Specific Pl.aii LAND USE: Vacant i 5 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS : CODE; AMENDMENT N:O. 8 3-4 The proposed code amendment would a) permit construction of senior citi- zen housing in Subarea ©-1, b) exempt the senior citizen housing develop- ment from the overall. density standard contained in the Seabridge Specific Plan, c) establish a parking ratio of 1 space per 3 dwelling units for senior housing, and d) add 5,400 sclti-ar e feet of area to the resource pro- duction area in Area rA of Exhibit A in the Specific Plan. Staff supports the development of a senior citizen housing development at this location . As indicated in the staff report prepared for the previous proposed project (CLT 82-19) the mix of residential aril comae-rcial uses may in some respects be .incompatible, however, the addition of senior citizen housing in the City fulfills a social need which has to be bal- anced against other planning considerations . i The overall density permitted within they Scabridge Spe ific Plan area is 800 residential units . In March, 1982, tho applicant was granted a conditional use permit allowing the development of 744 unit residential project in Areas A and D of the: Specific Plan. The 59 unit senior citizen development proposed under Conditional Use Permit No . 83-7 would, if approved, bring the total number of units within the Specific Flan area to 803. Staff supports the applicant ' s request to exkimpt the senior citizen development from the density requirements In the Seabridge Plan � since the 59 unit pr0poso+d senior project would rnsult in a total number of units which ir,. less than one percent in excess of the existing density limitation. CA 83-4/CUP 83--7/CE --4 t Apr- ' 5, 1983 Page •. Item C- on the agendin is a code anuijffent %0--de An)eraTemt 83- 5 ) initi.at^.i by De- velopment Services proposing a senior residential suf f i:: which establishes development standards for senior citizen development within the City. The proposed off-street parking standard in the SR suffi:l for one-bedroom units is . 75 ( including guest) spaces per unit . The applicant is pro- posing a parking ratio for t2r-_• se-nior ci.ti.zen development within the Sea- bridge Specific Flan of . 33 spaces per unit. Based on the staLf' s ana- lysis of required parking ratios for senior citizen developments through- out Orange County and the rer.•ommended r. atia i.n the SR suffix, staff cannot support. the . 33 space por unit proposal . The applicant is proposing to add 5 , 400 square feet of property to the oil. production area shown in Area A of Exhibit A in the Sneci.fic Plan. Addition of this additional property to the oil r.oduction area will preclude the construction of 16 units at this time until oil. production ceases at which time the area %•.ill be annexed into the projcct. This Change will not .adversely affect circulation within Area A or si�_r iMeantly reduce tthe zutvunt of oiler, space ro.mired for the ear-daminium develoFr"t approved wit3un Area A. CONDITIOfiAL USE PETV-1IT NO. 83-7 The applicant is proposing a milled use development concept on tale site which will introduce affordable senior citizen housing into the Seabridge Specific Ylan area . The proposed )mmercial development on the site con- forms with all of the devclop;nent standards in the CA I'istrict except the setback reauiron,ents addressed under C !: 83-4 . The major issue regarding this project is -4hether the amount of parking ! being proposed for the mixed use development is sufficient . There are 142 parking spaces shown on the site plan; 20 of these parking spaces are in a garage under the senior citizen housing project; another three spaces are located in a garage adjacent to the Mola Development office building . in tot�fl , there. are 23 spaces shown on the site plan which are � enclosed and reserved exclusively for the use of senior citi.zens or ern•- ployees of Mola Development , The remaining 119 spaces would be available to patrons of the two restaurants , office building and guests visiting the senior citizen housing project . The 119 parking spaces available to the general public on the site con- forms with the requirements in Article 979 to meet the needs of the Mola office building and two restaurants. The office buildings and the twc restaurants require a total of 118 parking spaces . ! As stated above , in the staff Is view the ratio of parking being proposed � for the senior citizen housing project ( . 33 spaces per unit) is not sufficient. If the project were constructed utilizing this ratio it is likely that residents and guests of the senior development would. use parking spaces necessary to serve other uses on the site. Staff is re- commending that the senior citizen housing project be redesigned to pro- vide a parking ratio of . 75 spaces per unif. whic:h would require an addi- tional 44 parking spacan on the site. A larger .area in .the canter of the site will be reserved foi resource t f i CA B3-4/CUP 83-7/CE 83-4 April 5 , 1'IB3 Page 5 production. The area has three existing oil wells as -lelineated on the site plan. The applicant has indicated that access to tl,.c resource pro- duction area for routine maintenance operations will be f.ron an existing access road on property south of the subject site. Property south of the subject site is delineated as a resource production a,.-ea in the Sea- bridge Specific Plan. The resource production area will. evont:ually be develor•e:l into a salt-water :Harsh Pursuant to State Department of Fish ar-.•I 6.zme requirements . It is suggested by staff that the current acL:ess road to the oil well.. (-~, the subject site be retained if the oil facilities on the site are no phased out a1r,:.g with the remainder of the resource production a: ea to One sai;t-h . This will, avoid potential conflict between oil maintenance veh.ic?cs and automobi:,es using the commercial parking lot . The oil production area on the site should also be sufficiently screened from visual and potential noise impacts through the use of appropriate landscaping and/or tencing. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-4 The applicant proposes to locate the %.;;tern most restaurant into the required 20 foot setback . A portion of the building , approximately 30 `eet long, encroaches into the required setback tLe full 20 feet. The ren.ai ;ii;u3 portion of the building encroaches .into the required setback only 8 .?,tet. After staff ' s review, the staff concludes that the proposed eneroac►iment %•,ill not adversely effect surrounding development since the site is, adjacent to the rear of an existing service station . 6 . 0 REC0MM,ENDATION: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-4 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Code Amendment rho. 83-4 subject to the following condition : 1 . The parking ratio for senior ciLiren housing in the Seabridge Spe- cific Plan area shall be consistent with the parking ratio in the Senior Residential (Sn) development suffix. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-7 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approva Conditional Use Permit No. 83--7 based on the following findings and conditions : FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed development is in conformance with the policies and development standards contained in both tha City ' s General Plan and the Seabridge Specific Plan. 2 . The proposed develupmer. '-. will not adversely zifect surrounding properties . CA 83-4/CUn 83-7/CE 3-4 April 5 , 1983 Page 6 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPRUVAL: 1 . The senior citi:en reusing project shell he cc_,7tingent_ upon appr.o%,al by the City Council of Code Amendment No . 83-4 . If Code Amendment Nc. . 83-4 i:: not approved by the City Council , approval of the senior citizen t,ousinc, protect shall become null and void . 2 . The site plan and elevations received and dated iMarch 16 , 1983 , shall he the approved layout. 3 . The occupancy for Sam Wong ' s Restaurant stall l,{; Limited to the n-:mber of tables and/or fired seats allowed pursuant to Article 979 of the ordinance cede for 40 parking spaces . 4 . The senior citizen housinc project shall be redesicIned to include an amount of parking equal to what is required in the Senior Residential. � zoning suffix. 5. off-street improvements (i .e. , streets, sidewalks-, gutters, C•tc . ) shill be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standard: . 6 . Sewer, drainage and water improvements shall be constructed in accor- dance with Department of Public works standards. 7 . The subject building shall be provided with systems relater] to fire protection and life safetir as deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire r.epartment and all applicable codes . B . Oil wells within the oft pro "uction area shall be set back from pro- posed structures on the site or modified in a manner as deemed ap- propriate by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 9 . A detailnd landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of building permits . The Perimeter j of the resources production area as shown on the site plan shall be sufficiently screened and buffered from adjacent uses in a mannc._ acceptable to the Departments of Public Works and Development Services . The method of screening could include either fencing and/or inten- sified lan:scaping within the resource production area . 10. Areas for pedestrian access to the buildings -an the site shall be delineated through appropriate striping in the, drive areas subject to the approval of the i)epsrtment of.' Public %larks . 11 . If lighting is included in the park:.nq lot, energy efficient .lamps st.all be used (v. g . , high pressure sodium vapor) . All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent proper- ties. 12 . An engineering geologist shall 1-e engaged to submit a report i.ndicatinq the ground surface acceleration from earth mot-ement for the subject CA 83-:/CUP 83--7/Cl: )-4 Apj.- i 1 51 1 98? l L)I'ol)0I llct'-tIres 1,'l.tlli 11 111211t ti1(.'1.1 1 1)U CCI11 StI-LICt0d' ill C'C)3'i pi it-ince v:i th thy' G— factor:; i1S th(' C,Ti—Jo oqi sts report . Calculations fo,,- fi.ttil� .t:; mid :; t rtictora womber:; to ,,ith.;tand inti- Ciliated (3- I actor:_-, Aizit11 be ?lll::'': 1 ttt't.l t.r.) H—w cit., for review 1:%t'1or t:�J the is."ki'mlcc. 1)uil-di.ti(a 1 A plan for Silt control. ::or ill tornI runoff the clua~'inq Cortst:ruc;t ion and f ur.iroj lI?1t:.i .1j oz)�.,i-atlon of thc:' pr,).)'Ct shall be. SUbtTl�f.tecl to the I7epcirtricnt of Public V;ork IOI- rep: P-14. 14 . All 1.)reVi :)US,ls impOSed c n(iitic)n: (-)f C11iI f?? -19 , wh(-.rc- applica1)1e , �;l;c:►.l 1 b(' i1 1?c7:`t. t_` .` tll 1.�' i1�.1�I'G'.' 1 1 . cONnrrroINn_. EXcEl r >•GZ. 5'- r recorrm(::nc?s th�lt the Pl Ilni.nc.r '��ri;;lissic- a1�Inio��c CO n(?icional F::iceh- 4l� L i E t:ion t�.to . n3-=1 bast,cl �n the follcr::in�l fint.iin:�4. : F'INUINGS 1. l)ti.ana )pIy that c:ehr : ve t-Iie suI) Cc prop-orty of Fir.iv.i .le(r:•s "r ir7,.•C'cl on c,tl the sa i'tc! Norte c1�-1s�� it:ir.atic)n. "'tle� suhjc�ct ;)r.��l)erL�• is hc)undc: ►�} us(�s 1,711iCh will not be L1c:vers�l}, Clffr_cted by the I-c-dll(' tion of ot.')czcl•:s . 1 . 'h2 Co:1C11t1(:!'1<_i.l- E'':C :i7r1(1I1 (, �n _ Of S7iC1I1 _ - 1 ] I)r.Ivi1ec; cond I '. inni3 tlr_'tr iliient a I to the AT`I`.1C'l�t•L' '� l Arc-'I !tcZi' ;)Ian i7n(� � ' t'��c'ltrlcil::; Cidt:c;(.1 :'i:1L"i':ll 1. 6 � 1n83 3 . Ut-ci i ll;lnc e r •,7F�i: .j 1r'1 / II I r I •- cz n. Till] IDST- T • LAN CA03 - 4- clip 83--7 J` E83 _ -4- •q..11.•.hr� ,i•i a HUNTMG?ON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 11. B. Planninc; Cornlnisrv,',.()r, April 19 , 1983 '"R '°' D 11 A I' T CONDTTIONAI, (iSl:: Pi:RMr'i' 110 . 8 3-7 Wontinued Eton 4-5-133 ) Applicant: Mola Uevelopmeiit corporation A request to permit construction of a restaurant, C! ff iCt- builcliliq -and n 59 unit seniol- c tt. ze�n -iousin�a development within SubarC! i�- i of tine Se-,abridge Speci. f i r_ "Ian . Cthe public hcarznq was cperlc.d . Richard Harlow, sl�ea►, 1ng for the appli- cant, stated that lie was not clo.-a'- as, to the intent. of the Planning Corvnission ' s action at the April 5th meecirnr-1 where an approval was granted for the conditional e%ception and corle amendment, but not the condi - tional use: permit. . lie further stated that Monla ' s intent was in tryi.nn to comply with the Apparent direction of the City to facilitate the need fc.-_ senior housing and not in any wa,.. to cleviatrl ~r. o::. tllc> )i:icli.nill objectives of the Seahridge Specific Plan . He a.l ::c,) made reference to uaae of the staff report which states that units are designed an-! restricted to use b}' persons 50 years of acre and older - lee said that should react " 62 years of aqe and older-" . The public hearincl was .J sed . RECONSIDERATION OF CODE: .li•Is NDMENT NO. 83-4 : Ccmmission Iiiggins stated lic recalled from the previous meeting that: he diet not hear the excl.udino suctions eF the code a;aendi ent (Sections B-C) when the motion was- made by Commissioner Schumacher and expressed a i desire to reconsider the cocle amendment. Commissioner Schumacher stated that although she is not against_ senior- housinq , she is against that housing be developed, in Subarca 13-1 . She further stated that the previous plan that was approved on this site showed Lhe senior housing concept on a not-a.-part pt-rrcel Z-Iiicl therefore wins not: a part of the approval . Mr . Palin stated that the site , Subarea D-1 , carries; no designation on it, that it could 10 either residential , office professional -)r commer- ci��l as delineate(: in the specific pinn . lie agreed that although it was perhaps not the best site for. -senior hous- r , that :it di.d offer certain amenities such as bus steps, convenient shopping and ample open space . Chairman Porter stated that he would be abstaining from tlic vote on this issue, but passed can a comnlent from Commissioner I.iverngood (and agreed with his comment-) that with separate, arrcess , this project might. be acceptable , hnwever, he did not like they "�. nter.action" between the two uses , i . e . , the two restaurants and the senior housing . lie further cited the example_ of Peter ' s I.,andinq where the interaction, produced problems. Alr . Pa1.in stated that: this is usually clue to the type of operation as well as the orientation of the buildings that tend to create problems such as was the case at Peter ' s banding when the Red Onion had a disco. A mCTION WAS MADE BY WI TJCHELL AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO RECONSIDER CODE AMENDMENT 140. 3_'�p -4 . MOTION PASSED BY 11111E FOLLOW DIG VOTE: A1.'ES : Biggins, Winchell, Erskine, Schumacher, Mi.rjahzingir N;)ES : Nore ABSENT: Livengood ABSTAIN: Porter ON MOTION BY WINCH ELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE' AMENDMENT NO. 83--4 (SECTION D) WAS APPR')VED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO T11I; CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION wini T141 FOLLOWING AMErIDMENT5 , 13Y THE FOLLOWING v0'I'E: r �� I Ft. D. Planning Commi.- C,n April 19 , 1983 D R A V T AIMENDME;NTS TO '1'lif; CODE. r MJ,',HDr4F I,."V: The rC,corlimend edt clrnandIT;ClI tS tU thf' a1)1)licant: ' s proposed Code amerld i-,ient are that Items A through C.' be d oleted frofil t:hi:' ordinance.nance. The notion also eliminate(] all reference to ltousinq an(i only deals with Ii:e�:m I) as shown on rho reforence mi-Al: dated March 9 , 1983 , ulth lan�,uage for � that It:.�m t,:: rca:l cis requested. in the ,applicant ' s letter dated April 1983 . I AYES : Iticl(lins, S•,inchell , Ersk:irle , F:chumachor, IMir.jah nyir NOES : gone ABSENT : Livenclood ABSTAIN: Porter' Commissioners Erskine and l± iy(_; ins stated for t.ho record that ,although being in favor of the previous motion (be cziu:;c it at least approved part of staff ' s recommendation) to Approve the crade amendment, they felt the Development Servic os ' recommendation has merit, rind that a mixed use concept_ is feasible or, the site. APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PEW.ITT : ON MOTION BY I-:INCHELL A11,7D SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COM:•IE,RCIAL ALTERNATIVE FOR CONDI'I'I01VAL USE P):RMIT NO. 83--7 WAS APPROVED V"ITH THE F'OLLOWI►IG HIDINGS AND CONDITIONS , BY THE, FOLLOWI`1G VOTE : FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL : 1 . The proposed development is in con- ormance with the policies and dc-.rel.opment: s,-andards contained in both the City ' Gere7.r 711 Man and the Seabrid;lcir_ Specific Plan . 2 . The proposed development will not adversely ,affect surrounding properties . CONDI'I'IGNS) OF APPROVAL: 1. . The site Flan and elevations r. echived and dated March 16 , 1983 , shall be the approved lavout reflecting_; only the commercial a- ;.er-- native . All parking raquirements for said commercial use shall comply with provisions of Article 979 of the ordinance code . Z . The occupancy for Sam I-iong ' s Restaurant shall be limited to the nunber of tables and/der fixed seats allowed pursuant to Article 979 of the ordinance code for 40 parking spaces . 3 . Off.-street improvements ( i .e . , streets , sidewalks , clutters , ctc. ) I shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards . 4 . Sewer, drainage and water improver:tents shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 5 . The subject Wilding s11all be provided with systems related to fire protection and life safety as deemed necessary by the Huntington 11 . 13 . Planninq cowd:woon Oft April 1.9 , 1983 D R A F T Beach Fire Department and all. appliccable co(Jus. G . Ctil wells wl thin the oil production area shah 1 �e ,cis back from proposed structures Coil the site or w0 d1 f ied in :, manner as deemcd appropriate by the fhintiziqjtni Beach Fir(. De;:;artmcnt . 7 . A det:rai_le 1 andscLir.e Elan shal1 bu suhmi. ttc.-d tc, the City and .ap- pcoved by the DeparLmont of Development .15ervlces and the DepartmenG of Public . orks prior to the issuance of bui .ldirc(.: permit:: . The perirrretcr of the rescmi-ce ,iroduction area as shown oil tile site plan shall be suffieiontly screened and buffered from aJjacent uses in a rcianner acceptable to the Departments of Public and Develop- Irient Services. The mothod (-) f screi-ni nri coy-M i nr. i ucle- either feric:- inc; and/or intensif ieci landscaping within thc rcesourcc production area . B . r'12:eas for. pedestrian -access to the building.,: O'n the site shall be delineated through a}3pI:opriate striping in the drive areas subject to the approval of the Dcpartment of Public 1•#*cr.k_, . 9 . If lighting is included in the Parkincr lot, ener'civ efficient .lamps, shall be used hi.cjh prc,;.sur e sodium vapor) .. Al 1 outside iiclhtiny sliail he directed to prc_vent spillage onto aa]acent pro- perties . > > r shall i r y 10 . An c�nyincc.r�neY cleolucl.i � t �tl;a] 1�(. i-ncl�tclt.ci to �u1:!mit a rc_1)Ort. irl(li - catiny the c1r,ind surfacc acccleraticri frc>ri oal--th movement for thin Subject property . All ::tructurc?, within this deve-1c:pment shall be c011structecl in compliance with the G-factors ci:; i.ndicat•ed by the geolocli.St ' s report. c'alcol t, io ]s or flttlncls and structural mem- bers to withst-and anticipated C- factors shall br submitted to the City frjr rev.iov: prior to the issuane,_ of building permits . 11 . A pull for ,;ilt cor—.Lvol for all storm r11110rf from t1w propertj during construc-trion C-lild ilurin,i initial oper.tion L) i tile. project shrill be suIxi"itteci to the Departmient of Public Works for review. 12 . All proviclusly iinposed conclit-icons of C111, 82- 19 , where applicahlc,, , shall be a part of this approval . AYES : 11 iyqirls , 1.linche l i. , Ersk irw, Schumacher, Mi.r. lahangir NOES : NOTIO ABSENT: Liven:m d ADSTAIN: Pra ter Pub'l i sh April 214 , 19S3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE MIENDMENT NO. 8 3--4 I A ,rne►,d►,�,�ts -m Se&b �d y c S t Q l4 A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7 : 30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday the _ 2nd day of May 1983 for the purpose of Considering Code Amendment No . 83-4 , requesting the following amendments to the Seabridge Specific Plan: a) Amend the boundary of the Resourco Production area zoned 01 . b) Permit construction of senior citizen housing in conjunction with commercial/office uses . c) Amend the parking ratio fir senior citizen housing to be provided at one space for each three units . d) P.-ovide that development standards for senior citizen hov inq be developed through the conJition.-.1 use permit process . A copy of said amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services . i All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or ageinst said code amendment Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 DATEp April 21 , 1983 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk 72� AMENDIME'N TS Section 0. 1 (b) 'I'le area designa;.ed as Subarea B1 within Area B may be developed with office, and/or commercial uses subject to the requirements and standards scat forth in the C4 District . Co►:b .tAuc io►t o � SC►t :(' ",_ e_.iti �e►t hotcs.i ►t3 is pe !:m-itted i►t co►tjunc.t..io►t ce(.`h commr.hci.a.t'./ Ve.Lletopment slct►tda �ds J"11 a cibeer hrttsi ►tg cis 1'Q(oimeitt , 6tci�udinq �cZ't��tf;(� , open Space. , u►; � t sC -- C and bu.il.ding buctz, shaU be de.tc•' mZmed titit�ujIit rite co►:di..tio► ai use he -Lmii p'zoces .s . Section 0 . 2 (b) (b) Area A - The total nutnber of dwelling units within, Area B shall not exceed four hundred (400 ) . However , if Sulbare.a B-1 is develop%d with commercial and/or office uses , the maximum number of dwelling units shah not exceed three hundred fifty ( 350) . The ma%imum number of bedrooms per gross acre shill not exceed fifty ; SO ) . ror purposes o, this section, gross acreage shall not include resource production areas . se►iio•2 ri tize►: hous .i ►ig -i.s ptapo3ed i.