Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear - Appeal to PC Denial of TT Map 15689/CondUsePer 99 ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY _ CITY�CLERK . September 6, 2000 , PLC Land Company C/o Bill Holman 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250 Newport Beach CA 92660 Dear Mr. Holman: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21, 2000 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Tentative Tract Map No 15689/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 (for Construction of 17 Single Family Units &2 Landscape Lots— Northam Court (2110 Main Street). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of denial. The Action Agenda and Findings for Denial are enclosed. The August 21, 2000 minutes of the denial of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from September 6, 2000 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, f! • Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure: Findings for Denial Government Code 1094.6 Action Agenda Pages 8 &9 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Principal Planner Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner G:followup/appeal/90dayltr (Telephone:714-536-5227) REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 for review. The certified EIR may be used to evaluate the environmental issues related to the revised project depending on the extent of changes made to the original project design. G. SUMMARY Staff does not support Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 for the following reasons: • The project does not properly adapt with the surrounding terrain and is not physically suitable for the site. The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography and mature vegetation to the greatest extent possible. • The project can be developed with an alternate form of housing product that terraces with the existing grade and maintains the existing topography and mature vegetation to the greatest extent possible. • The project and proposed grading will create a significant aesthetic impact to the historical view of the site. • The project is not compatible with the existing medium density and commercial office developments adjacent to the site. • The project is likely to cause significant environmental damage related to the removal and relocation of the existing mature trees. Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 (EIR No. 99-2) was prepared to analyze the significant, unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, biological resources, and aesthetics resulting from the proposed project. The EIR was analyzed in a separate staff report and was certified by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2000 pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act requirements. Since the Planning Commission certified the EIR and no appeal to the environmental portion of this project was received, the EIR is not being brought forth to the City Council for consideration and approval, but has been attached for information (Attachment No. 8). The EIR concluded that implementation of the project would cause significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources and aesthetics of the site. If the City Council approves the applicant's project as proposed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cultural resources and aesthetics in addition to Findings of Fact must be approved in conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map and the Conditional Use Permit. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted when implementation of an PL00-41.doc -8- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 approved project will create impacts that cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks.while determining whether or-not to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable to the City. Staff does not support approval of the tentative tract map or conditional use permit for the project as proposed, and therefore does not recommend approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts created by the project. Attachments: NumberCity Clerk's Page Description 1 Findings for Denial (PC and Staff Recommendation) 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 dated May 1, 2000, Site Plans dated May 1, 2000, Floor Plans and Elevations dated April 26, 2000; and Fencing plan dated June 2, 2000 3 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 13, 2000 4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2000 5 Appeal Letter dated June 23, 2000 6 Suggested Conditions of Approval for Alternative Action (Applicant's Request) 7 Resolution No. -= - to Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact (Applicant's Request)' 8 Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 RCA Author: Wendy Nowak/Mary Beth Broeren/Scott Hess PL00-41.doc -9- 08/14/00 8:32 AM (8) August 21, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D-2. (City Council) Public Hearing —Appeal Filed by PLC Land Company of the Planning Commission's Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689/Conditional Use Permit No.99-53 (for Construction of 17 Single Family Units & 2 Landscape Lots - Northam _Court (2110 Main Street, n/o Yorktown Avenue, e/o Main Street w/o Lake Street) (420.40) Appellant: PLC Land Company Request: Tentative Tract Map (TTM): To permit the subdivision of 4.82 acres of land:into 17 single family residential lots, two landscape lots and one private roadway lot and construction of associated infrastructure. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): To permit the construction of 17 two-story, detached single family homes. The request also includes: 1. Development on lots with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low point; and 2. Development of a Planned Unit Development project to allow reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet; and 3. A maximum three (3)foot retaining wall topped with a six (6) foot high perimeter wall along the southeast corner of the project (lot 8). Location: 2110 Main Street(north of Yorktown Avenue, east of Main Street, west of Lake Street). Environmental Status: An initial environmental assessment for item#1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that implementation of the project would have a significant environmental effect on cultural resources, biological resources, and aesthetics, therefore an environmental impact report(EIR) was warranted and prepared. The EIR was certified by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 13, 2000. Approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact by the City Council are necessary to approve this project. The tentative tract map and conditional use permit applications are on file in the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and are available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. On file: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library, (7111 Talbert Avenue) after August 17, 2000. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 714/536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff Report 2. City Council Discussion 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Following Public Input, Close Public Hearing Recommended Action: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT No. 1). [Councilmembers Julien, Harman and Dettloff announced possible conflict of interest. (Drawing of lots was required by FPPC regulation 18708 in order for quorum to consider. Dettloff drew the lot and joined Councilmembers Bauer, Green and Sullivan in participation.] [Motion to deny TTM & CUP w/findings for denial.] [Approved 3-1-2-1 (Bauer No; Julien, Harman abstain; Garofalo absent)] r* ffill .a .�.--.��'� .�=,xa s���a�• .€�-«.:a:, +�r":��:.�ar_'-4�.�,�.va.. .,.a�,< .f' ...ac' ` .a��se:s&. �� Y_ e:."a^ rsa��... ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 for the subdivision of 4.82 acres for the development of 17 single- family residences is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed lot configuration requires substantial grading, including approximately 34,400 cubic yards of cut and 28,500 cubic yards of fill, which is not conducive to the maintenance of natural landforms. The lots adjacent to Yorktown Avenue will be raised approximately 23 feet in order to accommodate development of the residential units. The modification to the existing variation in grade is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan that encourage development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible with existing structures, including grade elevations, and orientation of adjacent developments. The tract as designed would also create significant, unavoidable impacts to the 134 existing mature trees on site and does not comply with the General Plan policy that requires protection of "significant" trees and groves. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development without removing substantial vegetation or substantially altering the natural topography of the site. The substantial amount of cut and fill proposed for the site will substantially impact the aesthetic appearance of the area. The property can be developed with less impact to the existing topography. 3. The granting of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal ERC 4: Maintain the visual quality of the City's natural landforms and water bodies. The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. Objective ERC 4.1: Enhance and preserve the aesthetic resources of the City, including natural areas, beaches, bluffs, and significant public views. The project is located adjacent to the Civic Center, Seacliff Office Park, and the Pacific Ranch residential community. The existing grove of trees and existing topography of the site are highly visible by each of the adjacent uses. While the project proposes a tree relocation plan for the 134 mature trees on site, the tree removal and relocation will create a significant change to public views of the site. The proposal for significant grading to the site is not sensitive to the existing topography. Policy ERC 4.1.6: Require that future development be designed and sited to maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the City including the minimization of the area and height of cuts and fills. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 1.1 The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53, for the construction of a 17-unit single family project on a site with greater than a three foot differential between the high and low points may be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project it is not compatible with the surrounding office and medium density residential uses because it does not propose a housing product type that provides a natural transition between the existing uses. The proposed density is 3.5 and the surrounding density is 12.9. Also does not conform to Section 230.70 in.that structures do not terrace with the grade. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 on the subject property, however it is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy L U 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following. C. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi family housing within single family areas to preserve open space. The project proposes construction of 17 single-family units on lot sizes that range from 6,349 square feet to 9,569 square feet in size. The applicant has been encouraged by City Staff and the Subdivision Committee to consider an alternative housing product(such as cluster housing) or reduced lot sizes in an effort to preserve the existing tree grove and topography of the site. The applicant believes that the City's request is not feasible due to issues relating to site access, grades, and required slopes, and that their proposal is the most appropriate design of the site. Policy ERC 2.1.22:Define the terms "significant"tree or grove and develop specific measures to protect trees/groves that meet said definition. .The project, as proposed,would create.significant unavoidable.impacts to the 134 existing mature trees located on site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 encourages the applicant to consider, prior to approval of the project, realignment of the central road within the proposed development in order to spare many of the trees in the major grove. Policy HCR 1.2.1:Utilize the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and standards for guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscaped design standards for rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic resources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the site's architectural and historic integrity. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 1.2 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15689 : 1. The tentative map received and dated March 16, 2000 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The private street shall be re-designed in a manner that will preserve the existing grove of trees and topography on site, and shall maintain a landscape setback along Yorktown Avenue. Street design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. (Mitigation Measure) b. Note 9 shall be changed to reflect that pad elevations shown on the plans may be adjusted plus or minus one (1) foot. 2. Prior to submittal of the final map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval by the City Council, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: 1) Minimum 10 percent of the units shall be affordable to families of low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median) for a period of thirty years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units. 3) If affordable units (new or rehabilitate) are off-site, they must be under the full control of the applicant. 4) The affordable units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Final approval (occupancy) of the first residential unit in the tract shall be contingent upon the completion and public availability, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment.of completion, of the affordable units. b. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall: reflect the reciprocal access easements covering the westerly half of Seabluff Drive within a portion of this tract and the adjacent office park, provide disclosure regarding the earthquake fault that bisects the property, and require maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.1 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions. of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Map: 1. An easement over the private streets for Police and Fire Department access purposes. 2. A 2.00-foot public utility easement along street side property lines as shown on said map. i 3. The water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans. 4. Access rights in, over, across, upon and through the private streets for the purpose of maintaining, servicing, cleaning, repairing, and replacing the water system. c. All vehicular access rights to Yorktown Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. (PW) d. The developer shall construct a catch basin.at the northwest corner of Ranch Lane and Yorktown Avenue. This structure shall be designed to accommodate the additional flows anticipated from the proposed project. (PW,Mitigation Measure) e. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval, including Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street intersection calculations. (PW) f. The sewer system located within Lot "A" (Private Street) shall be private and maintained by the Homeowners Association. (PW) g. The sewer main as shown between lots 4 and 5 shall be revised to access the site by either Seabluff Drive or Ranch Road. (PW) h. A sewer study for both existing and proposed shall be required. In addition, flow tests may be required as determined by the Public Works Department. (PW) i i. The Final Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Map. (PW) j. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7- . 9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange.County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 1.8 for the following items: 1. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor 2. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map. k. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor & Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) 1. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.2 m. Prior to approval of a final tentative tract map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever comes first, the developer/landowner shall have entered into a written mitigation agreement with the school district which shall require payment, as school mitigation fees, of the maximum amount permitted by law. (Mitigation Measure) INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) 2. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the public right-of-way. (PW) 3. Park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid, or accrued credits assigned, prior to City Council approval of the final map. (Mitigation Measure) 4. Tentative Map No. 15689 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2)years of the date of final approval which is June 13, 2002. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 5. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption/Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53: 1. The site plan dated May 1, 2000, and the floor plans and elevations received and dated April 26, 2000 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Final site plans, floor plans, building elevations, tree relocation plan and fencing plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Department of Planning. b. Retaining wall and fence combinations over eight (8)feet in height shall be constructed with a variation in design or materials to show the distinction. Retaining wall and fence combinations over six(6) feet in height shall be designed without decorative block or cap block, except if equal in strength to the main portion of the fence. (Code Requirement) c. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights- of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) d. Building and grading plans shall terrace the proposed buildings with the grade. (Code Requirement) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.3 e. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. f. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. g. Note 9 shall be changed to reflect that pad elevations shown on the plans may be adjusted plus or minus one (1) foot. h. The existing slumpstone fence on the southeast corner of the site (entrance to Pacific Ranch) shall be removed, and the proposed new perimeter wall shall be changed to view fencing that returns directly into lot 8. i. The side yard projections (master bath, TV niche) for Plans One and Three must be cantilevered and not have floor area. Otherwise, they must comply with setbacks. These projections shall be shown on the site plan with the setback. j. The teen room in Plan One, and the den in Plans Two and Three must be a minimum of 50 percent open to an adjacent room or hallway so as not to count as a bedroom. Any conversion of these rooms into a bedroom shall result in the requirement to provide one additional enclosed parking space. k. The entrance to the private street shall have textured and colored pavement to distinguish the proposed subdivision from Seabluff Drive. 1. Building structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height as measured from the subfloor. m. No duplication of an architectural style/plan shall be permitted on adjacent lots. n. No fencing in the front yard setback shall exceed_42 inches in height. Fence heights for lots 1 and 1.7 shall be reduced to.comply with HBZO Standards. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits;the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.4 b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. Prior to issuance of demolition permit and/or grading permit, which ever comes first, the Applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare comprehensive documentation of the remains of the Northam Ranch House (notably the brick and stone foundation) and Garage/Carriage House as it currently exists, performed prior to the commencement of any alteration, grading, and/or demolition. The documentation shall be consistent with Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards and involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and National Park Service. (Mitigation Measure) 3. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts). e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.5 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to submission of a grading permit: a. In accordance with NPDES requirements, the applicant shall submit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, a Notice of Intent (NOI)to comply with NPDES, and a water quality management plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a civil or environmental engineer, for the City's review, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The WQMP shall include provisions for protecting runoff and ground water quality in the event of well removal or re-abandonment, and shall identify Best Management Practices to reduce any potential to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation Measure) 5. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit: a. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. This plan shall also include an erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff during construction and site preparation work. Final grades and elevations on the Grading Plan shall not vary by more than one foot from the grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map. (PW) b. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) c. To the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, the applicant shall consider, prior to approval of the project, realignment of the central road within the proposed development in order to spare as many of the trees in the major grove as practicable. (Mitigation Measure) d. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBFC and City Specification 422, Well Abandonment. (FD, Mitigation Measure) e. To the approval of the City Director of Planning, the Applicant shall salvage any historical elements or fittings of the structure(s) which may be useful for reuse or display prior to the commencement of any alteration, grading, and/or demolition of the site. Any salvaged elements or fittings shall be given to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works for safe keeping and/or future use in structures or public displays. (Mitigation Measure) f. The Applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach and other public venues, such as the local library, Historical Society museum, and schools with the full (HABS/HAER) documentation and elements of the historic property in the form of traveling and permanent exhibits commemorating the historic resource. (Mitigation Measure) g. A remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval, including methods to minimize remediation related impacts on the surrounding properties. (PW) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.6 h. The name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the developer who is on-site shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating whom to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the number of the applicants contact, City contact (Jack Miller (714) 536-5517) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1- 800-CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) i. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) j. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, in developing a truck haul route if the import or export of material is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW) k. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval that details how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site. (PW) 1. A plan shall be prepared and submitted to both Public Works and Planning Department's identifying wind barriers around remediation equipment. (PW) m. Blockwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to an approved by the Department of Planning. Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property wall. If coordination between property owners can not be accomplished, the applicant shall construct a six (6) foot high wall located entirely within the subject property and with a maximum two (2) inch separation from property line. Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that all adjacent property owners have been contacted. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. n. The developer shall pay fair share fees, to be determined by the City, for improvements to the water supply and distribution facilities necessitated by the proposed project. (Mitigation Measure) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.7 o. The developer shall pay fair share fees, to be determined by the City, for improvements to the existing sewer system as necessitated by the proposed project. (Mitigation Measure) p. The developer shall obtain a"will serve" letter from the Orange County Sanitation District, or the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, whichever is deemed appropriate by the City, for sewer services. (Mitigation Measure) q. The developer shall submit an Arborist Report of all existing mature trees on site. (Mature trees are those which have a 10" trunk caliper @ 4'-6" above grade). The Arborist report shall state the health of the tree and if it is to be removed. Any healthy trees removed shall be replaced with (2) 36" box trees (or the palm height equivalent) on the site. (PW) r. Because the arborist has evaluated all of the identified 134 trees as healthy (Holcomb 1998), it may be possible to relocate them. Therefore, the Applicant shall relocate healthy trees on-site, where feasible, as determined by an arboricultural specialist and to the approval of the City Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. (Mitigation Measure) s. To the maximum extent practicable, all mature palms on the project site (as determined by PRAC 1998) shall be preserved on-site, in place. Where preservation in place is not possible, mature palms, where practicable, shall be relocated on-site, preferably along Yorktown Avenue, Seabluff Drive, and the northern boundary of the project site. For all tree species, nature specimens (as determined in PRAC 1998) shall be incorporated into the landscape palette, and relocated on-site to the extent practicable. Mature specimens of any species that cannot practicably be relocated on-site shall first be offered to the City for planting in City parks. For specimens that have been offered to the City, but which the City cannot accommodate, one of the following actions shall be implemented, in the order of preference listed below: 1. Thirty-six inch boxed specimens of identical species, where practicable, shall be planted on-site at a 2:1 replacement-to-impact ratio. To maximize the number of mature trees planted on-site, the Applicant shall offer home-buyers 36-inch boxed specimen trees to be planted in residential yards as part of the"move-in package"; or 2. The monetary equivalent of the value of either the existing tree or the two required (per 2:1 City formula) 36-inch box tree replacements, whichever is greater, shall be provided by the Project Applicant. All funds shall be deposited in an account established for the sole purpose of funding the establishment or enhancement of tree planting projects within the City of Huntington Beach. (Mitigation Measure) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.8 t. Developer shall where possible, translocate existing palms to their permanent locations on site. When this is not possible, the palms shall be temporarily held in a holding area within the general vicinity of the site. The palms shall be irrigated, fertilized, and maintained per professional palm transplanting and arboricultural standards. A palm specialist shall provide BI-monthly reports as to the health and recommendations for the palms during the temporary storage and during the final installation, plant establishment, and maintenance period. The length of establishment and the maintenance/guarantee period shall be 365 days (1 year) for existing site palms. Newly imported palms purchased from growing grounds further than 10 miles from the coastline shall be guaranteed for 730 days (2 years). (PW) u. Prior to transporting or removing the existing "Phoenix Canariensis" palm trees existing on site, a palm specialist, approved by the City's Landscape Architect, shall determine their health and that they are free of disease. (PW) v. Where avoidance or transplantation of on-site trees are not possible, the proposed development should be landscaped with mature, healthy trees of comparable species. Landscape plans shall be approved by the City Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works prior to project approval. In addition, refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 for a detailed description for the measures required to reduce impacts caused by the removal of mature trees to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation Measure) w. A complete set of landscape plans, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted to the Park, Tree and Landscape Division for their approval. These plans shall show all slope planting and the individual street trees per house. (PW) x. Any areas within the Alquist-Priolo region which were not investigated for evidence of faulting in the preliminary geotechnical investigation must be investigated prior to issuance of any permits. Evidence of faulting will require the entire project to be re-reviewed by the Planning Commission. The completed geotechnical report, including recommendations for the acceleration to be used for designing the structures on the site, or a statement that the adopted Uniform Building Code is adequate for the seismic design of the structures on the site, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department will obtain an independent analysis of the completed geologic report. The cost of this analysis shall be paid by the applicant. When the report has been amended to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the City will file the report with the State Geologist. Construction drawings along with calculations and approved geologic report shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety to complete the building plan review. (Code Requirement) 6. During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: (OOSR39)--6/13/00 Attachment No.6.9 a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down areas to be or that are being remediated in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. The Applicant shall implement dust control measures in accordance with City requirements, and with AQMD Rule 403. (Mitigation Measure, PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. The remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. A geological consultant shall be present during grading to verify the findings of the PSE studies, and to document any pertinent changed conditions, particularly regarding the mapped faults in PSE Trenches T-1 and T-2. The geological consultant shall also examine soil exposures during grading to determine if repositioning the setback zones is necessary, depending on the final finished grades. (Mitigation Measure) 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. b. Residential type structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units (all units within this development)that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permits. (Code Requirement) c. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.10 d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) e. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure, Code Requirement) f. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. g. Prior to submittal of building permits, a detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. The purpose of this analysis shall be to prepare a final project design that reduces potential project-related groundshaking impacts to a less-than-significant level (i.e., potentially significant impacts to people or property would be considered less-than- significant). (Mitigation Measure) h. A revised geological report and structural designs prepared by geologic and structural engineers shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Department of Building and Safety that identify the special design that shall be required of any buildings that will be constructed within the "special design encroachment area" delineated on the earthquake fault zone map. 8. During plan check, the following shall be completed: a. The Applicant shall incorporate the Northam name into any development on the subject property, and shall include appropriate signage indicating the name chosen. (Mitigation Measure) b. To the extent practicable, and to the satisfaction of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, the Applicant shall incorporate appropriate design elements from the surrounding development, including form, ornamentation, and color, in order to make the appearance of the buildings proposed as consistent or as complementary as possible to the surrounding development. (Mitigation Measure) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.11 c. To the extent practicable, and to the satisfaction of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, the landscape plan for the proposed project shall provide a green buffer between the proposed development and the Pacific Ranch townhomes by more densely clustering trees along the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site. (Mitigation Measure) d. Habitable structures (occupied for greater than 2,000 hours per year) shall be located outside of setback zones, in accordance with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. No development shall be allowed within a 50-foot structural setback zone on either side of the fault, with the exception of a 20-foot "special design encroachment zone," which shall be designated as the outer 20 feet on each side of the 100-foot structural setback zone. Structures located within this encroachment zone shall require special structural designs, and school and hospital uses shall be forbidden. (Mitigation Measure) 9. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits: a. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded final map, along with digital graphic files of the recorded map per the City of Huntington Beach "CAD Standards Manual for Consultants", shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) b. An Alquist Priolo Study shall be required. (PW) c. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. The project requires 2 hydrants (City Specification 407) (FD) d. Fire lanes shall be designated and posted to comply with City Specification 415. (FD) e. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. (FD) f. For Fire Department approval, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification 426. (FD) g. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) h. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 428. (FD) i. Street names must be approved by the Fire Department. Please refer to City Specification 409. (FD) j. Security gates, if any, shall be designed to comply with City Specification 403. (FD) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.12 k. An engineering geologist shall submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure) 1. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. The purpose of this analysis shall be to prepare a final project design that reduces potential project-related groundshaking impact to a less-than-significant level (i.e. potentially significant impacts to people or property would be considered less-than-significant). (Mitigation Measure) m. The applicant shall submit the final marketing plan for this development that shall indicate that all three house plans have two-car garages only with extra storage area that does not count as parking to comply with code. It shall also indicate that no additional bedroom can be constructed beyond the maximum of four existing bedrooms either through interior or exterior alterations without providing additional.parking per code. r o. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. p. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. q. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. r. The Water Ordinance No. 14.52,the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2,500 square feet of landscaping. (PW) 10. The following conditions shall be completed during construction: a. The Applicant shall implement dust control measures in accordance with City requirements, and with AQMD Rule 403. (Mitigation Measure, PW) b. Structures within the"special design encroachment zone" (the outer 20 feet of the 50-foot structural setback zone) shall be constructed according to prevailing City Code standards for strong ground motion. (Mitigation Measure) c. Utilities that cross the setback zone shall be equipped with automatic shutoff valves and flexible connections to help prevent the possibility of disruption. (Mitigation Measure) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.13 d. All structures shall be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. (Mitigation Measure) e. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code (Building Department and Fire Department), as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. (Mitigation Measure) f. The City shall arrange for a qualified professional archaeological monitor to be present during demolition, grading, trenching, tree removal, and other excavation on the project site. (Mitigation Measure) 11. The following conditions shall be completed prior to approval of Final Building Permits (occupancy of the buildings): a. Each proposed dwelling unit shall have a separate domestic meter and service, sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code(UPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). All meters shall be a touch read type. The domestic water meter service lateral size shall be a minimum of 1 inch. (PW) b. Backflow devices shall be required for all dwelling units required by the Fire Department to have fire sprinklers. Additionally, all structures over two stories in height shall require a Backflow device unless approved otherwise by the Water Division. (PW) c. Any existing water meters and service laterals serving the site shall be abandoned per the City Water Division Standards, unless approved otherwise by the Water Division. (PW) d. To the approval of the Director of Planning, and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant shall create a permanent, on-site interpretive display presenting the history of the property and possibly incorporating HABS/HAER documentation and elements of the historic property within an area of the project accessible to the public. A pamphlet summarizing the history and illustrating the architecture would be an educational public benefit that shall be mad available to the public at the Newland House and the Central Library. (Mitigation Measure) e. If any archeological deposits or features are encountered, and they cannot be avoided, impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level by scientific data recovery, analysis, and report. (Mitigation Measure) f. A Homeowner Association shall be formed to provide maintenance of all common area landscape. (PW) g. An Architectural review board shall be formed as a part of the Homeowner Association. The Architectural review board shall review all private yard landscape plans and any architectural remodeling or added features. In addition, the Architectural review board shall enforce the city front yard tree requirement by making sure that the individual homeowner show a 36" box tree or the palm equivalent within the front yard on their landscape plans, and that the (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 6.14 said tree/palm is installed. The developer shall select a time frame for the owners to install their landscaping within said time frame shall be less than one (1) year from move in. (PW) h. Each single family residential lot 45 feet or greater in with shall have one 36-inch box tree planted within the front setback area. One 36-inch box tree shall also be planted in the street side yard adjacent to a street without a parkway. (Code Requirement) i. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. j. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. 12. At the time of sale of the dwelling units, the developer shall provide, to all households residing in the 17 units developed under the proposed project, information approved by the City Department of Public Works regarding and encouraging participation in the City's or County's applicable AB939 compliance programs. Program applicability shall be determined by the City Department of Public Works. (Mitigation Measure) 13. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Public Works Department. 14. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or re-striping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. 15. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 16. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. (OOSR39)-6/13/00 Attachment No.6.15 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is_June 13, 2001, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption/Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 10. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 11. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 12. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No.6.16 �''3F a y- try,�,' .�-�x'' -X �„" � e ' ,_� RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE NOTHAM RANCH HOUSE PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Number 99-2 was prepared to address the environmental implications of the proposed Northam Ranch House Project; and On August 24, 1999, a Notice of Preparation for the draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies; and On November 18, 1999, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from November 18, 1999 to January 3, 2000, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 23, 2000, in which comments were received on the EIR; and Pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that said Environmental Impact Report conforms to all pertinent state and local laws and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations, the following findings are hereby made: A. The environmental analysis covers the areas of Cultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Aesthetics. B. As mitigated, there are significant unavoidable impacts on Cultural Resources. 1 4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Overriding Considerations—Northam Ranch RLS 00-611 6-23-00 C. As mitigated, there are less than significant impacts on Biological Resources. D. As mitigated, there are significant unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby additional find that the EIR identifies cumulative project impacts that are partially mitigated,but not to a level considered less than significant. Adverse cumulative impacts identified in the EIR that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level are as follows: Cultural Resources The cumulative impacts of the Northam Ranch House Project on cultural resources have been mitigated as much as possible. There are unavoidable significant impacts on cultural resources relating to loss of historic character within the City of Huntington Beach that cannot be easily quantified and cannot be mitigated. Aesthetics The cumulative impacts of the Northam Ranch House Project on aesthetics have been mitigated as much as possible. There are unavoidable significant impacts on aesthetics relating to loss of a prominent visual resource, and relating to inconsistency with General Plan Goals and Policies, which cannot be mitigated. 3. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable risks identified in the EIR and makes the following "Statement of Overriding Considerations": A. the Northam Ranch House Project will develop a residential project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. B. The Northam Ranch House Project will provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed residential project. C. The Northam Ranch House Project will promote the development of a residential product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. D. the Northam Ranch House Project will implement many of the goals, policies, and development standards of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. E. The Northam Ranch House Project will create a residential development that is compatible with and sensitive to existing land uses adjacent to the proj ect. 2 4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Overriding Considerations—Northam Ranch RLS 00-611 6-23-00 F. The Northam Ranch House Project will result in a development that is significantly below allowed density, thereby resulting in reduced impacts to City Services and infrastructure. 4. Based upon the above findings of fact,written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: A. At public hearings, the City Council considered public testimony, staff presentations, and City Council reports on the proposed project and the EIR prepared for the project. B. The EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts and impacts which cannot be avoided through mitigation. C. The Northam Ranch House Project Mitigation Monitoring Plan, included as Chapter 4.0 of Part I of the Final EIR, ensures compliance with all mitigation measures identified in the EIR to mitigate or avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed proj ect. 5. Based upon the above recitations, findings, and conclusions, the City Council hereby determines: A. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the City Council certifies that the EIR(SCH No. 1999081123) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by the City Council, prior to reaching a decision on the Northam Ranch House Project. B. The City Council has considered the unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources and Aesthetics relative to the potential benefits which this project will provide to the community. The City Council determines that these unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of the long-range benefits to the community that this project will provide. C. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," set forth in Section 3 above. 3 4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Overriding Considerations—Northam Ranch RLS 00-611 6-23-00 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on this day of , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney b' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I I Wir�ector'of D APPROVED: 7. Z.�_ y City Admi strator � l Planning 9 4 4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Overriding Considerations—Northam Ranch RLS 00-611 6-23-00 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations required for the approval of the Northam Ranch House project,as defined in the Draft EIR. As required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare the Northam Ranch House EIR was distributed on August 24, 1999 to responsible and trustee agencies as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that the Lead Agency planned to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the EIR. The NOP included a brief description of the project and identified those areas where the project could have potentially significant effects, as well as those areas where the project _ would have no effect. It also identified alternatives that were dismissed from further consideration. The NOP and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. On November 18, 1999, the City of Huntington Beach issued a Draft EIR for public review for a period of 45 days ending on January 3, 2000. A Notice of Availability was issued which announced the release of the Draft EIR, identified where it was available for review,.described the project, and its location, and summarized the significant environmental effects. The notice stated where documents referenced in the EIR are available for review, and stated the period for submittal of comments on the contents of the Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach distributed the Draft EIR to interested individuals, agencies, elected officials, special interest groups, and businesses. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the Huntington Beach Central Library. The City received nine (9) letters commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The Draft EIR included a detailed description of the Proposed Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of three alternatives to the project: ' No.Project/No Development Alternative; ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Structures and Landscape Maintained); ■ Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Landscape Maintained); The Draft EIR also described cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts. In April 2000, the City of Huntington Beach released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR incorporates by reference the text of the Draft EIR and includes a Summary Chapter, responses to the nine (9) letters commenting on the Draft EIR, and corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR. 1 Northam Ranch House Project Findings offact and Statr it of Overriding Considerations 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION The Project has the following primary objectives (see Draft EIR, p. 2-3): Applicant ■ Develop a residential project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed residential project. ■ Promote the development of a residential product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. City of Huntington Beach ■ Implement many of the goals, policies and development standards of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. _ ■ Create a balance between the development of a new residential product and the existing biological and historical resources of the site. ■ Create a residential development that is compatible with and sensitive to existing land uses adjacent to the project. ■ Provide necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate the demands of new development. The proposed .project consists of the development of a 4.8-acre property located at 2110 Main Street, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 023-010-18, in the City of Huntington Beach, California, bounded to the west and east by Seabluff Drive and Ranch Lane, respectively. The project site currently contains the remains of the historic structure known as the Northam House, which was once owned and inhabited by Col. Robert J. Northam, an agent for the trust that held title to the original rancho that contained the land of the present-day cities of Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. The house and its associated structures would be demolished, and 134 mature trees would be removed, to allow the construction of 17 single-family residential units, yielding a density of 3.5 units per net acre. A new cul-de-sac, extending east from Seabluff Drive, would bisect the project site, and provide access to the new homes. The proposed project would require the following approvals by the City of Huntington Beach: ■ Concurrent entitlement of Tentative Tract Map 15689; . ■ Conditional Use Permit 99-53 to permit-the construction of 17 two-story, detached single family . homes. The request also includes: 1) development on lots with greater than a three-foot grade differential between the high and low point; 2) development of a Planned Unit Development project to allow reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet; 3) a maximum three (3) foot retaining wall topped with a six (6) foot high perimeter wall along the southeast side of the project (Lot 8). The findings (Section 4 of this document) describe the effects of the project as defined above. 2 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and Statr't of Overriding Considerations 3. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City of Huntington Beach's decision on the project consists of the following documents: • The Initial Study/NOP prepared for the project; • Other public notices in conjunction with the project; ■ The Draft EIR; ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR; The Final EIR for the project; ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by'the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City of.Huntington Beach, the City of Huntington Beach's consultants, or Responsible or Trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Huntington Beach action on the project; ■ All documents submitted to the City of Huntington Beach by agencies or members of the public in connection with the project; ■ Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City of Huntington Beach in connection with the project; ■ Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City of Huntington Beach at such . workshops,public meeting, and public.hearings;and • Matters of common knowledge to the City of Huntington Beach, including, but not limited to federal, State,and local laws and regulations. The custodian of the documents is the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three allowable conclusions: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or 'incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21081, subd. [a]); • Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be,adopted by the other agency (PRC §21081, subd. (b));and • Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the Mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC §21081, subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a 3 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and State i of Overriding Considerations result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished.in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines Section .15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations.. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410]:). Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (State CEQA Guidelines _ §15093 and §15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed,and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cad3d 553, 576[276 Cad Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in.the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines 515091). 5. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Huntington Beach, in the adopting the findings, commits to implementing these measures. In other words, these findings are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City of Huntington Beach approves the project. The mitigation measures are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be affected through the process of constructing and implementing the project. 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project, as required by PRC Section 21081.6. The City of Huntington Beach will use the MMRP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The City of Huntington Beach will consider the MMRP during its certification of the Final EIR. The final MMRP will incorporate all mitigation measures adopted for the project under separate cover. 4 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and State t of Overriding Considerations 7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS 7.1 Effects Determined to be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels are listed below._The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a Ievel that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements, standards, and codes, as well as mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Cultural Resources Impacts Impact 3.1-1: Loss of the historic landscape (page 3.1-13 of the Final-EIR). The loss of the historic landscape of the site, including the existing vegetation,topography, and remains of the Northam House,would compromise the historic integrity of the site. Findings Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. J Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of on-site relocation of existing, healthy trees, consideration of realigning the proposed cul-de-sac, and landscaping with mature,healthy trees to replace those that cannot feasibly be relocated (Mitigation Measure 3.1-6,Mitigation Measure 3.1-7, and Mitigation Measure 3.2-1). Impacts Impact 3.1-2: Potential Destruction of Archaeological Resources (page 3.1-14 of the Final EIR). Since the presence, extent, and significance of archaeological deposits on the project site is unknown, the potential exists for unanticipated archaeological discoveries during grading and/or construction. Fu'-ding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I,Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required 5 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and Statec t of Overriding Considerations mitigation consists of monitoring during construction by a qualified archaeologist, and data recovery, analysis, and report if archaeological deposits or features are encountered and cannot be avoided. Biological Resources Impacts Impact 3.2-1: Removal of Mature Trees (page 3.2-8 of the Final EIR). Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in-Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to biological resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of in situ preservation of existing mature, healthy trees to the extent practicable, relocation of the mature, healthy trees that must be removed, or in-kind replacement (with 36-inch boxed specimens) of removed trees at a 2:1 ratio, or contribution of the monetary equivalent of the value of the removed tree, or of the two required replacement trees, to an account established for the sole purpose of funding the establishment or enhancement of tree planting projects within the City of Huntington Beach. Aesthetics/Visual Quality Im a Impact 3.3-1: Potential Inconsistency with Surrounding Development (page 3.3-5 of the Final EIR). Fin din Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in 5u' port of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to aesthetics/visual quality would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Required mitigation consists of the incorporation of appropriate design elements from the surrounding development, to make the appearance of the proposed buildings as consistent with or complementary to the surrounding development as possible. 6 Northam Ranch House;Prniect '•. Findings ofF'act and Statel. :of Overriding Considerations 7.2 Environmental, Effects Which Would Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation Cultural Resources Impacts Impact 3.1-3: Demolition of the Remains of the Northam Ranch House (page 3.1-14 of the final EIR). Impact 3.1-4: Demolition of the Garage/Carriage House (page 3.1-14 of the Final EIR). Findin Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be substantially reduced by the completion of comprehensive documentation of the remains of the Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House, consistent with the Historic American Buildings Survey (I TABS) standards and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Materials resulting from this documentation effort, and from the required salvage of any historical elements or fittings from the structures, will be incorporated into a permanent interpretive display on-site and in other public venues (such as libraries), as well as a traveling display, including literature, commemorating the historic resource, and summarizing the history and architecture of the Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House. However, the measures described above would not reduce impacts 3.1-3 or 3.1-4 to a less- than-significant level. Impacts Impact 3.1-5: Inconsistency with Federal and State policies regarding historic preservation, as well as City General Plan policies promoting the preservation and restoration of sites, structures, and districts with,architectural, historical,and/or archaeological significance to the City. Impact 3.1-6: Demolition of the remains of the Northam Ranch House and Garage/Carnage House would significantly contribute to the cumulative loss of historic character of the City of Huntington Beach. Fin din Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 7 Northam Ranch House Project C. Findings of Fact and Stat(_at of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Finding As detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Part I, Section 4 of the Final EIR), the above impact to cultural resources would be substantially reduced by the implementation of the measures described above, and in the cultural resources portion of Section 7.1, above. Additionally, any development on the project site would be required to incorporate the Northam name. However, these mitigation measures would not reduce impacts 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 to a less-than-significant level. Aesthetics/Visual Resources Impact i Impact 3.3-2: Removal of the existing topography and vegetation on the project site. Fib Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. - Facts in Support of Finding j Mitigation measure 3.3-3 would provide buffering of the project site from surrounding uses; however, the visual effect of the dense. vegetation from east, west, and south of the project site would be.lost, since the construction of dwelling units on the site would prevent planting trees in densities similar to those that currently exist. Additionally, although Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 requires the consideration of realigning the proposed cul-de-sac to avoid existing vegetation (which would also avoid portions of the knoll), the impact of grading the knoll cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Im a Impact 3.3-3: The proposed project would not be consistent with General Plan Goal ERC 4 and Objective ERC 4.1, which states in Policy ERC 4.1.6 that the City should require development and siting to maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the City, including the minimization of the area and height of cuts and fills. Finding Changes have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding Although no mitigation is proposed in Section 3.3 (Aesthetics) of the Final EIR, as described above, Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 requires the consideration of realignment of the proposed cul-de-sac to avoid the existing vegetation. The majority of the vegetation on-site occurs on the southern portion of the knoll on the project site, so avoidance of the vegetation would constitute some avoidance of 8 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and Stag.nt of Overriding Considerations the knoll, and could avoid or substantially lessen the impact associated with grading the knoll. However, the knoll would still be significantly affected, and this impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 8. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will potentially cause unavoidable, significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City of Huntington Beach must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project. The City of Huntington Beach must evaluate whether one or more of more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth V. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also PRC § 21002.). In preparing and adopting findings, a Lead Agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both Mitigation Measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. When a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by the adoption of Mitigation Measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurvl Hills Homeowners Association v. City Counczl [1978] 83 Ca1.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California [1988] 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].). Accordingly, in adopting findings concerning project alternatives, the City of Huntington Beach considers only those environmental impacts that for the project are significant and cannot be avoided through mitigation. Chapter 4 of the Final EIR examined three alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether any of these alternatives could meet the project's objectives,while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant,unavoidable impacts. The following three alternatives were examined: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Structures and Landscape.Maintained); Alternative 3: Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Landscape Maintained); These findings examine the alternatives to the extent they lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental effect. Although presented here and in the Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach is not required to consider those alternatives in terms of environmental impacts which are insignificant or avoided through mitigation. In addressing the No Project/No Action Alternative, the City of Huntington Beach followed the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines that: The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][4]). 9 Northam Ranch House Project Findings,ofFact and Statf-at of Overriding Considerations 8.1 No Project/No Development Alternative Cultural Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Northam Ranch House property in its existing state. As no removal of the remains of the Northam Ranch House or Garage/Carriage house would occur, impacts associated with this removal, likewise,would not occur. Therefore, this alternative causes less impact to cultural resources than the proposed project; in fact, no significant impacts to these resources would occur at all. However, no restoration efforts would be implemented with this alternative, nor would issues associated with use by vagrants (e.g., fire hazard, illicit activity) be addressed. Under this alternative, the property would be subject to continued deterioration and damage by vandalism. Biological Resources Under this alternative, biological resources associated with the property would remain in their existing state. Trees and other landscaping would not be removed. Therefore, impacts associated with the removal of approximately 134 mature trees, predominantly palms and pepper trees,would not occur. Assuming that these biological resources continue to be self-sustaining (i.e., they do not require pruning and/or irrigation), these resources would continue to survive under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative causes less impact to biological resources than the proposed project; in fact, no significant impacts to these resources would occur at all. Aesthetics Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the current aesthetic condition would remain in its existing state. The lot would remain heavily vegetated by an assortment of ornamental trees and shrubs; the current landform would continue to exist, and the property would generally provide a visual buffer between prominent views along Yorktown Avenue and the condominium development north of the project site. Furthermore, surrounding land uses (i.e., primarily developed, multiple family residential) would continue to differ with the vacant, residential use that currently occupies the project site. Maintaining the project site in its current state would allow this significant, visual resource to remain. In general, this alternative creates no new, significant aesthetic effect. Furthermore, considering the maintenance of the landform, vegetation and 'the significant historic structure on-site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered greater than that of the proposed project;therefore, aesthetic impacts of this alternative are less than those associated with the proposed project. 8.2 Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Structures and Landscape Maintained) Cultural Resources While the aviary, poolhouse and raised deck would be removed by this alternative, these structures are not considered contributing elements to the historic property: historically significant elements (the Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House) would remain. Therefore, impacts associated with removal of these significant structures would be avoided with implementation of this alternative; 10 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and Stag it of Overriding Considerations therefore, this alternative would create less impact to cultural resources than the proposed project. However, as described under the No Project/No Development Alternative, these structures would continue to deteriorate if restoration of these structures is not implemented under this alternative as well. Such restoration efforts would likely fall under the responsibility of the City; however, according .to an interdepartmental memorandum (City 1998), funding by the City for such restoration is not available. For this reason,this alternative may be considered infeasible. Biological Resources Because the highest density of on-site landscaping occurs in the center of the site, immediately south of the Ranch House structure, this alternative allows most of the existing trees and shrubs to remain in their existing condition. Trees occurring on the southern portion of the site, as well as in the northeast and northwest comers, would be removed during grading activities for the residential development, but they would be mitigated on-site. Impacts to biological resources, under this alternative, would be less than significant, and to the extent that these resources contribute to the historical context of the Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House structures, impacts to the cultural resource value of these biological resources would also be minimized as compared to the proposed project. Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (House and Landscape Maintained), the current aesthetic qualities associated with landform and vegetation would remain, to a large extent, in their existing state. The center of the project site would remain heavily vegetated by an assortment of ornamental trees and shrubs; the current landform would continue to exist, and the property would generally provide a visual buffer between the proposed development and the condominium development north of the project site. Similar to proposed project, inconsistent with surrounding uses (i.e., primarily developed residential) would be a potentially significant impact; however incorporation of appropriate aesthetic elements would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. As well, this alternative creates significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts associated with the additional residential units surrounding the knoll. However, considering the maintenance of the landform, vegetation, and the significant historic structure on-site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered to be substantially greater than that of the proposed project; therefore, aesthetic impacts of this alternative are less than those associated with the proposed project. Finally, this alternative would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals, objectives, and policies,where the proposed project is not. 8.3 Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Landscape Maintained) Cultural Resources Because the historic Ranch House and Garage/Carriage House would be removed under this alternative, impacts associated with the loss of these cultural resources would remain. To the extent that this alternative maintains the existing historic- landscape, an important historic remnant is created; however, without the structures, the historic value is lost. As with the proposed project, this impact to cultural resources is equally significant and unavoidable. 11 Northam Ranch House Project rFindings offact and Stat(_at of Overriding Considerations Biological Resources Because the greatest number of ornamental trees and shrubs occurs in the center of the site, immediately south of the existing Ranch House structure, this alternative allows most of these biological resources to remain in their existing condition. Those trees occurring on the southern and northern portions of the site would be removed during grading activities for the residential development, but they would be mitigated on-site. Impacts to biological resources would be less than significant, and to the extent that these resources contribute to the historical context of the historic property, impacts to the cultural resource value of these biological resources would also be minimized as compared to the proposed project. Aesthetics Under the Reduced/Revised Project Alternative (Landscape Maintained), the current aesthetic qualities associated with the landform and vegetation would remain, to a large extent, in their existing-state. The center of the project site would remain heavily vegetated by an assortment of ornamental trees and shrubs; the current landform would continue to exist, and the property would generally provide a visual buffer between the proposed development and the condominium development north of the project site. The land use under this alternative would be consistent with surrounding land uses (i.e., primarily developed residential) while allowing much of this significant visual resource to remain. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative creates significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts associated with the additional residential units. However, considering the maintenance of the landform and vegetation on-site, the overall aesthetic quality associated with this alternative is considered greater than that of the proposed project; therefore, aesthetic impacts of this alternative are less than those associated with the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would be potentially consistent with applicable General Plan goals, objectives, and policies,while the proposed project is not. 9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse effects, CEQA requires the decision making body of the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,.the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific responses to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Project Specific Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impacts: Cultural Resources ■ Impact 3.1-3: Demolition of the remains of the Northam Ranch House. ■ Impact 3.1-4: Demolition of the Garage/Carriage House. ■ Impact 3.1-5: Inconsistency with applicable plans and policies. 12 Northam Ranch House Project Findings of Fact and St at at of Overriding Considerations ■ Impact 3.1-6: Loss of Historic Character of the City of Huntington Beach. Aesthetics ■ Impact 3.3-2: Removal of existing topography and vegetation. ■ Impact 3.3-3: Inconsistency with General Plan Goal ERC 4 and Objective ERC 4.1. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted all feasible Mitigation pleasures with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above. Although these Mitigation Measures may lessen the impacts, they would not reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance. As a result, to approve the Project, the City of Huntington Beach must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations merely allows a Lead Agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The _ statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. 10. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must (1) independently review and analyze the EIR, (2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment, and (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The City of Huntington Beach independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determined that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. Moreover, upon completing this review and making this determination, the City of Huntington Beach circulated the Final EIR, as described above. With the adoption of these findings, the City of Huntington Beach concludes that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment. 13 Northam Ranch House Project r STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a less than significant level, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed 'and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project (which includes the Final EIR and Responses to Comments), and having reviewed and considered the information contained in the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations.discussion (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to the greatest extent possible, and furthermore, that alternatives do not meet the complete objectives of the project, or do not provide the overall benefits of the project. The benefits of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following. Project implementation will: ■ Develop a residential project that responds to market demand and is financially viable. ■ Provide adequate infrastructure to support,the proposed residential project. ■ Promote the development of a residential product that conveys a high quality visual image and character. ■ Implement many of the goals, policies and development standards of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ■ Create a residential development that is compatible with and sensitive to existing land uses adjacent to the project. ■ Result in a development that is significantly below allowed density, thereby resulting in reduced impacts to City services and infrastructure. 14 Northam Ranch House Project - . - y� - / - } � Attachment No. 8 Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 Is available for review at: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 RCA ROUTING ' SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of Tentative.Tract Map No. 15689 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 7, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ....... EXPLANATION OR FMISSING-ATTACHMENTS. REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) . ;EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:WN:kjl JMe CITY OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Lea HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk Liz Ehring, Deputy City Clerk II To: � /,Lt� Date / Meeting Date:;� �� Agenda Item:3.2 Proposed City Council Agenda Items: The City Clerk's Office/City Administrator's Office must return your agenda item due to the following requirements that have not been met. When your Agenda Item is ready to resubmit, please return to: Elaine Kuhnke, Management Assistant, Administration 1. Signature(s)Needed A On RCA B On Agreement C Other 2. Attachments A Missing B Not identified C Other 3. Exhibits A Missing B Not identified C Other 4. Insurance Certificate(Proof Of Insurance) A Not attached B Not approved by City Attorney's Office C Signed form notifying City Clerk that department wiff be responsible for obtaining insurance certificate on this item.(See form attached) 5. Wording On Request For Council Action(RCA)Unclear A Recommended Action on RCA not complete 4, B Clarification needed on RCA I�f20B _ /LG�i C Other OC 6. City Attorney Approval Require 7. Agreement Needs To Be Changed A Page No. 8. Other G:agenda/m ischcaform PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) sources, and-aesthetics, NOTICE OF therefore an am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC HEARING environmental impact war- BEFORE THE report (andIR) was red. resident of the County aforesaid; I am CITY COUNCIL ranted was certified by OF THE CITY OF the City of Huntington over the age of eighteen years, and not a HUNTINGTON Beach Planning Com- .BEACH mission and June 13, party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS HEREBY 2000. Approval of a GIVEN that on Monday, Statement of Overriding entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of August 21, 2000, at 7:00 Considerations and PM in the City Council Findings of Fact by the the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a City Council are neces- Chambers, 2000 Main ty Street, Huntington sary to approve Item#1. newspa er of general circulation printed Bill hod to City Council The tentative tract map / will hold a public hearing and conditional use per- and pu lished in the City of Huntington on the following planning mit applications are on and zoning items: Beach County of Orange State of 1. APPEAL FILED BY file at the City of,Hunt- / ;PLC LAND COMPANY ington Beach Planning I OF THE and that attached Notice is a COMMISSION'S NNDE-ING Department're available Main California, NIAL OF TENTATIVE Street,'and are available for public inspection and true and complete copy as was printed ;TRACT MAP NO. comment by contacting 1 15689/CONDITIONAL the Planning Depart- and published to the Huntin��}}on Beach USE PERMIT NO. -53 ment, or by telephoning b` (NORTHAM COURT): (714) 536-5271. and Fountain Valley issues of said Applicant/Appellant: ON FILE: A copy of the PLC Land Company Re- proposed request is on quest: TTM: To-or file in the City Clerk's.Of- newspaper to wit the issues) of: the subdivision of 4.82 fice, 2000 Main Street, acres of land into 17 sin- Huntington Beach, Cali- gle family residential fornia 92648, for inspec- lots, two landscape lots tion by the public.A copy and private roadway lot of the staff report will be and construction'of as- available to interested AU J U S t 10 2 0 0 0 sociated infrastructure. parties at City Hall or the CUP:To permit the con- Main City Library (7111 struction of 17"two-Story, Talbert Avenue) after detached single family August 17, 2000. homes. The request also ALL INTERESTED includes: 1) develop- PERSONS are invited to ment on lots with greater attend said hearing and than a three foot grade express opinions or differential between the submit evidence for or declare, under penalty of perjury, that high. and low point; 2)I against the application development of- a as outlined above. If you the foregoing is true and correct. Planned" Unit Develop- challenge the City Coun- ment project to allow re cil's action in court, you duced lot widths on 14 may be limited to raising lots - with minimum only those issues you or widths 50 feet in lieu of someone else raised at 60 Executed on maximum three 3) foot the public hearing de- Executed iX 11 S t 10 2 0 0 0 ( > scribed in this notice, or retaining wall topped, in written cor- at Costa Mesa, California. with six (6) foot high pe- respondence delivered rimeter wall along the .to the City at, or prior to, southeast corner of the the public hearing. If project.(Lot 8). Location: there are any further 2110 Main Street (north questions please call the of Yorktown Avenue, Planning Department at east of Main Street,west 536-5271 and refer to of Lake Street) Project the above items. Direct Planner:. Wendy Nowak your written communica- NOTICE IS HEREBY tions to the City Clerk.. GIVEN that an initial Connie Brockway, �c ������� �� environmental assess City Clerk merit for Item #1 was - City of processed and come Huntington Beach, Sig/nature pleted in accordance 2000 Main Street, with the California 2nd Floor, Environmental Quality .Huntington' Beach, I, Act. It was determined - California 92648. that the 'implementation (714)) 536-5227' of the project identified Published Huntington in Item #1 would have a Beach-Fountain Valley significant, environmen- Independent August 10, tal effect on cultural re- 2000, sources, biological re- '082-816 O MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT -SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning Tentative Tract Map No. 15689, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 (NorthaWCourt) TODAY'S DATE August 3, 2000 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: ce, APPROVED BY: C' Ray Silver City Administrator 8/3/00 11:30 AM (� CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBTECT: T yL rtIGtC ' 1 !c3b �iDI��I�IV�" (JS� DEP TMEI 'T: 1.�AA1 n11 N Gi MEETING DATE: CO p'-( QMAL PHONE: X 83 N NO Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) 04 ( ) If an appeal,is the appellanes name included in the notice? (✓) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? (f ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map atta6ed for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? i Are the a licanes name and address art of the mailing labels? PP �. p 8 (. ) ( ( ) Are the appellant's same and address part of the mar'La' g Labels? (✓) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? I If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? (✓) O ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept items only) PleasIr complete the following. - 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 10 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications I ) T` 21 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,August 21,2000,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑1. APPEAL FILED BY PLC LAND COMPANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.99- 53(NORTHAM COURT): Applicpt/Appellant: PLC Land Company Request: TTM: To permit the subdivision of 4.82 acres of land into 17 single family residential lots,two landscape lots and one private roadway lot and construction of associated infrastructure. CUP: To permit the construction of 17 two-story,detached single family homes. The request also includes: 1)development on lots with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low point;2)development of a Planned Unit Development project to allow reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet; and 3)a maximum three(3)foot retaining wall topped with a six(6)foot high perimeter wall along the southeast corner of the project(Lot 8). Location: 2110 Main Street(north of Yorktown Avenue,east of Main Street,west of Lake Street) Project Planner: Wendy Nowak NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for Item#1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that implementation of the project identified in Item#1 would have a significant environmental effect on cultural resources,biological resources, and aesthetics,therefore an environmental impact report(EIR)was warranted and prepared. The EIR was certified by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 13,2000. Approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact by the City Council are necessary to approve Item#1. The tentative tract map and conditional use permit applications are on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department,2000 Main Street,and are available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department,or by telephoning(714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after August 17,2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:legals:00cc0821) :V o • Ir Pmai taws CLTA Ouna-r�Pap 1.6 �:dt, Rif. First American Title Insurance Company SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LEWTS OF LIABILITY AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF THIS GUARANTEE, First American Title Insurance Company a corporation,herein called the Company, GUARANTEES i i - i the Assured named in S&eduk A against actual monetary loss or damage not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A,which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any Incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. II First American Me Insurance Company By PARKER S. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT By: James P. Gominsity,Assistant Vice President ISSUING OFFICE: Mt Amuhsa Way,0P•0.Boat 267-9Z7M) Sum Ana,Califomb 92707 C114)6t10-9t100 I: ZOO ZLS'ON AWdWOO QMi-1 0-1d St'l-VT OOOZibZ/LO i 4 J SCHEDULE A PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE LIABILITY: SN/A FEB: $N/C Name of Assured: PLC Date of Guarantee: JULY 512000 1: That,according to the last equalized"Assessment Roll"in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor- a. The persons listed as "Assessed Owner"are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 023-010.18. b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addressee shown on the assessment roll are attached herm. i i I Smooth Feed SheetsTiA Use template for 5160® 023 010 15 023 010 18 2 023 010 19 3 City Of Huntington B Gp Plc Jack Lulofs PO Box 190 2134 Main St 2120 Main St Huntin each,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington each,CA 92648 023 010 21 4 023 031 14 5 023 041 03 6 Pacific Ranch Homeowners Assn City Of Huntingto ch Civic Impro Redevelopment A Of The City Of 31 Journey#250 2000 Main S 2000 Main S Aliso Viejo,CA 92656 Huntin Beach,CA 92648 Huntin Beach,CA 92648 023 041 04 023 041 06 $ 023 041 07 9 City Hunt�eachCA City Hunt�Beach,CA Pacific Coast Homes 2000 Mai 2000 Mai PO Box 285 Huntin648 Hun ' n 92648 Houston,TX 77001 023 042 18 i o 023 042 19 1 023 042 20 i 2 Redevelopment Agency O ity Of Redevelopment Agency Of ty Of Redevelopment Agency Of ity Of 2000 Main St 2000 Main St 2000 Main St Huntingto ch,CA 92648 Huntingto c ,CA 92648 Huntin each,CA 92648 i 023 042 21 3 025 024 06 14 937 152 91 15 Redevelopment Agency Of The City Of Plc Dorothy Kelly 2000 Main St NO STREET N or NUMBER 7402 Yellowtail Dr#101 Huntington ,CA 92648 ,CA Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 152 92 937 152 93 t 937 152 94 g Rebecca Baxter Matthew Montgomery Becky Topper 7402 Yellowtail Dr#201 7402 Yellowtail Dr#202 7402 Yellowtail Dr#102 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 152 95 q 937 152 96 2 0 937 152 97 2 I Tim&Denise Sh i Carmela Foulihan&Velma Jean Hams Tyzz-Dow Lu&Nancy Liu 7402 Yellow r#203 7402 Yellowtail Dr#103 7402 Yellowtail Dr#204 Hun ' n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 152 98 Zy 937 152 99 z 3 937 153 00 z q Shirley McCown Wayne Alden Brandt Sharon Gee 7402 Yellowtail Dr#104 2041 Selby Ave 7402 Yellowtail Dr#105 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Los Angeles,CA 90025 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 01 2 5 937 153 02 z 6 937 153 03 z -7 William Edwards Jr. James Lee Sankey Eleanor Haggerty 7402 Yellowtail Dr#206 7402 Yellowtail Dr#207 6321 Turnberry Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 04 Z 937 153 05 Z 9 937 153 06 3 c William Lee Judith Yim Farzin Kamkari 424 Goldenwest St 7362 Yellowtail Dr#101 22943 Cass Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Woodland Hills,CA 91364 TOM AVERW Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed 5heetSTM Use template for 51600 937 153 07 3 937 15308 3 2 937 153 09 33 Gregory Schwartz Lorene Anderson Linda Stine PO Box 8011 7362 Yellowtail Dr#102 7362 Yellowtail Dr#203 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 10 3 q 937 153 11 g 5 937 153 12 3 Adolph Mayer&Joan Mayer Arlene Key Gregory Yang 7362 Yellowtail Dr#103 2326 Pinehurst Dr 7362 Yellowtail Dr#205 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Tustin,CA 92782 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 13 31 937 153 14 3 937 153 15 3 q Gregory&Jill Rowe Lawrence Taylor Adrian&Nina Swierczewski 323 Blue Canyon Pt 21781 Windsong Cir 7371 Coho Dr#101 Long Beach,CA 90803 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 16 40 937 153 17 s{ 937 153 18 QZ Velma Phillips Joseph Davis Linda Baker 7371 Coho Dr#102 7442 Coho 7371 Coho Dr#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun ' n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 19 4 3 93715320 44 937 153 21 4 S Jacquelyn Jones John&Nancy French Virginia Yee Jr.&James Stringer 7371 Coho Dr#105 �3800 ench 7371 Coho Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 T ' e Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648 or Beach,CA 92660 937 153 22 4 6 _ 937 15323 4-1 937 153 24 4 S Lorraine Ellen Mo Marice Supry Allan Hirata 7371 Coho D 8 7381 Coho Dr#101 7381 Coho Dr#201 Huntin n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 25 qq 937 153 26 So 937 153 27 Sr Karen Foster Ronda Wood Nicholas Cook 7381 Coho Dr#202 7381 Coho Dr#102 7381 Coho Dr#203 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 28 5 2 937 15329 s 3 937 15330 s 4 Clemens&Linda Spengler James Waterhouse Bill Bennett 7381 Coho Dr#103 7381 Coho Dr#204 7381 Coho Dr#205 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 31 5 5 937 153 32 3 b 937 15333 S7 Derry&Norma Parsons John&Patricia Starr Florence Garratt 7381 Coho Dr#104 7381 Coho Dr#206 19351 Bluefish Ln#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 34 5 937 15335 s 4 937 15336 60 Patin Khalaf Randi Warner Barbara Penland-Maun 19351 Bluefish Ln#201 19351 Bluefish Ln#202 19351 Bluefish Ln#102 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 //� AVE MY® Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed Sheets4IA Use template for 51600 937 153 37 61 937 15338 6 y 937 15339 63 Wayne Schmida Kelley Washington Michael Cervenak 19351 Bluefish Ln#203 19351 Bluefish Ln#103 19351 Bluefish Ln#204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 40 64 937 153 41 65 937 153 42 Margaret.Kuzee Ronald Roesch Ruth Swanstrom 19351 Bluefish Ln#104 19351 Bluefish Ln#205 19351 Bluefish Ln#105 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 43 b 937 153 44 6$ .93715345 69 _Jeff&Diane Kristol Dorothy Hernandez Terence Gibson 19351 Bluefish Ln#206 19351 Bluefish Ln#207 19351 Bluefish Ln#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 46 937 153 47 937 153 48 -7 Z Christine Nelson Robert Viii& se Lucas Ronald Fifer 19351 Bluefish Ln#208 19352 Bl ish Ln#101 19352 Bluefish Ln#201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun ' gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 49 -1 g 937 15350 -7 q 937 153 51 -T S Gary Prunty Sue Landis Lederer Joseph Broderick 19352 Bluefish Ln#202 19352 Bluefish Ln#102 19352 Bluefish Ln#203 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 52 -7 & 937 153 53 T 937 153 54 .7 Mary Martin Frank&Suzanne Bideau Joe Galvan&Violet Galvan 19352 Bluefish Ln#103 19352 Bluefish Ln#204 19352 Bluefish Ln#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 55 1 937 153 56 0 937 15357 $1 Jeanette Ryan Stephen&Kathryn Tvorik Bobbie Frech 19352 Bluefish Ln#205 19352 Bluefish Ln#105 19352 Bluefish Ln#206 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 58 cb2 937 15359 48 937 15360 Nancy Stalnaker Robert&Claudia Marlin Ryan&George Heuser 19352 Bluefish Ln#207 Kenneth&Mar Marlin 19352 Bluefish Ln#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 19352 Bluefish Ln#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 93715361 $5 937 15362 -6 937 153 63 a Robert&Beverly Sands William Mccarty&Roberta McCarty David Cowen&Donna Cowen 7442 Coho Dr#101 7442 Coho Dr#102 7442 Coho Dr#103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 64 Q�$ 937 15365 4q 937 15366 qe Leonard Johnson&Carol Johnson Muriel Summers Joseph Garbrous&Dolores Garbrous 7442 Coho Dr#104 7442 Coho Dr#105 7442 Coho Dr#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 O OTM AVERYO Address Labels l Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937 153 67 A 1 937 153 68 q Z 937 153 69 q 3 Kenneth Rohde&Barbara Rohde Gary&Catherine Hudson Gloria Cowan r 7442 Coho Dr#107 7442 Coho Dr#108 7442 Coho Dr#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 70 q 4 937 153 71 q 6 937 153 72 4 6 Terry&Kathy Bess Lee&Debbie Klevens David Trent 7442 Coho Dr#110 . 2845 Mesa Verde Dr E#5 7442 Coho Dr#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 03715373 q 7 937 153 74 q S 937 153 75 q 9 Ray&Sheri Baughman Bruce&Terumi Mccoy Robert Blake&Mary Blake 19431 Ranch Ln#101 19431 Ranch Ln 19431 Ranch Ln#103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 76 1 o o 937 153 77 1 o 1 937 15378 102 Gerald Mulholland Frank James Williams Stephen&Margo Faust PO Box 971 19431 Ranch Ln#105 19431 Ranch Ln#106 Reno,NV 89504 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 79 l o 3 937 15380 104 937 153 81 oS Alan&Sharon Heinig Raymond Eugene Ward Sandra Jacobs 19431 Ranch Ln# 107 19431 Ranch Ln#108 19431 Ranch Ln#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 82 106 937 153 83 1 e 937 153 84 o Eric Rall Larry&Gail Roff Ted&Jan Querciagrossa 19431 Ranch Ln#110 19431 Ranch Ln#111 19431 Ranch Ln#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 153 85 q 937 15386 1 c 937 153 87 i li Mark Koidin&Joanne Ferstadt Gary Kuhn Marilyn Deangelis 2601 E 28Th St#308 7401 Seabluff Dr#102 7401 Seabluff Dr#103 Signal Hill,CA 90806 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 15388 %1 Z 937 153 89 its 937 153 90 1 q Bruce Lawellin&Harriet Ann Jackson J David Lakso&Dorothy Vandemoot Vincent Kolled Barbara Okonek 7401 Seabluff Dr#104 7401 Seabluff Dr#105 7401 Seabluf r#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hunting to each,CA 92648 937 153 91 t 5 937 153 92 i 6 937 153 93 117 Frank Pickett&Relda Pickett Gregory&Joy Stich H Stankley Ishikawa&Robert McKern 7401 Seabluff Dr#107 - 7401 Seabluff Dr#108 7401 Seabluff Dr#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 15394 937 15395 q 937 153 96 1 z a Gary Byers&John Corbett Donald Eide&Deborah Eide Terrence&Patty Giannone 7401 Seabluff Dr#110 7401 Seabluff Dr#111 7401 Seabluff Dr#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MAVERY0 Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed Sheets$"" Use template for 51600 93715397 121 937 15398 12 2 937 153 99 17-3 Phillip Zeidenberg&Rayna Zeidenberg George Giacoppe&Louise Giacoppe Michael Furman 7402 Cohn Dr#101 7402 Coho Dr#102 7402 Coho Dr#103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 93715400 12 A 937 154 01 12.S 937 154 02 l z 4 Timothy&Jean Misk Robert Traver&Elinor Kay Work-Trav Lester Blancha 7402 Coho Dr 7402 Coho Dr#105 5901 Wa Ave#489 Huntingt lfeach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun on Beach,CA 92649 937 154 03 12-1 937 154 04 1 937 154 05 1 Z q Harold&Flo Mead Jr. Paul Loreto&Dorothy Loreto Edmond Copelin 7402 Coho Dr#107 7402 Coho Dr#108 7402 Coho Dr#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 93715406 1 3 c 937 154 07 3 1 937 154 08 13 2 Lois Williamson Dorothy Steege Philip&Michele Haradon 7402 Coho Dr#110 7402 Coho Dr#111 Family Trust Haradon Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 7402 Coho Dr#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 13 13 3 937 154 14 13 937 154 15 3 3 Kenneth&Jalayne Sc elberger Scott&Susan Marantz Robert&Judith Guidotti 7371 Seabluff D 1 7371 Seabluff Dr#102 7371 Seabluff Dr#103 Huntingto each,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 16 1 3 6 937 154 17 13 937 154 18 t 3 4y Ronald Vonfreymann&�JBajrrett Kiyoshi&Masako Terashima James Reed&Antoinette Reed 7371 Seabluff Dr#1 7371 Seabluff Dr#105 ! 7371 Seabluff Dr#106 Huntington B ,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 19 1 3 5 937 154 20 1 40 937 154 21 1 4 1 Joe Robertson&Koni Kim Scott Aaron&Adam Cowen Donald Zimmerman&Anita Sue Lantri 7371 Seabluff Dr#107 7371 Seabluff Dr#108 7371 Seabluff Dr#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 22 1 q 1- 937 154 23 4 3 937 154 24 1 p 9 Katherine Klein Howard Warner Steven&Joan Purdue 7371 Seabluff Dr#110 7371 Seabluff Dr#111 7371 Seabluff Dr#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 93715425 14 L 937 154 26 19 L 937 154 27 1 4 7 Glenda Lee Celeste Post&Celeste Post Gladys Griswold 19501 Ranch Ln#101 3421 Wexford Ln#101 19501 Ranch #103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Las Vegas,NV 89129 Huntingt each,CA 92648 937 154 28 1 q 937 154 29 1 q q 937 154 30 I S d William Reid&Aileen Reid. Chester Donaldson Nancy Treister 19501 Ranch Ln#104 19501 Ranch Ln#105 19501 Ranch Ln#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 isAVERY0 Address Labels Laser 5960TM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 6, 2000 PLC Land Company C/o Bill Holman 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250 Newport Beach CA 92660 Dear Mr. Holman: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, August 21, 2000 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Tentative Tract Map No 15689/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 (for Construction of 17 Single Family Units &2 Landscape Lots— Northam Court (2110 Main Street). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of denial. The Action Agenda and Findings for Denial are enclosed. The August 21, 2000 minutes of the denial of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from September 6, 2000 to apply to the court for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, f Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure: Findings for Denial Government Code 1094.6 Action Agenda Pages 8 &9 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Principal Planner Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner G lol lowup/a ppea I/90dayltr (Telephone:714536-5227) MA Council/Agency Meeting Held: 14%etI '' N Deferred/Continued to: I Approved ❑ Conditio ally Approved El Hied y er 's Signature T. Council eeting Date: August 21, 2000 Department ID Number:IN L00-41 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS a -` SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator �r� 1►" --� �, PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning -D > *7�' SUBJECT: DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689 AND CONDITIQNAI USE PERMIT NO. 99-53 (Appeal - Northam Court) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by PLC Land Company, applicant, of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53. The request is to subdivide approximately 4.82 net acres for development of 17 detached single family residences. Implementation of the project would require the removal of the remains of the Northam Ranch House, a locally significant historic structure, removal of 134 healthy, mature trees, and significant grading to accommodate the proposed residential pads. The Planning Commission denied the request and is recommending that the City Council deny the applications (Recommended Action) because design of the proposed subdivision and the substantial amount of proposed grading are not consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives identified in the General Plan. In addition, the project does not preserve the existing topography. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny both applications. The applicant is requesting approval without modifications (Alternative Action.— 1) because the applicant asserts that the proposed project design is the most appropriate for the site and. is compatible with the adjacent developments. Should the City Council approve the applicant's request, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Findings of Fact for cultural resources and aesthetics must be approved in addition to a CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. By doing so, the City Council will be indicating that the benefits. of the project outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental impacts that would occur if the project is built. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on June 13, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53, WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: CHAPMAN, LIVENGOOD, BIDDLE, KERINS, MANDIC, SPEAKER NOES: SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Actions: The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1 a. "Approve Findings of Fact, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations to remove the mature vegetation and remaining locally significant historical structures on site," and 1b. "Adopt Resolution No. "A Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact for the Northam Ranch House Project." (ATTACHMENT NO. 7) (Applicant's Request)." 1 c. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditiona_I Use Permit No. 99-53 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) (Applicant's Request). " 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 and direct staff accordingly." PL00-41.doc -2- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2110 Main Street (North of Yorktown Avenue, East of Main Street, West of Lake Street) Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 represents a request to subdivide approximately 4.82 net acres of vacant land (Northam Ranch House site) into 17 single-family lots and three lettered lots (one lot for the private street, one landscape lot, and one lot to be conveyed to the Pacific Ranch HOA where the existing perimeter fence encroaches into the tract boundary) pursuant to Section 251.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed density is 3.5 units per net acre. The request also involves grading the entire site with cut of approximately 34,400 cubic yards and fill of approximately 28,500 cubic yards to accommodate the residential pads. Residential lot sizes range from a minimum of 6,349 square feet-to a maximum of 9,569 square feet with an average of 7,982 square feet. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 represents a request for the following: A. Construction of 17 single-family residential units pursuant to Section 210.06 of the HBZSO. The applicant's project includes three floor plans as summarized below. FloorPlan Type No. of s Area Bedrooms - . 1 5 2,900 4 Two car 2 27.5 ft. 2 5 2,995 4 Two car 2 28.5 ft. 3 7 3,058 4 Two car 2 29.5 ft. TOTAL: 17 B. Development of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project pursuant to Section 210.12 of the HBZSO allowing reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of minimum 60 feet. C. Construction of a nine (9) foot high wall (3 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. high screen wall) in lieu of a maximum eight (8) foot high wall (2 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. high screen wall) along Lot 8 pursuant to Section 230.88 of the HBZSO. D. Development on property with greater that a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the HBZSO. Review of this issue is PL00-41.doc -3- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 to determine that the building and grading plan terrace the buildings with the grades and which is compatible with-adjacent development. There is an approximately 38-foot difference between the existing highest point along the north property line to the lowest point along Yorktown Avenue. Environmental review was conducted in conjunction with the tentative tract map and -conditional use permit applications. The Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and since no appeals have been received regarding the environmental analysis, the EIR is not being brought forth to the City Council for consideration and approval. B. BACKGROUND The City of Huntington Beach General Plan identifies the subject site and associated structures as locally significant historically. The main structure, commonly known as the Northam House, and the associated buildings were brought to the site in 1897 by Col. Robert Northam, who purchased the 1,400 acre property in 1896. Col. Northam sold the property to the West Coast Land and Water Company, who founded Pacific City, and the company ultimately renamed the area the City of Huntington Beach. The Northam Ranch site was the location for operations relating to the development of Huntington Beach. The Northam House and site are-significant to the history and development of Huntington Beach because of their relationship to the founders of the Huntington Beach Company, and they are the oldest documented in the City. In 1982, a supplemental EIR was prepared for the Pacific Ranch Condominiums that are located adjacent to the site. The supplemental EIR indicated that the proposed condominium project would retain the Northam Ranch House on site with the intent to preserve it as a residence to be used by the Huntington Beach Company. In March 2000, the Northam House was destroyed by fire. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On June 13, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit applications. The applicant spoke in favor of the project and a representative of the Environmental Board spoke in opposition to the project. Staff recommended denial of the tentative tract map and conditional use permit based upon the extensive amount of grading proposed and the impacts to the existing mature tree grove on the site. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR analysis and deny the tentative tract map and conditional use permit applications. The Planning Commission indicated that the project could be designed in a more site sensitive PL00-41.doc -4- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 manner by utilizing terraced building pads as required by the zoning code, or an alternate project design to maintain the existing topography and trees on site. D. APPEAL: On June 23, 2000, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action to deny the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit applications citing that the project is compatible with adjacent developments and consistent with the permitted density in the General Plan. The appeal (Attachment No. 5) indicates that an alternative housing product or reduced lot sizes would require substantial grading of the site for proper compaction of - roads, slopes, residential pads and adequate drainage. The applicant has also indicated that the site cannot be graded for development without impacting the majority of the existing trees, and contends that the only feasible alternative for complete preservation of the existing topography and trees is City acquisition of the site. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed project is analyzed in Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 13, 2000 (Attachment No. 4). The staff report analyzed impacts to topography, mature vegetation, compatibility with adjacent developments, and consistency with the General Plan. The analysis below is in response to the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project and is organized by the applicant's concerns. 1. The proposed project is compatible with adjacent development. The project proposes development of a single-family residential infill product adjacent to several existing developments that include the Seacliff Office Park, the Pacific Ranch condominium project, and the Huntington Beach Civic Center. Although the project meets the maximum permitted density requirement, a single-family detached housing product at a density of 3.5 u/ac is not the most appropriate proposal for the site given the surrounding land uses. An alternate housing product type (e.g., cluster housing) would be more compatible with the density of Pacific Ranch (12.9 u/ac) and the future senior apartment complex (approximately 25 u/ac) at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street and result in less land use conflicts with the office park and the Civic Center. Expectations for ambient .noise and general.activity levels are substantially different for single family neighborhoods than for commercial and multi-family areas. Construction of a detached single family project at the density proposed by the applicant could establish a potential land use conflict. 2. An alternative housing product such as cluster housing or reduced lot sizes would still require substantial grading of the site for proper compaction of roads, slopes, residential pads, and to provide adequate drainage. PL00-41.doc -5- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 The site is not physically suitable for single-family development without substantially altering the natural topography of the site. As such, the tentative tract proposes a significant amount of cut and fill to create pads suitable for the type of residential product proposed. Cut 34,400 cubic yards 15.5 ft. (Lot 12) Fill 28,500 cubic yards 19.0 ft. (Lot 7) Existing grade elevations range from 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create building pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The proposed development will be approximately 23 feet higher than Yorktown Avenue. The cut and fill proposed will drastically alter the natural slope that has been historically prevalent on the site, creating a significant aesthetic impact to the site as well as a significant impact to the natural landform. Staff believes that the site can be developed in a manner that will be more sensitive to the existing grade. Terracing the proposed structures would help to preserve the natural grade to the largest extent possible. It also would be more conducive to the preservation of the existing topography and mature trees. The project as proposed does not comply with the HBZSO requirement that states that approval of projects with greater than a three foot.grade .differential shall be based upon a building and grading plan that terraces with the grade and which is compatible with adjacent development. 3. The site cannot be graded for development without impacting the majority of the trees on site. The project proposes to remove or relocate the majority of the existing trees and clear the remaining vegetation. Because one of the defining characteristics of the site is its extensive, mature vegetation, this was a significant issue in the EIR and the applicant was required to submit an arborist report. One hundred and thirty four (134) mature, healthy trees were inventoried on the site. The applicant has prepared a tree relocation plan that keeps 25 of the trees in place and relocates 45 elsewhere on site (see landscape simulation in Attachment No. 4). Although the applicant's plan is designed to keep 52 percent of the mature trees on site, it does not protect this resource and is not consistent with the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Any development proposed for the site should be designed to preserve and maintain the existing grove, in place, on site, as well as the existing topography. Impacts on biological.resources could be.less severe if the applicant considered an alternative housing product designed to preserve the existing mature trees. To the extent that the biological resources contribute to the historical context of the historic property, impacts to the cultural resource value of this biological resource would also be minimized as compared to the proposed project. The overall aesthetic quality associated with an alternative housing product type is considered greater than that of the proposed project since the landform and vegetation would be preserved on-site. If the City Council approves PL00-41.doc -6- 08/14/00 8:32 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: August 21, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-41 the project, staff has recommended Condition of Approval No. 1a that would require redesign/realignment of the proposed street to preserve the existing tree grove. 4. Design of proposed subdivision is intended to reduce visual impact from the existing Pacific Ranch townhomes to the North by lowering higher portions of .the site, adjacent to the townhomes. The project, as proposed, would lower the higher portions of the subject property that are adjacent to the Pacific Ranch townhomes, however, the grading does not terrace with the land and is not sensitive to the existing topography. Although staff concurs with the applicant's efforts to lessen the impacts on the adjacent development, the applicant could reduce the amount of grading proposed, and increase the amount of landscaping along the north property line to provide adequate screening between the townhomes and the new subdivision. Terracing of the proposed structures would reduce the amount of bulk and lessen the visual impacts to the adjacent residential development. 5. Alternative No. 2 as identified in the Environmental Impact Report is not a feasible alternative because of issues related to site access, grades, and required slopes. Alternative No. 2 was a conceptual plan presented in the -EIR that reflected a design that would realign the location of the proposed cul-de-sac to preserve the tree grove. This alternative is a conceptual plan to be used for discussion purposes. In light of the drainage and slope issues identified by the applicant in Attachment No. 5, revisions to the concept would need to be further explored. F. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Approval of the project would require the City Council to approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Fact stating that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental impacts to cultural resources and aesthetics of the site. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will need to accompany these documents, and will outline the specific measures the applicant must comply with to lessen the impacts that would occur as a result of the implementation of the project. If the City Council approves the project, staff has recommended Condition of Approval No. 1a that would require redesign/realignment of the proposed street to preserve the existing tree grove and submittal of a housing product that terraces with the existing topography (Attachment No. 6). Approval of the tract design as submitted by the applicant (Applicant's Request) would require deletion of the aforementioned conditions. If the City Council denies the project (Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation), the applicant may resubmit revised tentative tract map and conditional use permit applications PL00-41.doc -7- 08/14/00 8:32 AM The Secretary of the Interior's Standards recommend retaining the historic relationship between the historical buildings and the landscape. The Standards discourage removal or relocation of buildings or landscape features, which would destroy the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. The project proposes to remove or relocate the majority of the vegetation in the existing grove. Alterations to the historical buildings and landscaping of the site create significant unavoidable impacts. 3. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the PUD for 17 detached single-family units with reduced lot widths will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. The request will be detrimental to the neighborhood because this type of development is not compatible with the medium density residential and office commercial nature of the properties to the west and north. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 1.3 t '`\ 7:•'�" •,f; .. ,r: TENTATIVE NAP TRACT NO. 15689 ,,'`";�• .: �'�caa"'1P1r e�orR�+.wcar�ar~aY1pi�aoo�iar� Lor I. ' r ' i:: '�(.. r. IAWIG • '/rs 1JIM c cwYac MW ew coon r +' '' ,' „ 1 II e•, ' � r 1 -�:S \, ,Ilea uo neanaa rwr � � r. alols.ar.R•ra«.c I , J/ I , ,r. ( i;� for n.n. rmalr ra nn. rmaa: I r a'armaws narmralW/nu�ar®nn ,�•..!�+11•; 4y, �( , �./y r rots r room reYR lam. f ` >•� .,1, I r ,I -'C_7• ,yfi{(r .;, i( ?`;.�„`` wf r oum umxrc Iw. -- +d, 11, ` J, , ��,!i 1 , T ` r 1. •./ ✓ I IY r rwa/M,araw-M nmr • � I 111 I /('� , r '< / - �' �f'I ('iy I I mrwRmrorrncuw J ' ( .�' �:_ p a a IIV01m 1.1R 11ri6YOlrl STREET ' omsanaarrcaswMD �'' ti: ,, , _.:�.� i •,r ® r (,. �!! TY GAL SETBAG(5 Y•m cm or warua s+a rnYR amr u mw ! r•, ..yy,. r '-� r R �r%/� � i' I�`11 `M / I•'�S us aaomr utraY+Yr car aclf ror er+e rio mao aaea'� oaom 77 wmr apio�rscw Ima gar R mra®war J� �i III 1 l ��,� r`� � u i� r r(ns, ti w '� •- .a'IL�S"`.Sr` r�b •� i i f, I�{ I ,y��Fr—r —V' .jk' Thu I , •, !/ (" r 7` t 1 II M oc Xruu Mm uImmR111Y Wam nr�o mr-o�n u a«o ergo r— u azn ir,. 4 f„r• ��j.\' r ' .�r',r y r _ti i.. \ (��III� .I p I�" I , I�(1�� roar wY sww ''aru C,�. � ,• -fo/e :�;% / � , + � \�,,/`` ))`'.Itii�a I ,1���1�,��111 L.,.,, ' '�( `r `•� i g`r '_��'/ �_ - �\'. .X (,�A - f �II rore as rua R+ue, xaio a.. ��+A\` t�(�f�h, �' '7e„- .. \ �/ /i i ` r `h'`,`� � ' v I '�l�tl 1!J�'t���• 1 _ rma m ru ruR.aua Ysm c.r. I '��� ,,,,,;7., '-a ., W,�c.; ../,.y ,S� /7,..,.g..ia, --� ♦ � v A �t�, \( 1� aYv.Yn. yN, rourtf a X w. ' 1 r: a� ✓vd,' J c—wwrar sum -a Wti ;;' :;,,,, �• i§ ( 1. S a er. raurtu .. ' '' \,'��•:` �1� ' •"�,•,•)• u�w�:r' r :.�a,n �'(���c;r. t La IQIRr f�a»Y»I . ,"�\ ,..� -__.., f� �/'.... ;/5 t• iw �.'.... raaraY s. p. ifro. wmuarr�ie"� »,,��.� "',.0::\L, �i.` \i.; ``� /:':�.:�' r1;i(t 5-•(Jjy�l'/`�,, L .l �j' vSMM..mr • l `:� -- �•' � �/ i'��;�`. /;S'�' ',S � � pqp� .o�[.ec rmrsa uaio ..�\:•..� `.� �Yl•`D .�f.� .\�_ 1 .1rra !. Ifs YR�afrgDlrC fi(Wnal vi,�gvr'alerYrrovra-0 U 17G/Nfll'kM vim Ruwc ru •'-i"\�'•.��:�/....,. "��'`;.....,...._.._'____n�__t_,_„>; ao luR ® rmmwrem»Rru mr - J T• Ifni Fd i 1' mil_ Itxt"Y—t lR -- REVISED 4125100 "AAMEN k TENTATIVE MAP "..'. TRACT NO. 15689 '�" SSOCUTES 'r'a'0Yr^I' rd a.c. r.N w mr ua Yna Y Yrl. cam s.r. I a»ID fur mrt trrra rrr wo an I.— u wr« ru..-«u rm* YORKTOWN WEST I rRcu ymua nl,.00lmaar. ml.► vco Irc PLC LAND COMPANY Yra l Yra o r«w BUMIBIUM Burn.CAUFOM a t SAE PLAN TRACT NO. 15689 •..'.�i >" erc,xmw,nm��aw�o..r a o ua�a..mt user«a K w�rarecwr..a . .•,,'+ ., �..: �.'Y.., �Jlt. m m npf w rmm w a rcn us.rcpw a pwf:wRrr. i'".�':(//�fm. .' ,� L..,..<..;;;: ..,•_�c.�.' _ t wrmsrraw mm-a ARMildl?�p. 4 NO MWAGE HIM - I.'OWN=A99.IY1 K. ,(• wr a n. r¢ata w n n. npn.R r r �. .fie � �` �•.� .:.S f + 1 wm R'Idi¢wte01alS 1¢.SISI®tMS .r •1 r, , ''� 1 l.r ' ,Q.�y��t\,• <. \: :./, 1 unv mnmreQ¢,rtar. ., ta,r!tram Irp¢nr ta. I r a ttra INpRMQ rrm rt,mu f , cFcpraa ro rw¢wat .1, ' ``n. , \``1 •. �i`<' 1 ::1. ; �Us; t. rmieG 1plri rt4A ltWlmllll e)mrtN r . i' \ / 1 N ,r/�7 /'(` ,� .` W7l ` •O''• p � a Qaoea l.p rep eStORN STREET r. Ntmr ,• ,� . ...,.. �.. . . '�-: , N e " ;' Ntah pnawaeaapl eaa/1QR, a - , rIJ (., xp,pn 0I mR1Gar LI¢r/ENR OtOI.S IORaI TIPICAL SETBACKS us,a.ml wcau u,cair a + ` + mela:,pNml wmu eona eptnlr �, Y ! " •��/' 'J (' �, ,� Rlmlpti mvr RIeaRQ pxN a WaNt 1 ! Sly.'"'• :•li'f••'`� ' ,, --, r �1 �rp`i.$`.Qr1o°a'.��Qe.aalo.o moQo r ! �`pa ter. , �� J � { ,, •.` •.��'� . .. l r)S Rnlaa6lf lrOxrrRpr MfQ tlNrfa rlNQ coo i. r Il .Qwon Qrn u allo wxvr e.a.a auo 1 y R l 2' /l era !I . I i �,...•'� Mp m-an tNo m-pn .�'uwwm ¢rnra0 are, mr.a asN ver,u a,r \``• .. .�'�. •p/ . I, r �/�� •p 'tire, .LI �I � i '1 u.e.noa �.`\ ��\;. [ y / r./ �'l's ,.y= !�I{;,�`� ;a Ir,• y�. i \ rota ua ru rua wort ww ar. :.. ..\. If+ y�•tI:/ e ,�' / I �• I a�+:/� ,;. ;;� I Rt� 51TE A. � '•'�•' `� �` /'i \ \ r-----` nr, wort,roam •• - � / l��//1 � /„r Sa. � t4'IRl reaaf[a 4m • „\ �`` !,\'. .<````, ..� ,`„+ •',,,y.,�'/: • 1� + .+'.'L - na. ry rtf u�ern /.' / L Itrartf ttlp IN VIGRIITY \' e �� —�- +'. . •'\.' Cf b.."r nram emne euuru ` .` �.`_ Z. SO'aS rRaOYY IIMtOr +*l.i � \ fie.•` \``�_�_, --- .. _ �� -�..t•. 'N SL¢lRStmnG d¢S ---_--- 1■ wNRS Q1IMG Wl __ REVISED 4125100 . SITE PLAN SSOc1A SOC s TRACT N0 15889 TB9 tr.w"Tw M INN SNk Pe tlr.�N t•N try r.\. I amataaRa a reRr mr rrrN caa ca yt-na a rNy,N . YOLtKTO11N WEST "QI r rovtaRrnenxrn.rxta.tn.xu.twras ago) IN — t+ �°Ayfi— , /rr.m PLC LAND COMPANY s iR «. ..N tnix}RCCM once,CALVOR U L SfcrI0N5 f0R MOAiIVf NAP TRACT NO. 15689 =A rflbf ff aM/Am—M//.%Af er 401 OKA/i4f" rmr or arf.suK o wuew u wof o./r er nm K mKs oa/ Y Ilfi/IAlfe * i /•1BetB/ r ..o- �mnAo amen eMM vrL lot / -- ---- w K s/ ------ .w -------------\muscmuo sfc110HAti1 "1AV'Y'YlII�10 r r /•/perm e � w/ w. e e vof«1.c.0 �� '$ wo �� /�.�� PRIVAi SiRffi-PARCEL 'A' ---- - ----- � ryy G131.P f001111 @!1i Q/e0 �N IGf/� . secnaN c� . stcnal e-e bR.�,�•�• -a1 r tf/ Krt f —flow i ---- ------------------1- �anz oeuo nm ur.xr ----- I1SLGIE1tl.Q-Q aos./cr1�nm vr.ecea rw e SWIM, e • fAlYI —`101i YIGi enm f� ee/t.m1.cf — !(AtG I.K• � RCVI5fD 3113100 b:AIDEN At SECTIONS �.". ��, . 15689 e.n/ SSOCIATES TRACT NO /uew s.c. gg �� YORKTOIIN REST eenT ®'6t°°"K/Qt01k""m '°D°" f9-0i{�!L_ J•/la PLC LAND COMPANY /Lr 9UH1019M BUM CAUrORP l I a UIN AN 1C, _ ''fIAN 1E R jAN EA , F7E11f.11 C01/NIR1 REY M FRENAN R7 IpNEREY � aRA ' 1 i i .� MUEAEY SANTA RMl'SARA FReam PLAN COUNm SA NIA SARt N SARA BMW" Voo" NORTHAM COURT CHRISTOPHER HOMES , INC. --- --"'°° it r—T- ------� *----- ,— ----- ------- j I 1 la I 1 I I ` I 1 I 1 -- » --- -------- log f r — Llt_ - I f Ij f� i I i i II a I Fi� �-�- ■ e — --�— i = 1 :!i = --- e _ 11 l II 1 I( 1I :o �t : 1F $$e : f I e= �• a t vIT ! y: 1 0 m a 9 i� 1 ! 1 • r it l ktb wff $i ttg' iadiijl t ili jiIt% a 11 8a $ 811 tp i toa $!•,!�l ■• 7111■ a iR'• 1 �. a 'i$+ri1 F(( O ti p £, p 4 141 a 1�>rat t$1 ts'�i i• € if z $gff�ie$9 $ f$, t { �i�� `�$:: e. q4 1e!$t A 11 p rig- a gf$� � 1� t��i !� $ i 1! ° $� !ei � e i1{°� ����• � 1 �� 1 r 1$f I E i iE t i c $ all :xe��m v �1,1i i�z i PLAN 1 noon rl.w NORTHAM COURT = CHRISTOPHER HOMES, INC. E�$ i D ``' ► -- —o E� 6c �tt 1:r IJ e I T A z m t II O I I Z i -l' A !T � r � IT I, �,����,1�;��i� ���� 't li lit "rya i Ei� �;��;� �E►$ ► `aE�piE� �g€tej���i���`' 2•�$���� �$El;���6s�$� p Hill $$$$$6$ 1�s 9 �t $e$ej t l i D a s I E3 { CFI , o e!!`! �` e � E �6 1 1 v �E of��- !i.. $ �l �t$DF lip s Mill {a e z ,$a�4E R, T iE jE;I is i Eli e, D Ill Mill ill �� � � EFi+;i � di �al$$ ;i i s pL s 1 t 6'wS$d$ PLAN 1 FRONT M E1EVAT -e AND ROOF RAM = NORTHAM COURT All CHRISTOPHER .HOMES. INC. ____-___---- _ _ p ________ - _--- 1� � 2p#DOOR-` Si HHH H o o REAR .1-A LEFT I-A U 0 r x <ta�tp y x REFER TO PREVIOUS SHEETAff- � 8 a FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS,AND Tyt O INFORMATION NOT S1OM HERE. gL; � g � o t g t i IK RIGHT I-A ELEVATIONo NOTE �_"__"_____"___ � rw CORBEL A '"r�O^'w` r - ----- ------- - i ...,.....,.sue..®..FRONT ELEVATION I_B U W1�1 EXTERIOR FINISHES ORTAIL ROOF PLAN I-B `-•tee ROOF NOTES m fYi Z� a o t I TERN ROOM 1 1� 'STORAGE Of GARAGE SEOROOM a 1 REOMM ATTN:VENTILATION ^ x V Ie�+ 1 1a SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM B FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM 0 Wn no P-- 0 mm[ ll�' 0 D" ' ' , REAR I-B LEFT I-B U 0 r x REFER TO PREVIOUS SHEET QQ AI FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS,AND J5 O INFORMATION NOT SHOM d FI HERE. M �- _ _________________-_____--__-_____ RIGHT I-B ELEVATION NOTES O �. _.. ro..���.� m.. O f f t �n,ns marrtw��wanvn O u N RONT ELEVATION i_-C .... EXTERIOR FINISHES .._. 0 ROOF PLAN 1-C Y a BOOR NOTES (1� t l TEEN ROOM 'STORAGE ■ GARAGE (� SEOROQH 3 ;� i RE12LWM ATTIC VENTILATION F'F11 x pxw+ "•� ".r..1 SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM C FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM ____-______- - -__ - _________ __ � a k LNk U HHHmqu nEW k ~ 0 µ REAR I M LEFT I-C U 0 � x � � x r g W a REFER TO PREVIOVS SHEET i FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS.AND INFORMATION NOT SHOM G r HERE. (A E m- fn _ ________________ _ - z RIGHT I-C DECK _______________ t + : MASTER BEDROOM --------------- t L g a . a,o„ - _ -- - 2ND FLOOR -- ADDENDUM U . . ... Z j � M U � LEFT t ; PAMllr 0 r x i4 a w x FIRST FLOOR 0 x ADDENDUM Z F . _._ aI m M �-r � U O y z SLAB INTERFACE ADDENDUM DECK OPTION Es d, --------- —;— ---- ----- ————— ----------------�: a ---____.__� N , I I I Ir d y�—� --- d g .... o... I. Fg ;tea i '�• tt I . _TT T a d Q ' d I dr ——————-- ' I� f • I I , . - k... ...���.. Imo... ..... I1 $ (p;o`° S�pp @@i E aE ga !It .. t ti9��; ai;l4 ; 4 q�k;s va is i i ii4ytE74+j]t t ; 9Q•�a $!i ;oo�'wyN i $ m8 ea 111 H g� �p i.q: y.a l Jd j4 1•�� g � $ii (ij CR `��i i a O >$ j`t$!f 3iE. 3i$�1 a¢ � i #� R� F $ t E t i FFS 1stfc • 9 i 9y A 9t31P� ti 2 £i a. ' ii i i L $3a a$ to a ii '�i$• �$ �$ � r- t �s� � a �FEt6 t Z { �i i� � f#$� t +�3 � i�. t$ai ��• � � :p3��d a F�ti � o O CA LN 2 6Km = NORTHAM COURT = CHRISTOPHER HOMES, INC. �8 -------------------- O ' o � a n � T ' � I C I C3 ' 0 i � -- ---- — ---- --- --- �D 9 o � s m m < mA JI �D I Iia i MINI • ::=•ii3 t:: :p :65:: �'�S ;p;p:=S=3?3 i>;•3_3........- lip i9 $9 I l$ ► i� �X erg i;� $~' g$ 9i$$$' R4 "gl°" �irgg +d� +� �$e1 ���� � tt>.�I���� ��j+ i� $ � � 9 A � p � Sej A� �!�{•ii4!$�����$$#9 ��3��: 0 all #i �6 ii�� E , • #��� 9 � �i $� �6 T sbt °e:# •� 2 ��a$ €r�]�$81 ° 1 cp z ! Rill S ; e PLAN 2 FRONT ELLVAnom•A• AND ROOF PLAN NORTHAM COURT = CHRISTOP.HER HOMES, INC. I� ELEVATIONN00E ..o 1 CORBEL DETAIL.wa irr.w 1 ' �.. ,....m sw...,.. --------------- I _ • �- _1-_ _i 3 i ,� ' qn i �—V( _ �.�1�_ � Yi�.virim.m. Ia.i�.PV�w I u. ,uom O FRONT ELEVATION 2—B k EXTERIOR FI-1SpHEE8^_ 0 ROOF PLAN 2-B ._ GARAGE ROOF NOTES4 y Ni x _______ ________ •••••,•,• x Q -- - OEM-- .w.. s Rh H V _ • (( � y 0BA. 1-1 1.1 l a It — ' �,. w..r,.....e...R. x .ra I • �j t j d I j i i REQMD ATTIC VENILATION u BE¢ROOff 1 1 .. rn...ws a...a.. STORAGE j w •'+^" �'A°'""' .`/ SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM 4„B '� FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM ' ELEVATION NOTE! I w 1 O 1 • tw..aee.a ..e. I ► f �"r I 1 - ---------- -------- -►` - , e, .. a BUM 1 0 �•> ; 3 FRONT ELEVATION 2—C 1 ' ' i -- �- EXTERIOR FINISHES 0 ROOF PLAN c2-C ' ! GARAGE _ _ ROOF NOTE! w CL Au ee�Rion a _11 (' 4� �� g i t -- r- .._ ; nEa: ....,.a..�a C� ►�i JI JI � /�� � �� t r—� i � �" »•.••• #"—..w � REQUIRED ATTIC VENTILATION tI .......... O r F EE[}ROOn 1 STORAGE 1 ti' SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM C FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM x -------------------- ---------------------1-, E♦ ------------------------------ -------------- M LEFT ""' 2-C 0 Uq 0 0 E] �r g o -- - 0 U RIGHT 2C _ g ► x REAR 2-C .f I 4 1 t 1 y I ^+3_ -------------------- .-----__------_-_-_ - -I J u u u it i 1 - z M LEFT """' 2-A 0 Ury � � 0 ��.. x 1'----------`--------- t 1 Z9 M a i f W -- ----------- - I M I a a I I x -------------- ------------------- 0 RIGHT 2-Av- q� �• t H ----------- ---- ---=------- ---- - M REAR 2-A » -------------------- - - --___ - H # z M LEFT 0 .__ IEl 1-1 � a g x x V RIGHTa------------------- 0I REAR 2-B DECK ogle ! ---------------L tK ------------- --- MASTER �I EEDROOM SEC OND�FLOOR w g ADDENDUMLEN nk-T z 7 / 1 PI -------— k U 2 REAR - ----------- � x a 1MY x ADDEND FLOOR zg 0 ..__ a M ax � 0 U O } z » SLAB INTERFACE ADDENDUM DECK OPTION C FLOOR PLAN NOTES - =w �� ate.... .•w.. El 2 F`__:se•z-b.:.:___ _�c1 � tea.-L_J � L i w...w•. w« w.. � [ w� '� a.,.....�..r� nAstERt °E NOOK hy e r BEDRdO'1 3 ia• ©;iw �T' «•.yi , i PAMI�Y o e�., =�;-y` _ �•.:�,_,6 t*_f 2�_ ; 2 - �'1 -I- " - -- a a•,_..n W -�---I ALL 2 -- w x�l T ' 2 }T LAU STORAGE = ? �- IT, K K t + °EOROOjfa GARAGE ' —1• ,'� I E RNY — I a.. I �e..`.ee e....n....s». 0 I� — --I --J_—..- ------ I A .._ a F BaOROOrI GENERAL PLAN NOTES x \T- SQ. FOOTAGE ARsr rLooR IST, SECOND 1'LOOR 1 6_32 jj TOTAL 9704 GARAGE/STORAGE 66S OPT.DECK 116 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A FIRST FLOOR PLAN A DETAIL B TOTAL AT V 9246 DlrK AT'd •I49 ————— —— i .0 ' r 1r zi ��� � i is ► \ ----- �1� , o 3D L pp $ Fb _ F O e i� I A i ,�� 1 � o : , z m figs r AGAR, m LL Rl ohm qqqq i T S I t,1-1 t:: !;i � �° �� �� ► is [X FF•e$v§ 1% �•- 1 °'gt 111 { jibji 43� Ir ;4 ° ' ` $ -° vv�t�b$ �,9 � � j ���� r1► 1 �$1 o 6 t °j°j'{ a $b� > t: 3 a j P; $� �g 3 � 11$$�D�fi•'$t� 3�b g$p�$b jj$ I,jd bvl ► •! b j !�$ �$€qq v j F 1�b b 1rt 1 $ wi! 1 $ i ° 44 € ! PLAN 3 FRONT DXVAnM•A• AND ROOF PLM = NORTHAM COURT = CHRISTOPHER HOMES, INC. ... 0 PH iY r z REAR 3-A LEFT 3-A 0 REFER TO PREVIOUS SHEET x FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS,AND INFORMATION NOT SHOM HERE. - s x 1 N t k I-1 R, U O z M RIGHT 3-A ELEVATION NOTES imp I 0 I _J FRONT ELEVATION 3-B ROOF PLAN 3—B EXTERIOR FINISHES 0 j BEDROOn b .I$ \ i - ROOF NOTES I \ i r - ' DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C ,..... p, _ - _...�._ .W.. _ ... __ Z x rA BA 1 BED O , REQIllRED ATTIC VENTILATION 0 U DEN•" --------------- a..e• I i 1111 v wwsw L SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM B_ FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM .>2!. - ------------.------------- ------- M12 2 p6 m - -- -- - - -- ---- ---- - - ---- ---- ------ --- H - -________ ___ _ ___ ____--_----- a - - -- -� -------------- -- — a !� p REAR 3-B LEFT 3-B 0 REFER TO FREVIOVS SHEET x FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS,AND INFORMATION NOT SHOM HERE. a -- gig x - -- - _ -s--- ---- 5 0 x _-------------------_______=_ __ _- O u RIGHT 3-B fill o A— , ~----Z1E� .� :c) — —� L• _�sts----_w..---J_- __ 1 �I I � � I i I r ssr.-�nr�cr, 1n t. pI°II - i ----YZZ------- 13 z —4 r---------- m '3 m El E t t 1 I 4 l -, I Y — Ti I 11 I I I I I it WWI Nili ° � I II I •I I ,•��,, Y 1 W ' I _________ 'I! I E � IIILLLJJJ I .. - 10 _. Ix" 11 -1 Hill 9 a aae�l,• E E l�l� tititi PLAN 3 oo F n A ZbCA � NORTHAM COURT ■ CHRISTQPHER HOMES, INC. i � y - - - - -- -- ---------------------------- --------- --- --------- an - -- --- - .... - -- - U � REAR 3-C LEFT 0 REFER TO PREVIOUS EET r�.11 FOR NOTES,DIMENSIONS,AND W INFORMATION NOT 5NOHN A HERE. a A x iI • _ _ ( t ~ ------------- I � O I z toP RIGHT 3-C 1� DECK gtf t X II MASTER . II BEDROOM ---------- --- - - - :- 2ND FLOOR W ADDENDUM U Ell ___ � -- - - - - - 1� _____________________�- (� w REAR t 0 0x I I Nook a x FIR5T FLOOR n M a ADDENDUM ^. za 0 Ja W a L y C"' M I� L7 0 u z » a SLAB INTERFACE ADDENDUM DECK OPTION EXISTING PERIMETER TREE LEGEND FENCING TO REMAIN r COMMON NAME U EXISTING FIGUS WEDGE IaoT�wrtiNaec �I 1 TO REMAIN Ftv [.car o-1. CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM Slow roll° CALIFORNIA PEPPER Ylashirgtonla robwta MEXICAN FAN PALM Eucakptw globules TAZHAN14N BLUE GIC7 Q Laguna pattwr l; EVENRG PRRIROSE J \ O P—carolmlana CAROLINA CHERRY NEW ENTRY PILASTER '� ©EXISTING PERIMETER BradydVton popuMr BOTTLE TREE jFENCING TO REMAIN Er ftw carrra K.AFIRBOOM CORAL EXISTING MEDIAN ® EXISTING VEGETATION ® Flom bwUmina LLEEPW.FIG' TO REMAIN �4/ ® TO REMAIN ® Flw nwea LAUREL INDIAN FIG ® Ptru.can,1ar°I. CANARY ISLAND PINE ® SO—or accent V— TO BE SELECTED !�� �v� 1.�..�J•,�.LJ TREE 6raTus ICEr . ` Q' •REPLACE AT 2:1 RATIO ® -— •RELOCATE ON SITE y ® Z <�.^��, •EXISTMG TO REMAIN IN PLACE o RELOCATE FROM TRACT 1568S TO TRACT 15668 Q ; ......1.. y Z ` ` ` • �• \ 0 - Lam....-.I - EXISTING TER WALL TO REMAIN e PROJECT THEME ----.....--`----------+ � STREET TREE GUEST PARKING LAWN AREA i SHRUB PLANTING NEW 5'-6"PERIMETER WALL NEW 5'-6"PERIMETER WALL ON TOP Or NEW 3'-0"1 RETAINING WALL — — — - — — _ _ _ _ _ _ NEW PERIMETER WALL NEW VIEW FENCE t _ _ NEW VIEW FENCE EXISTING 51DEWALK EXISTING WALL EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN TO REMAIN NEW VIEW FENCE NEW ENTRY TRACT NO. 15688 AND 15689 PILASTERS LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PLC Land Company aEV.MAaO14IDN SCALE: 1'./0-0• F_ _j J.. Y ;'i 7' TO R EC E I VE 0 Aro-�r­ y, ­IST�51_�T�-BLOC�WALL TO­N J U N 2000 TO BE 5L-1�.SLED AND CARPED 10 2 ,IATCM PRO-05ED rEIIuIiEM9 M'YX WALL DETAIL to —W-FE—E SECTION A-4 aT J)Oartment of Planning 47- h" yCE z io A. Z') <��%y'•�''/ �' ' �r? r'�fLi! / ?�L[��sps�-�i�'%i.- i �v -,I \'� ,f ° sEcr�ON c_C. 41 4 �Ec S 611� 7tL FENCE(T)PI SECT 014 -5 0 LASTE..1, Z.-AII ------- -ITS.I—It 60.Io ALL GELL5 D ILASTE. T R414SITI- R $1—TIXAL I­oSEO-0­-LL NEW rEHGE f^•OPOSEC STEEL 1IC Q .CATWLU IT ') I——- — ice.... EnSTM3 rIEW FENCE PILASTER ------ TO BE T I za �O�RMTER EL—K WALL D T1 01L�.K W L FIROP.05ED TRAN5;Y10N PILASTER dT fIrTURE DE —ASTE.A' —ILACLE T—L—E-—11— C-� S-W —% • ­E NORTH FF.R�ZaOSED S1PE-rAR:,' TO 1-1 1— .-Im TO DE SELECTED ­L PER II OAST I—IT e D ALL DELLS W. X I J_ ------- - Lf—-A-1—E T —ALL c,===z JT �� :_ ��.�. I : �,.:, �IiI�iIII�I III illl�llla 111 ��Ilalil�lllllllll_,.I I A .' .. : —­­­ " I— —----5-� I j 1(1).....--- _�: . _'T LATEReL> ]ll , _. GPO]t eDtID eLL DELLS (::w,;� e.r....reR��.A _I '7� C-L050 RAtlIE BY OTLIETa —ALL PER---"SPEC AIIONS JET aE1I.=­—T TO 0 TO I, c. ­LAI— =rv— •R j _QLOCKWALL� FFRQEQ��D E.. E FL05EELFESVEIER _yjEk.F N-C DETLIL NORTHAM COURT TRACT NO. 15689, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA WALL AND FENCE CONCEPT PLAN PLC Land Company [0 LIME 1 Rk4\ ........................................................... ........... -• �" _- ,fib -�;_ E tee€` -�, -r •-� � �v � �' �= � - -��A s° �- .. _ . , 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 00-15 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is June 13, 2000 or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional U Permit No. 00-15, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of the conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Muni ' al Code occurs. 4. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and re Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable rovisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division,-and Fire Department as well s applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances; and standards, except as ted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Fede holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a the in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of O nge Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and sub ted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's a ion. 8. All landscaping shall e maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior o removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of anning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require a proval by the Planning Commission. 9. All signs all conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, uilding permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 1 10. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) )/'A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Planning Department and Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. B-5 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99-2 (Northam Ranch Site): APPLICANT: PLC Land Company, Bill Holman LOCATION: 2110 Main Street (North of Yorktown, East of Main Street, West of Lake Street) PROJECT PLANNER- Wendy Nowak PC Minutes—6/13/00 20 (OOPCM613) • Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 (EIR No. 99-2): - Analyzes a proposed development on the Northam Ranch property that would remove remaining structures of local historical significance, remove/relocate 134 mature trees and substantially modify existing grade for the purpose of constructing 17 homes. Documents potential impacts to cultural resources, biological resources, and aesthetics. - Concludes that significant impacts will result and that they cannot be completely mitigated. Staffs Recommendation: - Certify EIR No. 99-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, #250, Newport Beach, applicant, gave a background report on the property. He urged the Commission to certify the report. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-2 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLET IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1553, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53 (NORTHAM COURT): APPLICANT: PLC Land Company, Bill Holman LOCATION: 2110 Main Street(North of Yorktown, East of Main Street, West of :Lake Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Wendy Nowak • Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 request: Subdivide approximately 4.82 net acres for development of 17 single-family residences. PC Minutes—6/13/00 21 (OOPCM613) • Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 request: Construction of 17 two-story, detached, single-family residences. Development of a Planned Unit Development project to allow reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet. Development on a lot that has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet between the high and low point of the site to determine that the project terraces with the grades. Fences-retaining wall and perimeter wall combinations that exceed eight feet in height. Stafrs Recommendation: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 based upon the following: - The project will be inconsistent with General Plan goals, policies, and objectives for land use and environmental resources/conservation because it does not propose a housing product type that is appropriate for the site, nor does it preserve the existing topography and mature vegetation. - The project will significantly alter the appearance of the site by the removal of the mature vegetation and the extensive grading proposed, thereby creating significant impacts to the historic image of the site and Yorktown Avenue between Seabluff Drive and Ranch Lane. Stafrs Suggested Modifications: - Reduce the grading and proposed fill to minimize alterations to the existing topography. - Redesign the proposed private street to preserve the existing knoll of mature vegetation on- site. - Consider an alternative housing product type (cluster housing, etc.)that would be more conducive to the preservation of the existing topography and mature vegetation on sit, and be more compatible with the surrounding multiple family residential uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Scandura, Environmental Board, stated that the hillside and bluff topography have historical value and should be preserved. He also stated that the applicant will be removing too many trees and agrees with staff in opposing the request. He stated that the Environmental Board is not opposed to development on this site, they just wish to preserve the historic value of the topography with the proposed development. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, 9250, Newport Beach, applicant, stated the developer tried to create a small enclave of single family homes and have lowered the grade to minimize the impact to the Pacific Ranch development. He also stated they will try to preserve the trees where possible and replace on a 2:1 ratio those that must be removed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HARING WAS CLOSED. The majority of the Commission agreed with staff s recommendations and the Environmental Board's concerns. Commissioner Shomaker disagreed stating that the project was less dense and the grading would still have a desirable slope. She stated her concern that the public is dictating what the project should be and not taking into account the private property owner's rights. PC Minutes—6/13/00 22 (OOPCM613) A MOTION WAS MADE BY BI_DDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 for the subdivision of 4.82 acres for the development of 17 single-family residences is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed lot configuration requires substantial grading, including approximately 34,400 cubic yards of cut and 28,500 cubic yards of fill, which is not conducive to the maintenance of natural landforms. The lots adjacent to Yorktown Avenue will be raised approximately 23 feet in order to accommodate development of the residential units. The modification to the existing variation in grade is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan that encourage development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible with existing structures, including grade elevations, and orientation of adjacent developments. The tract as designed would also create significant, unavoidable impacts to the 134 existing mature trees on site and does not comply with the General Plan policy that requires protection of "significant" trees and groves. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development without removing substantial vegetation or substantially altering the natural topography of the site. The substantial amount of cut and fill proposed for the site will substantially impact the aesthetic appearance of the area. The property can be developed with less impact to the existing topography. 3. The granting of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal ERC 4: Maintain the visual quality of the City's natural landforms and water bodies. The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. Ob'ective ERC 4.1: Enhance and preserve the aesthetic resources of the City, including natural areas, beaches, bluffs, and significant public views. The project is located adjacent to the Civic Center, Seacliff Office Park, and the Pacific Ranch residential community. The existing grove of trees and existing topography of the site are highly visible by each of the adjacent uses. While the project proposes a tree relocation plan for the 134 mature trees on site, the tree removal and relocation will create a significant change to public views of the site. The proposal for significant grading to the site is not sensitive to the existing topography. PC Minutes—6/13/00 23 (OOPCM613) Policy ERC 4.1.6: Require that, vure development be designed and sited to maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the City inchiding the minimization of the area and height of cuts and fills. The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53, for the construction of a 17-unit single family project on a site with greater than a three foot differential between the high and low points may be detrimental to the general. welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project it is not compatible with the surrounding office and medium density residential uses because it does not propose a housing product type that provides a natural transition between the existing uses. The proposed density is 3.5 and the surrounding density is 12.9. Also does not conform to Section 230.70 in that structures do not terrace with the grade. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RM-15 on the subject property, however it is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan-. Policy L U 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following: c. Cluster residential 7nnits and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi family housing within single family areas to preserve open space. The project proposes construction of 17 single-family units on lot sizes that range from 6,349 square feet to 9,569 square feet in size. The applicant has been encouraged by City Staff and the Subdivision Committee to consider an alternative housing product (such as cluster housing) or reduced lot sizes in an effort to preserve the existing tree grove and topography of the site. The applicant believes that the City's request is not feasible due to issues relating to site access, grades, and required slopes, and that their proposal is the most appropriate design of the site. Policy ERC 2.1.22:Define the terms "significant" tree or grove and develop specific measures to protect trees/groves that meet said definition. The project, as proposed, would create significant unavoidable impacts to the 134 existing mature trees located on site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 encourages the applicant to consider, prior to approval of the project, realignment of the central road within the proposed development in order to spare many of the trees in the major grove. Policy HCR 1.2./: Utilize the Secretary of the Interim Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and standards,for guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscaped design standards for rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic resources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the site's architectural and historic integrity. PC Minutes—6/13/00 24 (OOPCM613) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards recommend retaining the historic relationship between the historical buildings and the landscape. The Standards discourage removal or relocation of buildings or landscape features, which would destroy the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. The project proposes to remove or relocate the majority of the vegetation in the existing grove. Alterations to the historical buildings and landscaping of the site create significant unavoidable impacts. 3. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the PUD for 17 detached single-family units with reduced lot widths will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. The request will be detrimental to the neighborhood because this type of development is not compatible with the medium density residential and office commercial nature of the properties to the west and north. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT/DATEDMAY23, 2000 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, CONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMM I.SSION M INUT DATED MAY 23, 2000, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerin Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT:,, None ABSTAIN: Mandic MOTION PASSED D. NON-P LIC HEARING ITEMS 7ANNING E. COMMISSION ITEMS E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS Commhvsioner Chapman — stated that the Infrastructure Advisory Committee would be presenting their- report to the City Council in July 2000. PC Minutes—6/13/00 25 (OOPCM613) 2 = e J. + ........ of untangton.Beach FlannYng Department .... .. ..... .. ._: . 5FR' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Plannm BY: Wendy Nowak, Assistant Planner U� DATE: June 13, 2000 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15689/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-53 (Northam Court) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PLC Land Company, Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 i LOCATION: 2110 Main Street (North of Yorktown Ave, East of Main St., West of Lake St.) _ STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ' • Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 request: - Subdivide approximately 4.82 net acres for development of 17 single-family residences. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 request: - Construction of 17 two-story, detached, single-family residences. - Development of a Planned Unit Development project to allow reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of 60 feet. i - Development on a lot that has a grade differential greater than three (3) feet between the high and low point of the site to determine that the project terraces with the grades. - Fences-retaining wall and perimeter wall combinations that exceed eight feet in height. Staffs Recommendation: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 based upon the following: - The project will be inconsistent with General Plan goals, policies, and objectives for land use and environmental resources/conservation because it does not propose a housing product type that is appropriate for the site, nor does it preserve the existing topography and mature vegetation. The project will significantly alter the appearance.of the site by the removal of the mature vegetation and the extensive grading proposed, thereby creating significant impacts to the historic image of the site and Yorktown Avenue between SeabluffDrive and Ranch Lane. Staffs Suggested Modifications: - Reduce the grading and proposed fill to minimize alterations to the existing topography. - Redesign the proposed private street to preserve the existing knoll of mature vegetation on-site. - Consider an alternative housing product type (cluster housing, etc.) that would be more conducive to the preservation of the existing topography and mature vegetation on sit, and be more compatible with the surrounding multiple family residential uses. , PROJECT SITE _ _ SLN musm .O.= R:• •..�i � r j I r • � 'yam--�; •i 1 •M � �a• �eilll, , Yte�o i tt A t.xa•.•�•--nn.•etu aa..cu••...er:w.� _L� ��� I CF—C E .�, 1 - i .ba. . �li;l III n. VICINITY MAP Tentative Tract Map 15689 Conditional Use Permit 99-53 THE CITYOFHUNnNGTON BEACH RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: Al. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 12)." (Applicant's Request) A2. "Approve Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations to remove the remaining locally significant historical structures and mature vegetation on site by approving Resolution No. 1554(Attachment No. 13)."(Applicant's Request) B. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 is a request to subdivide approximately 4.82 net acres of vacant land (Northam Ranch House site) into 17 single-family lots and three lettered lots (one lot for the private street, one landscape lot, and one lot to be conveyed to the Pacific Ranch HOA where the existing perimeter fence encroaches into the tract boundary) pursuant to Section 251.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed density is 3.5 units per net acre. The request also involves grading the entire site with cut of approximately 34,400 cubic yards and fill of approximately 28,500 cubic yards to accommodate the residential pads. Residential lot sizes range from a minimum of 6,349 square feet to a maximum of 9,569 square feet with an average of 7,982 square feet. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 represents a request for the following: A. Construction of 17 single-family residential units pursuant to Section 210.06 of the HBZSO. The applicant's project includes three floor plans as summarized below. Area I No. of Plan Type i No. of Flom Units (Sq. Ft.) Bedrooms Gar.qge stolles 11.6"Ilt 1 5 2,900 T 4 Two car 2 27.5 ft. 2 5 2,995 ? 4 . Two car i 2 28.5 ft. 3 7 i 3 058 i 4 Two car _ i. ------ .. .._.....�z.._29_.5_ft:._....i _.............._...__..�. _...a _..._........._...._.....____._. _ ........ TOTAL: 17 i B. Development of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)project pursuant to Section 210.12 of the HBZSO allowing reduced lot widths on 14 lots with minimum widths of 50 feet in lieu of minimum 60 feet. Staff Report—6/13/00 2 (OOSR39) C C. Construction of a nine (9)foot high wall (3 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. high screen wall) in lieu of a maximum eight (8) foot high wall (2 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. high screen wall) along Lot 8 pursuant to Section 230.88 of the HBZSO. D. Development on property with greater that a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the HBZSO. Review of this issue is to determine that the building and grading plan terrace the buildings with the grades and which is compatible with adjacent development. There is a 23.5 foot difference between the existing highest point along the north property line to the lowest point along Yorktown Avenue. The applicant proposes the subject project to complete buildout of the site (Attachment No. 4). If the Planning Commission approves the applicant's project as proposed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cultural resources and aesthetics and Findings of Fact must be approved in conjunction with the Tentative Tract Map and the Conditional Use Permit. The City's affordable housing requirement necessitates a minimum 10_percent of the units proposed be affordable to families of low-income level (less than 80 percent of the Orange County median) for a period of 30 years. This requirement will be satisfied by providing two units as part of a 28-unit apartment development planned for the northwest corner of Main Street and Clay Avenue. School fees will be paid in accordance with mitigation agreements established with the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District that require the payment of fees in excess of the State-mandated amount upon development of this property. i Background: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan identifies the subject site and related structures as locally historically significant location. The main structure, commonly known as the Northam House, and the associated buildings were brought to the site in 1897 by Col. Robert Northam, who purchased the 1,400 acre property in 1896. Col. Northam sold the property to the West Coast Land and Water Company, who founded Pacific City, and the company ultimately renamed the area the City of Huntington Beach. The Northam Ranch site was the location for operations relating to the development of Huntington Beach. The Northam House and site are significant to the history and development of Huntington Beach because of their relationship to the founders of the Huntington Beach Company, and they are the oldest documented in the City. In March 2000, the Northam House was destroyed by fire. Code Enforcement History: The subject property was cited in March 1999 for overgrown vegetation along Yorktown Avenue. The property owner was notified and the vegetation was cut and removed. The Code Enforcement Division closed the case.in April 1999. Staff Report—6/13/00 3 (OOSR39) C ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: .flCTTOI�I G1\IER .CLAN .... : ONIl f.ANU U SE Subject Property: RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Vacant-Proposed low Medium Density with a Medium Density with an density project maximum of 15 units/acre) oil overlay) 3.5 u/ac North and East of RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Pacific Ranch Subject Property: Medium Density with a Medium Density with an Condominiums maximum of 15 units/acre oil overla 12.9 u/ac South of Subject P (Public) PS (Public— Semi-Public) Huntington Beach City Property(across Hall/Civic Center Yorktown): South of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM-O (Residential Vacant (Site planned Property (across Medium Density with at Medium Density with an for a 21-unit, senior Yorktown, East of maximum of 15 units/acre) oil overlay) housing project) Lake Street): West of Subject CO-F2 (Commercial Office CO (Office Commercial) Seacliff Office Park Property: w/a maximum density of 0.50 General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is RM-15 (Residential Medium Density with a maximum of 15 units per acre). The proposed tentative tract map and conditional use permit are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Map. The project proposes to construct 17 units on 4.82 acres of land. The proposed project will have a density of 3.5 units/net acre. The maximum density for-this site is 15 units per acre that would allow the construction of 72 units. The project proposes significantly fewer units than permitted by the Land Use Schedule. Objective LU 9.3: Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and projects that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity. The proposed project will be named Northam Court to commemorate the historical significance of the Northam Ranch site. A tree relocation plan is also proposed to maintain the maximum number of existing mature trees on site, which will assist in the preservation of neighborhood identity. Staff Report—6/13/00 4 (OOSR39) C. C B. Urban Design Element Policy UD 1.3.4: Establish visual relief to the monotony of walled"superblock" corridors and enhance . the corridors image through the visual strengths of the respective residential neighborhoods in which they are located including: a. for new development, require the use of landscape materials in the public right-of-way. The 17-unit subdivision proposes a tree relocation plan where the majority of trees will be located in a minimum 15-foot landscape lot adjacent to Yorktown Avenue. The tree relocation plan, as proposed, will compliment the requirement to provide landscape materials in the public right-of-way. C. Housing Element Policy HE 2.1.5: Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and transportation routes to provide convenient access to shopping and employment centers. The project is located less than a block from the Seacliff Village shopping center. The center has a wide variety of commercial opportunities that include a grocery store and a hardware store. Goal HE 3: Facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate income households which is compatible with and compliments adjacent uses and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services. An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan will be required as a condition of approval on the project. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site, and a minimum of ten percent of the units shall be to families of low-income level (less than 80% of the Orange County median income)for a period of thirty years. The applicant proposes to provide two affordable units as part of a 28-unit apartment development planned for the northwest corner of Main Street and Clay Avenue. The proposed project is not consistent with the following goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 9.3.2: Require the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following: c. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single family areas to preserve open space. The project proposes construction of 17 single-family units on lot sizes that range from 6,349 square feet to 9,569 square feet in size. The applicant has been encouraged by City Staff and the Subdivision Committee to consider an alternative housing product (such as cluster housing) or reduced lot sizes in an effort to preserve the existing tree grove and topography of the site. The applicant believes that the City's request is not feasible due to issues relating to site access, grades, and required slopes, and that their proposal is the most appropriate design of the site. Staff Report—6/13/00 5 (OOSR39) B. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Policy ERC 2.1.22: Define the terms"significant" tree or grove and develop specific measures to protect trees/groves that meet said definition. The project, as proposed,would create significant unavoidable impacts to the 134 existing mature trees located on site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-6 encourages the applicant to consider, prior to approval of the project, realignment of the central road within the proposed development in order to spare many of the trees in the major grove. Goal ERC 4: Maintain the visual quality of the City's natural landforms and water bodies. The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in a manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. Objective ERC 4.1: Enhance and preserve the aesthetic resources of the City, including natural areas, beaches, bluffs, and significant public views. The project is located adjacent to the Civic Center, Seacliff Office Park, and the Pacific Ranch residential community. The existing grove of trees and existing topography of the site are highly visible by each of the adjacent uses. While the project proposes a tree relocation plan for the 134 mature trees on site, the tree removal and relocation will create a significant change to public views of the site. The proposal for significant grading to the site is not sensitive to the existing topography. Policy ERC 4.1.6: Require that future development be designed and sited to maintain the natural topographic characteristics of the City including the minimization of the area and height of cuts and fills. The project proposes significant levels of cut and fill to create level pads for residential development. The existing elevations range from approximately 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The project has not been designed in manner that incorporates the natural topographic characteristics of this site. C. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Policy HCP 1.2.1:Utilize the Secretary of the Interior Standards for'Historic Rehabilitation and standards for guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscaped design standards for rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic resources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the site's architectural and historic integrity. Staff Report—6113100 6 (OOSR39) f C The Secretary of the Interior's Standards recommend retaining the historic relationship between the historical buildings and the landscape. The Standards discourage removal or relocation of buildings or landscape features, which would destroy the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. The project proposes to remove or relocate the majority of the vegetation in the existing grove. Alterations to the historical buildings and landscaping of the site create significant unavoidable impacts. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the-RM-O (Residential Medium Density with Oil overlay) zone district and complies with the requirements of that zone with the exception of the Planned Unit Development request for reduced lot widths and the retaining wall/screen wall combination that are both permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The following is a zoning conformance matrix that compares the proposed project with the development standards of the RM-O zone district: SECTION ISSITE CODIi PRQVISION PROPOSED 210.06 Lot Area Min. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,349 to 9,569 sq. ft Average of 7,982 sq. ft. Lot Width Standard Min. 60 ft. Min. 50 ft.* Cul-de-sac Min. 60 ft. Min. 62 ft. Density 15 units per acre 3.5 units/net acre (D' R) Setbacks (E) F) Front Dwelling Min. 15 ft. Min. 15 ft. Front Entry Garage Min. 20 ft. Min. 20 ft. (G, I, n Side Dwelling/Garage Min. 5 ft. Min. 5 ft. Fireplace/Eaves Min 2.5 ft. Min. 2.5 ft Architectural Features Min. 3 ft. Min. 3 ft. (I, J) Rear Dwelling Min. 10 ft. Min. 10 ft. Balcony/Deck Min. 3 f , Min. 10 ft. (M) Building Height Max. 35 ft. . Max. 29.5 ft. (top of subfloor to roofpeak) . (V) Lot Coverage Max. 50 percent Varies with max. 50 percent 231.04.B Off-Street Parking - Max. 4 Bedrooms 2 enclosed, 2 open 2 enclosed, 2 open(with extra storage space) Guest Parking On street I On street Staff Report—6/13/00 7 (OOSR39) SECTION ISSUE CODE PROVYSIOI�L PROPOSED 232.08.B. Landscaping 1-36" box tree/45' street 1-36" box tree/45' street frontage frontage 230.88 Fences & Walls Max. 6 ft. high perimeter 6 ft. high perimeter Max. 2 ft. high retaining/ 9 ft. high perimeter/ 6 ft. high perimeter retaining combination(Lot 8 * 254.08 Park Dedication 0.292 Acres Dedication from accrued park credits per Holly Seacliff Development Agreement * Conditional Use Permit Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report No. 99-2 (EIR No. 99-2)was prepared to analyze the significant, unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, biological resources, and aesthetics resulting from the proposed project. The EIR is analyzed in a separate staff report. The Planning Commission must take action on the EIR prior to acting on the Tentative Tract Map or Conditional Use Permit. Should the Planning Commission approve the proposed project, the Planning Commission must also approve findings of fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations after its action on the project pursuant to the EIR and California Environmental Quality.Act requirements. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Design Review Board (DRB) Application No. 00-09 was reviewed on April 20, 2000. The DRB recommended continuance of the project subsequent to Planning Commission action. In the event that Planning Commission approved the project as proposed by the applicant, staffs recommendation to the DRB was approval.of the architecture and tree relocation plan as proposed. The DRB was informed that staff would be recommending denial of the project (tentative tract map and conditional use permit) altogether'due to issues relating to topography and removal of the tree grove. Subdivision Committee: On February 23, 2000 the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and continued the project requesting that the applicant explore conceptual alternatives to the tract design that would maintain the existing tree grove and topography of the site (see Subdivision Committee Minutes, Attachment No. 5). Staff Report—6/13/00 8 (OOSR39) r On March 29, 2000 the Subdivision Committee reviewed the applicant's response to the request to explore other alternatives. The applicant identified reasons that alternative plans were not"practically or economically feasible," specifically referencing site access, grades, and required slopes as areas of concern (Attachment No. 7). The Subdivision Committee recommended denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 as proposed by the applicant (see Subdivision Committee Minutes, Attachment No. 6). Park and recreation requirements will be satisfied by the applicant using accrued credits for the dedication of land for the planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park pursuant to the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. This agreement specified that Huntington Beach Company's residential holdings outside of Holly Seacliff could use the credits. The proposed project would use 0.292 acres of credits, leaving a remaining credit balance of 12.45 acres. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Economic Development and Building and Safety have recommended conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval. - The Community Services Department has reviewed the project and concurs with the recommendations and findings that are presented in EIR 99-2. The Community Services department commented that in the event that any trees are unable to be relocated on site, the trees should be donated to the City for relocation within City parks. The Police Department has reviewed the project and has commented that Plan One and Plan Two show no downstairs window facing the street which encourages residents to ignore the street scene and have limited interaction with their neighbors. Use of the upstairs windows should be maximized to provide an opportunity for residents to view their surroundings and recognize suspicious activity. The Police Department also recommended installation of additional power plugs and telephone lines in bedrooms that face the street so that residents with home-based businesses will be able to have the ability to observe activities on the street. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on June 1, 2000 and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. (and tenants within a 100 ft) radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification, applicant, and interested parties. As of June 6, 2000 no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES: Tentative Tract Map: February 26, 2000 Within 50 days from EIR Approval Conditional Use Permit: February 26, 2000 Within three months from EIR Approval Staff Report—6/13/00 9 (OOSR39) ANALYSIS: This section evaluates the project in terms of land use compatibility, tract layout, development plan and landscape concept plan. Staff has also analyzed the project in terms of the Urban Design Guidelines currently under review; this analysis is provided in Attachment No. 11. Land Use Compatibility The project proposes development of a single-family residential infill product adjacent to several existing developments that include the Seacliff Office Park, the Pacific Ranch condominium project, and the Huntington Beach Civic Center across Yorktown Avenue. Although the project meets the maximum permitted density requirements, a single-family detached housing product at a density of 3.5 u/ac is not the most appropriate proposal for the site given the surrounding land uses. An alternate housing product type (e.g., cluster housing)would be more compatible with the density of Pacific Ranch (12.9 u/ac) and the future senior apartment complex(approximately 25 u/ac) at the southeast corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street and result in less land use conflicts with the office park and the Civic Center. Expectations for ambient noise and general activity levels are very different for single family neighborhoods than for commercial and multi family areas. Construction of a detached single family project at the density proposed by the applicant could establish a potential land use conflict. Tract Layout Primary access to the tract will be from existing Seabluff Drive a private street that provides access to the Seacliff Office Park and serves as an exit drive for the Pacific Ranch development. A proposed cul-de-sac takes access off of Seabluff Drive; it is proposed at a standard width of 40 feet wide curb-to-curb with six- foot wide sidewalks and parking on both sides of the street. No gates are proposed. Circulation for the project from a technical standpoint is supported by the Public Works and Fire Departments. However, from a single family residential quality of life standpoint, sharing a driveway with an office/commercial use is undesirable. The entrance to the subdivision will feature significant landscaping and entry signage. A landscape lot (Lot B) is proposed adjacent to Yorktown Avenue and will be a minimum of 25 feet wide. Three areas identified as Lot C depict portions of the lot where the existing Pacific Ranch perimeter fence encroaches into the tract boundary and will be conveyed to the Pacific Ranch homeowners' association. The site is not physically suitable for this type and density of development without substantially altering the natural topography of the site. As such, the tentative tract proposes a significant amount of cut and fill to create pads suitable for the type of residential product proposed. • ::'* .k.:: n:;C< S"3f,'i.'