►t conju►tct,ir►t wr tit o66i.ce /ccmmnciat use's , the dc.,:sity o < this sect.ic►t sliaN: ►tot appal . Section 0 . 13 (c) (c) De'►elopment that are designed and restricted to use by persons fifth (50) years of age and older shall provide parking at the 1 following iat=es : I.atie : 44} Bfteienep--aad-Hre�•-E�}-•l�-dxee +--Hnt9-ersp-� }-ask#�y apaeA--and, ��} 4eae-�z}-br.dxc�am-dntta---ere-ertd-nee-he�����+}-pa�k�nr� speees. One space 40t each three. ( 3 ) dwetUltg Units . Section M. 1. Except 6c i Sttba,tea!, A- 'l and 8- r , the areas presently designated for Resource: Production shall be deeded to the Homeowners Association as part of heir permanent corrmon open space . Ownership shall occur concurrently with ot.,nership of a dwelling unit. Mainte- nance resporisibilities shall begin when oil production has ceased an(] the wells have been abandoneld . Suba,tea A- 2 may be deve£oped 60 % icsidentitzi use 41; acco.Yda►ice with an approved co► dLtionat u.sc pe.,tin.i-t. Suba,tea $- 2 may a.C.so be devecoped .i.+t ac-co tclance w . tlt an app,,v vat' coitd ti Olin C u3e pe tm.i.t. I �kft All REFERENCE MAP AAA to $3es"ere-'D,r(cte -Cro-1 �rsow«e. R00 -jC- :"j 1 .41., CUL�WATEF� LW. --- - -- -A D A M S ____.____ A V E c 1 - Uj 130 1 , �; 1 euce euildin O Fld d f • � I 0 > Height Envelope p_ 1 ./�/� RESOURCE PRODUCTION c • i W (0) OFF ISLAND WELL + RESOURCE % ~ . E PRODUCTION '`, s f . DRILLING ISLAND/ + tf 1 1 4,1 Subarea Al / AREHA A 1 1 E F� - A R A nt PRODUCTION 1 , � RESOURCE JRt,E.. 1 ROL�I. �TION • (01) DRILLING ISLAND ENTRY //7 f � ' co l I PRODUCTIONJRESOURCE coa. (0) OFF ISLAND WELL 1'►.!��� , 198 U ` 1 ` tt1 Reduced Building ;.,.:� C• n i E f Height Envelope o f CL 1 • � �-� � `.. ..._...^�\ .._ —.-+....-s .._+.r..rr-»--...__ . _—• ..—._._gyp,,,. ' r�iif:t:CA;i:N'i' f'ItC:�I'US��i) I;5' I'I.:'1i;;�It�dC; C"C1:•Ii;I�SIC'.': i!?Ct ioll M . i L 1CC,•'< i�+ o t Stiba 7l ri5 A - . �iis (i f% " '- � � I1'' ,12't:'<1;', I?I'est'.I7t-1 " do-,ignat.C11 for I'osmirct! Pvf)ill7Ct: ion 1 I khe C ('_e f'.i_I to the. IIOIiIf--o 'ners As4Clciat-- lC)II -I:; I' :II.t: of 1 i-I:Ii I• j..'(.'2'Iil Sh1 lI1 OCCUL- concurrent' t:i th uwnor sllit' of a tip el linq unit . Ma nt c!- - Ilc�I;!'C i't'IiI,OIl�i l l� l .l l t .2C!s slia 1 1 I.c-'.l i n v.,11ctl oil pro( 11Ct ion has Ce'.Zsed and the %'.ol i 1 )v ' bf"Pll Cti1,iI E' t] A - 4' inai1 f?l' a c C.i' ". tI'tlilco CI12 cZ)?',. t't'i' ii (_i'12(i( tCi' JJt2t. IISt' I+y, �„ r t !{ i'.I `i' �� nt:72/ ►iil'('.t.i' )'{'t� ( Jl :TCC (' i�itltiC tl'( l +l ttii t7 ),'I''il' l'�'S{ i t' iit� i { .'iltIt IL C f'i' 'II'1( t . I i I' I II I REFERENCE MAP _ •GALA to �. {c�,�+�. � oa...t;.,� .� cOLOWATER LN. _ . .w_ _A D A M S -- AVE w t j { r I { Reduced Euilding t }' r _ �� I +; Height Envelope RESOURCE PRODUCTION c y (0) OFF ISLAND WELL if ... RESOURCE au E PRODUCTION (01) f a DRILLING ISLAND : Subarea Al ~- RESOURCE URc,E PRODUCTION r , (01) DR- 11. LING ISLAND I 20 CA.; J 1 u ENTRY ; ... . . .Y ���� i.� �►>„' :it 1 SF.fZ' iCi S E ' RESOURCE PR DUCTION •� � ' ' ► (C) OFF ISLAND WELLMAR 190 Li ,i Ei_:1 fi, 41-.' W ' Reduce Building Cat ! � ! Reduced � E Height Envelope o !{ il�. 'I�itl�, �lllli �;t;��t'I'Itrtt��rtl:t�� �.;:i► i;tl.t;j _ ._ . . _ . t , I (' i (_•. clf Burl ! : !l'rtc� l i_ICi1Cl! 1lunti11C,to11 ilch , CA ALtri-I i'tl- . Ii1C'r Pa1. l n , C1 : tlC:t_Ci: 1)evelo pin ent Servic( :; I%t-'+►t . F?F. : Code P.:npr1 1tn(�nt No . ,t'nl.)r .i (Iqe Sl)eci.f i c C-1n Dear :.Sr. . Palin : i This 1(:'tfter is ` o cl.iri fJ t_hr- i rIt-.ent of :'c�_lr: i?(�t•�' lorni3��'nt 4t'1 t ll l'l':C7ilI"C? i O i:l1l� (?;CT, lr)�� ) on Of l-he Drii lir:(I Tsland •.:it tin Area B . rit L`_ tllt_C:)c?(�i� thiSt t h i'.' i.: t t�iS 1`(' lI t"�(? �Cir ('l:)1'i!i '! all'oEf ire 11`1` 1}i7i)ri t '' .':'ll 11,": L . o3: Cr t ll'_' �71 1 t } +`;.??l t: 1 Q:1 . ''llt' .irr.:;��t)t inn (Ire. :l+ ?t_ !/1:� t l) } . I � !t:t a1-.,1 cclIIId r Ii : SCl1J1C'1:5.`; �r3 I,- c:) n li 1(� c 1.1�•i f-i �, , .• rl �.; i �. 1. hc� ,:_ c . << 13-2 (-3nC? v1c? ) tlfl .S 1'1 cl�.'1 :; '_� :) t:(7 :• .' t: l�~rl 1'I, 3'PONICT1O Frov-, ;:he. pr-:•;-1;111erl L: c'pc It :,pace require- MCI r) i1.1 ':C7, change C�Ut ] I I1Ct1 ?.Il r'tl!' `i t:cl i f :C.'i`•i:' tc f Ll 1..tire use n 'A the prop? ,rtj' ?�"ii <Jt:.lt'ed t1'2 ;?r•t oitl' ca I or, - i,epor' t: clogs r?;•;D1.&-1 .1n t h(' 1 r1fC:Itt: � Q ii(.'V(•' 1ot) ', I iIr"(.'.1 S"!' '-; 1 :':'11tii11 i!(;C'r►I'C? irly to I tI14 C-1p'.)r'o':i d c o n c ii.in t ion of oil Pr011ucti on, Imt: thr- wcor+l i 11(I to c'Mcl ude t: i 1"Olit ( til!? PcI-I:1-litCllf o1)f'n ,r acI, re(7' i rcrnt'nt, of S►_ _ t i or, tS. 1tlT;�C?ItEr_c_F: t�t:C�l)(.IC`,«10t17 Ali LAS, lea not been t1cldt-,d to t:-l1r! Grclirl9-Ar)cC. To �:vo i d the con f uS f or1 Wh i cl1 mrly cw(, r boLh of t--lte:;e issLl►'a , '.':(? L'f_'illlC:;it: t:h�lt the follo'air.9 ch'ar:ges 1)L' made : I . Exhihi. t. " it" l:)t., to cic n i clna t.e he newly acl(?cd 1,0SOurco pro,luction area within Area ii is Subarea F3-2 ; � �ar1c?, 333VVCSI MI-14lc»Vr1AVC111IC • 1 I1111f i11SfU11 Ejf':1C11,t.:lli�c.li'11i:1 ���(�����71�)�3(>,-6464 low -ktll 'ILI v"oId III(; LO '.1 PE, 0!1 1!C,1; APE AS " Ex.cf-,TA r .1;1 2 theI - . pre-t-ently lor -,ource J)rodurtir)n 1,111 Ij e �1f:•(_c:c'cl t 0 the Homow...,rier-, ikssoc--i a t i (--.ji :I`; riart- n c r p s h,- I'of (Aicir peArrizinent common open A. occur concurcently wits: 1, u.-.,riership of a d,,,;c-llinq unit— Maint.t2imnce responsihility shall he gin .-her! oil. prodi,c- I Lion has ceased zinc] the wells have 'heen abmicloned. Su.5area ;%- 7- rnw, be for residential use it) acc-c-ir-cl—ancc—wi D-,, Subarea 11-21 may als b 6 e o e evloped n a od iccr , -c th p an a rovul -Co-nd-itional Use Perm.Lt. Attached i ,1- a cagy oif Section M. PESCURCE PRODUCTTON 7%p"AS — -- w � as it appears -in th-:2 2xisting Sp-ecific Plain, an a copy of the proposed r-�vision to :1'xhi1-.)it ";\" - I L-rus-t this lett.or clr-irify our intent . if you need additional ; nfory iition, please Iet me I:iio-.,: . 1/t- t P(,svw/ L 71 Cot A 1 i; jesignated to visually buffer this project from the adjacent single family areas with intensified landscapir.a in tho-manner :1 shown on Exhibit "B" . A preliminary landscaping plan ;imolementino this requirement shall to submitted along with the aopl.i^anion for a Conditional Use Perimit ( s ) and/or Tentative Tract Maps ) . The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Department of • Development Services-. To further guarantee a proper: buffering of this project from the adjacent single family areas . the following requirements shall be complied with : 1. Only duplex units shall be permitted within Subarea A--1; and, 2 . The finish grade within five ( 5) feet of the common property line shall not be higher than one ( 1) foot above ti►e grade of the adjacent single; family area . M. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AREAS - The :ollowing requirements shall apply to the areas designated - on Exhibit ~A" as Resource Production Areas . 1. The areas presently designated for Resource Production shall be deeded to the Ho-mcowner ' n Association as part of their permanent common open space . Ownership shall occur c^ currently with ownership of a dwelling unit . M•;aIntenance responsi.biIitics � shall begin when oil production has censed and the wells have j been abandoned . I 2 . A special interest bearing account shall be est3b- lished in the name of the Homeowners Assod:.ation for the imp- rovement of the resource production areas . Such improvements shall be pursuant tc the requirements of this section . Prior to issuar� a of building permits , the developer shall deposit into such account an amount of money as deemed nece-- P•;ary by the Department of Development Services to cover the cost of installing such impr-%vements. 3 . 01. 1 production activity shall be in compliance with Title 15 of they Huntington Beach Municipal. Code. SEABRIDGE SPLAN Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue City of Huntington Beach --s . M.-W i w ) .J �l dww wry« rot Pr rot t , . � • ,� I 11 ?A� I.w+...�.�...�+.."ter.---- -- ...r.�--.��,.~�+ a�►- !��—.��1.r-- ..r. .�.�.�— ....�., .+........ ADOPTED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL APRIL 1`9'182 i ORDINANCE 110 . 2550 All ORDINANCE Or THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEnCH ORDINAI;CE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT 1U.r 13 TO .1NC,0RZ ORATE SEABRIDGE SFECIFIC PLA14 WHEREAS , after notice duly giver, pursuant to ;overr;m�•nt Cude section 65500 , the Planning Corninl.ssion of the City ci' Huntington Beach held a public hearing on Sc-abrldge Specific Plan and Envirc)nmental Impact Report No . 81_-3 on Jan-iary 19 , 1982 which was continued to February.. 2 , 198;-) , and concluded or. February 17 , 19 82 ; and Adoption of Seat-•r1.dt-e Spe,.: l.fic- Plan , covering sixty ar res more or less , located south of Adzirr:s Avenue, and east of peach p 1 ll • attached er• w 7 r. , lU \r- e.. as :,xhibit A .�o.�le ar ci , hereto�o _.nr. .inco, :)oz armed t. _r jn , in the most desirable method or r_�rovidinc regulated developrient• Oi' the c?.T'et included Y;i shin said :,pnCi fic �)!Cln in accord with t h" ob,'ect:ives ::yet out in such plan ; anti 011 ;,ia.rr.,h 15 , 11) 821 -after notjce all1'.1 C,iven , he-?ring w'a s geld before this Ccunct. on F-e bridge Specific Plan and Environ- mental. Impact Repc,rt- No . 81-- 3 , and the Council finds that such specific plan in necosonr;j ! or the orderly , regulated development of the i,eal property includ:?d within Sea!-)ridge-- Specific Plan , and finds that the Policies and procedures set- out in such specific plan are satisfactory and in agreement with the general concept as scat out in the city' s Genera: Plan , , I NOW , THEREFORE , thr. City Council of the ii.ty of Ht.ntington II Beach sloes ordain as follows : j I . District Map 13 of the Huntington Beach Ordinanne Code is hereby amended to incorporate Seabridge Specific Plan . i t 2. P Seabrid6 e S ec '.fic Plan attached nereto a3 Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein , is hereby approved , and copies of such specific plan shall. he maintained for inspec - tion in the office of the City Clerk and the !department of Development Services. PASSED AND ADOPTED by th? City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a rvgul.ar meeting thereof held on the 5th day o f—April____ _., 1982 . s� CU iota yor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: �City Clerk City ,Attorney REVIEWED AMD APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administratoif 'it^ec f' evelopment S ervices OP-ft. 2. Ord. No. 2550 STATE Of CA141YOKN IA ) CnMY OIL OVA1aG E CITY OF HITNTINCTON BEACH ) i I , ALICIA 14. WENTWORTK, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of member* of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the for^going ordinance was rend to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of March and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th, day of April , 1982. and was passed and adopted by the affirT-Ative vote of more than a majority of all the n:embr:re of uaid City Council . i AYES: Councilmen: MaWlisters Finley. Mand4 , Kelly I NOES: Councilmen: Thomas AUDIT: Councilmen: Pattinson , Eiailey A ' City Clerk and ex•officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I, AkW M. WORwol:h CITY CLERK of thr City at NuMlnWen %wh MW ox•affk o CMrk of ow CW? cou"C„ do two" termy 1ht & synoph d this, *NMI l NO IPOW pvtrli+ W In On Nunfir" fi tt#Mlt�l I+r' ton Is bF a%'Vr l>M she urlq CENrter of WW trM.y►. " Cori, I I ` TABLE OF C 1Ni T ENTS r. W T 41 A. I�i :E:l ?�1. D PUFtI'OSL 13. SPECIFIC P:.A:i EOUiMARIES C. E:IVTROWIENTAL e+S; cSS,IE::T D. APPLICATION I-R0C1::DUPr-. ~` 1 . Conditional Use Pe ra-d L 2 . Site Flan Requirements 3. Preliminary Grading Plan Requirements 4. Floor and Elevation Plan Requirements 5 . Tentative 'sracc tsar. Requirements E. Statement Requirements L . FLOOD PROTE_i I01, ?Cili, Ar IQ`bw 1 . Perinec.er Streets 2 . Internal Circulation 3. Access co 'Adjacent Property G . TRAFFIC CONTROL h. TilijNSli c C1LI=I 1 . GEOLOGY/S01T SJ.SEISMIC T`i J. IiYi;A 0 L 0 G Y NODE «J. PI✓ Ii`iEiL'iZ UUA FER :•I. P.. 50U:�Ci: ?R07) C':T( AREAS N. . ES ABL !5lii:Ea;L OF DISTRICT A NLAS d 0 . STA::4DAIIDS 1, Uses Permitted 2 . Density Standard 3. Building Height �. 4 . S i ce Cove race 5. Pe.imeter Setback 6. Building Separation and Setbaci. 7. Building- 3. Cor,.r<jn Open Space 9 . Main Recrcrxcion Area T-.ni.mur.i Size 10 . Privace 0,1en Space i TABLE OF Q' rMM (Cont d) i i 11. Minimum Floor Area 12 . Private Access Ways 13. Parking 1.4 . Landscaping 15 . Address Signs 16 . Cable T. V, 17 . Fire Hydrant System ',-- 18 . Fire Protection 19 . Laundry Areas 20 . Lighting 21 . Private Storage Space � 22 . Sewer and water Systems 23 . Signs 24 . Street Signs 25 . Street Trees 26 . Trash Collection Areas 27. Vehicular Storage 29 . Common Areas 29 . Appearance Standards 30 . Landscape Corridor ... 31. Project Signs K. HOMEOWNERS OR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION L. APPROVAL PERIOD M. DEFINITIONS I I EXHIBITS i Exhibit A - Reference Map - Following Page 3 Exhibit B - Perimeter Landscape Buffer -- Following PLge 10 Exhibit C - Oil. Production/Landscape Buffer - Following Page 11 Exhibit D - Clan for Saltwater Marsh Restoration - .. Following Page 11 i i Y� SEABRIDGc SPECIFIC, PLAN November 16 , 1981 February 2 , 14 q 2 February 10 , 1982 February 13 , 1962 can A. PURPOSE - On June 15 , 1981 the C?.;.J Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted an amenanent to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This amendment desig- nated the 60+ acres of lance located at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard as a Planned Community . The General Plan Document , Land Use Element Amendment 81-1 , states that the Planned Community designation is to be im- plemented through adoption of a Specific Plan . A Specific Plan includes policies and descriptive maps which are more detailed than the General Plan , but do not include the detail found in an application for a specific development proposal . Thi following policies were adopted by the Cite Council to provide direction for preparation of a Specific Plan : 1 . The area east of the Oranc:e County Flood Control C:tannal adja::ent to the existing single family zesidential tracts be of a loco density residential, design with an adequate setback to buffer the two projects . ho 2 . The area east and immediately adjacent to the flood control channel be - f a medium density residential design_. 3 . All. units east: of the flood control channel be clus- tered to allow for a maximum amount of open space . local units not to exceed four hundred ( 400) east of the channel . r.. 4 . The area west of the flood control channel be of a high density residential design. This concept should take advantage of the natural topography for development and simultaneously preserve the ponding area in a natural state. ** 5 . Residential units be clustered throughout the project area which also accommodate the continuation of -resource production activities . Total units ,ior the overall project not to exceed eigy c hundred ( 800 ) . The Seabridge Specific Plan is designed to meet the planning �- requirements of the Land Use Element of the General Plan . It is I .intended to serve as a general set of conditions and regulations that will promote the orderly development of the property and provide direction for prep-iring a plan for development while providing sufficient flexibility to pernit design creytivity . B. SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARIES The Seabridge Specific Plan encompasses; that area as delineated on the mar in subsection (a) hereof and described in subsection (b) hereof. "NOTE: rt was understood by the City Council that a reconfiguration of the ponding area would occur to permit the pond to be compatible with the surrounding residential uae %Ahile enhancing the visual aspects of the area. Imo" Area Clan a� ai�. �a MIM.��w ww�r�r Y� •-�.. 1 r S�Ii'BRIDGE I � 10 SPECIFIC 1 !1?LAN It 1.4 71 l } r ( b) Leual Descri.p'_.ior. - The Seabridge Specific Plan irclude5 the real Prop-2rty _',-scr_bed as `ol. lows : Parcels 1 and 2 in the City of Huntington Be-ac;: as per map filed in Book; 154 , F,3ges 11 and 12 of Pared Saps , in the office or the CC_wity Recorder or said Cr)uncy ; anu Parcel 3 ir, L.►e. i_i z ; of` svc:ach ' as ,,cr in Book 41 , paco 24 of Far--a! 111 C 12 O f is Of e Cou;ir ?ec:arjer: of L,ouncv . NOW EXHIBIT A RERERrNCE MAC' t!.0111WATER LN. A D A M S A V E ----- - - --- cowadtPCIAL 130 Subarea R 1 Reduced Building + Height Envelope ,_,j a RESOURCE PRODUCTION + I 1 RESOURCE , (0) OFF ISLAND WELL, E PRODUCTION �� �,, ` ►- r v i pDRILLING ISLAND + SUbarea Al { ' AREA A ,` •ti` ff' - --------------------- ( : W AREA. C3 ' I i i RESOURCE PRODUCTION ' Q I � � 1 ' (01) GRILLING ISLAND Gll i ----- a ?0 ` # w ' ENTRY I 1 jz 1 . fn I , Q� i RESOURCE PRODUUTIOco N �I ° ; (0) OFF ISLAND WELL �'} c� �-4 5 Uj CD m Reduced Building j E height -envelope m a � I ► � Per►meter Setback D. APPLICATION PROCEDURE - Any request for a development proposal shall be accompanied by an application for a Cond- itional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. Such applications, Shall include preliminary site plans , gradinq plans , floor and elevation plans and a statement of statistics . All plans shall be submitted concurrently and shall meet the following I requirements . 1 . Conditional Use Permit - Any proposed development within the specific. Flan area shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use hermit as provided in Article 984 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . 2. Site Plan -- Site plans shall include the following: (a ) Location of all proposed structures; (b) Preliminary landscaping proposals showing the location , and type of punk materials; (c) Location of pedestrian walkways ; low (d) Circulation pattern of vehicular traffic ; .. (el Structural .street sections of all access ways ; ( f) Type and location of outside lighting . bw (g) Size and location of maintenance and storage am !h) Type , size and location of trash ,areas ; ' 1 W Size and location of private space areas ; ftw ( j ) Ilse- of ecmmon open space areas ; .�, ( k) rypo and location cf all •johicle parking ; -4- (1) 'type and locncion of fiances and signs ; and I (m) Layovt showing proposed sewage and water fa.cii"Aties. 3. Prel:,minarX GradingMG Plan Requirements -- MMi�r Y/�.�.•r�/ i++�� Preliminary grading planes shall indicate the following: (a) A Pull inventory of the natural features cof sate, :including all trees exceadi.ng a diamacer of six (6 ) inches; l "` (b) Preliminary soils report and chomical analysis of existinr, soils conditions; (c) Cut and fill proposed on the aice ; (d,) Proposed surface drainage of the sice ; (e) Ground Floor elevations of all. proposed structures ; ( f) Difference In finished gradesa on the sitar ant. those grades un abutting property; �., (g) Underground services ; (h) Statement on quantity of er;cavat:ed material . 4. Floor And Elevation Plan Ragui.rements : Floor and �. elevation plans shall indicate the following: (a) rroposed r:_terior materials to be used on all -r axrticcures s j (b ; Color5 of all exterior materials; (c) Haiahc of all buildings and/or struccures ; MIN (d) Energy sources proposes for. heacing &n(i cooling (af all, buildines . 3- S. Tentative 6racc Mat Requirenenzs - Tentative tracc. maps shall indicate the following: (a) Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; (b) Existing natural topography wish contours at intervals of two (2) feet up to 31 a_rade , five feet up to 10t grade , and ten ( 10 ) feet over 10% grade ; (c) Locations , names , widths, and approxi.rrace grades of all streets within or adjacent to the ` proposed subdivision ; (d) Approxirma ce layout and number of each lot The proposed &nd all dimensions of each said lot ; W Outliners of all existing buildings on subject 6M site; ( f) Areas of property subject to inundation or storm water overflow and location , r►idch , and direction of flow of all watercourses ; I (g) Location , width , and plrpose of all existing and/or proposed easemei.ts on or ccntiguous to the subdivision; �. (h) sypi.cal street section ; and (i ) All. existing or abandoned oil field wells and apu=eenances and the proposed treatment of such facilities . 6 . Statement Re Mired - A detailed statement shall also be included containing the following J information : r (a) Distance fron the pror►ercy to any known geological hazard; (b) Gross area within the bl a line ;jorder ( area botuidary) of the tentative map ; (c) Net lot area ( i . e. , cross area minus all public and orivace streets and/or driveways) ; (d) Number and type of units and number of .. bedrooms ; (e) Total number of units and number of units and bedrooms per gross acre; i ' ( f) Floor area of each unit; �- (g) Area and minimum dimensions of private patios (open space) and balconies ; 1h) Percentage of site coverage by all buildings ; ( i) Number and type of covered parking spaces ; ( j ) Number of open parking spaces ; (k) Amount of usable common open and recreational ow spaces provided , using regulations set forth in this article ; Ono (1) Types of reacreation facilities proposed; and (m) Schedule and sequence of development if pro- posed in phases . E. FLOOD PROTECTION - All development within the specific plan azea shall conform to all ' Federal Emergency Management Agency' s (FEMA) flood protection requirements subject to approvAl of the City Director of Public Works . �'• CIRCULATION - Standards for streets and drives shall be as follows : 1. Perimeter Streets The Street right-of-way for Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard shall be dedicated an pu;31ic w streets and fully improved to city standards . 2 . Internal Circulation - Circulation within the Specific: Plan Area shall be such that a collector street (s) connecting Adauns Avenue with Eeach ebulevard shall be provided. ..r The point of intersection of the :Hain collector street ( s) with Beach Boulevard and- Adams Avenue shall. conform to the align- ment- shown on Exhibit "A" . 7 i All internal streets and drives. shall. be privately owned and maintained. The standards for such streets and strives , including width and construction, shall meet the requirecent . of the Director of Public Works and conform 'to the requirements of this Article . 3 . Access to Adjacent-Property- -- Private streets and/or _. driv..,s within this Specific: Plan' A'rea shall not be permitted to connect with the local 'streets within the adjacent. single family i ~" areas to the east and south. I � G. TRAFFIC CONTROL - The Planning Commission , upon recommendation of the Department of. Public Works , shall determine the need � for traffic control devices (i .e . traffic s igials) . Such determination shall include the appropriate time of. installation. The developer shall pay the entire cost of installing traffics signals on Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at the entrances to the development. The developer shall provide for the future installation of any such improvements prior to issuance of building permits . .. H. TRANSIT FACILITIES - Bus turnouts and bus shelters shall be provided at locations designated by the Department of Pub- lic Works and Orange County Transit District. The design of such shelters and turnouts shall be approved by the Department .. of Public Works and Orange County Transit Districts. I. GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMICITY - The following geology, soils r.. and seismicity measures stall be eriployed prior to the issuance of building permits : -r I. Submittal of a structural engineering study eval- uating proposed foundation desirins with respect to ground shak- I ing and liquificacion hazards on the property . The study shall be subject to the review a&%d approval of the Departments of � .- Public Works and Development Services . Foundations and struc- tural componets of the buildings shall be designed according to recormmendations contained within the structural engineering study. 2 . Submittal of a soils study detailing grading and I i �. site preparation recommendations . This study shall be subject � to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Devel- opment Services . Grading and site preparation shall be accomp- lished in accordance with recommendations Presented in the soils study. Itab J . HYDROLOGY - A water management system with respect to maintenance of water quality for both the amenity lakes and the freshwater pond shall be developed by the applicant and ... and Devartment of approved by the Department of public Works a nevelovmdnt Services . K. ?IOISE - Prior to the issuance of building permits , a noise study conducted by an acoustical engineer to determine existing ambient noise levels on Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard shall be i .�. submitted to the Development Services Department for review,an ro`,al. Structural designs for proposed residents-al units shall be re- viewed and design modifications recommended in the noise study I shall be incorporated into the project design . L. PERIMETER BUFFER - A Landscaped buffer shall be provided along the east and south property linen and at other appropriate locations within. Subarea A- 1 . Such buffer shall be 1 -9- ,� designated to visually buffer this project from the adjacent single family areas with intensified landscaping in the manner shown on Exhibit "H" . A preliminary landscaping plan implementing this requirement shall be submitted along with the application for a Conditional Use Permit (s) and/or Tentative Tract Map (s) . The final landscape plan shall be approved day the Department of Development Services-. To further guarantee a proper buffering of this project from the adjacent single family areas , the following requirements shal] be complied with: Only duplex units shall be permitted within Subarea A-1 s and, 2. The .finish grade within five (5) feet of the common proparty line shall not be higher than one (1) foot above the grade of the adjacent single family area. m. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AREAS - The following requirements shall apply to the areas designated on Exhibit "A" as Resource Production Areas. 1. The areas presently designated for Resource Production shall be deeded to the Homeowner ' s Association as part of their r. permanent common open space. Ownership shall occur concurrently with ownership of a dwelling unit. Maintenance responsibilities shall begin when oil production has ceased and the wells have been abandoned. 2 . A special interest bearing account shall be estab- lished in the name of the Homeowners Association for the inp- rovement of the resource production areas . Such improvements shall be pursuant to the requirements of this section. b. Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall am deposit into such account an amount of money as deemed nece- i ssary by the Department of Development Services to cover the cost of installing such improvements . 3 . Oil production activity shall be in compliance with Title 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. EXHIBIT 8 ved6toter Landscoo Butte Plan AcewW -7rpE& d . VI r G��1 D 's'Z �+ rWl�/(� �1�/1'vi�s�LRYI./O.�o *O PPitirLV f,L'1M1 a. F` mom Sectlon 8-8 � �t �iG�`1WN� 7 aflilA M hk EXHIBIT C oil p,rWuction/Lando car Suffor 014, fwat-;��� rrr l..C., elm .. am EXHIBIT C Lnnds� guff er oil Productionf ale, & , ow e w � w i EXHIBIT 8 M Perim oter LwWscspe Buffer Uzi LAA �AA A& Plan d Waw AAvlty 1bK55a .o bow sactlon 9-3 8 /0' EXHIBIT 0 SALTWATER MARSH •r• •• t • Mkm \•• ••�_ r :• t 1 bm •!• • f ti4 hm ' • •, be 10 t 1 • � r y ii r 1 ik,r 1 I 'f r� 4 . The project shall be desigaed so the oil pro- duction does not create an incompatable relationship with the proposed new development. Screening of the resource production area while oil operations are taking place shall .« be accomplished in the manner shown on Exhibit: "C 5 . Upon termination or abandonment of the oil pro- duction within the areas designated as "Resource Production" or upon release by the oil lessee of the area pr.•sently un- der production such areas shall be improved as follows: ;a) The zrea east of the Flood Control Channel (Area A) shall be improved according to the preliminary landscape plans which are to be subati.tted with the application for development; and, (b) The areas west of the Flood Control Channel I �• (Area B) shall be improved as a restored maysh per Exhibit 6 . Any application for development of Areas A or f� B shall include the des+gn for future development of the res- pective resource production area (s) pursuant to the require- ments of thin section. N . ESTA.BLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AREAS - The configuration of ■, the property for w1L-h this Speci.f is Plan is prepared is such that there are two ( 2) distinct areas . These areas are delin- � 0 eated on the Specific Plan Map shown on Exhibit "A" • • A descriptive of development standards for thence areas are inclt:ded in the sections that follow . j 0. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - Proposed a-velop: ent_ within the Seabridge Specific Plan shall comply with the following standards : are g uses fo 1 win permitted X. Uses Permitted -- The 1 c _ within the specific plan area: (a) Area A-**-Attached or d.atached residential � units and related recreational facilities ; ;b) Area B*&-Attached r?sidential units and related recreational facilities . �. The area designated as Subarea Bl within Area B Tray be developed with office and/or commercial uses subject to the requirements and standards, set forth in the C4 District. 2 . Density Standards - low (a) Area A -- The total number of dwelling units within Area A shall r.ot exceed four hundred (400) . Such units shall be clustered to allow for a uiaximum amount of open space. The maximum number of bedrooms per gross acre of land shall not exceed twenty- five ( 25) . For the purposes of this section, gross acreage shall not include resource production areas . (b) Area B - -The total number of dwelling units within Area a shall not exceed four hundred (400 ) . However bw if Subarea B- 1 is developed with commercial and/or office uses , the maximum number of dwelling units `' shall not exceed three hundred fifty ( 350) . The maximur, number of bedrooms per gross acre shall not 'w exceed fifty (50) . For purposes of this section , gross acreage shall not i::clude resource � oft production areas . **NOTE: oil production within the drilling islands shown on `" Exhibit "A" shall comply with the provisions of the - "0-1 " Dis- trict ( Article 968) of the Huntington Beach ordinance Code . Tho areas designated as Off T.sland Well Sites shall be subject wo «- the requirements of the - "n" District (Article 968) of the Hunt- ington 'Beach Ordinance Codo . All provisions of Title 15 of the Huntington Heach municipal shall be coriolied with . JWN ,.1 2- .» J 'M 3 . Building Height The maximum building height shall be as follows : Area A - Thirty five ( 35) fee` except within Subarea Al where the maximum building height shall not exceed twenty five ( 25) feet. (See Exhibit „ A " 1 �- Area B - Five (5) stories or sixty ( 60 ) feet. 4 . Site Coverage - The maximum building site cov- erage shall. be as follows : Are -• '%arty five percent ( 45t ) of net acreage Area B - Fifty percent (50t) of net acreage 5•. Perimeter Setback - The minimum setback for all structures over six ( 6) feet in height which are located along 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 , landscape features , and structures intended � for safety or public use . 6 . Building Separation and Setback •- Area A - The minimum building separation or distance between buildings and access ways for Area A shall be as follows : 1 (a) Between buildings , front to front , twenty five ( 25) ft. (b) Between buildings ; rear to rear or rear to front , twenty (20) feet . Cc) Between buildings , side to front or side to rear, fifteen ( 15) feet. (d) Between buildings, side to side, twenty (20) feet, except, within Subarea A-1 where the mini,:14,3m separation between .. duplex units shall be fifteen ( 15) feet, with an average separation of twenty ( 20) feet. �. (e) In order to provile for obliquely aligned buildings, the distance spocif ied above may be decreased at ono corner of a building if the separation at the other corner fs increased by an equal or greaten distance. In no case shall the separation be 14ss than ten ( 10) feet . the (f) Distance between detached accessory buildings shall not be less than ten ( 10) feet. (h) Where open parking is provided on the same level as that portion of the dwelling used for human habitation , Oft the ;ainimum separation shall be ten ( 10 ) feet on a horizontal, plane. w. ( 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 access ways and garages or parking structures shall not be less than five (5) feet. Area A - The minimum separation between buil.dinos front to front sail be one hundred ( 100) feet. The minimum separation between buildings front to side or side to tide shall. be thirty- five (35) feet. The minimtun separation between obliquely aligned buildings shall be fifty (50) feet witti an average r- separation of seventy-five ( 75) feet. 7. Building Bulk - A YrM IY I Area A - The following design standards are recom- mended for controlling building bulk within Area A. (a) Building lengths shall not exceed 180 feet. (b) Building exterior shall be provided with offsets in the building line to provide variation. (c) Building rooflines shall he designed to provide variation . (d) Within Subarea A-1 , only duplex units shall be permitted . Area B - The following design standards are racorj-.anded for controlling buildirig :julk v,4thin Area D. ( a) Building exterior3 shall be provided with ofIgmets in the building ! ine to provide 4ariation . - 1 4 N -- - - - --- -- M (b) Building roof lines shall be designed to provide variation. 8. Common 02en Space - The site plan shall be de- signed so a maximum number of unith abut open space . Open Space areas for recreation and leisure activities shall be provided according to the following standards : OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT Area A - 1,000 Square feet per unit AreaB - The net area set aside For common open space shall be equivalent to forty percent ( 401) of the gross I� habitable area of the residential units . i� -• (a ) The common open space areas shall be designed and located for maximum use by all residents of the project. (b ) Such areas small be fully improved. T. nprovemcncs may include saved surfaces , landscaped areas , water areas , and recreational facilities . '•- (c ) Recreation and leisure areas shall not be located within ten ( 10) feet of any ground floor dwelling unit wall hav- ing a door or window. Aliao, such recreation and leisure areas shall have miniumum diuension of twe;ty (20) feet if they are to be included within the open space calculations. -- (d ) Lot coverage by recreation buildings and other recreation structures shall be included within the open space calc�.Iationa . (e) At least one (1) main recreational area shall be provided. Satellite recreation areas may be distributed throughout the specific plan area. (f) Open space requirements of this section are not Intended to suparcede the Park and Recreational requirements of Article 974 and 996 . All applicable requirements of Articles 974 and 996 shall be complied with. 9 . Main Recreation Area - Minimum Size - The min- , imum size of the main recreational area shall not be less than ten thousand (10 , 000) square feet. ( a) Two or more of the following shall be provided within the main recreational area.: swimming pool , spa, sauna , tennis court, basketball court, putting green, play - ground equipment, volleyball court, lawn bowling , outdoor cook- ing facility, or similar facilities . (b) Ro eidential units shall not be located closer to the main recreation area than twenty ( 20 ) feet. Where such residential units do not have windows or doors located on the same level the setback may be .educed to five (5) feet . (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- raation areas to satisfy this requirement. 10 . Private Open S2ace - Private open space areas , .� 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 to serve . The minimum size of such patios or balconies shall meet the following standards : (a) Where patios are provided, the minimum areas shall be as follows : Minimum Area** Minimum Unit-T,y2e t_Sg. F;: Dimension (Ft . ) ' — Efficiency/or one (1) bedroom 120 10 Two ( 2) bedrooms 200 10 Three ( 3) or more bedrooms 300 10 I (b) Where balconies are provided the minimum area it .. shall be as follows : Minimum Area Minimum Unit Type (Sq. Ft. ) Dimension (Ft. ) Efficiency/or one �. (1) bedroom 60 6 Two ( 2) , three ( 3) or four ( 4 ) bedrooms 120 6 w* This area may be divided into two ( 2) separate aresag ; however , neither area shall contain less than sixty ( 60 ) square feet . (c) Two story units which are provided with a patio at the lower level are permitteu a ten percent (10%) reduction aim in the patio area requirement if a balcony having a minimum area of sixty (60) sq. ft. is provided. Balconies which serve as en- am trances or exists shall not satisfy this requirement except ,W where entrances or exists are for the sole use of a► particular unit. a i -n 1 . Minimum Floor Area - Each dwelling within the i development shall have the following minimum floor area : Area A Area B Minimum Floor Minimum Floor Unit Type Area (SS.Ft. ) Area (Sq. Ft. ) Efficiency 450 450 � One ( 1) Bedroom 650 600 Two ( 2 ) Bedrooms 900 800 Three ( 3) Bedrooms 1100 1000 Four ( 4) Bedrooms 1300 1200 1k. Private Access Ways - The following standards shall .. apply to all private vehicular access ways : (a) The main entries to the seabridge Specific Plan Area shall be provided with a minimum paved width equivalent to not less than two (2) - twelve (12) foot travel lanes in each direction of traffic flow, for a distance of not less than one hundred (100) feet measured from.► such intersection into the development. (b! Private ways serving as access shall be provided I� with a minimum paved width equivalent to not lees than two ( 2) twelve ( 12) foot wide travel lanes . w. (c) Access ways exceeding one hundred fifty ( 150) 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 thirty-one ( 31) feet or a "Hammerhead" turnaround per Fire Dept. Standards ; ( d) Access ways exceeding three hundred feet ( 300) feet in length but less than six hundred feet (600) in length shall be provided with a curbed turn-ground having a minimum radius of forty ( 40) feet, a "Hammerhead" turn-around per Fire Department 3tandards , or, an intertying loop circulation system; I ( e) Access ways exceeding six: hundred (600) feet in igth shall be provided with an inter-tying loop circulation —Lem i system; a turn-around meeting the requirements of the Fire Department may be permitted where a loop system is impractical. (f) Exceptions to the above standards may be granted by the Planning Commission upon the recommendation of the Department of Development Services and the Fire Department. 13. Parkin - The required parking for the units within the Specific Plan Area shall be provided at the following ratio: (a) Efficiency and one ( 1) bedroom units shall be provided with MW two ( 2) on-site parking spaces . (b) Dwelling units with two ( 2) or more bedrooms shall be provided with two and one-half (2�,-) on-site parking spaces . w (a) Developments that are designed and restricted to use by persons fifty (50) yeazs of age and older shall provide parking at the following ratios : (1) Efficiency and one ( 1) bed::oom units - one ( 1) parking space ; and, (2) Two ( 2) bedroom units one and one-half ( 1�) parking spaces. ( d) Where parking spaces are provided on a drive approach to a carport or garage that is designed for the exclusive use of the owner of the garage or carport, such parking -spaces shah. be credited toward satisfying fifty percent ( 501) of the open parking requirements . ( e) At least one ( 1) parking space per unit shall be covered. The remaining spaces may be open. r.. i w I 19 _ ; ur ( f) All parking spaces required by this section shall be distributed at convenient locations to serve both residents and quests . (g) All residential buildings within Area A shall be designed to incorporate the required covered parking spaces for the residential units in the building. (h) All required covered parking within Area B, shall be locate: within two hundred (200) feet of the dwelling unit it is �., designed to serve. (i) Aeiy allocation for compact car parking spaces within Area B shall be determined through the Conditional Use permit process . (�) The access , dimensions , and turning radii for all parking shall conform to the provisions of Article 973 . 14 . Landscaping The purpose of this is to in- sure a more pleasant living environment through the use of plans and decorative design elements . ( a) All setback areas fronting on or risible from an adjacent public street , and all recreation, leisure and open areas shall be landscaped and permanently naint.ained in, an attractive manner. (b) Permanent irrigation facilities shall be pro- vided in all landscaped areas . (c) One (1 ) thirty ( 33 ) inc:z boy tree , or equiv- alent , shall be provided rnsite for each residential unit . -20- •10 I Seventy five percent ( 75,L) of the total requirement shall be thirty ( 33) 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 through the use of twenty (20) or twenty-four (2 4 ) inch box trees. Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well balanced landscaped developmenc. t �a and d) A landsca• irrigation plan shall be y submitted to the Departnent of Development Services for approval prior to the issuance of building permits . ls . Address Signs - The placemenc of address numbers shall be az a uniform location chroughour the develoVnzenc, and the ol.acemenc of such numbers shall be approved by the Deparcm?nc of Developr.nc Services . 16 . Cable T. V. - :10 exterior television antenna shall he perrucced. A corrron antenna with underground cable service to a'1 dwelling units shall be provided . 1.7. Fire I. ydrant Sys tem - A fire hydrant. sys ten shall be i.nstalled to provide an adequate fire flo% . The adequacy of such system shall be approved by the fire marshal low after review of plans and engineering calculations have been submitted. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the oft J nsurance of building pe mi cs , and any fire hydrant sys cem shall be in operation prior co c:1e time of conscruccion with any IM comJ3uscible materials . -21- I .n 18. Fire Protection - .All fire protection appli- ances , appurtenances , emergency access and other applicable �. requirements pursuant to Chapter 17. 56 of the E:uncingcon Beach Municipal Code shall meet the standard plans and specifications i on file with the Fire Department. •.. 19. Laundry Areas -• Where laundry areas , ocher than those located within individual dwelling units are provided, .� such areal shall be located to minimize visual and noise in- crusion both within and outside the project. .. 20. Lightins - the developer shall install an on-site lighting system on all vehicular access aay3 and along major walkways. A lighting plan Shall be sviimittec for approval to the Director of Developmental Services . Such Lighting shall be directed o co driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties . Lighting shall also be i ■- installed within all covered and enclosed parking areas . 