{<<:3yy Cut 34,400 cubic yards 15.5 ft of 12 Fill 28,500 cubic yards 19.0 ft. of 7 Staff Report—6/13/00 10 (OOSR39) C Existing grade elevations range from 55 to 91 feet, and the project proposes to create building pads that range from 72 to 75.5 feet. The proposed development will be approximately 23 feet higher than Yorktown Avenue. The cut and fill proposed will drastically alter the natural slope that has been historically prevalent on the site, creating a significant aesthetic impact to the site as well as a significant impact to the natural landform. Staff believes that the site can be developed in a manner that will be more sensitive to the existing grade. Terracing the proposed structures would help to preserve the natural grade to the largest extent possible (Attachment No. 9). It also would be more conducive to the preservation of the existing topography and mature trees. The project as proposed does not comply with the HBZSO requirement that states that approval of projects with greater than a three foot grade differential shall be based upon a building and grading plan that terraces with the grade and which is compatible with adjacent development. The project has been designed to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with reduced lot widths, which will allow a higher density of single family housing to be developed on the site. If the project were to be built with standard minimum lot widths of 60 feet, approximately two lots would need to be eliminated from the existing tract map proposal. Although staff supports the applicant's efforts to maximize density, the development of an alternative multi-family product would allow the development of a project that - would more closely match the density permitted in the General Plan. A multi-family product design could also be more conducive to the preservation of the existing topography and mature trees. Development Plan Although staff does not believe that detached single family units are the best land use for the property, the proposed architecture and materials would be compatible with the existing Pacific Ranch development. The project proposes a variation in floor plans and architectural elevation styles that enhances.the development. The homes are oriented to maximize rear yards adjacent to Pacific Ranch and, to the extent feasible, adjacent to Yorktown. However, because the site is bisected by the North Branch of the Newport Inglewood Fault, the applicant is constrained in the placement of units. (The fault has also dictated the location of the proposed road.) The project's geological study does identify a"special design encroachment zone" which allows construction of structures within the outer 20 feet on either side of the 50-foot structural setback area. The special structural designs for the encroachment zone would be addressed during plan check. The development plan provides adequate on- and off-street parking. Should the Planning Commission approve the request, staff has included conditions to restrict the use of the excess storage space with a garage door to storage only(Plan Two). The conditions will require the applicant to market the new residences as having only a two-car garage, and the applicant will inform homebuyers that no bedrooms can be added unless adequate enclosed parking is provided. Staff Report—6/13/00 11 (OOSR39) Staff supports the six-foot high perimeter walls proposed by the applicant because they create a consistent fencing line and the retaining wall will be screened by the proposed landscaping. The proposal to keep the existing view fence that separates the project from Pacific Ranch(along the northern property line) and create landscape lots that will be conveyed to the Pacific Ranch HOA allows the design integrity of their project as well as mature landscaping to remain between the two properties. The Pacific Ranch HOA is in agreement with this proposal. Should the project move forward, staff recommends the removal of the existing slumpstone wall that is located in the southeast corner,of the project, nearest to the entrance of the Pacific Ranch project. The fence is not necessary to provide screening to any portion of the project. Elimination of the fence will enhance the aesthetics of the corner and will increase the amount of landscaping that will be visible from Yorktown Avenue. The applicant is proposing to build a block wall adjacent to an existing view fence on Lot 17, adjacent to Seabluff Drive. Double walls are highly discouraged, and the applicant is encouraged to coordinate with the adjacent property owners to construct one common property wall. Landscape Concept Plan The project proposes to remove or relocate the majority of the existing trees and clear the remaining - vegatation. Because one of the defining characteristics of the site is its extensive, mature vegatation, this was a significant issue in the EIR and the applicant was required to have an arborist report prepared. One hundred and thirty four (134) mature, healthy trees were inventoried on the site. The applicant has prepared a tree relocation plan that keeps 25 of the trees in place and relocates 45 elsewhere on site (see landscape simulation in Attachment No. 10). A table summarizing the plan is provided in Attachment No. 7; the plan is provided in Attachment No. 3. Although the applicant's plan is designed to keep 52 percent of the mature trees on site, it does not go far enough to protect this resource and is not consistent with the goals and policies identified in the General Plan. Any development proposed for the site should be designed to preserve and maintain the existing grove, in place, on site, as well as the existing topography. Impacts on biological resources could be less severe if the applicant considered an alternative housing product designed to preserve the existing mature trees. To the extent that the biological resources contribute to the historical context of the historic property, impacts to the cultural resource value of this biological resource would also be minimized as compared to the proposed project. The overall aesthetic quality associated with an alternative housing product type is considered greater than that of the proposed project since the landform and vegetation would be preserved on-site. If the Planning Commission approves the project, staff has recommended Condition of Approval No. 1 a that would require redesign/realignment of the proposed street to preserve the existing tree grove. Statement of Overriding Considerations If the Planning Commission approves the applicant's project as proposed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted for the cultural resources and aesthetics of the site. Findings of Fact must also be approved in conjunction with the Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted in conjunction with approval of a project where impacts created by the implementation of a project cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether or not to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable to the City. Staff Report—6/13/00 12 (OOSR39) t Staff does not support the approval of the tentative tract map or conditional use permit for the project as proposed, and therefore does not recommend approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts created by the project. If the Planning Commission denies the applicant's request, the applicant may resubmit a revised tract map, and depending on the revised project EIR No. 99-2 may be used to evaluate the project. Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would then be prepared for the revised project. SUMMARY: Staff does not support the proposed subdivision map and conditional use permit for the following reasons: • The project does not properly adapt with the surrounding terrain and is not physically suitable for the site. The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography and mature vegetation to the greatest extent possible. _ • The project should be developed with an alternate form of housing product to maintain the existing topography and mature vegetation to the greatest extent possible. The project and proposed grading will create a significant aesthetic impact to the historical view of the site. • The project is not compatible with the existing medium density and commercial office developments adjacent to the site. • The project is likely to cause significant environmental damage related to the removal and relocation of the existing mature trees. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Denial 2. Tentative Tract No. 15689 dated May 1, 2000, Site Plan dated May 1, 2000, Floor Plans and Elevations dated April 26, 2000, and Fencing plan dated June 2, 2000 3. Landscape Concept Plan dated March 7, 2000 4. Revised Narrative dated May 15, 2000 5. Minutes of Subdivision Committee Meeting (February 23, 2000) 6. Minutes of Subdivision Committee Meeting(March 29,'2000) 7. Letter.to the City of Huntington Beach from Bill Holman dated March.6, 2000 8. Letters in Opposition and/or Support (Rec'd prior to the February 23, and March 29,_2000 Subdivision Committee Meetings) 9. Terraced Housing product exhibit 10. Simulated landscaping exhibit 11. Compliance with Urban Design Guidelines 12. Suggested Conditions of Approval 13. Resolution No. 1554 with Statement of Overriding Considerations and CEQA Findings of Fact SH:MBB:wn:kjl Staff Report—6/13/00 13 (OOSR39) REVISED NARRATIVE Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 Conditional Use Permit No.99-53 May 15,2000 PLC Land Company is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 to subdivide 4.82 acres of vacant land into 17 single family residential lots. The subject property is located on the north side of . Yorktown Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of Ranch Lane. The site is zoned RM-O, Medium Density Residential combined with oil production, which permits residential development at up to -15 units per acre. All onsite oil wells(2)have been abandoned. Surrounding land uses include the Pacific Ranch townhome development to the north and east of the site, Seacliff Office Park to the west, and the Huntington Beach Civic Center to the south across Yorktown Avenue. The proposed residential lots range in size from 6,349 to 9,569 square feet in size,with an average size of 7,982 square feet. The lots are accessed from Seabluff Drive (a private street) by a single private, non- gated cul-de-sac (Lot "A"). A total of 0.83 acre (17 percent of the site) has been incorporated into common area to create perimeter landscaped slopes along Yorktown Avenue and Ranch Lane, which will be maintained by the project homeowner's association. These slope areas are designed to buffer the residential lots from Yorktown Avenue and the adjacent Pacific Ranch development, and accommodate the relocation of existing mature palm trees impacted by grading of the site. Three small areas of the site where the existing Pacific Ranch perimeter fence encroaches into,the tract boundary have been put into lettered lots (Lot."C") for conveyance to the Pacific Ranch homeowner's association. The tract is proposed to be served by an existing 12-inch water line and an existing 12-inch public sewer line in Yorktown Avenue. Drainage from the subdivision is designed to flow to the existing City storm drain in Yorktown Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 is required for development of a site with greater than three feet in elevation difference, and is requested for approval of the proposed site plan, architectural floor plans and elevations,and retaining wall depicted on the tentative tract map. A conceptual landscape plan and wall and fence plan have also been submitted to illustrate the relocation and/or 2:1 replacement of existing onsite mature trees and proposed wall locations, heights, colors and materials. ; . i,- QJQ V1ENT N0. r 6 a February 23, 2000 Central Library, Room D 2:00 P.M. Planning Commissioners Present: Commissioner Gerald Chapman, Commissioner Connie Mandic Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: Scott Hess,Terri Elliott,Tim Greaves City Staff Present: Wendy Nowak,Mary Beth Broeren, Gail Pickart Applicants Present: Bill Holman, Dave Walden,Dave Bacon Guests Present: Cindy Tiehen, Celeste Post,Bill Reid, Glenda Lee,John Ott, Ruth Swanstrom, Chuck Dinsmore,John Roe TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15689: APPLICANT/ SUBDIVIDER: PLC Development Company ENGINEER: John Walden,Walden and Associates REQUEST: To subdivide a 4.82-acre site into 17 single-family lots,and three lettered lots (two landscape lots and one roadway lot) Planning_Department Comments Staff presented a description of the proposed project and reviewed suggested conditions of approval.. Public Works Department Comments Public Works Staff reviewed recommended conditions of approval related to public works issues and responded to the applicant's questions regarding clarification of conditions. Fire Department Comments Fire Department staff presented the Fire Department's recommended conditions of approval. Subdivision Committee Mtg. February 23,2000 ATTACHMENT NO, -.1 Applicant's Presentation: Bill Holman presented an overview of the revised landscape plan that included a tree relocation/reuse plan. Mr.Holman indicated that he would formally submit the revised plans to City staff for review and consideration. Subdivision Committee Member Comments: Commissioner Chapman expressed concerns about the number of trees that will be removed/replaced on site,building encroachment into the earthquake fault setback zone, site accessibility by the public, and park fees/credits. Commissioner Mandic inquired about the efforts the City had made to preserve the structure or attempt a land swap. Rlicant's Comments: Mr.Holman stated that it might be premature to discuss subdivision layout prior to EIR review by the Planning Commission. Comments from the Public: Comments from the public included concerns about preserving the structure,preservation of the existing trees, construction of a fence along the northern property line,provisions for parking and maintenance if the grove was preserved for use by the public,and architectural compatibility. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MANDIC,SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN,TO RECOMMEND THAT TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15689 . BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING(DATE TO BE DETERMINED). THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT,PLC LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,RETURN TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS OF ALTERNATIVE TRACT DESIGNS OR HOUSING PRODUCTS THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE SITE'S MATURE TREES AND EXISTING TOPOGRAPY. Subdivision Committee VItg. Febnwy 23,2000 iACHMENT NOs 5�4. U crs March 29, 2000 (continued from February 23,2000) City Hall, Room B-7 3:00 P.M. Planning Commissioners Present: Commissioner Chapman, Commissioner Mandic, Commissioner Shomaker Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: Scott Hess,Terri Elliott,Gail Pickart,Tim Greaves City Staff Present: Wendy Nowak,Mary Beth Broeren,Herb Fauland Applicant Present: Bill Holman Guests Present: Bill&Aileen Reid,Chuck Dinsmore TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15689: APPLICANT/ SUBDIVIDER: PLC Development Company ENGINEER: Dave Walden,Walden and Associates REQUEST: To subdivide a 4.82-acre site into 17 single-family lots,and three lettered lots(a landscape lot,a roadway lot,and a lot for purposes of conveyance to Pacific Ranch for fence maintenance) Subdivision Committee Recommendation from February 23, 2000 meeting_ The subdivision committee recommended continuance of the meeting to a subsequent date and requested that the applicant,PLC Land Development Company, return to the next meeting with conceptual drawings of alternative tract designs or housing products that would preserve the site's mature trees and existing topograpy. Planning_Department Presentation/Comments Staff presented a description of the proposed project,identified minor tract map revisions and reviewed suggested conditions of approval and recommendation. Subdivision Committee Mt& March 29,2000 ATTACHMENT N0. • Public Works Department Comments Public Works Staff distributed revised conditions of approval related to public works issues and responded to the applicant's questions regarding clarification of conditions. Fire Department Comments Fire Department staff noted the Northam House fire Incident Report was available for the Subdivision Committee's review. pj2hcant's Presentation: Bill Holman presented an overview of the reasons that staffs recommended alternative(preservation of existing topography and grove,and relocation of street)was not economically feasible. PLC determined that they would not pursue other alternative tract/site layouts at this time because they think the proposed project is the best alternative for the site. Mr.Holman also expressed that providing public space within a private project is somewhat of a conflict. Subdivision Committee Member Comments: Commissioner Chapman expressed that the topography should be preserved. Commissioner Mandic emphasized the importance of the preservation of the trees and topography and stated that they should not be leveled for redevelopment. Concerns about the appropriate type of fencing along Yorktown Avenue and Ranch Lane was also discussed. Applicant's Comments: Mr.Holman expressed concerns about the responsibility of maintenance of grove if it is to be available to the public. Comments,from the Public: Comments from the public included opposition to the consideration of developing a townhome product on the site and concerns about drainage into the project site. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN,SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MANDIC,TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF.TENTATIVE MAP.NO.15689 AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AYES: CHAPMAN,MANDIC,SHOMAKER,HESS,PICKART NOES: GREAVES ABSTAIN: NONE Subdivision Committee Mtg. March 29,2000 i�-,TTAC H M E NT NO, �_Z r ( r r ( r ( IC r r r I I I March 6,2000 Ms. Wendy Nowak,Assistant Planner Planning Department I l r ( ( 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 15689,Northam House Site r Dear Wendy: On February 23, 2000,the Subdivision Committee continued action on the above application and requested PLC to respond to the staff-recommended Alternative 2, which attempts to preserve existing trees in the center of the site by relocating the proposed cul-de-sac and reducing the number of lots from 17 to 10.' I have reviewed this recommendation with our civil engineer and find the alternative practically and economically infeasible for the following reasons: 1. Site Access. Grades and Required Slopes The existing site ranges in elevation from a low point of 52 feet, at the corner of Yorktown Avenue and Ranch Lane, to a high point of 90 feet. Yorktown Avenue also rises ten feet in elevation from east to west. Access to the site from Seabluff Drive is at elevation 70, which is ten feet higher than Yorktown at the west edge of the tract. The majority of the vacant site drains generally to the south. The closest existing public storm drain inlet is on the north side of Yorktown in the median of Ranch Lane. All storm drains within the Pacific Ranch development are private and are neither available nor sized to accommodate the proposed tract. In order for the proposed development to sheet drain properly to this inlet by way of Seabluff Drive and Yorktown Avenue, the cul-de-sac.is designed to:climb:slightly from- west to east, about four feet, to a finish elevation of 74 feet, or 20 feet higher. than Yorktown at the east side. The proposed residential lots provide flat pad areas generally one to two feet above the proposed cul-de-sac grade so lot drainage is directed to the street. Drainage from the perimeter slopes and common areas will be collected in a smaller landscape drain at the southeast comer of the tract. PLC's proposed design provides for a 24-50 foot wide landscaped slope facing Yorktown Avenue (maximum 2:1 slope). This slope is held back from the existing sidewalk to preserve six existing Canary Palms and four other trees along Yorktown. This slope is also proposed to accommodate a significant number of the 2:1 replacement trees required. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 25J 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92660 949.729.1214 Facsimile ATTACHMENT N0o . N8 ism by the recommended project mitigation measures `and pro,nde an r attrac tive, professionally maintained setback area along Yorktown. Alternative 2 recommends realigning the central portion of thc,Cuk-de-Saq to t e south by sixty feet and prohibiting development on the portion of the site generally above 75 feet in elevation, or roughly 40 percent of the property. Alternative 2, however, does not take into account the existing grade differential on the site. The 10 to 20 feet of grade differential between Yorktown Avenue and the proposed cul-de-sac must be taken up somewhere. As a result, Alternative 2 as recommended is infeasible, as only two of the lots are buildable: • Lots 5-8 are of insufficient depth to accommodate the slope along Yorktown and still be plotted with standard homes with the required front and rear yard setbacks • Lot 3 is too narrow and does not account for any slope or separation from Seabluff Drive,nor preserving the six existing Canary Palms • Lot 10, if plotted as shown, would require a massive retaining wall to provide adequate depth for a home • Lots 1 and 2 in Alternative 2 are also too short and narrow to accommodate the homes proposed 2. Disposition of Grove As proposed by PLC, the project would result in 17 single family residential lots, with a homeowner's association created to maintain the private cul-de-sac and perimeter landscape areas. The area of perimeter landscaping is one-half acre, which is significant for a subdivision of only 17 lots. We have prepared a.revised Landscape Concept Plan to comply with proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, by which 25 of the existing trees would be preserved in place onsite and 55 existing trees would be relocated onsite or within Tract 15688 immediately east of the .site. A total of 54 trees impacted by grading would be replaced with the same species at a -2:1. ratio within the landscaped portions -of the site. Twelve full-size prints and a reduction of this plan and a summary matrix are enclosed with.this letter. Although they were too small to be included in the Pacific Rim Tree Survey, we have also committed to preserving an existing hedge of Ficus benjamina trees located along the north tract boundary adjacent to the Pacific Ranch development to help screen. the existing townhomes. These are in addition to the six existing Canary Palms to be preserved along this edge. We estimate the cost to implement this landscape plan will exceed$450,000,which is an extraordinary cost for a 17-lot subdivision. Alternative 2, which would prohibit development on 40 percent of the site, does not address future ownership or long term maintenance of the "historic grove." As you 2 TT II AC H ki C NT NO, .Z P I! C ism . know, we cooperated with the City for nearly a year to i 'vestibate the possibility of city acquisition of this property through.City purchase or exchange for a City-owned property of equivalent value. The City Administrator determined that Fdr:h'3se of lh- e'sil6.was not feasible. We have also incurred considerable costs trying lo,sgcurq the sige �nd-the abandoned house from vandalism during the City's lengthy EI'R'add 'development review process. The EIR also found the alternatives of City purchase of the site or dedication of the site to the City for park purposes to be infeasible. Likewise, Alternative 2 should also be considered infeasible because there is no identified, desirable or feasible plan for long- term public ownership and maintenance of the site, nor is development of only 60 percent. of the site with a reduced number of lots that do not accommodate the proposed homes. The PLC proposal provides for preservation in place of a significant number of existing trees, and relocation or 2:1 replacement of the balance of trees as recommended by the EIR. Whereas the in-place and relocated trees will be readily visible to the public from Yorktown Avenue, the long-term maintenance will be provided by a private homeowner's association at no cost to the public. We would like the EIR and Tentative Tract Map presented to the full Planning Commission at the next available study session so that we might reach a consensus on direction for this property. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional prints of the revised plans. Very trul yours, William D. Holman. / Planning & Government Relations Enclosures cc: Gerald Chapman, Planning Commission Chairman Mary Beth Broeren Dave Walden Chris Gibbs Daren Groth a 3 . G i F PLC Tract 15689 Tree Summary V J Quantity to " remain Quantity to be Quantity to Onsite as Relocated on be relocated Quantity to be Quantity Total Existing Existing Tract site Tract on site Tract replaced on site @ 2:1•.36' Species Botanical Species Common Name Quantity 15689 15689 IM Traci 15689 Box Size) Phoenix cananensis Canary Island Date Palm 73 18 45 10 1 Schinus molle California Pepper 24 24 48 2 Washington robusta Mexican Fan Palm 17 2 15 30 3 Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian Blue Gum 4 2 2 4 4 Lagunaria paltersonii Evening Primrose- 4 4 8 5 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry 5 5 10 6 Brachyton populneus Bottle Tree 2 2 7 Erythrina caffra Kafirboom Coral 2 1 1 2. 8 Ficus benjamina Weeping Fig 2 2 4 9 Washington filifera"' California Fan Palm 1 1 2 10 Totals 134 25 45 10 54 .108 "We may propose to replace these with Washingtonia robusta i r .. FOB w.%dienfs%ocW64131exceNworml lx.xls 9nroo William A.Reid Jr. and Aileen E Reid 19501 Ranch Lane#104 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 (714)960-741 MAR Z .Mar 24, 20O0 �ep 1? 400 lento f p'dnn City of Huntington Beach, tng Department of Planning 2000�i fain St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Howard Zelefsky Secretary,Subdivision Committee RE: Subdi-vision Committee Meeting Mar 29,2000 Tract Map 15639-- Dear Mr. Zwlefsky, I attended the Planning Commission Meeting of February 23,2000 after having sent a letter pertaining to the proposed development of the Northam Homestead property and the construction of homes. I was favorably impressed with the action of the Planning Commission in looking at various aspects mailable. It was good to see that the planning Commission did not just give their stamp approval on the proposal of the PLC Land Company and that Connie Mandic did express concern to the destruction of the Northam Homestead and the grove of trees now existing. It was a shocking occurrence to have the Northam home completely destroyed by fire late in evening of March 22,2000. There did not seem any reason why the fire started-by itself 7 and to have spread so rapidly to encompass the entire structure with such an inferno-it was as if an accelerate had been used I hope that the City of Huntington Beach will W-mstigate this fire and prosecute those parties responsible for it. As I expressed previously the developers plan would destroy not only the oldest home in Huntington Beach,the gardens and the grove of trees. Many of the trees are irreplaceable and undoubtedly are valued at thousands of dollars Due to their age it is questionable that they could be relocated The two for one rule hardly compensates the City for their loss. I Also mentioned that the grove of trees is home to various birds. The point of greatest concern however is the loss of a part of Huntington Beach'past history, Most of the current residents do not realize what an important part Huntington Beach has made in the development of this part of.the Southern California Coast. How many of our current population know the . slots or have even heard of the giving of a deed to apiece of propelty in Huntington.Beach as an.incentive. . to purchase an encyclopedia. Nor do they realize that the Red Train connected Huntington Beach to Los Angeles and why Huntington was influential to bringing it to Huntington Beach. Do they know what an important part oil played in the development of this area. They will still see a few of the drilling wells in the city and now the Northam Home the oldest home is gone! At the February meeting I addressed the Commission as an interested property owner bring out that Our Heritage is important not only to past,present and future generations and we should take what ever steps are necessary to preserve what little is left. The knoll and the trees should be preserved and a plaque be installed to show the historical value of the grove. I realize that the old home had been allowed to deteriorate in the past few years,but the property directly across from the Civic Center should be saved as it is an ideal location for the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Information center as well as a ATTACHMENT N0. 8. 1 1 museum. Most cities want to preserve their past and arc doing so. I recently received a brochure from a small(2000 residents)in Oregon and how they are prescrnzng their past. At the present time there is no shortage of homes in Huntington,Beach.with the thousands of homes being built west of and north of the Scacliff Shopping Center. This is going to materially put a strain on Public Serviccs as well as increasing traffic problems in an already congested area Can our Streets and Roads,Water Systems,Drainage System, Sewage Systems, Schools,Police an Fire Departments handle this without destroying our current interstructurc? As a possible solution to the development of the property the Planning Commission might feel they need to approve the construction'of the eight homes boarding on Yorktown and the remaining property being made into an Historical Park with a right of way for public access in to the Grove and Knoll. A nature trail could be added adjoining the Pacific Ranch Property,With parking permitted at this time on Yorktown St.and the City Parking Lot across the street and the arterial signal already in place a there should be no problems in availability of parking. The smaller partial of land might be approved as requested This would allow the development of a total of 12 units without destroying the knoll which was an important part of Huntington Beach history. Please remember we arc already seeing a tremendous amount of traffic with all the construction of new homes and the new Seacliff Ccntcr! Do we want to add more homes and cars into this congested area? Sincerely, William A Rcid 19501 Ranch Lane# 104 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 ATTACHMENT NO. 8-7, February 22, 1999 Attn: Wendy Nowak,Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach-Planning Dept. Re: Tentative Tract Map# 15689 Wendy: I own a townhouse in Pacific Ranch directly behind the purposed development referenced above. The deciding factor on purchasing this home 2 years ago was the view from my master bedroom,which is the line of trees along the property line. I was concerned about the possible development of the property,so before opening escrow,called the City to check on zoning and`tree laws'. I was told that an historic home was on the lot and there was a"2 to 1"tree replacement policy in the event of future development. I have reviewed the City's 3 recommendations for land use and also PCL's purposed development. I am in favor of the City's recommendation to reduce the number of home sites and keep the mature trees and historic home site in tact as a park. Though I understand that PCL is in the `development'business and this recommendation may not wash financially,it is deplorable that a historic site(we have so few of them in H.B.)has been left to ruin. Does the landowner have no responsibility to the historic significance(both the buildings&landscape)of the property? I have watched the house deteriorate over the past 2 years with little or no intervention from the landowner,which leads me to believe that the tactic was to let it'go'until it was beyond repair.Such a shame for our city. In reviewing PCL's plans,I am unable to`picture'the view from the Pacific Ranch side. On the tree inventory map it shows the removal of the line of trees along the property line,though it appears the existing retaining wall(on our side)and the elevation there will remain the same. Under PCL's plan will we be looking at a fence.instead of a wall of trees? This is unacceptable. •h iew from my bedroom window. Cindy Tiehen 7412 Seabluff,#107 Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)374-5534 02/20/2020 12:23 0115265771404 RUDY RUIZ PAGE 02 l February 21,2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MALN STREET DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 RE: ITEM NO.