21. Private Storage Space - Where the proposed dev- elopment is to be construcced wi ch other chan an attachad garage for each dwelling unit , a minimum of one hundred (100 ) cubic feet of storage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit . 22 .. Sewer and Water S stems - Sewer and water systems shall be designed to city standards . Such systems shall be located wi.chin s crea cs , alleys or drives. � -22-• I w I -r in no case shall inviv_' dual sewer lines or sewer rkains for one building be permitted to extend underneath any other building . 23 . Si ns - All signs in the development shall conform cc applicable provisions of. Article 976 . ' *- 24 . Screed Signs - 'r,jie developer shall install on-site sernec name signs ac the intersections of access wads , as approved by the Director of j:evelopirenc Services . Street na•.•es and siyr_s shall. be approved ,)y the Fire Departmenc. 25. Street Trees - Street trees along Beach Blvd. and Adams Avenue shall be provided pursuant co city scandarda with twenty (20 ) inch bcx LrF_-es planted at approximately forty- five (45) foot intervals . A plan showing the type and place- I � ment of such creel shall be approved by the Department of F•ubli.c Works and the rr)eparctienc of Development Services . now An equivalent alternative to t:Ais basic requirement may be permitted subject co approval of cha Deparcnienc of Development - Services . 26 . Trash Collection F,reas - Trasn collection areas s:.al3 be provided within two hundred (200 ) feel of �- the units they are to serve . Su^h areas shall be enclosed or screened, and shall be situated in order to mini.raze noise and visual inLrusiort on adjacent property as sell as to eliminata fire hazard to adjacent structures . Individual trash collection shall be pernitted where the intent of this -� section is met . -23 - w 27 . Vehicular Storages - Gucside uncovered and ._ unenclosed areas for scorzre of hoacs , trailers , recreational vehicles and ocher similar •vehicles shall b? prohibited un- less specifically designate-: areas for the exclusive storage of such vehicles are sec aside an c;:e final development plan and provided for in the association ' s covenants , conditions , and restrictions. Where such areas are provided, they shall i be screened from vied: on a horizonal plane from adjacent areas by a commination of six (6 ) £coc: high n.asonry wall or permanencly maintained la.ndscapiria . 28 . Corzron Areas - Cor.no:i open s?ace small he guaranteed ;3y a restrictive covenant describing the open space and its maintenance and im?ro% arent , running with the land `" for the ;_)enefir, of residents of the development . The j developer shall file with the Department. of Development. Services r for reccrdation wicn the final suba—H-ision trap , legal documents MOP which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designated: purpose , as approved on the final developmonc low plan . All lands to be c:onveyea co the homeowner' s associ,ac:ir.n shall be subject to the right. of the �, rantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and improvermants of the common space. -24 - r 29 . A22earance Standards - The following standards M shall be considered by the Planning Coi:.ini ssion when reviewing a development proposal : (a) Architectural features and neneral appearance of -- the proposed development shall enhance the ordarly I and harmonious developmen.c of the area or the commun- ity as a whole. (b) Architectural features and complimentary colorz shall. be ' incorporated into -,:he design of all vertical I w- exterior surfaces of the auildings in oL ler to create an aesthetically, pleasincj project . ( c) Particular attention shall be given to Incorporat- ing the desigr of signs , including colors of signs , into the overall design of the entire del:elopment in order to achieve uniformity . (d ) vehicular access ways shall be designed with land- I � scaping anc? building variation to eliminate an alley- like appearance . r I I w. r 25 - r. 30. Landscape Corridor - The Senbridge Specific Plan Area is contiguous to the Beach Boulevard Landscape Corridor requiring that special consideration be given to the appearance of the ~` project adjacent to Beach Boulevard. In view of this , the following minimum standards shall be �- met: (a) The area between the building line and the property i _ line which is visible from the street shall be landscaped and permanently maintained. �. (b) The theme of the landscape plan shall emphasize mature plantings . (c) Street trues equivalent to one twenty ( 20) inch box tree shall be planted at approximately forty-five (45) foot Intervals. The size and placement of such trees may be rearranged I pursu.i:nt to an approved landscape plan provided the plan has an equ:.vaient size and number of trees . �- (d) Water features shall be designed to recreate a natural setting. .w (e) The public right-of.- way between the curb and property line shall incorporate landscape features to complement the on-site landscaping. 31. Project Signs - All applicable provisions of Article `' 976 "Sign Code" shall be complied with . r. HG::SU.%i1ERS' OR Co.a•1UN ITY ASSOCIATION - Approval of a l l development proposals shall be subject to submission of a legal instrument or instru.:Pncs setting forth a plan or wanner of permanent care and maintenance of open spaces , recreational areas , and corvaunicy facilities . No such ' ins tr-am.enr. shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal farm and effect, and by the Director of Developmental Services as to suitability for the proposed us- of the open space areas . - 26 ... if the common open spaces are to be conveyed to s homeowners ' association , the developer shall file a declaration of cov- enants to be submitted with the application for approval, that will govern the association. I . The homeowners ' association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit . 2. Membership shall ' -cs ,mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. 3 . The open space restrictions shall lie permanent . 4 . Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than �. approved and developed parking spaces shall be w_itten 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- es i enants , conditions , and restrictions and reciprocal management �.. and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed , and embody one �. homeowners ' association with common areas for the total development . r L. APPROVAL PERIOD - Notwithstanding the :rovisions of Article 984 , Conditional Use Permits , each Conditional Use Permit author- ized under this Article shall become null and void within two b. (2 ) years unless a final tract map has been recorded with the- County Recorders office on any portion of the approved Flans within such two (2 ) year period. Extensions of time may be granted pursuant to the provisions for extending approval of the tentative tract map. 27 - M Y M. The following definitions shall applv to the _ Seabridge Specific Plan. Terms not described under this section shall be subject to the definitions contained in Article 970 of the Huntington Beach Municipal rode. Grade (Adjacent Ground Elevation) - is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or, when the property line is mere than five ( 5) feet from the building , between the building and a line five ( 5) feet from the building. — Height of Building - is thr! vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line -of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building : 1. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a 5--foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10 feet above the lowest grade . 2 . An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in Item 1 above is more than 10 feet above love it grade. �. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. .. Perimeter Setback - shall mean the required setback distance between the specific plan boundary line and any proposed MW buildings along said boundary liners . Specific Plan - shall mean the Seabridgem Specific Plan as adopted by the City Council of they City of Huntington Beach. S12ecific Plan Mak - shall mean the asap described in Section B . w 28 .. r.W .J/� Mr Irrs,� •ful. 1� ; - - _ _y. �-N .•,�K �. ...�f' ��,it -, '� t ' ; , Ir%� .'Jrr• r ,rti , `� �:1�11_, ���d (j� 1� �•. 1 i J �1 (' t`'( 1 _ i i 1 "GT" BEACH V:WINU DEFT. ,A N,, 1 ., 199 , P. Q, BOX I Q0 [H&L Hunt'rC,-,, Rca- IF H I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 81wo3 SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue City of Huntington Beech I � i MNAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 81-3 r14 SEA13RIDGE PROJECT Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue ` City of Huntington Beach Departrr.2nt of Development Services P.Q. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Contact Person: James R. Barnes ir S (714) 536-5554 Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Newport Beach, California WA January 11, 1982 YM M.7 1M1 i.t TABLE OF CONTENTS i 1.0 iNTRODUC11ON . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ., . . . . . . . . . . .. . . I 2.0 SI-JMMARY . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Locetion . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Objectives of the Project. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 Project Characteristics . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 4 3.4 Project Background. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. 7 ` ~ 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION . . .. . 8 4.1 Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . 8 4.2 Geology/Sails/Seismicity .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 8 r , 4.3 Hydrology ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 10 4.4 Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5 Land Use. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . 16 E 4.6 Cut tarot Resources . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.7 Popuflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.8 Transportation/Circulation .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ' 4.9 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . poll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 22 4.10 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.11 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 = 4.12 Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 30 4.13 Fiscal Analysis. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .► . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . .. 35 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 ..4 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 38 7.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT, IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8.0 ORGAN1ZATIOI-I5 AND PERSONS CONSULTED. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9.0 REFERENCES . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 APFIENDICES A Comments to the Notice of Preparation B Specific Plan < < C Geotechnical and Sails Investigations D List of Wildlife Species E Archaeological Report { F Traffic Analysis G Noise Analysis H Air Quality Analysis COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR r . !K ' i �� I _ _ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Following Page Number I. Project Location . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Project Boundary.. . . , , . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Conceptual Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Design Concepts - Perimeter Landscape Buffer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Design Concepts - Relationship with Public Street . . . . , . , , e. , 4 r 6. Design Concepts - Typical Motor Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4 7. Design Concepts -- Oil Production/Landscape Buffer and Typical Lake Grading Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Geology and Fault Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 r � 9. Drainage Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11, Project Related Traff ice Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 21 12. Existing Plots Project Related Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13. Noise Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 14. Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 !Y. i.. it ' LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number c : AStatistical Sunimcry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B Summary of Trip Generation Oicrocteris;;1�s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 i C CNEL Noise Levels of Existing Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 a D Increase in Existing Noise Levels Due to the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 _ E CNEL Noise Levels for Ultimate Traffic Conditions. . . . . . . . .. . . .. 24 F Project Contribution to the Basin-wide Air Quality Burden . . .. . . . . 26 G Comparative Impact Evaluation of Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 39 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION The intent of this document is to provide on analysis of the environmental effects asso- ciated with the development of property near the intersections of Beach Boulevard and .dams avenue in .he City of Huntington Beach, as defined by the Seabridge Specific flan proposed by the MOI_A Development Corporation. The proposed development will requ;re the approval of a Specific Plan and a subsequent tract map and Cond tional Use Permit. In preparing this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the procedures contained In the "State EIR Guidelines" as amended, have been followed. A Notice. of preparation (NOP) was sent to agencies with permit or review authority and to other interested parties. Comments received in the NOP are contained in Appen- dix A. Direct consultation with these agencies was also conducted during preparation of j LN the EIR. Public input can now be accomplished through written commentary on this Graft EIR, or by contacting the individual listed on the title pare. r. t: I 2.3 SUh1M Af'Y Th�-! Seabridge Development Project is loc�ited on 601 acres along the southeastern corner of the Beach Boulevard/Ad'arns Avenue intersection in the City of Huntington Beach. u The propety is vacant except for the twenty-fiv,! (25) oil proc`.urtion units it now con- tains. The proposed uses on the site include: 1300 residential units; recreational facilities (i.e., five recreation centers, each with o swimming pool and spa, and four tennis courts); �. private open space and parks; and retention of the existing oil production facilities until th:-� fields tire: abancinne:d. j The following list denotes the: potential significant environmental effects that could resull with implementation of the project rind whether mitigation 1noas1Jre 5 are irc:luded within the project. r POTENTIAL MITIGATION IMPACT INCLUDED 11\1 EIR Extensive grading for auilding pads, Yes. Review of grading p1c.is by City .-•oads, levee improvements, lakes and Stuff. o)her landscape amenities, garages (west sid.-) and natural resource ponds. Geotechnical/site constraints related to Yes. Sub-mittal of further soils study and ground-shaking intensities, high liq-je- structural engineering studies for con- faction and differential compaction structiorr, guidelines. potential, expansive soils and saturated pent subsurface conditions. Alteration of existing drainage pattern. Yes. Improved storm drain ;ystern to b� construOcd based upon County and City requirvr ne,its. Site within flood ha-:ard arec. Ye"s. I-ev:e improvements and raisin�l building pods to achieve 12 feet rnsl min- imurn for finished flours. Numerous lake amenities offer potential Yes. Submittal of iliv water quality water quality probterns. mcnc:gernent plops for review by City. 1 Loss of vegetatim characterized, cis Yes. Development of a new freshwater coastal brockish rnarsth with direct dis- pond and eventual saltwater marsh in placement of wildlife including foraging existing resourc production area. Initial habitat for a rare species. mitigation (i.e., the: pond) may be: con- sidered only partial. Also, required review of wetland modification by the Dupartment of Fish and Game. a 2- i POTENTIAL MITIGATION IMPACT INCLUDED IN EIR Potential incompatibility of higher den- Yes. Conceptual plan includes numerous cities ir. project with adjacent single treatments to reduce impact on adjocert family neighborhoods. residential areas. Potential incompatibility between pro- Yes. Fencing and screening will separate posed residences and existing oil produc- the two rises. tion. Additional traffic loading on E3each Yes. Roadway improvements to Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue primarily Roulevord and Adarns adjacent site; impacting the Beach/Adams intersec- installation of a traffic signal at tion. Minor but cumulative impact con- Beach/Memphis intersection; submittal gested intersections aiong Peach B:,ule- of trip distribution analyses for review vard, ncrth of the project. by City Department of Public Works. I Proposed residential structures fronting Yes, Noise attenuation measures will be Beach Boulevard will be within the prc- required and are specified in the Specific 'E jected 65 CNEL contour. Plan. Proposed structures would be Highly Yes. Numerous design and landscape visible from surrow ling Areas and from treatments a,e proposed to minimize Beach Boulevard. visucl conflicts. Increased demand on public services and None proposed (Net revenue surplus anti- iocilities. cipated based on previous analysis). ,11 ll 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3. ! Location The Seabridge Specific flan proposed by the MOLA Development Corporation is located on 69t acres alone the southeastern corner of the Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue inter- section in the City of Huntington D,- ::• h. The property is vacant except for the twenty- five (25) oil production units, active c.snd inactive, it now contains. The site is bisected by Orange County Flood Control Channel No. D01. A location reference mop is shown in Figure I. 3.2 Objeciives of the Project It is the objective of the applicant, MOLA DevelopmE nt Corporation to develop an 800- unit residential community, with amenities, and a commercial option on the propet ty. The proposed Specific Plan is provided in full in Appendix F3. 3.3 Project Characteristics For descriptive purposes, the site has been divided into two development areas: Area A lies cost of the flood control channel; Area B lies to the west between the flood control channel and Beach Boulevard (refer to Figure 2). These areas are referenced in various discussions throughout this report. Ina d'tion to the development areal, approxim ately i eight (S) acres will remain in oil production and will eventually be dedicated as common open space. 3.3. 1 Proposed Land Uses The proposed uses on the site include: 000 residential units; recreational facilities (i.e., five recreation centers, each with a swimming pool and ;pa, and four tennis courts); private open space and parks; and retention of they existing oil pro0,)ction facilities. Area A will contain one- and two-story attached dwelling units over G tuck-under garage. Only ore-story units over tuck-under parking will be built along the periphery of the site in order to provide a transition from bordering residential neighborhoods. Area B will consist of 400 units IOCGIed in several structures up to four stories in height over parking garages. The conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 3. Specific design treatments are shown in Figures 4-7. A statistical surnmary of the project is given in Table A. e option of including - r r is uses r elderly housing at the northwest corner of The p t s iu r 3 co nme cr I o I y g the site - in place of approximately 50-60 residential units is contained in the Specific Plan. These options are also listed in Table A. 3.3.2 Circulation Concept The major circulation elumeni will consist of a 501 R.O.W. loop road which bridges the channel and connects Areas A and B. The loop road will intersect Beach Boulevard and Adains Avenue at existing intersection-. Direct access to the individual units will be via secondary roads and parking courts located along the major loop. There will be no access Jo the adjacent neighborhood streets through th,c site. Access to the site will be through a ce ntrolled entry sy;tern. t� ' .. ._ r ...,_."� I j _ '' �'� "� �y`' •'• � ,�t' wl .i.111�, - ,ll i_ ., • d 1� .. r � r'f .1 i/„a•• I C`•C ' 1 ` .. �, f F,..�i J�',.wN' • , ..aw. , I� ��- 71• Imo.. _ r ,' a = ' I { �� �' � ,Z f I .r , l,' 'i , `•-`ta + ' ,+ ;r: a t•.� ;. � .-. F 1 -. . , . . .n A 1X S A V E ' `L' I i .��Ci' �+1� II �'»lai �, j• •l I '-: •: ��• F� 1 ', a.... ' � .J~ ,, � � �i• � � � '� �1 i (mot c � i '� ', 1 SITE .,;.•' - 'J 1 I r .. 'r •I! I r• i, •. ;� �� -J r [,.11\I� '{ bra I_I' _ ' ._ .I• -{ ' '' I �, 1 .,�i � 'r\ 1,•� 1 �! �,�f i! I � [� R! �•�� h_�.I� I��) f i_1 1! �y� l r� �' i r. t t r I, :I'; 'ZI `w, I.1 -.! � i I '(� .r• � ,.- � •1`���I �� i , II j I, ' j lip., .� !' .f},-�' �� t�� .-... � , /�� •��'(���� JI �`il I� jl� �i 1 �1, iLi �l.l �t II � 1 IJ __• r � •' r~ I,� �/ :/�(r♦ I) II (i.... 1t{1-� �l Ali ,., Q:J�• [t.E- -I I'1I h. t'1 5 v• CF-I ,�J -%//`'' ��/� /•.�,•.I��{.��1_�1 1.. /L_T jl. I ! I �•. " II II •�{ `�I ate. jl• I 1' F" . y �', ` _ l f ' \ t�L �!'�j!/fir •� {_;� Ii_ 111 �• _• l'—.� ..------. . `-- _.. - -- � -- .-- -- —•- ' � ~•,�.' ! .,. •4 - _ III --, +, .; I' 1 �1. � •I 1, �I -c� E +� - c�4 ~�. HUNTINGTON BEACH 1. XM •0 a' A. ., ; ,II�I11141t , ti I 1, I: j BEABRIDGE Environmental Impact Report pRgJ�CT NORTH Basch Blvd./Adams AVs. Muntinpton Beach LOCATION ISCALKS Y 1900• ~.l FIGURE I. P'ripircd by EGAW Inc. AOAAl5- ERI In1'- COMNIVACIAL (HAv1 l 1 I 1 hlRDraA/OOt �H■It7•Ct.,_ •�, l , Ol,LEASE 1 ' /OIL LpAS@ I) r ( 1 I . I I I !} 1 \`\�\\ ----.-_.. ----.-------•----_-- 1 � If OIL LEASE 1 ----- —————— -----a AREA B � p ' � � � AREA Aif EHTnr 1 1 •----a o),!Li SlF . . 1 f+rX aitaAcx L ' SUB AREA A! r � 1 r 1 i ( I I !•rout/o FAn.oM&-An 104nno. ` ^ b �rr.rro�.♦r•.ow,a..T t,.ne+....•- r , SEABRIDGE °� •• oar,cn,axrl�, PROJECT BOUNDARY flNltn•.•w....t.�...7 1 a ' ../ � �` � t .`- \ / ---t��]]1 it-.J'/W' � � � • •f^!:Y_t�',rr'••^''--a '� �� • , ?.'��' ,.• • r.r w..••w. w.wrw�•�\..`\� + �'• � CI J.' �1 I 75 •_ - , ' i _.....fir •� ► � �,� � __ - I . { AREA a -! ' '� i! •' ' (°'C F_A A Y ! L F-JI XP • JI%+ ram , ' � _ ', � �._ ��-" '- J�'- ���• �. /f th , ;� , � 1. •__,, f � 1 aa r • V PA� _ Z p rQ1, u , �_,, --ice �• ! �/ ` _ . • ; '` ;: \\ • `/ is '► 1��� --,: ... S ,'' f'i ( --j � , ...�nV TT i":-7c ASEA A oil - t i tr r'► •, G T""' / v ',•- lot •1 OLTr` oe L-ol, ��L 1 /1i• r J 'L Cif tT���(�8, 1 • . `�LJ1J�r15�r U V�L.-, - I EABRIdGE 0 .l - M e i FIGURE 3 Section 13-13 .Porlmetsw Landscape Buffer f i L- x .,,! � Plan - - ,r-----�.�:::..x:.Y et 1 — �',� �;tC;'�'1 ��l`lt�,.>�' F�►;l��' /till=-� �f%�N���G�'=Y1'.�1r/ra G��'"-'�--' 'i';ltili Perimeter Landscape Buffer utoweves Inc. HuntiNtan Beach, CoMfornlu DESIGN CONCEPTS FIGURE 4 1 r�+ i MA MAwKv Relationship With Public Street Oki A, Relationship With Public Street t.ffescapes, Inc. KuntltlgtOn Beach, Callt0snlA DESIGN CONCEPTS FIGURE 6 i i . Plan i . f ' Tyricni Motor Court Section A--A � � ��t� 1 � , � I •,•r, r ��c�tir� ,Typical Motm Court L.1letic"*9, Inc. Hiontington Beach, CaNtornl• t �' ` DESIGN CONCEPTS FIGURE e i { - ��/�' mil✓ �7�.",j !L', ���'��:i�i•�� 'f� �•��'�1:��'J 7i: � r - r`i.�-'t-IJNrrAQ I7�� t0' ti�Y2i� lv' l,r�r*yhRr Lift- Typical Lake Graving Section ` a it 2 � I Off Production/Landscape Buller Lifeaeepms, Inc. Huntington Qesch, caiifornis DESIGN CONCEPTS FIGURE 7 4 t TABLE A SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN STATISTICAL SUMI'AMW AREA A + Developable Acrc:ug--- 34.10 Acres Resource Production 4,00 Acres 38. 10 Total Acres AREA B Developable Acreage 12.41 Acres (Corner Site-subarea B I) (2.92) /`cres Resource Production 3.95 Acres 16.36 Total Acres Public Streets and Flood Control Channel 5.91 Total Acres TOTAL GROSS SITE 59.67 ACMES ESTIMATED SITE TABULATIONS Total Site Area A Area B Maximum Units Permitted 800 1400 400 ' Units Per Acre Gross 13.31 Excluding Streets & Channels 15.55 10.50 24.45 Excluding Streets, Chanr,�ls R Resource Production 17,5E 11 .73 32.23 Estimated Building Coverage- 6.5 acres N/A I Private Street 6., Drives �9.12 acres N/A 1 Per:ent of Building Coverage 25% Parking Spaces Per Unit 2.75 2.20 Total Open Space/Unit Including Resource Production 1525 sq.ft. M/A I Excluding Resource Production 1089 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. l Calculations not included because development plans for the corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard have not been finalized. Source: Richard A. Harlow and Associates, 1981. 5df 5 3.3.3 Landscape/Open She Concept A dominant element of the pro;^c.t will bcr thu londicape plan which includes extensive landscaping with specimen trees cnd ponds and strvorns throughout the interior of the development. Setbacks, berms and vegetal ive screening %►rill also be used io provide vcoustieel and visual buffer:z betv/cen the project residential units and bordering neigh- borhoods and streets. Two natural resource areas fresh and sultwater mrrsnes will also be incorporated into the project as shown on the Concept flan in Figure 3. It is intended that the proposed freshwater pond would result from a reconfiguration of the existing pond and that the design of the pond will be compatible with the surrounding residential use while enhancing the visual aspect-, of the area. The freshwater pond, which would br.t developed upon plan implementation will have the following features: I. There will be a naturalized bottom with o clay sealer. ,z 2. The shorelines adjaceni to Beach Boulevard will he somewhat shallower than the other areas of' the pond with submere3A shelves protruding from the shererline into the pond area. The shelves will be shallow to permit the yrowlh of vegetation. The shoreline adjacent to the residential units Mil be designed to control the growth of vegetation for a more cimpatihle relationship with the residential units, 3. With the exception of the shelves, tho depth of th�- pond will r onge: from two feet to five feet at the deepest point. 4. The circulation systern will be open to improve th,: water duality. To accom- plish this, we will provide a fresh water supply to the .ond. A spillway will be designed to regulate the elevation of the %voter. The overall idesign to this system will be subject to City approval. 5. Landscaping along Beach 13e0levard ;dill be similar to that found in a fresh water marsh. Landscaping along the: interior v.,ill bo a highly groomed edge: to be n'inre compatiWe with the residential units. No mare specific design plans exist for the saltmarsh which would bey precisely designed and built in the future. 3.3.4 Grodinq Corsce is The project will be graded so that the resultant finish elevations of the private, roadway system wiP vary from an elevation of approximately four feet to seven feet above sea level, with the excerption of the southwest corner which exists at can elevation of 27.4 feet above sea level. The remaining area, i.e., building pads, beds, landscaped open space, will vary in elevation frorn approximately seven feet above sea level to _ approximately 14 feet above sera level. 'Th:: Orange County Flood Control District hes dirocted that the existing earth fill levees for the Not th-South flood control channel shall be raised so that the present levee top elevation of seven to eight feet above sea level will be elevated to I I feet above sea level,. Floor of habitable areas will be a rninirnum of 12 feet msl to meet the requirements of 6 - A i t the National Flood insurance Program. It is intended that projec? constructic-t` begin at the southerly boundary and proceed northerly at ti rate of 10-1011 Units per phase, i his y� absorption rate is, of course, hi_:hly dependent on the prevailing economic conditions. 3.3.5 Drainage Concept ! " The project area, both east and west of the flood control channel, will be drained } northerly by overland flow and through a gravity storm drain to an exiting pumping station located on the south side of Adams Avenue with the exception of the mesa uses which will drain directly into the channel. No appreciable drainage from the project site is to be drained onto or through any surrounding properties. A .storm drain, serving a small residential area west of Beach Boulevard currently terminates east of Beach Boulevard with flows running overland across a portion of Area B eventually reaching the flood control channel. It is anticipated that storm runoff from this pipe will be channeled directly into the flood control channel or directed to the pumping station if adequate capacity exists. 3.4 Project Bo kground/Planning Considerations Recent previous action relative to the project site includes the City General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 81 -1 on which the 60+ acre site was redesignated to a Planned Community district from Resource Production, Commercial and Low Density Residential district (City Council Resolution No. 5005, adopted June 15, 1981). The following policies, further guiding development of thE- Specific Plan, were also adopted by the City Council. 1. The area east of the Orange County 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 cast of and immediately adjacent to the flood control channel be of a medium density residential design. 3. All units east of the flood control .'--hannel be clustered to allow for o maximum amount of open space. Total units r.ot to exceed 400 Bost of the charnel. 4. The area west of the flood control channel ►e of a high densi fy residential design. This concept should take advantage of the natural topography for development and simultoneoosly preserve the pondincg area in a natural state. 5. Residential units be clustered throughout the project area which would also accommodate the eontinuntion of resource production activities, Total units for the overall project net to exceed 800. In addition, on March 11, 1981 , the Community Services Commission recommended that the pond area of the Mola Property not be required as a City Park or open space area for future use of local citizens. The development standards for the project are contained in the Specific Plan text. The site (lund use) plan is contained in the Project Description. This EIR analyzes the standards delineated in the Specific Plun text, 7 y1, 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGt IMPACTS AND MiTIGATiON MEASURES 4. 1 Landforms 10.1 Setting The rectangular shaped site is located at the western edge of the Santa Ana River Gap with portions of the Huntington Beach Mesa extending into the southvic.stern corner of the property. Elevations range frorn 1.5' rnsl in a ponding area adjaceni to Beach Boule- vard to 27.4' mst on the mesa at the southwestern corner. , The prop::rty is divided into two distinct areas by the Huntington Beach Flood Control Channel (DOI) which traverses the site paralleling Beach Boulevard, Elevations an the section cast of the channel range from approximately four feet to seven feet msl. The exlsting top of the levee elevations are seven feet to eight feet m•,I. 4. 1.2 Im2c is The project site will undergo extensive topocyraphic alteration as a result of grading activiti , It should be emphasized, however, that the basic londform relationships between the mesa and lowlands and between. the project site and adjacent land will not be altered through grading. Buildinri mass will be the do+Tiinant clement in any perceived landiorm changes. Conceptunl plans call for grading the loMand area of the cost side (Area A) to a finished elevation for the roadway of four feet to seven feF.t rnsl. Building pads, artificial lake and stream beds, and landscaped open space will vary in elevation from seven feet to twelve feet rnsl. Import of fill material will be required for these a:tivities as well as for raising the height of tha, ievice along me flood control channel frorn its present heigi�; of 7'-8' rnsl to ! 1' msl. it is estimated oppru•<imatlsly 95,000 cubic yards of fill vwi!l be required (exclusive of the levee for Area A). Portions of the mesa will be excavated for construction of the parking garages beneath the three- and four-story reside.itiol structures in Arev B. Conceptual grading plans for Area B (south of the resource production area) call for 54,-60 cubic yards of cut and S i, 550 cubic yards of f ill. 4. 1.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure's are: proposed or otherwise included within the project to offset potentially adverse effects: o Grading plans for the enti c: site will be sub(nitted to the City Department of Public Works for review. 4.2 Geoicg /Soils;Seismicit _ 4.2. I Setting In the Environment find Resources Policies section of the City General Plan (adop?ed Dccember 1976), the subject project is shown as traversed by an actives foul: trace (Figure 24 - Fault ind Geologic C.ondi!ions) witti purt'.ons of they site indicated as exhibit- in-1 high c eotechnicol i isl; conditions (Figure 8 - Geology and Fcn:lt Location). The risk C LEGEND •. 1 -- edr• t . _ dal Aluviun,'i 1 o r ' pu j O ��pu Pieistcena-7�aria a •', �•� Qal � '• L r A I+ . • •lr ' c+'r. ,.. f , • • �p tip_ I �• Q 71 •• I i -, ' t 1 • .. ._ •': . .._ . .. l —. s_ •. .:• .f:.. — . . _ ._ �....• may.L _-- 1 ,:t Y / � .��•♦ d 11 tj ,a. SEABROGE Environmental tal Impact Report GE0I0 Y A a N- ORTH 01 +ach 81rs .l �dws Ave. N Nuytlingron Bosch ' �4 � ( . � : WO MCAI9 Pmparsd by EDAW Inc. FIGURE 9 A potential wus based upon a variety of factors including potential for ground rupture, the presence of peat deposits and liquefaction potential. t . This generalized information has been refined by site-specific preliminary geotechnical and soils investigations recently performed by Action Engineering Consul fonts and Base- line Consultants, Inc. These reports are on file with the City Department of Develop- meet Services and are contained in Appendix C. The following discussion of geotech- ' nical, soils and seismic considerations i3 derived from those studies. SURFiCIAL DEPOSITS Two geologic formations are found within the site, Guaternary Terrace deposits and Recent Alluvium. The Terrace deposits, composed of fine, silty anti. gravelly sands, are exposed at the northwestern and southwestern corners of the site. These sediments are typical of !he Huntington Heath Mesa which is located immediately vmst of the prop- erty. The Recent Alluvium, consisting of clayey sands, silty sands, clean sands and pest, covers the majority of the property. These deausitis were laid down by the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. These deposits extend to an average depth of 150 fee!. Previous grading and imported fill has resulted in much of the property being mantled with base fill deposits. The maximurn depth of this fill is six feet. Narrow layers and lines of peat exist throughout the alluvium at depths cf four to eight feet. SEISMICITY The project site is (reversed by four branches of the Nev:port-Inglewood Fault (refer to Figure 8). Although this fault is considered active by the State of California, south of Seal Beach, the active rating has been quer,tioned due to the lack of surface faulting. Four trenches were dug and lodged (41urch, 1980) to determine whether a fault trace was near or present in surface. soils. No faults, offset strata, or indications of past ground movement were apparent in the- natura! earth materials as exposed in thr: trenches (Base- line Engineering Consultants, 1980). Therefore, it was the conclusion of Richard P. Cousineau, California Certified Engineering Geologist No. 321 , that the fault could not be considered active. Although it would still be considered potentially active, the New- port-Inglewood Fault is considered to exhibit only a slight probability of ground surface rupture (Cousineau, personal communication, October, 1981; Chase, personal communi- cation October, 1981). Other seismic related hazcrds presents a potentially high risk associated with lique- faction differential compaction, and severe ground shaking. The primary soils related constraints are the highly expensive clayey soils and the pres- ence of saturated peat deposits. j 4.2.2 _ Impacts Development of the property on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue would subject struc- tures and future residents to the geotechnicol-associated hozords described in the pre- ceding section. These include risks related to high around shaking intensities, high lique- faction and differential compaction potential, expansive soils and saturated peat subsur- fare conditions. These conditions are not unique to the site, but commonly found throughout the City cnd Southern California. Site development is feasible, providing appropriate treatment of the site in teams of planning, grading and foundation design is accomplished (Cousineou, I P-ickard, 1901; personal communications). 9 Based upon evaluation by Action Emjineering Consultants, development east of the flood control channel can be accommodated with slab-cm-grade fo,!ndalions, provided the peot conditions are modified either by removal or loading. No foundation recornmendations have been made for the larger structures west of the channel. 4.2.3,_ Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed cr otherwise included within the project; o Submittal of a structural engineering study evalucning proposed foundation designs with respect to the groundshuking and liquefaction hazards noted above. o Submittal of a soils study detailing grading and site preparation recommenda- tions. 4.3 Hydrology h 4.3.1 Setting Surface Water The primary drainage facility in the vicinity is 0e Huntington Beach Flood Control Chonnel (No. DOI) which traverses the property. They Mola property is included in the larger drainag.� basin tribunary to this channel. The. channel bottom at the center of the property is 0.0 feet msl. As this section of the chunml is within the tidal influence, and sections of the Mola property I,-- below the high tide line, portions of the property would be subject to inundation if it were not for the existing levees along the c;iannel. Currently, storm run-off irrm the site is carried directly to the channel by storm pipes With flap-dates in the chnrrnel (to prevent backwater when high flows fill the channel). On the western side of the channel, a small area termed the "ponding area", lies at an elevation 0.7 feet (maximum depth) Below the inlet to the storm pipe. This has resulted in temporary imps-undment following a rainfall or, as the case has been, when the flop- gate is jammed open by debris and tidal f ioN.,s back up through the pipe onto the prop- erty. The flap-gate to the pipes draining th. western side of the property was jornmed open for an undeterminate time but recently cleared by the Environmental Management Agency) (EMA) Development Division. The maximum surface area of the impoundme,it is estimated at 2.0 acres. Drainage from a sma!I r.rea to the west of Bach Boulevard is channeled under Beach Boulevard and empties into Area B. The flow from the pipe is projected to be Z8 cfs Q25. Flows from this drainage pipe currently drain into the: ponding area previously described. One other storm drain easement crosses Area B in the resource production area. A 60-inch pipe: within this easement strains directly to the channel (refer to Figure 9). •- Projections by the County Environmental f0onacdement Agency (EMA) Development Division indicate that in a 100-year storm event, the water level within the flood control chnnno) could react: 9.5 ft. rnsl. The current levee height (seven to eight feet msl) would therefore provide inadequate pratection with such n storm. IU � , j( i1'r. 1. _ .-�. , ' �: �- •, I � �• a _ _ 1` r jr-1 lb `*as.ta Ro all I121 tttet.s,,,ttss i • i ama ,'�ehlfslissstsltl[ttlitn`f,It Its Sato llist. l -- c3. i ♦ ' i 1; ♦♦ t 0 LU cj ' — ' i � �/7tsasisitiits/lisltitlittt411tEs. � � , do � r 1 ♦♦♦ - w ♦� - I 'li ==fttfll�:Sii!/ls/iiiiiCiZ - - - • _-t'�' �- CIL iET!!1 I'm ft`�As:t`t�tti~�``;'• `� _��.,,.�..,_;_,,�.�..--- � —.•,.^--• N ''!-- -~_ af_ft gifts tlf:tt its M%%lotsI1114ftttfl211111111Elillftt Ob E30 -- --- ----- _ __ - - -- - `� Q lop & C • � a. 4.3.2 Impacts r Drainage - The project, as proposed, would require construction of storm drain focil- itie` ' s throughout the site and extensive alteration of the existing drainage patterns. As the maximum flood elevations in the channel are 9.5 f t. rnsl, areas below that elevation on the project site must drain to the pump station at Adams Avenue. Areas above that elevation can drain directly to Itia channel. Provisions were made within the pump station capacity (projected flows, QZS, are 52 cfs for the west side of the channel and 60 cfs for the cost side) to receive drainage from the project site. Both Areas A and B, therefore, would have storm drainage systems carrying flows northerly to connect to two existing 42-inch and 48-inch drains near Adorns Avenue feeding into the pump station system. The pump statiors was not designed, however, to accept flows from the area west of Beach Baulevard, which currently drains on to the project site. The outlet of this drain is below the elevation at which flows could be transmitted directly to the channel and other solutions (e.g., a pump station) may be required to transmit storm flows directly to the channel. Drainage from the mesa area (west of the channel) could be diverted directly to the channel (refer to Fidv•c 9). blooding - Future structures and residents of the site would be susceptible to damog- ing flooding without implementation of appropriate flood control measures. The development plans do include such rneusures. The project engineer, Don Greek end Associates, in coordination with the County EMA Development Division, have pro- posed that finished floors of ail living spaces be constructed at an elevation of 12 ft. msl or abov.2, and improvement of the levee through raising the top of the levee to I I feet msl. Streets and parking areas (including the tuck-under residential parking) would be subject to flood flows only if the levee failed. Living areas would not be subject to flooding under any conditions. The project includes several amenity-lakes, as well as a freshwater pond and salt-- water marsh. The amenity lakes will be a closed, highly managed landscape adjunct. The freshwater pond and saltwater marsh, stressing natural resource ' values, will be less "rnanuged" and therefore, more susceptible to potenticl nuisance water goality problems. 4.3.3 Mitigation o Provision of adequate drainage system and flood protection meosvres are included in the project and will be subject to review by County and City Engineers. 5'4 o Development guidelines for the project should include specific discussions of the lake management systems proposed for both the amenity lakes and freshwater pond !with respect to rrwinienance of water quality). BiOTiC PESOURCES 4.4.I_Setting The following ossessrment is intended to clarify and document the, significance and sensi- tivity of biotic resources within and irnniedintely :surrounding the study area in relation to the proposed project plan. To dutc, a considerable amount of correspondence has been received from wildlife_ ugencie, and private conservation interests regarding potentially valuable "wetlands" on-site. Whereas this sectim, at ternpis to provide adequate. back- II i ground dada about the site in general, the wetlands issue is the primary focus. The find- ' Ings presented below are: the result of a thorough review of available information and walk-over surveys conducted by Mr. Steve nelson of EIDAW on September 15 and 16, 1981. It should be noted that these surveys did not attempt to compile exhaustive lists of plant and anima) species. Rather, they attempted to better define and resolve the: integrity, importance and value of on-site wetlands vegetation and wildlife habitat for purposes of a more informed and meaningful review and decision-making process. i Existing Vegetotion and Wildlife Presently, between 80 and 90 percent of the property exist, in a highly disturbed con- dition supporting ruderal vegetation. These: conditions persist largely as the result of ongoing oil extraction, fill and annual discing activities. 