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.15689 To Whom It May Concern I received your notice inviting comments from the area residents in.Friday;Feb.18,00,mail wherein you gave me until that same Friday,2/18/00 to make my comments on the P=ding This sounds like you really do b=want comments or you would-have allowed adequate time for a proper response. What gives??1 do-not likr,the project for the following . reasons: The area should have been developed with multiple units. The development should have been graded to a lower elevation so as not to be looking down onto the existing Pacific Ranch Development. The drainage of the development should impact Pacific Ranch as drawn. Please Let me know if these comments will be heard-at therApa 12,4P cgmff meeting. Rudy Ruiz 19561 Pompano lane, 107 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 760 831 7983 . Mailing address: P.O.Box 219 El Centro,Ca 92244-0219 ATTACHMENT NO. . :4 JOHN F. & LAUREN C . OTT � 7412 SEABLUFF DR . # 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA -92648 February 19 z000 �47 City of Huntington Beach '' Department of Planning 2000 Main St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Attn. Wendy Nowak Dear Ms.Nowak I have just received a notice from your department that I find a slight bit suspect The notice was about an upcoming meeting on February 23,2000. The meeting was scheduled to consider a proposed subdivision of _ the land that is presently occupied by the Northam Homestead House. I believe this home to be on the Historic Register of Buildings. This is Item#1 Tentative Tract Map#15689. This notice was written on February 11,2000,received by me on February 18,2000 and required an answer by February 18,2000. This would be almost an impossible task. The fact that the letter was sent out 7 days before the response was due and 12 days before the meeting,makes me think this was planned to prevent any response from homeowners. Please tell me this is not the case. To insure this property goes through the proper steps and all parties are given proper notice,I have copied this letter to local newspapers. I am also concerned that you are not making the homeowners aware of two alternative plans for this site. I obtained this information on my visit to the planning department in December of 1999. The alternative plans are closer to what I would like to see happen to this site. Occupying Pacific Ranch property and adjacent to this site is a retaining wall. Based on the plans I have reviewed,it would seem this wall would need to be lowered and a fence constructed. The Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association would have to approve this change,and in Ming with board members,would not give their approval.. Last but not the least important is the Northam Homestead. I am appalled that the City did not tend to the upkeep necessary for such a site. This location has turned into a playground for vandalism I am able to observe the house from my bedroom and have called the police many times to complain. It almost seems no one cares,or if the house is beat up enough,it will be taken off the historical list What an easy Way to speed up the building of houses. Please consider my thoughts on this issue. I expect a follow up to my letter Sincerely: hn F.Ott CQ Orange County Register. Los Angeles Times PHONE: 714-336-2036 • FAX: 714-374-4331 WORK PHONE: 909-394-1600 #3030 ATTACHMENT N0. • 5 William A.Reid Jr. and Aileen E Reid 19501 Ranch Lane#104 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 a (714) 960-741 � j,�� Feb. 19, 2000 City of Huntington Beach, Department of Planning 2000.1fain-St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Subdivision Committee Meeting Feb. 23,2000 Gentlemen, I hereby request that the Subdivision Meeting to consider Item No.1 tentative Tract Map No. 15689 be postponed to a later date in as much as Public Notice was not given in adequate time to the Public. Your notice of the hearing dated February 11,2000 was not postmarked by the City of Huntington Beach until Feb. 16,2000. The Post Office did not receive this until Feb. 17,2000. The mail delivery to Residents of Pacific Ranch was not until late in the day of Feb. 18,2000. Your notice states that comments be received by Friday. EghnM 18,2000 so that comments relative to the proposed subdivision could be considered Since the notice was not delivered until the deadline date there has not been time for the public to respond I oppose the proposed subdivision in its present submission. The proposal by PLC Land Company should be rejected as it will require the removal of numerous trees,the Northam Homestead and the regrading of the knoll. The regrading of the knoll will destroy the habitat of numerous birds including Owls and Red Hawks. Red Hawks have nested on the property for many years and they are on the endangered species list of birds. All the other wooded habitat in the area has been restored with the development of homes,shopping center West of Main Street. Shouldn't some consideration be given to their welfare? The regrading of the property will also entail the destruction of the Northam Homestead,a building I am told is on the National Register of Historical Buildings. The Northam Homestead is the last building on its original property to remain in Huntington Beach. To destroy it will be like elimination one of the last pages in Huntington Beach's history. The Northam Homestead was occupied as a residence until about 4 years ago and the gardens were used for Civic Fund raising activities. At the time the property was sold there was no attempt to protect the building and gardens even though it was on the Historic Register of Buildings. The property should have been posted as No Trespassing and the building boarded up. The boarding up was not done until.several months ago:. There has been,.I am told,extensive vandalism done to the premises since the . . owner did not seefit to protect the property. The Property Owner should beheld responsible and required to return the property to its prior condition. Most cities would do all in their power to protect part of their past history. If the property remains it would be a great location for a Park, the Tourist Bureau and the City Chamber of Commerce as well as a museum. What better location could be had than across from the City Hall? With the construction of the Shopping Center,and all the homes south of Yorktown St.with no provision for a green belt or park some consideration should be given to turning this area into a park. The property should be acquired with a land swap or by Emanate Domain With the City Hall and its parking lots should solve any parking problems that might occur. ATTACHMENT NO, If it is not possible to acquire the entire 4.82 acres,then I would suggest that the approval be given for the construction of lots 1 thru 8 and the remaining area be designated as an historical site and bird sanctuary with the Northam Homestead and Gardens being rented for various functions such as Wedding Receptions,Parties,Fund Raisers,etc. This should generate enough income to main the premises. I hate to see anything done to destroy what little remains of Huntington Beach's past history. S�incerly, 4/(i&A Reid 19501 Ranch Lane# 104 Huntington Beagh, Ca 92648 CC: Pacific Ranch Homeowners Assn. The Orange County Register The Los Angeles Times Orange County Edition ATTACHMENT NO,CZ SEABREEZE TEL No .9498551800 -FF 18 . :0 7 :37 1`I0 .CA3 P .01 SEABREEZE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. February 18,2000 Npartincnt of Planning City of Huntington Bgach 2000 Main Street Huntington Fkach,CA 92649 Att:Wendy Nowak Dear Wendy: I On January 18,2000 the board of directors for the Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association met with representative:of PLC Land Company to discuss their plans for the development of parcels adjacent to the Pacific Rtinch community. We are advised that the City is aware of the proposed plans and that those plans are in the process of being reviewed by the City for approval or modification. At the board's mooting with PLC.the board was notified that there is an existing easement for aceess through thv' Pacific Ranch i naln gate to a parcel PLC intends to improve. The board has been advised that the City desires input from Pacific Ranch with regard to the use oFthis easement for access to the parcel in light of the fact that there Is apparently an alternative and viable access along Yorktown. Accordingly,please be advised that It is the desire orthe board of directors for the Pacific Ranch community that the casement across and through the main entrance not be used for accum to the adjoining parcel. Such use would Invade the rights of the Pacific Ranch homcuwners,and was clearly not contemplated by the developer of Pacific Ranch. The board believes that It is more appropriate to,as PLC dosirts,authori=entry directly off of Yorktown Into the new development. At the meeting with the board,PLC gave an overview as to the nature:and extent of their proposed development. The board was provided with drawings of the proposed residences and had the opportunity to question PLC as to their intentions with regard to landscaping and efforts to mitigate any negative impau upon the Pacific Ranch community. At the present time,the board has no strong objoctions to the community,but would tt-quest that the City consider requiring that those trees and existing landscaping along Scabluff and Ranch Drive and the rear portion of Parcel 2 be maintained in theirpresent location so as to provide a buffer between the Pacific Ranch and the new cormunity and:.to likewise maintain the privacy of the Pacific Ranch owners. I The board hopes that these comments are helpful to the City in mAing Its ultimate determination with regard to the approval ofthe proposed plans and we likewise look forward to your reply at your very earliest convenience. For Board of Directors Ranch Ff mcowners Association, ity Ga is ` Seabreeu a Soment Inc. Cc PLC Land Company Uevetopments 39 Argonaut•Suitc 100•Aliso Viejo,CA 92636•(949)855-1800•FAX(949)$35-6678 SECTIONS fOR TEMTATIVE MAP TRACT NO, 15689 XM A SMbV 0ll Or PAM t Or M M IVP XM 6146&N W a or Iurtwcra anal caM Of OUN4 SlAl[or LiurMk AS MW ON W IW MID N BM W FWS N VWM IG Orr M PAM MMM ar awn calls. msnc '�NVA nc�raort e e Nn m mrt m e @ s rrm[la i » AD --------= — -- — -------- Marc a" IOi! _ --- tot, — — ms — i rAal IOi WtT t� A FPL I Cam• .N F'F—DrOSAL , r -------------- — ------------- ¢ lm wr s t r' Lw o ~� ream Pam AwMur �talm6 Ono • ��>�G�� �C�-�f.IBC f. , M 1 PSI I MI ZE C-1 zoo,01'N C`I) A ffACHIMENT 1ib, : -,�-,,. ��.: �•• �. t� 1 �„« - r.-- �• STOP �'� �• _ - .. �' -' �� '' .�. tom( °.-T-.\�. //':i \� ..�.�.° J" � /ti / `.l :' 1. % ..\,• , -- --/r �(;- alai, lit ,,,�_ ,i•, - .d�r i1� 4`��hl> �j,,�(i -I'.�'+ +-..� - .'�7.'!: .• .. �t,�.3 Nter V�'�'��{f`•'t,,�: tiE�.-'-,� ._ ti a: k s;, t.:, rj` �• � -d : �;7.. I� 6 •. t n. F STOP 1 I 1 tl } 1 At � S rw 244 STOP' I..� .e-��'`�� •",. .:9. .��- _ mot.• I '...�(�� .c.+'V� � 1 Lit '' ,I .{.•A.J 1 -<F• t���/•! ff�w'! �^ ft� - r•_ •G `�yT,:r• / *. �t �� 1 •II� r r``�ay'1 , 'jk�" .T. '•',r�h'r,Ri' '!�' -T "•.1 _ ,r A',��• � i' JJ1. , � �I��/ .i. ,,�-/�.r , -�i� �L:k��+ .� 1: - j, � /V .RFt!.1� .a`. �r tp•� �i �.� .\, �I' /,/ ,i ,'�::Lr: / !' , 1F.,r;�, 11 4: rti•. ;`(ea 1.,; >� 1 '.6V i•.r' 11. .;' i• ,'f' ,,� p�.1;• :4 H .��� n 'f' :1"�"•h1• .'r � � '�, �. ' ..Jl •i i ,.7;; i�-/.I;;r:, li.: 1,1„ •el `�• '!f�•�FJT. �,.p�., �� aR..t-��(�, � /,{'���''�]/�Il 4� ��t'� �,_ ":J� ,� �t� i!, �I� /�•y!�''� .r'� °:��al,�: .P��t �... ••f. _ {'t / ,`i.:.--�,�/�'1:.' 1R'�� �31; +�". �'' ..I1�;�:. ,y"'1!? -•'1.. ,.n�,,,,7��;:. •t�"1 �:•.� 'fK";IJ;"'1'• i,�. �.': �iN'•.,l T`¢R,�,;r.•,'t�irP"t �!�x 4.')Y:.'l�l`r'�• Ti���f`f..l-i?-�_- _�-�'•---__— _`.�^--.�—„�,,,r,�� t Wy;�� Attachment No. 11 Compliance with Urban Design Guidelines Urban Design Guidelines for Single Family Detached Residential ■ Local streets should be designed with 36-40 foot paved curb to curb sections(40-foot curb to curb with parking on both sides), and sidewalks should be designed with a minimum width of four feet. The project proposes a 40-foot right of way with sidewalks that are six feet in width. ■ Each neighborhood should incorporate passive and active open spaces such as park areas, playing fields, and/or public squares. Some of these open space areas may be integrated with community facilities, schools, churchyards, or playgrounds. This project does not propose any open spaces. The associated EIR identifies a Mitigation Measure that would require the applicant to provide a permanent, on-site interpretive display presenting the history of the property within an area of the project accessible to the public. If the Planning Commission has certified the EIR and included this Mitigation Measure, the project would need to be redesigned to include an open public area for the historical display. ■ Development should be sensitive to its natural surroundings. Grading should be minimized by following the natural contours to the greatest extent possible. Graded slopes should be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain. The project proposes significant grading to the site to accommodate the single-family residential structures. Grading proposed does not follow the natural contours of the site and will dramatically alter the natural land form. ■ Grading should emphasize and accentuate scenic vistas and natural landforms. The project proposes significant grading to the site to accommodate the single-family residential structures. Grading proposed does not follow the natural contours of the site and will dramatically alter the natural land form. ■ Adequate space should be provided between two adjacent driveways. Driveways should be at least 8 feet apart to allow planting and growth of landscaping materials and minimize the continuity of driveway surfaces. The proposed project provides a minimum of ten feet between adjacent driveways to allow for landscaping. ■ Garage design should diminish the visual impact of garage doors along street frontages. Offsetting the garage behind the front fagade of the house, providing a side entry garage, accessing the garage from the side or rear of the lot, or locating the garage to the rear of the lot is encouraged. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 11.1 All plans for this project are designed with garages that face the street and make up the majority of the first floor elevation. None of the garages are offset behind the front fagade of house, and none are accessed from the side or rear of the lot. ■ Significant natural vegetation should be retained and incorporated into the project. The project proposes to remove or relocate 134 mature trees located in the existing tree grove. Approximately 70 trees will remain in place or will be translocated on the property, and approximately ten trees will be relocated to an adjacent tract. The remaining 54 trees will be removed or replaced at a ratio of 2:1. • Walls should be eliminated or sited to provide additional setbacks at project entries to accommodate distinctive landscaping, ornamental gateways, signage, and street furniture. Staff is recommending removal of the existing slumpstone wall at the southeast corner of the project and the entrance to Pacific Ranch to improve views to the site from Y_ orktown Avenue which is further enforced by this design guideline. ■ Community perimeter walls should be of masonry construction and sited to accommodate a minimum 15 ft. landscaped setback. The new perimeter wall proposed at the top of the slope on the south site of the project will be composed of concrete block. A landscape lot with a minimum width of approximately 20 feet separates Yorktown Avenue from the proposed block walls. • Walls greater than 50 feet in length need to incorporate two of the following: A minimum two foot change in plane for at least 10 feet, a minimum 18 inch high raised planter for at least 10 feet, a minimum 18-inch change in height for at least 10 feet, use of pilasters at 50-foot maximum intervals and at changes in wall planes, and a minimum four foot high view fencing section for at least 10 feet. The project proposes a block wall over 50 feet in length that does not incorporate any of the suggestions listed above, however, a substantial amount of landscape planting is proposed in front of the wall. Over time plant growth would help reduce the visual impact of the fence on Yorktown Avenue by providing a vegetative screen. (OOSR39)—6/13/00 Attachment No. 11.2 t � Ml.TV 3 € wo- 3 t t 3 �x = , Ic NN peAa ? 3?400 nn',ent Of plan . June 23, 2000 n�n9 Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk . 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 Dear Connie: PLC Land Company appeals the actions taken by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2000 to deny the above-referenced applications. Our grounds for appeal are as follows: 1. The density of the proposed subdivision (17 single family lots / 4.82 acres) is 3.5 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. Contrary to the findings for denial, we believe the project is compatible with the adjacent development, as evidenced by the June 12, 2000 letter of support from the Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association. 2. Staff has suggested that cluster housing or reduced lot sizes be considered as a means of preserving existing trees and topography of the property. The small site has a 40-foot elevation difference. Either type of housing (cluster or small lot) would still require substantial grading of the site for proper compaction of roads, slopes, residential pads and to provide adequate drainage. The site cannot be graded for development without impacting the majority of trees onsite. The design of the proposed subdivision is intended to reduce visual impacts from the existing Pacific Ranch townhomes to the north by lowering the higher portions of the site adjacent to the townhomes, and to provide an attractive, landscaped slope along the Yorktown Avenue frontage facing City Hall. A plan for the preservation, relocation and/or 2:1 replacement of onsite trees has been prepared for the project, in compliance with the EIR mitigation measures. 3. The staff-recommended Alternative 2 is not an acceptable alternative for the reasons stated in my March 6, 2000 letter (copy attached). The only feasible alternative for complete preservation of the existing topography and trees is City acquisition of the site. Based on our previous discussions with staff, we do not believe this is likely, however, if there has been a change in this position, we would like to know. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92d60 949,729.1214 Facsimile I NI PLC respectfully requests that a public hearing be scheduled for the City Council to consider this proj ect. Very truly yours, William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Enclosures cc: Mayor David Garofalo and City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Wendy Nowak, Assistant Planner Chris Gibbs Daren Groth I i I 2 PON Ic March 6, 2000 Ms. Wendy Nowak, Assistant Planner Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 15689,�iortham House Site Dear Wendy: On February 23, 2000,the Subdivision Committee continued action on the above application and requested PLC to respond to the staff-recommended Alternative 2, which attempts to preserve existing trees in the center of the site by relocating the proposed cul-de-sac and reducing the number of lots from 17 to 10. I have reviewed this recommendation with our civil engineer and find the alternative practically and economically infeasible for the following reasons: 1. Site Access. Grades and Reouired Slopes The existing site ranges in elevation from a low point of 52 feet, at the corner of Yorktown Avenue and Ranch Lane, to a high point of 90 feet. Yorktown Avenue also rises ten feet in elevation from east to west. Access to the site from Seabluff Drive is at elevation 70, which is ten feet higher than Yorktown at the west edge of the tract. The majority of the vacant site drains generally to the south. The closest existing public storm drain inlet is on the north side of Yorktown in the median of Ranch Lane. All storm drains within the Pacific Ranch development are private and are neither available nor sized to accommodate the proposed tract. In order for the proposed development to sheet drain properly to this inlet by way of Seabluff Drive and Yorktown Avenue, the cul-de-sac is designed to climb slightly from west to east, about four feet, to a finish elevation of 74 feet, or 20 feet higher than Yorktown at the east side. The proposed residential lots provide flat pad areas generally one to two feet above the proposed cul-de-sac grade so lot drainage is directed to the street. Drainage from the perimeter slopes and common areas will be collected in a smaller landscape drain at the southeast corner of the tract. PLC's proposed design provides for a 24-50 foot wide landscaped slope facing Yorktown Avenue (maximum 2:1 slope). This slope is held back from the existing sidewalk to preserve six existing Canary. Palms and four other trees along Yorktown. This slope is also proposed to accommodate a significant number of the 2:1 replacement trees required 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 254 949.721,9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92660 949.729.1214 Facsimile is® by the recommended project mitigation measures and provide an attractive; professionally maintained setback area along Yorktown. Alternative 2 recommends realigning the central portion of the cul-de-sac to the south by sixty feet and prohibiting development on the portion of the site generally above 7 5 feet in elevation, or roughly 40 percent of the property. Alternative 2, however, does not take into account the existing grade differential on the site. The 10 to 20 feet of grade differential between Yorktown Avenue and the proposed cul-de-sac must be taken up somewhere. As a result, Alternative 2 as recommended is infeasible, as only two of the lots are buildable: • Lots 5-8 are of insufficient depth to accommodate the slope along Yorktown and still be plotted with standard homes with the required front and rear yard setbacks • Lot 3 is too narrow and does not account for any slope or separation from Seabluff Drive, nor preserving the six existing Canary Palms ® Lot 10, if plotted as shown, would require a massive retaining wall to provide adequate depth for a home • Lots 1 and 2 in Alternative 2 are also too short and narrow to accommodate the homes proposed 2. Disposition of Grove As proposed by PLC, the project would result in 17 single family residential lots, with a homeowner's association created to maintain the private cul-de-sac and perimeter landscape areas. The area of perimeter landscaping is one-half acre, which is significant for a subdivision of only 17 lots. We have prepared a.revised Landscape Concept Plan to comply with proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, by which 25 of the existing trees would be preserved in place onsite and 55 existing trees would be relocated onsite or within Tract 15688 immediately east of the site. A total of 54 trees impacted by grading would be replaced with the same species at a 2:1 ratio within the landscaped portions of the site. Twelve full-size prints and a reduction of this plan and a summary matrix are enclosed with this letter. Although they were too small to be included in the Pacific Rim Tree Survey, we have also committed to preserving an existing hedge of Ficus benjamina trees located along the north tract boundary adjacent to the Pacific Ranch development to help screen the existing townhomes. These are in addition to the six existing Canary Palms to be preserved along this edge. We estimate the cost to implement this landscape plan will exceed $450,000, which is an extraordinary cost for a 17-lot subdivision. Alternative 2, which would prohibit development on 40 percent of the site, does not address future ownership or long term maintenance of the "historic grove.,' As you a a PO® iSIC know, we cooperated with the City for nearly a year to investigate the possibility of City acquisition of this property through City purchase or exchange for a City-owned property of equivalent value. The City Administrator determined that purchase of the site was not feasible. We have also incurred considerable costs trying to secure the site and the abandoned house from vandalism during the City's lengthy EIR and development review process. The EIR also found the alternatives of City purchase of the site or dedication of the site to the City for park purposes to be infeasible. Likewise, Alternative 2 should also be considered infeasible because there is no identified, desirable or feasible plan for long- term public ownership and maintenance of the site, nor is development of only 60 percent of the site with a reduced number of lots that do not accommodate the proposed homes. The PLC proposal provides for preservation in place of a significant number of existing trees, and relocation or 2:1 replacement of the balance of trees as recommended by the EIR. Whereas the in-place and relocated trees will be readily visible to the public from Yorktown Avenue, the long-term maintenance will be provided by a private homeowner's association at no cost to the public. We would like the EIR and Tentative Tract Map presented to the full Planning Commission at the next available study session so that we might reach a consensus on direction for this property. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional prints of the revised plans. Very truly yours, William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Enclosures cc: Gerald Chapman, Planning Commission Chairman Mary Beth Broeren Dave Walden Chris Gibbs Daren Groth m a FORN/I/\ PLC - Tract 15689 Tree Summary i Quantity to remain Quantity to be Quantity to Onsile as Relocated on be relocated Quantity to be Quantity Total Existing Existing Tract site Tract on site Tract replaced on site @ 2:1 -36" Species Botanical Species Common Name Quantity 15689 15689 15688 Tract 15689 Box Size) Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm 73 18 45 10 Schinus molle California Pepper 24 24 48 2 Washington robusta Mexican Fan Palm 17 2 _ _15 _ 30 3 Eucaly tus us an Blue Lagunaria paltte slonii — — EveninglPrimfose um-- — _— — _ 2_ - —� --_-- --_$ 5 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry 5 5 10 6_— _ - Brachyton populneus Bottle Tree 2 2 7 Erythrina caffra Kafirboom Coral 2 1 1 2 8 Ficus benjamin_a Weeping Fig _ _ 2 _— — — 2_ _ 4 — 9 Washington filifera*** California Fan Palm 1 1 2 10 Totals 134 25 45 10 54 108 *** We may propose to replace these with Washingtonia robusta I • i FOB w:\ctientslplc\96413\excehtreemairix.xls 317/00 A � It l I NIN �.`k `r`7 - Yv'xai' -•` ..tr." - ti - 'r 3'_.. x -""F••"i- "* ..z .=A+' - w MMM r� -arc. .r�- Y x 'u.�°' �'J .=`s '��' tYa�./°ate s,YSr ,•:' 4 - ,:. m� c.�,«' '�S }t<} "�� s' t„ `� sus, '�-: a r z c � sum Y � Tu �"` �" .�,,. �_3sny' -`�kt4a �-fi G•�� � 'tom` �� ,�`�x2fy _' - f, a _r 4�-.���'e°�.S.k,rY asF-. --� s�5s.A•- ��' se s Y1 S4e Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937 15431 5 1 937 154 32 ' 5 2 937 15433 t 5 3 Yash Subberwal&Shashi Subberwal Jan Wallace&Margaret Michaelsen Wi Richard&Maureen Mcdonald 19501 Ranch Ln#107 19501 Ranch Ln#108 7412 Seabluff Dr#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 34 t S 9 937 154 35 155 937 154 36 t 9 6 Stephen Perzigian Joan Vanalst Joseph&Carol Tartaglini 7412 Seabluff Dr#102 7412 Seabluff Dr#103 7412 Seabluff Dr#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 15437 5 , 937 154 38 1 S$ 937 154 39 Peggy Kohl Gilbert Paul Carrasco William Tiehen 7412 Seabluff Dr#105 7412 Seabluff Dr#106 7412 Seabluff Dr#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 40 1 too 937 154 41 6 937 154 42 1 6 2 John&Lauren Ott Raymond&Sharon Parrish Charles Smith 7412 Seabluff Dr#108 7412 Seabluff Dr#109 7412 Seabluff Dr#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 154 43 b 3 937 154 44 1 6 9 937 160 87 it's Ralph&Ann Kajdasz Margot Hume Lucia Dean 7412 Seabluff Dr#111 7412 Seabluff Dr#112 7492 Seabluff Dr#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 160 88 1 6 4 937 160 89 1 b 937 160 90 t 6 g John Joseph Keman Alvin Greenberg Masaaki Fumoto&Tomiko Fumoto 7492 Seabluff Dr#108 7492 Seabluff Dr#109 7492 Seabluff Dr#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 160 91 t 6 q 937 160 92 i 0 937 160 93 Irvivg Newman&Mar wman Elmar John Baxter Jay&Phylis Gordon t 7492 Seabluff Dr 1 7492 Seabluff Dr#112 7492 Seabluff Dr#101 Huntingto ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 160 94 937 160 95 1 g 937 160 96 1 -7 q Terry Harrison 1 Z . Temre Vouga James Holechek 7492 Seabluff Dr#102 7492 Seabluff Dr#103 7492 Seabluff Dr#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 160 97 1'1 S 937 16098 1 - 937 160 99 1't Doris Eldridge Robert&Pamela Herb James Creason&Linda Creason 7492 Seabluff Dr#105 7492 Seabluff Dr#106 19502 Ranch Ln#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 00 1'1 cb 937 161 01 1 9 937 161 02 1 a Vincente Perez Detu Asterio&Tina Viray Brian Ferris 18502 Ranch;p4102 19502 Ranch Ln#103 19502 Ranch Ln#104 Huntingto each,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 VIAVERYO Address Labels Laser 5960Tm Smooth Feed Sheetsy'A Use template for 5160® 93716103 93716104 Z 93716105 t 3 Russell Bivens&Lee Ann Bivens Charles Mckinley&Jane McKinley Louis&Mercedes Apodaca 19502 Ranch Ln#105 19502 Ranch Ln#106 19502 Ranch Ln#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 06 144 937 16107 5 937 161 08 1 6 Steven&Martie Lee Bruce Robbins Frank Ung 19502 Ranch Ln#108 19502 Ranch Ln#109 19502 Ranch Ln#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 09 1 937 161 10 a 937 161 11 1 q Marc Vogt Derek&Suzan Wi25 er Phillip&Christina Glasgow 19502 Ranch Ln#111 19502 Ranc n#112 19532 Ranch Ln#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun ' n Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 12 ' a o 937 161 13 tot 937 161 14 1 9 Z Edward Aghjayan Richard&Bonnie Gould Lynne Kallman 19532 Ranch Ln#102 19532 Ranch Ln#103 19532 Ranch Ln#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 16115 1 3 937 161 16 1 q 4 937 161 17 1 Ct s Jenean Beyer Donald Powel Robert&Sharon Pell 19532 Ranch Ln#105 19532 Ranch Ln#106 19532 Ranch Ln#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 18 1 6 937 161 19 t q-1 937 161 20 t q Gary Grady Paul Burns Marianna Pinter 19532 Ranch Ln#108 19532 Ranch Ln#109 19532 Ranch Ln#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 21 937 161 22 Z e a 937 161 28 2 1 Thomas Parker 101 q Joanna Yu Fu Robert&Denise Carleton 19532 Ranch Ln#111 19532 Ranch Ln#112 19521 Pompano Ln#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 29 2e2 937 161 30 Zo3 93716131. 2 a 9 Kenneth Roberts Ii Dennis Tierney Jay&Mimi Park 19521 Pompano L 19521 Pompano Ln#287 19521 Pompano Ln# 104 Huntington B ,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 32 2 o S 937 161 33 2 c 937 161 34 Z e-7 Bennett Root&Family Gordon-Root Edward&Dora Ybarra Kenneth Fetty&Roberta W Fetty 19521 Pompano Ln#105 19521 Pompano Zqv 19521 Pompano Ln#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingto ach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 35 y o 937 161 36 z c q 937 16137 2 O Arthur&Judy Henry Lawrence&Jeannine Lanza Robert Gorson Jr. 19521 Pompano Ln q2 19521 Pompano Ln#109 19521 Pompano Ln#110 Huntington Be , CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �4-1 AVER o Address Labels Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937 161 38 2 t 1 937 16139 Z 2 937 161 40 Z t 3 Frederick Ma &Jeannine Puppich Robert Eggink&P is Slinglerland James&Marilyn Orens 19521 Po ano Ln#295 19521 Pompa n#296 19481 Pompano Ln#101 Hun ' on Beach,CA 92648 Hun!in each,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 41 Z q 937 16142 2 t 5 937 16143 2 1 6 Kathy Black Perry Alper Chih-Ping&Ko- g Liu 19481 Pompano Ln#102 19481 Pompano Ln#103 19481 Pomp n#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntin each,CA 92648 937 161 44 Z t"1 937 161 45 Z is 937 161 46 2 t Bernhard Hadeler&Eileen Hadeler Peter Kaplan Charles Cohen&Janis Schwartz-Cohen 19481 Pompano Ln#105 19481 Pompano Ln#106 19481 Pompano Ln#107 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 47 2 2 p 937 161 48 2 2 937 161 49 Z z 2 Charles&Terri W Alexander Lynn Beckman Joseph Arthur Leick&Patricia Leick NO STREET N or NUMBER 19481 Pompano Ln#109 19481 Pompano Ln#110 CA ! Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 50 2 3 937 161 51 2 2 q 937 161 52 Z 2-S Richard Daniels&Aeri Daniels James&Margaret Cheney Beard Marilyn Moreira 19481 Pompano Ln#111 19481 Pompano Ln 19451 Pomp n Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntin Beach,CA 92648 93716153 53 2 2 ` 937 161 54 Z 2 937 161 55 Z Z Ricky&Sheri Sanfo Howard&Audrey Rei Chang Jui Ho 19451 Pompano #310 Family Revocab ss 19451 Pompano Ln#312 Huntingto ach,CA 92648 19451 Po o Ln#301 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 H on Beach,CA 92648 937 161 56 2 Zq 937 16157 2, 3 0 937 16158 Zg 1 Dennis Jenkins&Cherie Beck Leon Hornberger&Lois Homberger Manuel&Marva Abeyta 19451 Pompano Ln#105 19451 Pompano Ln#106 19451 Pompano Ln#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 16159 2 3 Z 937 161 60 2 3 3 937 161 61 2 3 9 Louis Lardas Lisa Schreiman Carrie Mechsner 19451 Pompano Ln#108 19451 Pompano Ln#317 19451 Pompano Ln#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 161 62 2 3 5 937 161 63 2 3 6 937 163 47 Z 3 7 Richard Meyer&Barbara Meyer Sandra Hoyle Joseph Marvin&Julia Marie Ingram 19451 Pompano Ln#111 19451 Pomp n#320 19562 Pompano Ln#110 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingt each,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 48 Z 3$ 937 163 49 2 g q 937 163 50 Z 4 e Dale Eugene Schmidt Ikuo Nakano Paul&Jennifer Woods Jill Elizabe Schmidt 16322 S Manhattan PI#4 19562 Pompano Ln#107 19562 Pompano Ln#109 Gardena,CA 90247 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 MAVERVO Address labels Laser 5960TM Smooth feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 937 16351 ZA 1 937 16352 24 2 937 16353 Z 4 William Graff&Elisabetta Miserere John&•Margaret Richey William&Sharon Wilkins Jr. 19562 Pompano Ln 19562 Pompano Ln#105 19562 Pompano Ln#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 54 2.4 q 937 163 55 2.4 s 937 163 56 2 4 6 Paul Honeyford&Katy Shaff Robert Viii&Dennise Lucas Leslie Cushing&Geneva Cushing 19562 Pompano Ln#103 19562 Pompano Ln#102 19562 Pompano Ln#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 57 2,4 937 163 58 2 4$ 937 163 59 2 4 q Patricia Angela Menden Juan Felsmann&Joaquin Felsman Thomas O'Connor&Lonna O'Connor 19581 Pompano Ln# 108 19581 Pompano Ln#107 19581 Pompano Ln#106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 60 25 0 937 163 61 2 s 937 163 62 ZS Z Charles Whang Jr.