'The dominant and cornmon plants in these areas are non-native species, considered to be common roadside weeds.. ` These include wild radish (Ra hanus sativus), Russion thistle (Solsola iberica), ripgutgross (Brornus diandrus), red brome B. ru ens , horseweed (Conyza cunadensis), cocklebur Xanthium struriarium), sunflaWer t-lclinnthus annuus) and mustard Brassica sp.). Visually dominati:•,g the extreme southwest corner of 2hP site, there is 015.0 a cluster of large eucalypt-is trees (Eucalyptus sp.). As a consequence of these conditions, natural ecological relationships are severely dis- tressed and habitat diversity and productivity are greatly reduced in th(:se areas. Their resulting value to wildlife is low and only a very limited number of cornmcn wildlife species, which can adapt to these habitat conditions, are expected. I A small portion of the site (approximately 10 to 20 percent), located in the southwest corner of the property, supports vegetation characteristic of a native coastal salt/ brackish rnorsh (refer to Figure 10). Tho vcge:tation here is dominated by picideweed (Salicornia vie inica and S. subtertninalis), one of thc� indicator species for coastal soli- and brackish marshes. Associates; with the 1);c1 leveed are sca?tered patches of bulrush (SciTuu--_ calif ornicus and S. robustus), soltrjr ass Vistichlis Licata) and cat--tail (_1 ho domin ensis) which are of-so species indicative: of a coastal rnorsh environment. The precise history of the marsh vegetation on-site is riot known. It is plausible, how- ever, that it is a remnant of large coastal rnorsh complex which formerly existed throughout the historical delta of the Santa Ana River, prior to its chunnelization. Although probobly changed somewhat from its original composition, it is highly likely that the area's charocter as a rnorsh has been maintained over the years by impounded runoff from on-site adjacent urban developments and thv highly saline soils found there. For an unknown period of time the area was subject to tidel action, as well. This occurred by way of a one-way gate on a pipe which drained the area into the adjacent flood control channel. The gote was not operating as intended to shut and keep tidul flows in the channel from inundotino the area and a perennial pond of brackish water collected around which the marsh vegetatiors flourished. Recently, the gate was repaired and standing water no longer exists, except immediately after a storm event. As the tidal flows were the prininry water supply for the pond, it is uncertain to what extent the cessation of the salswater source w�!I have or, the biotic communities. The ponding area will experience Ior. l dig periods; however, temporary ponding following storms, relatively high groundwater tables and the residual saline soils will function to support sonic remnant of the "marsh" vegetation for some time. The area has in the past supported a diversity and abundance of wildlife typical of mrjrs'n habitats. .'although several mammals, reptiles, and ornphibions, care expcct'�d, the greatest i� w ,.�� •-�,.. i-_._.-•.._.._' • mot----._ .�.-,------- _._. _ ._�- _..._.... ��' �. ,• I r�• `. ' 'RUDERAL VEGETATION �L u - tRe'Malwder of ■lle) If -.Tjil., � � - . - -�I ,_�•�_ ' 1. LIMITS OF VEGETA?ION CHARACTERIZED ± '� I i„ -.,• t A9'CCASTAL TIRACK1314 MARSH %MAXIMUM LIMIT OF PONDING - k -jar ( � ���'� •` ,` i ti � } .of - �r'Z •1 �' ` i ) FU-CAL.Y-PTUS STANDS S _ 1'. •.! � .. •,.}. __. ,«.�..�...J��-. .�1..-._ .ill,.,,,,_...:-'_r_'�"-.. 1_-j••' - ,_.-... F_.r�� - _ �� � `t�I� _.1 / j.= r-. 1 1 t_��� � .: II � 1` - •t. - .•� 1 �t .. lr��,,f(''' j .to i SEABRIDGE Erlvirann'lelntai Impact Report BIOTIC RESOURCES BO&Ch Blvd./AdJIms Aye. �* t unrls~gtop Ga,jeh NO SCALE Prep aIrrd by E^A lw%: Inc_ EF1GURE 10 numbers of species utilizing the area have been birds, including many waver birds and migratory water fowl. A list of wildlife spr-cies expected, reported and observed in the area is provided in Appendix D. Apparently, these species found an adequate food source In the populations of fish, shore crabs and other crustaceans, molluscs and shellfish which inhabited the pond. No doubt these were originally introduced and maintained by way of the former tidal connection. Use of the area by wildlife may also be enhanced by its proximity to thr: flood eattrol channel and nearness to other Irrger marsh areas. Directly to the: north, across Adams Avenue, there is a 10-acre marshland existing within Bartlett Park. Downstream there is a much larger marshland approximately une mile to the south. It is presumed that many birds travel to and from these areas along the flood control channel, which connects these areas, and are attracted to the site in this manner. Among the species found or expected to use the marsh habitat are a number of "high interest species" which are of concern to wildlife agencies and private conservation groups. Most noteworthy, one Belding's Savanna 5parro-.1i, a state-sanctioned Rare ;peck's, was observed at the site. For this species, stands of pickleweed serve as its sole nesting and primary cover and foraging habitat. it is nc:)t known whether or not the species nests on-site; this could only be determined through a spring breeding bird survey. This species has been reported to breed with a high degree of success in degraded saltmorshes with little or no tidal influence, such as it) the relict saltmorsh areas along Pacific Coast Highway virt of the Santa Ana Diver mouth which is approxi- mately a mile frorn the project site. C : the other hand, the species may use the area for foraging only. Particularly after the breeding season, which ends in mid-August, the species is known to leave its nesting grounds and forage widely in uplend maritime creas. Additionally, nine species of birds are expected ,to occur on-site, which the National Audubon Society has placed on their ',aiue List i^his is an "eariy warning" advisory list of species which recently or currently hive indicatiolris of non-cyclical popu- lation declines or range contractions. These, species are indicated an the list of wildlife species provided in Appendix B. EcOogical Si. nificance and Sensitivity For purposes of focusing the impact analysis and mitigative efforts, various levels of sig- nificance and/or sensitivity con be assigned ;o the biological resources of the project site. The majority of the site, encompassing areas of ruderal vegetation and habitats have little or nn ecological significances and do not weigh as an environmental issue. In contrast, the portion of the site possessing vegetation and wildlife habitat of a definite coastal brackish incrsh character is of high ecological significance and would he parti- cularly sensitive to development activities. The area is of significance for several reasons which r.-late to its importance in contributing to biological diversity within a regional context. First, the marsh vegetation serves as foraging habitat, and possibly breeding habitat for a Rare species. Second, coastal salt and brackish marsh vegetation is extremely limited in its distribution along the Oronge County and Cnlifornia coast- line. According to some researchers, as much as 140 percent of California's original tidal 1� l,Y!ussey, B.W. 1970. The feldings Savannah Sparrow. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Conti-act Wo. DACW09-•78-C-00(" 2Arbib, R. The Blue List for 1 MO, American Birch, 33:830-835, 1979. creas have been lost to urbanization and fiood control, with some of the most significant losses in the state occurring in Orange County.1 And third, at ieast up until recently, the marsh, mudflats and pond served as an area of concentrated feeding, resting and winter- ing grounds for migratory water and shore birds and waterfowl. Although in c(,mparison to nearby areas of much larger tidal habitats, such as Upper Newport Bay, 1301sa Chico and Anaheim Day, the numbers of birds is relatively small, their extremely limited dis- tribution makes any such areas, regardless of size and carrying capacity, important. The question has been raised as to the significance of the ponding area without tidal influence (i.e., the flopgate is maintained operational). As a result of eliminating tidal flow, it is believed that a considerable decrease in its use by migratory birds will occur. However, the site will retain some significance as habitat for a rare species and as one element of the severely limited coastal marsh community. Applicable Laws, Policies and regulations Under the provisions of the California Fish and Garne Code, Chapter 6, Section's 1601 and 1603, actions which may alter streorn Seds or lakes rom which fish and wildlife resources derive benefits require the review of the Department of Fish and Lame. Briefly, the process involves submitting plans indicating the nature of c, project to the Department. These are: submitted as a 1601 or 1603 agreement. Normally, within thirty days the Department will return the plans with a proposal for reasonable modifications in the project which would allow for the protection and continuance of fish acid wildlife resources. Within fourteen days of receipt of the Department's proposal, the affected party notifies the Department es to the proposal's rcceptability; if unacceptable, arbi- tration is necessary. Based on their response is the iJotice of Preparation. (refer to Appendix F), the Department of Fish and Garne believes the marsh area on-site would fall under the provisions of this code and urges compliance. 4.4.2 Impacts The effects of development on vegetation and wildlife resources can be grouped into two general categories: 1 ) the removal or alteration of habitats; and 2) th. introduction of increased noise level, exogenous species and other potential &K'r bonces. The primary factor influencing tale Scabridge Project is loss of habitot. � Construction activities will result in the removal of h sical habitats through cut fill PY � and other grading activities necessary for rtmds, building pads, utilities and flood control. The proposed grading will, in effect, remove all existing vegetation on the site � with the exception of the resource production areas which, temporarily, will not be dis- turbed. From the standpoint of biological diversity (which is directly related to ecolog- ical stability and was the basis for the existing setting sensitivity ana!ysis), the loss of diverse and/or uncommon plant communities, such as the marsh will have an inherently greater significance than the loss of rnore common corTimunities. The impact of vegetation loss ihrcugh direct removal will, in turn, have potentially adverse effects on wildlife. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the asso- ciated wildlife will either be destroyed, as in the ca_f: of lass mobile forms, or will be 'Cain, S.A. Statement In: Estuaries Areas; Report of Flearings before the subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife ConScrvation of titre Cornrnittee• on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Hbuse of Representatives, l ;nth Con(tress. Serial hip !)-31 . I c+ displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they rr.ny crowd and disrupt local populations. Determinants of the severity of these impacts arc.• the: relative importance of habitats lost to local and regional wildlife populations, the abundance and diversity of wildlife these habitats support, the availability of these habitats, and the habitat dependency of the associated wildlife. As described in the Setting Section, the marsh habitat on-site is valuable relative to all of these considerations. Thus, without compensation, its direct loss may be significant. Displacement impacts may be significant but will be temporary, lasting for a season or two. Increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels. The effe,;t will be increased In magnitude and durat'on, however, if this impcct occurs in the spring, when most wildlife are reproducing. Although the area defined as the "marsh" is somewhat degraded, and the habitat value is further limited by proper operation of the flap-gate on -the flood control channel, the removal of this habitat will adversely impact wildlife population dependent upon it for foraging. Species affected include the Beldings Savannah sparrow, nine species on the Audubon Society 'Blue List", and many species of shorebirds, waterbirds and waterfowl. As indicated in the setting section, significant effects will be limited to the area described as exhibiting coastal ;Harsh clinracteristics. R-ideral habitats lost will IlaVf-- an insignificant effect on wildlife. lnitially, losses of wildlife Habitat wi!l be partially offset by the construction of a fresh- water pond and Marsh areu on-site concurrent with the site's development. It is intended that the freshwater pond will provide replacement habitat for use by wvvoterbirds and waterfowl species which now use the existing marsh. It will be smaller in area and of a different nature than the existing marsh, ho%:ever, and will provide only partial tornpen- sation for the habitat lost. The eventual creation of a viable saltwater marsh in the oil production lands west of the channel will distinctly enhance thy. wildlife opportunities of the site and completely offset losses over the lone-term. The second biotic impcct category is disturnance of habitat related to man's activities. This disturbance (also termed harrassment) is not expected to be a major factor in the � Seabridge Project as surrounding lands have little habi tot value and the 10-acre marsh in Bartlett Park to the: north is already separated from the project by Adams Avenue. 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures s ; The following mitigation meosures are included wi+hin the project or otherwise recc.m- mended: =si o In order to mitigate the loss of the existing coastal marsh habitat, replacement marsh habitat will be included within the proj,� cl. A freshwater marsh, adjo- ccnt to Beach Boulevard, will be developed immediately in the existing ponding aren and will represent partial compensation for habitats lost. The establish•• melt of a salt and brackish marsh will be implemented once the oil activity ceases. This would be expected to provide cornplete mitigation for habitats loot over the long-term. rx o The extensive landscaping throughout the project will provide additional hubitut fcr those species of birds common to urban areas. o The a !ic ant mu required to obtain the F P Y be uired q approval of th.. State Department of Fish and Gurne for modification of the existing wetland. Specific plans for the fre;shwate.- ound and saltwnter marsh would be reviewed at that time. . IS vw 4.5 Land Use 4.5.1 Setting r The project site is presently used for oil resource production. This production occurs on both sides of the flood control channel and consists of 15 active and ten idle producer �►+ wells. Production from the field averages 48,545 barrels of oil and 73,000 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. To the north, south and east of the project site lie low density residential subdivision.`. ' Currently under construction north of the Adams Avenue, along Beach Boulevard, is the 200,000 square foot Newland Center. The north side of the property is also adjacent to a designated linear park along the mesas between Adams Avenue and Yorktown Avenue. West of the project site, across Beach Boulevard, exists several medium density residen- tial developments. Commercial uses lie adjacent to the site at the southerly project boundary along Beach Boulevard. 4.5.2 Impact Development of the proposed project would not result in loss of the site's current produc- tive use. The applicant has indicated that oil production will be preserved tnrougfi the consolidation of operations. The area reserved for oil production, approximately eight acres, is shown on Figure 3. Following cessation of oil production, these areas will be retained in open space either as active or passive activity areas. Funding will be provided by the applicant for the even- tual conversion. it should be noted, however, that no date has been established for the conclusion of oil production from this field, end conversion to park land/open space may be 20+ years distant. Land uses for the majority of the site, however, will change with implementation of the project as portions off the site which are presently undeveloped will be used for medium to high density residential devalopment. One of the primary concerns related to land use is compatibility of uses, both within the project and with respect to adjacent properties. The compatibility issues of this project involve the adjacent single family residential areas to the east and south, the existing oil producticn equipment, the proposed marsh and the proposed residential structures (up to six stories). Potential incompatibilities exist between these elements which will require specialized design treatment to mitigate. M In order to ensure compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding single- family developments, higher density residential development will occur on the west side of the flood centre„ channel adjacent to Beach Boulevard. On the cash .side of the channel, one-story townhomes over parking will be located adjacent to the low density residential subdivisions. A landscaped buffer will also separate the existing residences from the project residences. The relationship between these elements is shoran in Figure 4. The success of blending these two residential Clements will depend upon the " specific design treatment (i.e., primarily elevation difference and landscape treatment). Based upon experience with adjacent subdivisions across Beach Boulevard, the existing oil production facilities can be successfully intermixed with new residential development. The primary potential for problems be with lack of maintenance which could result in 16 I" nuisance noise conditions. This situation, however, can be resolved simply by initiating f appropriate maintenance procedures. The natural resource values expected from and represented by the marsh will, to some extent, be in conflict with the surrounding higher density residential uses that are pro- posed in the Specific Plan. This effect is a function of the increased level of human activity (i.e., noise, distractions, harra;sment, pets) near the marsh. The erxi result is a corresponding decrease in the habitat value of the. ma+.sh. The maintenance of a year- round wetland, will however, act to enhance the resource value when compared to exist- ing conditions. The impact of the taller structures will primarily relate to visual impacts as discussed In Section 4.1 I , Visual Resources. Again, the actuol design treatment of tFra buildings will play a major role In the eventual perception of the public as to the compatible or iniru- sive nature of the development. 4.5.3 Mitig2tion Measures The following measures are included within the project or otherwise recommended. ,. o The conceptual plan for the project contains numerous elements designed to i reduce potential land use incompatibilitier. These include: ` - Limiting the height of siructures adjacent to the existing single-family t neighborhoods. Providing a landscape buffer between the project and adjacent r•esidell- r tial areas and a 45-foot setback from property lines. - Varying the heights of the proposed residential structures to conform to the existing topography and reduce the perception of building mass. Including, within the Specific Plan, development guidelines and standards { for landscape buffering of the oil well area from other aeas within the f project. o A special interest-bearing account will be established In the rx,me of the ¢ Homeowners Association for eventual improvement of the resource: production areas. 4.6 Cultural Resources 4.5. 1 Setting l : An archaeological records check and walk-over survey of the site was conducted by Dr. C.E. Drover, Consulting Archaeologist. His siudl is contained in Appendix E and is, sum- morized here. Highly fragmented shellfish, abalone (Haliotis - pp.) and Pismo Clam (Tivela stultorurn) were found in very small numbers on the top of the mesa. Several fray ents c • iistoric ceramic: fragments and chunks of asphalt wero also observed. While the shell fragments and ceramic fragments might seern to indicate human habitation of the rneso, the degree to which the rnesn-top has been disturbed in recent years may indicate: these items were introduced. Evidence exists (broken concrete and asphalt) to suggest the urea has been 17 used as a dump which has been summarily disced by heavy equipment for weed control. M The mesa lop was the location of a retail nursery for approximately 20 years. No rem- nants of historic house foundations or discolored soil which might suggest pr:ehistorie c►ccupations were found. The highly disturbed nature of soil combined with only minimal fragmented shell specimens and no observations of lithics (culturally modified stone 1:�cwld suggest that significant cultural deposits do not exist on the site. 4,6.2 lmpac is Although no cultural resources are thought to exist on-site and therefore no Impacts are expected, th-s 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. 4.6.3 _ Mitigation Measures It is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be present in the initial phases of any proposed grading activities on the mesa-top. Such observations would allow for a direct determination as to whether any prehistoric habitution occurred on the mesa-lop during the exposure of subsurface soils. Such grading observation activities could likely be accornplished In one mon1day depending on the grading schedule and should not exceed approximately 150.00. 4.7 Population 4.7.1 Setting r The project area currently supports no residential population but is generally surrounded by residential development. According to the 1980 census figures, the City's population is 170,505 persons. The cer- tified figures for January 1981 show a population of 172,813 persons, �,.. A number of documents provide project housingunit and population levels for the Cityof Huntington Beach. The Orange County report on the State of the County, 1978 79 offers the following projections nor Huntington peach. Date Dwelling Units Population July 1979 62,84,u' 167,842 July 1981 66,962 1739662 July 1983 709731 181,230 July 1988 80922.3 1949147 The Southern California Association of Governments' SCAG 178 Growth Forecast Policy contains the foNo-wing projections for Huntington Beach. Date Dwelling Units Population 1985 72,700 178,600 1990 83,000 191 ,200 1995 881600 2.059400 2000 90,700 210,600 18 4.7.2 Impact. Development of the project would result in an increased population of 1,672 persons. This calpulation assumes an average of 1.96 persons per household for medium density development, and 2.22 persons per household for high density development. The City of Huntington Beach has made a short-term population projection for 1985 of S 86,100 persons. Assuming that this project was completely built and occupied by 1985, it would i account for approximately I percent of the population increase. 4.7.3 Miligation No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.8 Transportation/Circulation 4.8.1 Setting A traffic study for the project was prepared by Basmociyon-Darnell, Inc. (July, 1981). That study, in full, is proviced in Appendix F. The following discussions are taken from that report. With the exception of the resource production areas, the study area is cur- rently undeveloped land, thereby contributing few or no trips to the adjacent circulation system. Access to the eastern portion of the study area is taken from Adams Avenue, and access to the area west of the Flood Control Channel is taken from Beach Boulevard, �a J Adams Avenue is classified as a major arterial road between Beach Boulevard and Brook- . hurst Street and as a Primary Road westerly of Beach Boulevard. Immediately east of i 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 located north of the project site has recently been approved for comtruction of the Newland Center (a neighborhood swopping center complex). Approval of the Newland Center project required the applicant to fully improve the northerly half of Adams Avenue cost of Beach Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) is constructed as a six lone major arterial highway with a raised median. Beach Boulevard serves as a north-south vehicular corridor providing access to the beach areas as well as a commuter route for inland destinations within the county. The design capacity of both Bench Boulevard and Adams Avenue is 45,000 vehicles per day. Existing daily traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue were estimated from the 1978 traffic flow map for Huntington Beach by the Transportation Planning firm of Basmociyon-Darnell, Irx. Daily traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard north of the Adams Avenue intersection are estimated to be 35,600 ADT; while traffic volumes south �C of the Adams Avenue intersection rare estimated to be 28,750. The average daily traffic volumes on Adorns Avenue range from 16,400 cost of Beach Boulevard to 7,700 west of Beach Boulevard. Public Transportation The project area is adjacent to existing Orange County Transit District routes on Loth Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. 19 4.8.2 Imparts Development of the. proposed project will require the creation of an internal street system responsive to the needs and estimated average daily trips (ADT's) generated by the project. The internal circulation vstem, as shown in Figure 3, is further detailed in ;... the project description section of th's report. To adequately assess the impact of project-related traffic, both long-term and short- term impacts must be addressed. On a short term basis, construction vehicles and the automobiles of workmen will utilize approach routes and add to daily traffic volumes. Long-term impacts are those associated with the permanent use of the dwelling units proposed. Proposed development on the project site would result in an increase over present traffic volumes In the area. The trip generation characteristics for the proposed project are r: summarized in Table B. The trip generation rates used were taken from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook on Trip Generation. These rates were discussed with the ; City staff and adjusted accordingly to reflect local variations in trip making character- istics. � TABLE B r=- r., SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Residential Rates - Condominiums Daily 9.4 trip ends per dwelling unit ?. , AM Peak Hour In 0.2 trip ends per dwelling unit Out 0.5 trip ends per dwelling unit PM Peak Hour In 0.5 trip ends per dwelling unit Out 0.3 trip ends per dwelling unit Trip Generation Summary Daily 7420 trip ends s AM Peak Hour *n In 160 trip ends Out 400 trip ends PM Peak Hour -' In 400 trip ends Out 240 trip ends NOTE: A trip end is a one-way movement either toward or away from a residence -' 20 i Based these rates averse dal t i s D 's associated with the project are esti- mated to total 7,520 trips. Approximately 1,128 of these trips will be directed toward Adams Avenue, and 6,392 trips to Beach Boulevard, as shown on Figure 11. To examine the impacts of the proposed project, the project-related traffic volumes were added io the anticipated Newland Center traffic and then superimposed on the existing traffic volumes in the area. The results are shown on Figure 12. The resulting cumulative ADT figures for Beach Boulevard and Adonis Avenue (33,640 and 20,610) are still below the existing capacity (45,000) for both of these roads. The Deportment of Public Works has indicated that the traffic volumes generated by the project will not exceed design capacities on adjacent arterials and will not have a significant effect on local street traffic flow. l Potential traffic impacts on the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue were' also analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. Assuming that the intersection improvements required for the Newland Center would be completed and in place, the resulting ICU for this intersection would be 0.80. This ICU value corres- ponds to a Level of Service "C". Based on a review of the anticipated ted Pa project-related traffic and superimposing of project-related traffic one existing traffic volumes no ii capacity and/or congestion problems are anticipated. Although the primary impact of the project will be experienced at the Beach Soule- vard/Adams Avenue intersection, other intersections within the City will also be affected by the traffic generated by the project. Of pirticulor concern within the City are the Beach/Warner and Beach/Edinger intersections. The project will have a minor, but comulative impact on the traffic volumes and level of service at these Intersec- tions. Other projects (e.g., the proposed office building at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue) will more directly influence the level of service experienced at these intersec- tions. Access and On-site Circulation Proposed access to/from ike project site has been reviewed and determined to be ade- quate for the proposed development (Basmaciyon-Darnell, July, 1981). This conclusion assumes that full access to/from Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue will be permitted at the new intersections. The preliminary site plan for the proposed project has been reviewed and has been determined to be adequate. Although traffic volumes generated by the project will not adversely affect the existing street system, on-site traffic control mechanisms will be required at each entrance to the main roadway. In addition, the access location on Beach Bo!.,levard (aligned with Memphis Avenue) is estimated to war- rant the installation of a traffic signal upon full development of the project. 4.8.3 Mitigation Measures Measures which have been designed into the project to mitigate adverse circulation impacts include: 11-and Use Element Amendment 81-1, Cnvironmental Impact Report 81-2, Huntington Beach Deportment of Development Services, 1981 . 2Huy, personal communication, November 1981. 21 a N m 0 ri rr L L Adams < 587/37 Ave. • -- 165 1,7 Nom / f-^- 198,119 399/43 Nam. C (45/5) 740/74 Nom -� 195/21.� 620/66 " l a� &A .-. Cron N ` r rp \ N at o � M � � r r4 f:+ 255/16 , • N o N o � � SCHEMATIC ONLY (not to scale) . r 62/q • � N t r'' to � M i , cc � (n M P1 i' Memphis Ave. `~ 1201/77 t horn �-- 1170/75 LEGEND ■ —+ -- ""'� XXX/YY Daily/PM Poak Hour � Traffic Volume cn 0 tj W 4 t ( SEABRIDGE Environmental Impact Report PROJECT RELATED Beach Blvd./Adams Ave, TRAFFIC VOLUMES Huntington Beach Prepared by IEIDA W Inc. 8ourcon 0asmsciy on-Darnell, Int. EIGURE 11 r\ Q� 1� to r. LA Q N1 V ry O 20, 610 20, 120 10.1290 7700 16,400 AdazS Ave. 16,400 (Nam) (1130) 2590 2590 2590 r o o v n � o e••� N C i I 1 N ' U r SCHEAAT1C ONLY ? (not to scale) 0-4 cr, r A ■ A till _ r 1 w LEGEND ■ XX, m Cumulative ADT Memphis XX, XXX Existing ADT •(estimated) Ave. ■ (X, XXX) Idola Development ADT X, XXX Newland Center ADT o towawe■rl���■rsessssysssis#wwawwarwst� sswa ■�sssw#r■e N ZA 0 Q l r � N t'1 f l i SEASRIDCE EXISTING PLUS Environmental Impact Report PROJECT RELATED Beech '-�IIYd./Adams Ave. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Huntington Beech Prepared by EDAW Int. Source: 8asmeciynn-Dsrne;1, Inc. 11FIGURE 12 o Bus turnouts and bus shelters will be provided at desiynnied locations as required by the City Department of Public Works and Orange County Transit District. o The installation of stop signs to provide for positive control to be Installed in each entrance to the main roadway. a The installation of a traffic signal on Beach Boulevard (aligned with Memphis Avenue) upon full development of the project. The signal installation should include left turn phasing and be interconnected with the traffic signals on Beach Boulevard. o The project will be reviewed by the Department of Public Works in relation to the signalization of the Beach Boulevard/Adams Avenue intersection. Signal- ` ization improvements, if required, will be provided by the applicant. o A trip distribution study evaluating the traffic distribution along Beach Boule- vard should be provided for review by the Department of Public Works to determine the specific impact of the project on critical intersections along Beach Boulevard. ., 4.9 Noise 4.9.1 Setting A noise assessment for the Seabridcge Project project was prepared by Vincent Mestre Associates, Acoustical Consultants (included as Appendix G). This study is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The j following discussion is summarized from the report. Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project were established in terms of the CNEL index by modeling the roadways for current traffic and speed characteristics. The road- ways that were modeled for existing conditions include roadways adjacent to the project site. 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 the existing noise level are derived from the traffic study in this EIR. The traffic mix data are based on measurements for roadways in Orange r 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 distant'-e from the centerline of the road to the contour values shown. The results show that the noisy: levels on the project site are affected by roadway traffic. The 65 CNEL contour for Beach Boulevard exterids iOB feet from the roadway centerline on to the project site. 4.9.2 Impucis Three types of noise impacts may arise frorn the project: (1) construction noise may impact surrounding lane! 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 of the proposed residential hcxiies. 22 Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short-terra impact on ambient noise levels. Noise gener- ated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. Wise- sensitive land use adjacent to the project Includes existing residential homes on all boundaries of the site. Adherence to the City's noise ordinance thut limits the hours of construction to normal weekday hours should minimize any potential noise impacts. �- Impacts on Surrounding Land_Uses An important part of a noise analysis is the identification of noise-sensitive land uses that mcy be impacted by the proposed project. In the case of the 5eabridge Project Project, existing roadways that will serve as primary access streets for the project include Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Existing residential homes are locatedq. along sections of both these streets. , The impact of the project on these land uses is assessed by determining the existing noise levels on these roadways both with and without the project. The difference in noise Ad levels would be due to the increase in the project traffic. Table C indicates the existing CNEL nosie levels at 100 feet from the centerline of the modeled roadways both with and without the project. Table D 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 not significant when one considers that the human ear is just barely able to discern a noise a. change of 3 dBA. Therefore traffic generated b the project will not adverse) Impact j 9 , 9 Y p ! Y Pa land uses adjacent to these roadways. , TABLE C CNEL I401SE LEVELS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTER LINE (FEET) h.. 60-CNEL 65-CNEL 70-CNEL BEACH BOULEVARD North of Adams 269 125 58 South of Adams 233 108 5Q ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach 97 44 R East of Beach 160 74 34 Denotes that contour does not extend past roadway edge. J M F.r 23 j M tir TABLE D INCREASE IN EXISTING NOISE LEVELS DUE 1-o 'fHE PROJECT e � My" EXISTING CNEL NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FT. INCREASE ROADWAY SEGMENT Without With DUE TO Project Projeci PROJECT ;4 + BEACH BOULEVARD North of Adams 66.4 66.8 +0.4 South of Adams 65.5 65.9 40.4 t• ADAMS AVENUE West of Beach 59.8 59.8 0 r� East of Beach 63.1 63.5 +0.4 r Noise Levels at the Project Site n The distances to the CNEL contours for future traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue are given in Table E. They represent tlr- distances from the centerline of the road to the contour values shown. Note that the values given in Table E do not 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 frorn future vehicles by 3 dBA or more. This reduction is not included in these estimates. ' The 65 CNEL countour for these roadways will extend onto the property of the proposed fit project (refer to Figure 13). Fused upon the placecnent of structure in the conceptual plan, the residential units along Adams Avenue would not fall within the 65CNEL con- tour, but portions of the units facing Beach Boulevard do fall within this contour (Figure 13). TABLE E CNEL NOISE LEVELS FOR ULTIMATE TRAFFIC C0NDITIONS C'STANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE (FEET) 60-CNEL 65-CNEL 70-CNEL 1•4 BEACH BOULEVARD ' North of Adams 309 143 66 � South of Adams 257 119 55 ADAMS AVENUE Vest of Beach i 17 54 '* East of Beach 187 87 40 rt )cnotes that contorir does nod extend posi Fon woy age. 24 -+•' ;g, *��_. ,�"-' .' .- , •- r�r• Crt1��Y. .ter �+������ � �'3 .,mac �—jam 11� ----•�. —.��.'�. Li- _ ��� ` -_ �..r�=.-� — - . •-----'-�-ti� �r-- -- - QbY.1�:,70Q:t.� - - JI7Y�6 •f�t=� - -- - - - Ak imp.- NOR-M. ONE Otis . _ J • , I r --- L.• I � �j r` t � I � � �� f � 1 i r . 1 s � 1 / � • .�•` C "C� iTT11 � •� .� me D f i• � - � tip). t. 11i11�1Ulfsuuu ` ' j t'? ' •�� w . Ica., Ij �! - `.�, -•'` ' _ N� � 1- �__•r'air.... t f r _ 1 .Nn•rr .i7. 41 .09 y IF RM El r � r.J 1 i j �jf • _ S`� �� `--r*• �� }� ��l' 1� •� yr r � ` • i� _ ` �_Jc�- 1_ i�(—� � � - + , • t .. : ; �` I� _ _ ,`� j , �+-- —�-- — --�tv• Maw, ;wrrY krrl►ry MAIN r- 1 ! � � 1 � •.. % •, C���•- � ��1 _ I_r-._��"'."� •'.'.—�ti ��.��-- --- - • - _, 1� ,r+ �. -ram� t' r .�� 1 �!r • 1 � ,it.-.r.' t . . r• 1!%- 1 ��t.i1�11� � �f .rit--ti 1�1�'1 C"� '•� .� t - 4.9.3 Miti22tion Measures 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. Measurers must be designed to satisfy the City''s requirement that 65 CNEL not be excceeded In outside living areas. If residential buildings are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours, then mitigation mesoures that can be undertaken include building setback, con- struction of a noise barrier, or orientation of the buildings themselves to oct as a barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the mast common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. o Noise attenuation methods detailed in the Specific Plan for structures along Beach Boulevard will be reviewed by an accoustical engineer for complionce with City standards. 4„ .10 Air Quality 4. 10.1 Setting In order to evaluate the significance of the air quality impact o; a proposed development, that impact, toge.iher with existing baseline levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS). This has been done and the findings included in Appendix H. These standards are the levels of air quality that "may reasonably be anti- cipated to endr,nger public health or welfare" (Clean Air Act as amended August, 1977). Standards are therefor:: set such that air quality poses no risk to those people most sus- ce::tib+e to possible respiratory distress such as asthmatics or people with emphysema, you,-ig children, the elderly, persons already weak from other disease or illness, etc., called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure 'o some- what higher concenirr,tions before adverse effects are noted. Standards are periodically reviewed as new health effects information is developed and the Clean Ai: Act is regu- larly renewed. In the current renewal 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 siops 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 'bad to some relaxation of current AAQS levels. i, 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 stan- dards. The nearest South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMG) 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 pollu- tion sources and very similar wind patterns should make these data quite representative of the project site. Data from Costa Mesa suggest that standards for ozone arc. exceeded on occasion in the summer and those for carbon monixide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO ) in winter, but not vary often. The five violations of the federal ozone standard of 0 ppm compares to 146 violations at Fontana and 132 at Riverside. The six violations of the eight hour CO standard compares to 70 in Lennox and 63 in Dirbank. 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 duality in the Huntington Beach area, both the frequency of violations and their magnitude is much less than in many other por- tions of Southern Crlifornia. i 25 4.10.2 Imposts While the project-related emissions can be calculated with reasonable accuracy, the very nature of the primarily mobile source emissions makes it almost impossible to translate these emissions into a specific incremental ambient air quality impact. A general mea- sure of the significonce of project-related emissiom con be derived by comparing them to the overall basin emission level, but this general analysis does not relate to the project's specific impact at some given time and place, 'fable F compares the project emissions in the current 1987 attainment target date with the overall emissions that would still cause all standards to be met in the basin. Assure- ' ing that downwind air quollty is proportional to upwind source strength, the -data in Table F suggests that the Seabridge Project may curse an incremental degradation of clean air standards that ranges from 0.005% for 90 to 0.0. 43% for CO. Since most of the pollution levels will apparently not be down to their attainment targets by 1987, the actual project rp iona) air quality impact will be sornewhat less than the percentages indicated. TABLE F PROJECT COI�ITRIBUTION TO THE BASINWIDE AIR QUALITY l3`JRDEN �►r Project Basin Related Attainment Project t Emmissionsr Target** Contributions Pollutants (tons/day) (tons/day) M Reactive Hydrocarbon 0.081 506. 0.016 Oxides of Nitrogen 0.153 800. 0.019 Carbon Monoxide 1.265 2480. 0.043 Particulates 0.023 242. 0.009 Oxides of Sulfur 0.027 554. 0.005 *From vehicular and stationury sources - 1987 level. *From analysis in the current South Coast Air Basin - AQMP. No matter what the actual small percentage is, the underlying premise of the regional air quality planning process is, that there can be both reasonable, planned growth and also steadily improving air quality. Since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it is by definition consistent wcth the AQMP althought the SCAG-80 forecasts used in the .;urrent AGNP update cycle may still reflect the previous Rcrource Production, Cominercicl and Los Density Residential designation for the projec ? site in force .'n 1979 when the SLAG-80 forecasts were prepared. 1n SC AG's next population, horsing, employment and land use update, the current Planned Commursity District lord use 26 element adopted June 15, 1981 will be reflected in those forecasts and the project will be l' consistent with the AOMP. � While the regional impact may be small vnd somewhrrt mitigated by emission controls an w other basin sources of air pollution, the concentration of traffic near the project site, plus existing traffic, plus non-project growth could cause localized air quality dey-oda- f,� lion ("hot spots"). 1 Based upon an analysis using the Caline 3 modr.1, at worst, local traffic generated CO levels on the sidewalk next to the roadway will be less than 13 ppm compared to the hourly standard of 35 ppm. Since neither the rush hour traffic nor the restrictive disper- sion conditions last for 8 hours, the 8-hour standard of 9 pprn 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 on available background data and the foregoing analysis, the projpzt site appears ♦n be in an area of good air quality and the proposed project will not significantly alter that situation. s; 4.10.3 Mitigation With most of the project impact resulting from the automobile whose emission char- acteristics are beyond the control of local regulatory agencies or the developer, there is little potential for effective mitigation. Certain "standard" measures such as supporting transit use or building bicycle paths are to be encourage, but they contribute only min- imally in reducing the project air pollution burden. While any potential for mitigation is : indeed small, measures that could be incorporated into project design include: < Construction sources o Minimize erosion and run-off to keep silt from washing into traveled streets. o Perform major grading in spring when soil moisture: is high. S 9 9 p 9 9 L"+f Mobile Sources t„ o Construct attractive and covered transit stops on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. r� o Encourage bike or pedestrian use.to nearby commercial areas. o Incorporate recreational areas into the project to reduce out-of-project travel. �. Stationary Sources o Build project using conservation design criteria beyond the minimum Title 24 requirements. o Provide solar assisted heating and hot water systems as a built-in option. • o Use energy conserving fluorescent lighting in interiors and high-pressure sodium for street lighting, 27 I 4.11 VISUAL RESOURCES �- 4.11.1 Setting ' W. There are presently no structures located on the project site, and past use of the land has been limited to resource production. West of the flood control channel there is a total of nine active oil producing wells and three idle wells. On the eastern portion of the site are 13 wells, seven of which are idle. In addition to the pumping equipment at the wells, there are ancillary tanks and piping located on the site. , Eighty to ninety percent of the on-site vegetation is in highly disturbed condition. The dominant plants visible from the adjacent roads are non-native species, caisidered to be , common roadside weeds. A large cluster of eucalyptus trees located on the southwest corner of the site is the only visually dominant vegetation present. Until its recent removal, a retail nursery occupied the mesa (as previously indicated). The ponding area and associated vegetation, visible from Beach Boulevard, were also noticeable features on the site. Tile reader should re, -ir to the Biological Resources Section of this EIR for information concerning the history and status of this area. Utility and transmission lines located parallel to Beach Boulevard are visible from any location within or outside the site, and tend to detract from the Ideal visual character. Also contributing to the degraded appearance of the site are several advertising bill- boards and scattered trash and debris located throughout the site. Surrounding land properties which have visual access for the site consist of: a single- family residential neighborhood to the east, single-family residential and commercial (MacDonald's restaurant on Beach Boulevard) to the south; residential and open space land to the east across Beach Boulevard; and commercial (a gas Malion adjacent to the property and the new retail uses across Adams Avenue) and parkland to the north. 4.1 1.2 Impacts Potential effects of the proposed protect upon visual quality or aesthetics include the effects of the project upon the surrounding neighborhoods, the effects upon those traiel- ing along Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, and the internal aesthetic characteristics which will affect project residents. For the purposes of this analysis, two factors, density and dominant forms (building mass in this core) will be used to evaluate the project's impact on visual and community .._ character. One of the most significant effects of the project on the surrounding neighborhood would be the impact of the projecPs density upon the existing neighborhood character or image. The attached housing and the three and four story structures of the proposed project would contrast with the established single-family character of the adjacent neighborhoods to the south and east of the site. However, the design of the project is strongly influenced toy efforts to reduce this impoci. The buildings located east of the flood control channel would be one and two-story units over tuck-under parking, arranged in clusters of four to six units. The tallest structures would be approximately 33 feet above grade. Building clusters located adjacent to the existing single: family residences are each cane-story tall (opproximately 23 feet high from the lower parking elevation to the roof line). Other building clusters consist of both one and two-story units. Roof levels at varied height are also proposed to assist in reducing wn 28 the perception of building mass. The relationship of the existing neighborhood and proposed structures are shown in Figure 14, which depicts the project and existing structural elevations. These units would be setback 45 feet from the south and east r+► property lines. 1.° Development In Area 8 would occur at greater densities than on the east side. The 400 units proposed would be in a combination of structures. Building mass or bulk will be the dominant visual element. Building elevations on the western portion of the site are also r shown in Figure 14. Similar to the east side, steps have been token in the design of these residential structures to minimize the perceived bulk of the buildings. Clusters will consist of .three and four-story units, with up to two levels of parking underneath. The visual impact of the building mass has been lessened through both the design of the structures and their placement on the site. Lcvge building clusters have the smaller two s and three-story units located on the end and then step up to the four-story units. t Building clusters located an the mesa have been designed to step up with the natural landforms present with the garage levels tepping down the natural landforms. A setback of 85 feet from the property line will b- observed in the area where Area B borders adjacent single-family residences. Views from the road into the project area will also be substantially altered because residential units will abut on Beach Boulevard and block view across the site. However, landscape and entry features along the project's Beach Boulevard frontage will be included in the development. The primary public views of the project from off--site locations other than along Beach Boulevard, are from the crest of Adams Avenue west of Beach Boulevard. However, this view is highly obstructed by the existing gas station on Adams Avenue. Views of the site from the medium density residential development located across Beach Boulevard are also buffered, by the heavy traffic levels on Beach Boulevard and existing power lines. r:t+ Although views will be altered, and the new structures will be visually dominant in this area of Huntington Beach, no major public or substantial pE•ivatP vistas will be blocked by the project. z•a Internally, the community will be water amenity-oriented and built around a system of lakes and streams, including a small fresh water marsh located where the previous pand•- ing occurred. All units are orienied inward, focusing on the landscaped areas. Similar developments with +'pis concept have been successfully completed by the project architect and iandsr_ape architect. Areas which are currently used for resource production will be fenced and screened by landscape buffers from the residential development. When resource production ceases, these areas will be turned over to the homeowners association and become part of the j., project's open space network. Resource production units, at first seemingly incompatible within residential neighbor- hoods have been incorporated into residential neighborhoods In Huntington Ecach (e.g., across Beach Boulevard) without serious conflict of use. i 29 � - __ , l .. • - i r i .. 4 .,: w- a .... .is _ IIi =�: h �. � 34 j r �, � i ` CJ Fal /I• M/N/w/.�.•I ` I•Mi not r S __�� J SECTION! Q-[5 _ /Iif•itN � •.t.•••• i ITI trrtr� " ��„r1,� • I iy i 1 I►i� + ice, ..� } � L.� � MD SECTION A-A - . 1 1 p•p w•� ; w.• ; t.a.•i�r� - -f - SECTION B-B Yf � • a�' =J i l� r .ira•rrwt••r�wwwwr.�..� fii Cl-%d F sari mcWracd associates, ;rr. SECTION C—C SEABRIDGE -CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE '4 *Is,!/M cat"I worn B•M=0 I Cwu Saar.Ca 936215 4. 11.3 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the resi- dential structures and in the design and arrangement of the site to minimize visual 4.4 impacts and conflicts with the existing community character. r o Buildings have been arranged in clusters to allow ;*or more open space around ! and between structures. o Building clusters consist of various types of units with varying heights and rooflines with concentrrtion of the highest roof lines at the center of the ti s cluster to lessen the perceived visual bulk or mass.. o Building clusters clong the mesa allow for the two levels of garage to step F down with the natural level forms- 0 Building clusters located on the eastern portion of the site adjaceril to existing single-family neighborhoods consist of one-story units with tuck-under parking. o A landscape buffer will separate the adjacent single family units and the ' project. The three and four story units will be kept at a minimum of 85 feet f from the property line adjacent single family units. o A small collector road off the main loop road system is located along the eastern border of the site, providing additional separation and buffering between the single family neighborhood. o Resource production areas within the project will be fenced and/or buffered with landscaping (and will remain in use in the near-term). 4. 12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.12.1 Water 4.12.1 .1 Setting The Huntington Beach City water supply is derived from two primary sources, imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basil;. An existing eight-inch water line in Beach Boulevard, extending 600 feet south of Adams Avenue, now serves the project area. The Department of Public Works indicates that this line would require an extension to the study area's southerly boundary to adequately provide water service to future development. In addition, a 12-inch water main in Adams w, Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, would require an easterly extension to serve the proje�t area. These facility improvements are projected to adequately serve the study area. (Personal conversation, 9/ 16)/81, Mr. Eric Charlonne, Public Works Dept. h, 30 4.12.1.2 Impacts According to the Public Works Department, there are no problems associated with pro- viding adequate domestic water service to the proposed project. Line extensions from the existing water lines on Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, as discussed, will serve the project site. In order to insure adequate water flows for fire protection purposes, the developer of the .site would have ;o install a fire hydrant and water main distribution system for -the area, consisting of a six-inch water line loop with fire hydrants. The proposed project would contribute cumulatively to the demand for water in Southern California. The maximum peak daily water demands anticipated with development ere a`s follows: t Area A (medium density): 184,800 gal lons/day ' Area B (high density): 464,424 allons/dc Total 649,224 gallons day These figures are based on the proposed number of dwelling uni?s in each area, the esti- mated number of persons per dwelling unit, and a maximum peak water demand figure of 235 gallons/person/day. 4.12.1.3 Mitigation Measures The following measures are included within the project or otherwise recommended to offset potential adverse effects: � r•4 0 Included within the Specific Plan for the project area is the requirement for the installation of a fire hydrant system to provide adequate fire flow. The fire hydrant system shall be approved by the Fire Marshall • prior to the °r' issuance of any building permits and shall be in operation prior to the time of construction with any combustible materials. • • o The Department of Water Resources also recommends implementation of the following measures in order to conserve water: Interior: - Supply line pressure: reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure reducing valve. - Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. - Pipe insulation: recommended for all hot water lines. - Laundry facilities: recommended water-conserving models of washers. r. Exterior: - Lr-.�dscape with low water-consuming plants. Extensive: use of mulch in all landscaped areas. 31 ' - Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Install efficient irrigation systems to minimize run-off and evaporation. Use pervious paving material. Preserve existing natural drainage a,eas. 4. 12.2 Wastewater 4. 12.2.1 Setting r r--- a The project site is located within the service area of the County Sanitation District of Orange County. The area is currently serviced by a 24-inch Orange County trunk line in Adorns Avenue and a 30 Inch County Sanitation District trunk line near and running parallel to the easterly project boundary. No new sewer facilities are master planned for the area, therefore, any new development within the area of concern could connect to the existing trunk line. 4.12.2.2 Impacts According to the Sanitation District, the project area has been master planned as low density residential with a flow coefficient of 1550 gallons per day per acre. Actual flows b from the project are expected to greatly exceed this amount. The Sanitation District estimates ft flow coefficient for medium density residential development to be 3880 gallons per day per acre and 5820 gallons per day per acre for high density residential development. The District would require use of flow reduction features with the Is development in order to accommodate the higher densities proposed. 4. 12.2.3 Mitigation Measures r Flow reduction measures applicable to residential development will be incorporated in the project (to be specified by the applicant). 4.12_.3_ Gas and Electrical Utilities 4.12.3. 1 Setting Natural gas service and electrical service are provided by the Southern California Gas Company and the Edison Company, respectively. A four-inch main gas supply line and an overhead 12KV electrical line runs east-west ok.-ng Adams Avenue io serve the area of concern. Gas service Is generally provided as a normal extension of existing facilities. However, the availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. .As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company Is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Federal regulatory agencies can also affect gas supply. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be pr3yided according to the revised conditions. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that 41ectricnl load requirements can be met provided that c!ec:trical demond does not exceed estimates and there are no unexpected outages to mdor sources of electrical supply. The total electrical system 32 demand is expected to continue to increase annually. If plans to proceed with future construction of new generating facilities are delayed, Edison's capability to serve all N customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1984 (city frorn EIR 81.2, City of Huntington Beach). .� 4.12.3.2 Imports A` Based upon the Southern California Gas Company, average consumption rate of opproxi- mately 772 therms per year/per dwelling unit, the demand for the proposed development xti is estimated to be 617,600 therms/year. Consumption rates may he less due to the small square footage of some of the smaller condominium units and consumer efforts to con- serve., Based upon Southern California Edison Company's average consumption rate of 800 Kwh �►a per month per dwelling unit, the demand for electricity is estimated to be. approximately 7,680,000 Kwh per year. No significant impacts relative to these utilities are expected. 4.12.3.3 Mitigation Measures e� The proposed concept achieves many energy conserving elements by virtue of the Higher densities. These elements include reduced infrastructure development and associated costs, greater concentrations of population near comm^rcial services and job centers r.. thereby reducing transportation needs, and a greater potential for use of public transit systems. Within the project itself, the following mitigation measures could be included to reduce ` energy consumption: �.., o Encourage Athe use of onssive solar energy techniques in the siting and design of residential structures. Previous studfies have indicated good passive design can oul reduce heating and cooling loads by 30 to SO percent using rather standard techniques. Approaches to passive control deal with building d- sign, location, ; orientation, landsc-iping, color and materials selection. Specific application includes: *s Landscaping: south facades shaded in summer by vegetation, awnings, t shutters or overhangs. Color and building materials: light colored reflective walls and paving used to reflect incoming solar radiation. o Encourage residential structures to be fitted with active solar systems. Active solar energy systems rely on some combination of mechanical aids, such as pumps, motors, heat exchangers, control systems, fans or storage tanks; to J gather,store and distribute the sun's energy. Such systems can be utilized fc.r i swimming pool/jreu,zzi heating, domestic hat water heating and space heating/cooling systems. �. 33 4.12.4 Solid Wcste PA 4.12.4.1 Setting roc t , The Rainbow Disposal Company provides solid waste collection to the City of Huntington Beach. 4.12.4.2 Impact Development of the site would result in increased demand for solid waste collection and r disposal services. Using a generation factor- of 7.5 Ibs/person/day for residential fond t t use, the generation of solid waste is estimated to be 12,540 Ibs/day. Based upon the analysis in EIR 81-2 on Land Use Element 81-I, no local service contraints are expected.. r-} 4.12.4.3 Mitigation Measures s a No mitigation measures are proposed. 'f 4.l 2.5 Schools . o 4.12.5.1 Setting The project area lies within the Huntington Beach Elementary School District xid the Huntington Beach Hirlh School District. 4.12.5.2 Impact The proposed development would generate an estimated 80 elementary school aged children and 80 middle school children. These figures ore based upon a generation factor of 0. 1 child per housing vait. The Huntington Beach Elementary School District has indicated that sufficient excess capacity exists in area schools to accommodate the r, student load. The development is also expected to generate 80 additional high school students, based on the District's generatiom factor of 0. 1 child per housing unit. These students would attend Edison High School, which is located approximately 1 1/4 miles from the project area. Tire capacity of Edison High School is 3,029 students ,and current enrollment for Fall 1991 is estimated to be 2,943 students. District enrollment has been declining for the la�t two years. However, this declining trend is expected to level off in future years. Additional information regarding future enrollment trends will be available In ' December 1981, when the District will publish a 10-year Master Pion for the Huntington � Beach School District. lPersonal conversation, Mr. Robert Landi, Huntington -Beach Elementary School District. October 20, 1981. IPA 2Personal Conversation, Mariann Peterson, Huntington Beach High Schoo; District. October 20, 1981. 34 b" 4. 12.5.3 ,'Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. 4. 12.E police Protection 4.12.6.1 Settino The Huntington Beach Police Departr.wnt operates a single police facility I%-,sated at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue. The pre ent authorized level of police manning is approximately LIS officers per I,OW persons. 4.12.6.7 Impact - { Development of the project would require an additional 1.6 police personnel, bused upon the projected population of the project at build-out. A full evaluation of the Specific Plan by the Police Department will be made at the Draft EIR stage. re+ 4.12.6.3 Mitigation Meaures . No mitigation measures are proposed at this time. V 4.12.7 Fire Protection 4.12.7.1 Setting v The project area is served by the Lcke Fire Station, approximately one.-half mile away. j Fire stations should be located to prnvide an average response time of five fnlnutes or less �n 90 percent of the incidents. The project area is within this response. limit. it 4. 12.7.2 Impact : The proposed development will exert an additional demand on City Fire protection ser- vices. The Fire Department will review the project at tine Draft EIR stage. h. 12.7.3 Mitigation � No mitigation measures are proposed at this time. 4.13 Fiscal Analysis � W A fiscal analysis of alternative development concepts for the: Beuch/Adams site was prepared for the Environmental Impact Report (No. 81-2) a:companying Land Use Element Arnendmeni No. 81-1,which was odopted ,June, 1991. .All of the ollernative concepts (including the proposed pion) generate a nef, revenue surplus for the City over the next 10 years. - IEIR 81-2 35