&Doris Yee Whang Don&Deborah Evans David Murray&Teresa Murray 19581 Pompano Ln#105 19581 Pompano Ln#104 19581 Pompano Ln#103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 63 2 S 3 937 163 64 Z 5 4 937 163 65 2 S S John Rowan&Margot Rowan Philip Lord Joseph&Joanne Coletta 19581 Pompano Ln#102 19581 Pompano Ln#101 Angel Coletta-Coulon Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 19561 Pompano Ln#112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 66 2 5 G 937 16367 2 S 937 163 68 Z S Sec Veterans Affairs Darryl Watanabe&Dorothy Watanabe Colin&Laurie Bilbruck 19561 Pompano Ln#111 19561 Pompano Ln#110 19561 Pompano Ln#109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 93716369 Z 5 q 937 163 70 Z 60 937 163 71 2.6/ Manuel Flores&Alicia Flores Rudy Ruiz George Neuman&Jacqueline McCollu 19561 Pompano Ln#108 PO Box 219 19561 Pompano Ln#6 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 El Centro,CA 92244 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 163 72 2 6 Z 937 163 73 2 L g 937 163 74 2 6 Q Jeanne Brown&Marie Moehringer Betty Arango . Charles Dinsmore&Eve Dinsmore 19561 Pompano Ln#105 19561 Pompano Ln#104 19561 Pompano Ln#103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 16375 26 5 937 16376 2 b C. 937 16475 Z -� Chris Lambert&Laura Lambert Niall&Karen Mo an Nikhil&Ashim ehta 19561 Pompano Ln#102 19561 Pomp n#101 215 Wichita a#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingt each,CA 92648 Huntin Beach,CA 92648 937 164 76 Z 6 $ 937 16477 937 164 78 Z -1 Laura Yarus Joel Wooldridge Irwin&Carolyn Kanode 215 Wichita Ave#102 215 Wichita Ave#103 215 Wichita Ave#104 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 0A�6�Y0 Address Labels Laser 5960TM • Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937 164 79 2 7 937 164 80 2 7 Z 937 164 81 213 Diana Kuka John Miller&Sue Ann Miller Kevin Pham 215 Wichita Ave#105 1030 13Th St 215 Wichita Ave#107 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 164 82 2 7 a 937 164 83 Z s 937 164 84 2 -1 to Sandra Noble Richard William Nelson . Susan Ann Mcclarin 215 Wichita Ave#108 215 Wichita Ave#201 215 Wichita Ave#202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 16485 Z 71 937 164 86 2 7 46 937 164 87 2-7 Fred Marquez Kathleen Harris Frank Vitonis 215 Wichita Ave#203 4362 Flowerdale Ct 3621 W Macarthur Blvd#108 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Las Vegas,NV 89103 Santa Ana,CA 92704 937 164 88 937 164 89 ,L t 937 164 90 Z ra 2 Dawn Arnold Craig Carstens Betty Hayashi 215 Wichi ve#206 215 Wichita Ave#207 215 Wichita Ave#208 Hun ' on Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 164 91 2 ,� 937 164 92 Z 9 937 164 93 Hans&Christa Boedeker Cynthia Alyce&Richard Ainslie Charles Ellis 10491 Cowan Heights Dr 3000 Country Club Dr 4939 Browndeer Ln Santa Ana,CA 92705 Glendale,CA 91208 Pls Vrds Pnsl,CA 90275 937 164 94 2ra 6 937 164 95 2 -7 937 164 96 Zee b Linda Masterton Robin Clark Keith Hopkins&Lisa Watson 215 Wichita Ave#304 215 Wichita Ave#305 215 Wichita Ave#306 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 164 97 Z a 937 164 98 Z 9 0 937 164 99 Z q 1 John Graeff Howard Jay Frantz&Miri Frantz Richard Winkle 215 Wichita Ave#307 31 Whitewood Way 115 Irvine Cove Ct Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Irvine,CA 92612 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 937 165 00 937 165 01 2 9 3 937 165 02 Z q 9 Jeffrey Blesener Anthony Kubis Jr. Douglas Whitney 21152 Shaw Ln 861 Victoria St 215 Wichita Ave#404 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 03 2 q 5 937 165 04 2 q.6 937 165 05 Z 4-7 Linda Ogan Cleo Turner&Cleo Family Turner Carl Edmund Ball&Valerie Lynn John 215 Wichita Ave#405 215 Wichita Ave#406 3615 Walnut Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long Beach,CA 90807 937 165 06 Z g eb 937 165 07 2 q q 937 16508 3,50 Alexander Khurgel Gary&Dallas Day Jeannie Dimalanta 215 Wichita Ave#408 215 Wichita Ave#409 NO STREET NAME or NUMBER Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,CA �� A' ERW Address Labels Laser 5960TM • Smooth Feed SheetsTm Use template for 51600 937 f 65 09 3 o l 937 165 10 3 p 2 937 165 11 303 Sange Gupta Rosa Mahin&Branda Camargo Rochw Robert Dunn 215 Wichita Ave 215 Wichita Ave#503 215 Wichita Ave#504 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 12 3OA 937 165 13 306 937 165 14 Sob Ernest Goldberg&Nancy Goldberg George Woodley&Janice Woodley Wan Ho 20171 Big Bend Ln 17051 Marina Bay Dr 18863 Jeffrey Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Cerritos,CA 96703 937 165 15 3 0'1 937 165 16 3 og 937 165 17 3 c q Chart Assawapimonpora Jennifer Leicht Christopher Cattle 215 Wichita Ave#508 215 Wichita Ave#601 PO Box 61 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 18 3 t o 937 165 19 3 11 937 165 20 3 12 Frank Fiorillo Sr.&Gloria J Fiorillo James Simmons Dorothy Gillespie 17741 Falkirk Ln 215 Wichita Ave#604 17812 Quintana Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 937 165 21 3 3 937 165 22 3 1 ,q 937 16523 3 1S Nanette Markham Nestor Vargas ! Jeffrey Alan Page 215 Wichita Ave#606 215 Wichita Ave#607 215 Wichita Ave#608 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 24 3 1(* 937 165 25 3 t 937 165 26 3 t Dolores Dwyer Chester&Nancy Murch Debra Susan Rice 20601 Suburbia Ln 159 Orange Park 2323 Huntington St#703 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Redlands,CA 92374 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 27 3 1a 937 165 28 3 2 0 937 165 29 3 L 1 Anna Yamauchi Joan Elliott Laurel Freeman&Joshua&Chelsia Ca 2323 Huntington St 2323 Huntington St#705 15211 Newcastle Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 9371653.0 3 z Z 937 165 31 3 z 3 937 165 32 Z 3 9 Joseph&Rebeca Meneses Michael Galanos George Woodley&Janice Woodley 2323 Huntington St#707 2323 Huntington St#708 17051 Marina Bay Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 937 165 33 3 Z 5 937 165 34 -3 z G 937 16535 s Z 7 Scott Sternberg - Edward Knight Iii Melody Jane Guiv 2323 Huntington St#802 2323 Huntington St#803 2323 Huntin St#804 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hunting each,CA 92648 937 16536 3 Z 6 937 16537 937 16538 3 3 b Timothy Bridger Old Town Inc Kenneth Atherton 2323 Huntington St#805 12132 Topaz Cir 2323 Huntington St#807 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Garden Grove,CA 92845 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �� AVERYO Address Labels laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 937 165 39 3 3 937 165 40 3 3 2 937 165 41 33 3 Mary Haynes Ilene Green Robert Neal Wame 263 Chesterfield 2323 Huntington St#901 2323 Huntington St#902 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 42 3 3 4 937 165 43 g 5 937 165 44 3 g 6 Bert Green Rosti&Magda Vana William Correia&Vanessa Correia 6012 Point Loma Dr 2323 Huntington St.#1008 4191 Pierson Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 937 165 45 33.l 937 165 46 33� 937 165 47 3 9 Gayle Glenn Anthony Peter&Helen Raptis Kevin Boroff 2323 Huntington St#906 2323 Huntington St#907 2323 Huntington St#908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 48 SA a 937 165 49 3 4 937 165 50 Valencia Lorren Dennis John Piekarski Noriko Yoshioka 3 4 Z 2323 Huntington St#1001 7585 Ocean Point Ln 2323 Huntington St#1003 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937 165 51 14 937 165 52 3 4 4 937 165 53 a q S Deborah Moussafir Madeline Reynolds Karen Stees&Roland Salazar 2323 Huntington St#1004 2323 Huntington St#1005 2323 Huntington St#1006 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648. 937 165 54 �6 937 165 55 3 4 Ben Wolf&Judy Wolf 2323 Huntington St#1008 4214 Paseo De Plata Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Cypress,CA 90630 : i ` I SAVERY® Address labels laser 5960TM Wendy's Labels July 20,2000 "Northam Ranch Site" 023-010-19 2 025-024-06 14 �-----937-152-95 19 JACK LULOFS PLC ROBERT CASTILLO C/O THE COLTON CO 23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR SUITE 250 3320 TEMPE DRIVE 2301 CAMPUS DR STE 150 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660-7944 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649- IRVINE,CA 92612-1468 1919 937-153-06 30 937-153-13 37 937-153-17 41 FARZIN KAMKARI GREGORY ROWE JAMES CORBETT 11733 GOSHEN AVE#104 7136 TINBERVIEW DR 7371 COHO DR UNIT 103 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049-6144 DUBLIN,OH 43017-1019 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2428 937-153-20 44 937-153-21 45 937-153-22 46 JOHN R FRENCH VIRGINIA YEE AND MERRILL BARNES LORRAINE ELLEN MOYER 3800 TOPSIDE LN 7371 COHO DR#107 240 HIGHLAND LN CORONA DEL MAR,CA 92625-1626 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2428 BRYN MAWR,PA 19010-3709 937-153-34 58 937-153-47 71 937-153-71 95 CARL OLIPHANT LUCAS,ROBERT S VIII JOSEPH DAVIS C/O LEE KLEVANS 526 12TH ST 19352 BLUEFISH LN#101 7442 COHO DR#111 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-4034 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2436 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2431 937-153-74 98 937-153-76 100 937-153-90 114 BRUCE MCCOY GERALD MUHHOLLAND CHARLES RICHIE 19431 RANCH LN#102 19431 RANCH LN#104 7401 SEA BLUFF DR#106 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2442 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2433 937-154-0 0 124 937-154-02 126 937-154-13 133 TIMOTHY MISKO LESTER BLANCHARD THOMAS SMITH 10332 SCENIC CIR 7402 COHO DR UNIT 106 7371 SEABLUFF DR#101 CUPERTINO,CA 95014-2706 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2430 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 6431 937-154-16 136 937-154-27 147 937-160-91 169 RONALD VON FREYMAN GLADYS GRISWOLD IRVING NEWMAN 7540 58T" AVE NE 19501 RANCH LN#103 16312 MANDALAY CIR OLYMPIA,WA 98516-9305 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6435 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649- 2107 937-161- 10 188 937-161-29 202 937-161-30 203 DEREK ROBERT WIMMER KENNETH ROBERTS DENNIS TIERNEY 3171 EAGLES CT NE 17 HAGGERSTON AISLE 1250 PINE ST#100 CEDAR RAPIDS,IA 52402-2638 IRVINE,CA 92612-5732 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596-3633 I 3"t-IbI�c0 ru 112. Fh C2- f1C"fl�c�ek0. L:; h�1c� tit &Ckc0 , Ca z�x18 z�rs� 937-161-31 204' 937-161-33 206 937-161-35 208 JAY&MIMI PARK EDWARD&DORA YBARRA ARTHUR AND JUDY HENRY 19521 POMPANO LN#288 19521 POMPANO LN#106 19521 POMPANO LN#108 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 937-161-38 211 937-161-39 212 937-161-43 216 FREDERICK MAYER ROBERT EGGINK GLENN RICHARDSON 19521 POMPANO LN#111 19521 POMPANO LN#112 19481 POMPANO LN#104 HUNTIGNTON BEACH, CA 92648-2480 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2480 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2479 937-161-47 220. 937-161-51 224 937-161-52 225 CHARLES WARNER JAMES BEARD MARILYN MOREIRA 19481 POMPANO LN#108 19481 POMPANO LN#112 19451 POMPANO LN#101 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2479 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2479 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2477 937-161-52 225 937-161-53 226 937-161-54 227 MARILYN MOREIRA RICKY WILLIAM SANFORD HOWARD REISS 19451 POMPANO LN )19451 POMPANO LN#102 19451 POMPANO LN#103 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2477 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648- 2477 937-161-55 228 937-161-60 233 937-161-63 236 CHANG JUI A HO LISA MICHELLE SCHREIMAN SANDRA HOYLE 19451 POMPANO LN#104 19451 POMPANO LN#109 19451 POMPANO LN#112 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2477 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2477 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2477 937-163-51 241 937-163-54 244 937-163-57 247 WILLIAM GRAFF STEPHN McBRIDE KENNETH STAHL 19562 POMPANO LN#106 19562 POMPANO#103 19581 POMPANO LN#108 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6406. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6406 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 6407 937-163-66 256 937-163-71 261 937-163-76 266 IGNACIO GUERRERO GEORGE OSCAR NEUMAN NIALL AND KAREN MOYNIHAN 19561 POMPANO LN#I I 1 19561 POMPANO LN#106 19561 POMPANO LN#107 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6405 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6405 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 6405 937-163-76 266 937-164-75 267 937-164-78 270 COY F BAUGH NIKHIL MEHTA IRWIN KANODE 19561 POMPANO LN 13528 LA SIERRA 17382 ALTA VISTA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-6405 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709-1325 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647- 6130 937-164-83 275 937-164-87 279 937-164-88 280 CHARLES DOUG WILLIAMS FRANK VITONIS DAWN ARNOLD 23690 HOMES AVE 215 WICHITA AVE#205 PO BOX 24042 NUEVO, CA 92567 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2876 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46224-0042 I i I 937-165-01 293 937-165-08 300 937-165-09 301 ANTHONY JAMES JR KUBIS JEANNIE REYES DIMALANTA SANGREETA RANI GUPTA 9332 VELARDO DR 215 WICHITA AVE#501 215 WICHITA AVE#502 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-2315 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2879 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- _ 2879 _ 937-165-20 312 937-165-21 314 937-165-25 317 DOROTHY EILEEN GILLESPIE DAVID TSONG CHESTER E MURCH III 215 WICHITA AVE#605 20381 CRAIMER LN 1630 MARION RD HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648-2879 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-5414 REDLANDS, CA 92374-6300 937-165-27 319 937-165-35 327 937-165-39 331 ANNA YAMAUCHI MELODY JANE GUIVER MARY HAYNES 2323 HUNTINGTON ST#704 8802 LUSS DR 2405 VISTA NOBLEZA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-2817 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646-2230 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660- 3546 - 937-165-45 337 937-165-46 339 937-165-55 347 GAYLE GLENN KEVIN BOROFF ROSTI VANA 13829 CHERRY AVE 40 VIA DI NOLA 2323 HUNTINGTON ST#1008 CHINO,CA 91710-7405 LAGUNA NIGUEL,CA 92677-9008 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648- 2862 i ' PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS -January 13, 1999 President ] Huntington Har CIA 10 ;FANLS 16 H.B.Chamber of Commerce P.O.Box 7 s 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset ach,CA 90742 Castlewood Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 tington Beach,CA 92648 Judy Legaa William D.Holman 1 Sue Johnson 16 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC 19671 ay Lane 25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 Hun ' on Beach,CA 92648 Laguna His,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Edna Littlebury 17 Amigos 'Bolsa Chica New Urban West Glda St Mob.Hm.Owners Leag. 1653 olsa Chica Street,Suite 312` 520 Broadway Ste. 100 11021 Magnolia Blvd. tiagton Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Garden Grove,CA 92642 Sunset Beach Community Assoc. A Pres.,H.B.Hist Society 13 Pacific Coast Archae gical 18 Pat Thies President C/O Newland House Museum Socie ,Inc. , ty, - PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O.Box 6 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Costa sa,CA 92627 A .Jane Gothold President �.� Community Services Dept. 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow i Chairperson �% Michael M.Ruane;Dir. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Julie Vaad ost 6 Council on Agin 15 County of Oran 19 BIA-OC 1706 Oran ve. Thomas Ma s 9 Exe 'tive Circle#100 Hun tia a Beach,CA 92648 P.O.Bo 48 I e Ca 92714-6734 Santa a,CA 92702-4048 Rich�Si 7 >H * tzel 16 Planning Dep t 19 SCA H Orange Co MA8182th Floor ady Harbor Circle P.O.Bo 48 Angeles,CA 90017 ton Beach,CA 92648 Santa a;CA 92702-4-48 . i - - -- i E.T.L Corral 100 '�8 John Roe 16 County of O ge/EMA 19 Mary BeII Seacliff HO Tim 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 S e Lane P.O. ox 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Hun�agtoa Beach,CA 92648 S Ana,CA 92702-4048 John Scandura 9 Lou Mannone 16: Planning Dir. 20 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOk-� City of Costa esa 17492 Valeworth Circle 19821 can Bluff Circle P. O.Bo 00 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 H gtoa Beach CA 92648 Costa esa,CA 92628-1200 h1angel:phlbl PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS - January 13, 1999 Pi 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Country View states HOA 3 Ci f Fountain Valley HB City Elementary School Dist Carrie Tho as 200 Slater Ave. PO Box 71 6642 Tr er Drive Fouataia Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Hun ' on Beach CA 92648 Planning Dire r 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View E tes HOA 3 City of W ster HB City Elementary School Dist Gerald Cha an 8200 stminster Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shir ircle W ster,CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Hun' t)n Beach CA 92648 Planning Direc 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamp tons HOA _ Cityof Se each Ocean View Elementary Keystone Pacific P P.Man t Inc. �Y ys P b'm 211 Ei St School district 16845 Von an Avenue,Suite 20 Se each,CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Irvine,CA 9 06 Huntington Beach CA 92647 California Coastal sion 24 Barbara Wmars U3�1 Sally Graham Theresa Henry i Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Co a Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding G e 200 O gate,SOth Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington ach,CA 92649 Lo each,CA 92802-4302 Califomia Co Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 / Cheryle Browning South Co a Office HB Union High School Disrict / Meadowlark Are 200�O gate,loth Floor 10251 Yoiktown Avenue 16771 Roose t Lane Lo each,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huatiagto each,CA 92649 . Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 CA Coastal Communities,Inc. Caltrdns Dis 'ct 12 730 El Camino Way#200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3347 Mi on Drive,Suite 100 Tustin,CA 92680 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvin 92612-0661 Director 26 Goldenwest Coll 34 Bolsa Chica Land rust Local Solid W to Ea£Agy. Att a:Fred s Nancy Donov O.C.Heal Care Agency 15744 Go eawest St 4831 Lo�nBeach. P.O.B 355 Hun' on Beach CA 92647 Hun tin CA 92649 San Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 27 OC County H rs,Beach 35 Bolsa Chica Land t' Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks D t Paul Horgan, esident 6771 Wamer Ave. P.O.Bo 48 207-211,S et Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa a,CA 92702-4048 Hun' on Beach,CA 92648 Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Be Mall 36 SEHBNA Fountain Valley Atta Pat Ro -Lau 22032 Cap' o Lane Elementary School District 7777 E • r Ave.#300 Huntin a Beach,CA 92646-8309 11210 Oak Street _ Hun' on Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 h:langei..phlbl NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF June 13 , 2000 Date of Planning Commission Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 6-2 3-0 0 City Attorney (1 copy) FILED BY PLC Land Company 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 REGARDING: Appleal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 . Tentative Date for Public Hearing: To be Determined Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 e 2000 JUN 2 3 P 4. 3 bb June 23, 2000 Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 Dear Connie: PLC Land Company appeals the actions taken by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2000 to deny the above-referenced applications. Our grounds for appeal are as follows: 1. The density of the proposed subdivision (17 single family lots / 4.82 acres) is 3.5 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. Contrary to the findings for denial, we believe the project is compatible with the adjacent development, as evidenced by the June 12, 2000 letter of support from the Pacific Ranch Homeowners Association. 2. Staff has suggested that cluster housing or reduced lot sizes be considered as a means of preserving existing trees and topography of the property. The small site has a 40-foot elevation difference. Either type of housing (cluster or small lot) would still require substantial grading of the site for proper compaction of roads, slopes, residential pads and to provide adequate drainage. The site cannot be graded for development without impacting the majority of trees onsite. The design of the proposed subdivision is intended to reduce visual impacts from the existing Pacific Ranch townhomes to the north by lowering the higher portions of the site adjacent to the townhomes, and to provide an attractive, landscaped slope along the Yorktown Avenue frontage facing City Hall. A plan for the preservation, relocation and/or 2:1 replacement of onsite trees has been prepared for the project, in compliance with the EIR mitigation measures. 3. The staff-recommended Alternative 2 is not an acceptable alternative for the reasons stated in my March 6, 2000 letter (copy attached). The only feasible alternative for complete preservation of the existing topography and trees is City acquisition of the site. Based on our previous discussions with staff, we do not believe this is likely, however, if there has been a change in this position, we would like to know. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 9240 949.729.1214 Facsimile IC PLC respectfully requests that a public hearing be scheduled for the City Council to.consider this proj ect. Very truly yours, William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Enclosures cc: Mayor David Garofalo and City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Wendy Nowak, Assistant Planner .Chris Gibbs Daren Groth 2 Ic ON March 6, 2000 Ms. Wendy Nowak, Assistant Planner Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 15689,Northam House Site Dear Wendy: On February 23, 2000,the Subdivision Committee continued action on the above application and requested PLC to respond to the staff-recommended Alternative 2, which attempts to preserve existin" trees in the center of the site by relocating the proposed cul-de-sac and reducing the number of lots from 17 to 10. I have reviewed this recommendation with our civil engineer and find the alternative practically and economically infeasible for the following reasons: l. Site Access. Grades and Required Slopes The existing site ranges in elevation from a low point of 52 feet, at the corner of Yorktown Avenue and Ranch Lane, to a high point of 90 feet. Yorktown Avenue also rises ten feet in elevation from east to west. Access to the site from Seabluff Drive is at elevation 70, which is ten feet higher than Yorktown at the west edge of the tract. The majority of the vacant site drains generally to the south. The closest existing public storm drain inlet is on the north side of Yorktown in the median of Ranch Lane. All storm drains within the Pacific Ranch development are private and are neither available nor sized to accommodate the proposed tract. In order for the proposed development to sheet drain properly to this inlet by way of Seabluff Drive and Yorktown Avenue, the cul-de-sac is designed to climb slightly from west to east, about four feet, to a finish elevation of 74 feet, or 20 feet higher than Yorktown at the east side. The proposed residential lots provide flat pad areas generally one to two feet above the proposed cul-de-sac grade so lot drainage is directed to the street. Drainage from the perimeter slopes and common areas will be collected in a smaller landscape drain at the southeast corner of the tract. PLC's proposed design provides for a 24-50 foot wide landscaped slope facing Yorktown Avenue (maximum 2:1 slope). This slope is held back from the existing sidewalk to preserve six existing Canary Palms and four other trees along Yorktown. This slope is also proposed to accommodate a significant number of the 2:1 replacement trees required 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 254 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92660 949.729.1214 Facsimile a isic by the recommended project mitigation measures and provide an attractive, professionally maintained setback area along Yorktown. Alternative 2 recommends realigning the central portion of the cul-de-sac to the south by sixty feet and prohibiting development on the portion of the site generally above 75 feet in elevation, or roughly 40 percent of the property. Alternative 2, however, does not take into account the existing grade differential on the site. The 10 to 20 feet of grade differential between Yorktown Avenue and the proposed cul-de-sac must be taken up somewhere. As a result, Alternative 2 as recommended.is infeasible, as only two of the lots are buildable: • Lots 5-8 are of insufficient depth to accommodate the slope along Yorktown and still be plotted with standard homes with the required front and rear yard setbacks • Lot 3 is too narrow and does not account for any slope or separation from Seabluff Drive, nor preserving the six existing Canary Palms • Lot 10, if plotted as shown, would require a massive retaining wall to provide adequate depth for a home • Lots 1 and 2 in Alternative 2 are also too short and narrow to accommodate the homes proposed 2. Disposition of Grove As proposed by PLC, the project would result in 17 single family residential lots, with a homeowner's association created to maintain the private cul-de-sac and perimeter landscape areas. The area of perimeter landscaping is one-half acre, which is significant for a subdivision of only 17 lots. We have prepared a.revised Landscape Concept Plan to comply with proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, by which 25 of the existing trees would be preserved in place onsite and 55 existing trees would be relocated onsite or within Tract 15688 immediately east of the site. A total of 54 trees impacted by grading would be replaced with the same species at a 2:1 ratio within the landscaped portions of the site. Twelve full-size prints and a reduction of this plan and a summary matrix are enclosed with this letter. Although they were too small to be included in the Pacific Rim Tree Survey, we have also committed to preserving an existing hedge of Ficus benjamina trees located along the north tract boundary adjacent to the Pacific Ranch development to help screen the existing townhomes. These are in addition to the six existing Canary Palms to be preserved along this edge. We estimate the cost to implement this landscape plan will exceed $450,000,which is an extraordinary cost for a 17-lot subdivision. Alternative 2, which would prohibit development on 40 percent of the site, does not address future ownership or long term maintenance of the "historic grove." As you 2 f IMIC ON know, we cooperated with the City for nearly a year to investigate the possibility of City acquisition of this property through City purchase or exchange for a City-owned property of equivalent value. The City Administrator determined that purchase of the site was not feasible. We have also incurred considerable costs trying to secure the site and the abandoned house from vandalism during the City's lengthy EIR and development review process. The EIR also found the alternatives of City purchase of the site or dedication of the site to the City for park purposes to be infeasible. Likewise, Alternative 2 should also be considered infeasible because there is no identified, desirable or feasible plan for long- term public ownership and maintenance of the site, nor is development of only 60 percent of the site with a reduced number of lots that do not accommodate the proposed homes. The PLC proposal provides for preservation in place of a significant number of existing I trees, and relocation or 2:1 replacement of the balance of trees as recommended by the EIR. Whereas the in-place and relocated trees will be readily visible to the public from Yorktown Avenue, the long-term maintenance will be provided by a private homeowner's association at no cost to the public. We would like the EIR and Tentative Tract Map presented to the full Planning Commission at the next available study session so that we might reach a consensus on direction for this property. Please call me if you have any questions or require additional prints of the revised plans. Very truly yours, William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Enclosures cc: Gerald Chapman, Planning Commission Chairman Mary Beth Broeren Dave Walden Chris Gibbs Daren Groth EXISTING PERIMETER TREE LEGEND / ^ FENCING TO REMAIN EXISTING FICUS HEDGE ? ' ta -,I �Q„ `•.` (1 TO REMAIN Ph—Ix caiu 1l 1, CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM — A1GrN� �•CQ J 1` �� O -..N—moll. CALIFORNIA PEPPER LCN ` Fal IUaahl jlonla robueW MEXICAN FAN PALM E EucehJpWs gbbulw TAZh1ANIAN BLUE Glll'1 Q Lagunarla pelleraonll EVENING PRIMROSE J ��•�\` � O F.——11n1— CAROLINA CHERRY NEW ENTRY PILASTER era` `W L m BOTTLE TREE EXISTING PERIMETER ® rn PAP' oos I / FENCING TO REMAIN O Eryu.ba ca - KAFI IN6,FIG CORAL EXISTING MEDIAN ® EXISTING VEGETATION ® Flcua brnJamlrm LLEEPING FIG' TO REMAIN ® ��� ® TO REMAIN ® Flcua akide LAUREL INDIAN FIG ® ® Plram cenerlrnals CANARY I5LAD PINE ecceml lr.. TO BE SELECTED IREE STAT_4.5_LET `7' ----------- REPLACE AT 2:1 RATIO ��/% ---- ` •RELOCATE ON SITE ® i ____� 1� •EXISTING TO REMAIN INPLACE - IlN o RELOCATE FROM TRACT 15689 TO TRACT 156" z - u - z \. \ ___l EXISTING PERIMETER / WALL TO REMAIN -- • --PROJECT THEME . � m STREET TREE �-�� � ] J.• .....-.-...__....______ L GUEST PARKING J L r %,�LAWN AREA SHRUB PLANTING .. NEW 5'-6"PERIMETER WALL i NEW 5'-6"PERIMETER WALL ON TOP OF NEW 3'-0"= _ RETAINING WALL - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ �- - -NEW PERIMETER WALL --NEW VIEW FENCE NEW VIEW FENCE- EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING WALL EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN-..,. TO REMAIN NEW VIEW FENCE NEW ENTRY------ TRACT NO. 1.5688 AND 15689 PILASTERS LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PLC Land Company ecnsuesY xao• srv.r.Asnl c,Tam SCALE: I'=40'-0' PLC - Tract 15689 Tree Summary Quantity to remain Quantity to be Quantity to Onsite as Relocated on be relocated Quantity to be Quantity Total Existing Existing Tract site Tract on site Tract replaced on site @ 2:1 -36" Species Botanical Species Common Name Quantity 1 15689 1 15689 11 15688 1 Tract 15689 Box Size) Phoenix canariens_is Canary Island Date_Palm 73 18 45 10 Schinus molle — California Pepper 24 24 48 2 - Washington robu_sta Mexican Fan Palm 17 2 _ — _ 15 _ --. 4 30 3 Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian Blue Gum 4 2 — 2 — 4 4 Lagunaria pattersonii Evening Primfose 4 4 8 5 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry 5 5 — — 10 _ 6 Brachyton populneus Bottle Tree 2 2 7 Erythrina caffra Kafirboom Coral 2 1 1 2 8 Ficus benjamina_ Weeping Fig _ 2 2 _ 4 - 9 Washington filifera`; California Fan Palm 1 1 2 10 Totals 134 25 45 10 54 108 We may propose to replace these with Washingtonia robusta FORM\ w:\clients\plc196413\excei\treematrix.xls 317/00 __ . Connie Brockway, City Clerk �`��� ✓,. o�• City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk t` P.O. Box 190 �U .t�-i AN1G•,3 n Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .. . (per• S SU' AD �- 02301018 2 �RFS, Plc I M6Tpy 221134 Main St ,.,iuntington Beach,CA 92648 rs �plINTY LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING S16 4b Pu1AP IIII!lIIIIIII!{IlIJIIIII lit if III Iif lit IiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILd Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 iy--�l ou 937 165 08 Jeannie Dimalanta NO STREET NAME or NUMBER ING CA R /,57 54,6,01 co 7 NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ON Clerk y Brockway,City Connie ton Beach of Hunting V _ City Clerk is of the city r �,.,� fyc. i i r'f1U Off P.O.Box 1g0 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 280937-164-88 • 'DAWN ARNOLD PO BOX 24042 IN 46224-0042 INDIANAPOLIS, lAg4 20 08/16/00 � ���ZINGTOjj/� ARNO042 REµTURNµTO SENDER ; =` yfo.= ARNOLD UNABOE TOO 9ENDERO RETURN TO v _ ,n,.lilt llli,,,,l:I,li f�OUNT� �a LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLICHI J Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach f1 u x r t �.U iV Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 G pROER J Huntington Beach, CA 92648UwCI OFORNIARDF T ADDRESS O SUCH NUtJtB - .`',.� `.,��..�=.•� j3 r,TYF�:',�jFD Ur�T�pC`LE f _ .. 937 163 66 NO MAIL REFUSED 2 5 G f1Sec Veterans Affair VACANT C 19561 Pompano Ln V111 �N1ING Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �oy-'UCH ca .— - - CM FT LEGAL N ICE- PUBLIC HEARING . II1111{11{�Illlit�fii{1lllllltllfllllllFtl�llitlllll�titlilttl s N n NORTHAM COURT Nam. T Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 Project Proposal • Location: North side of Yorktown Avenue between Main Street and Lake Street • Tentative Tract Map: Subdivide 4.8 acres into 17 single family lots: • 6300 to 9500 square foot lots • Removal of the remaining Northam Ranch House structures • Removal/relocation of 134 mature trees • Substantial grading to level the site 1 I Project Proposal (cont*'d.) • Conditional Use Permit: • PUD requesting reduced lot width (50' in lieu of 60' minimum) • Construct 9' high wall in lieu of maximum W high wall • Grading on the site Background • June 13, 2000 - Planning Commission certified EIR No. 99-2 for the project but denied Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit • Appeal was filed by the applicant on June 23, 2000 2 Appeal • Appellant asserts: • Project is compatible with adjacent development • An alternate housing product would still require substantial grading of the site • The site cannot be graded without impacting the majority of the trees on-site Appeal (cont.) • Subdivision is designed to reduce visual impact to Pacific Ranch by lowering higher portions of the site • Alternative No. 2 identified in the EIR is not a feasible alternative because of issues related to site access, grades, and required slopes 3 i Analysis • Inconsistent with General Plan policies: • Does not preserve open space area by clustering residential units • Does not maintain visual quality of City's natural landforms • Does not maintain natural topographic characteristics of the site Analysis (cont.) • Tree relocation plan proposed, but is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan • Incompatible with surrounding land uses (Pacific Ranch Townhomes, Seacliff Office Park, and Civic Center) • Non-compliance with Zoning Code • Project needs to terrace with the existing grade 4 Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation • Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15689 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-53 based on the following: • Project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan • Project can be designed to be more sensitive to the existing topography and vegetation (e.g. different housing product, realign cul-de-sac) • Project results in significant environmental impacts END OF PRSENTATION 5 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication ti :z _. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR DAVID GAROFALO & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY COUNCILMEMBER PAM JULIEN G •r:: 1> SUBJECT: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST—ITEM D-2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2000 DATE: AUGUST 21, 2000 This memo is to disclose a potential conflict of interest relating to the property I own at 1917 Pine Street. It appears that the location of Item D-2 on tonight's City Council agenda is within 2500 feet of my property. Since the project may have a material financial effect on the value of my property, I will not be participating in the decision on this item. L�/YYl PAM JULIENP�_L�� City Councilmember cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator G*2000memos:Julien 8-21 MAYOR'S STATEMENT PRIOR TO CHOOSING WHICH COUNCILMEMBER WILL PARTICIPATE IN ITEM D-2 PURSUANT TO RULE OF NECESSITY Since three councilmembers have declared a conflict of interest on this item, we must randomly select one of the disqualified councilmembers to participate pursuant to the Rule of Necessity, FPPC Regulation 18708. This is required because there are only . six councilmembers in attendance tonight, and a minimum of four councilmembers is required in order to take action. 77U .c�i2�- Xz-A+ e� three folded sheets of paper, which have been stapled so that they are not readable. One sheet of paper has the word "PARTICIPATE" written on it. Two sheets of paper have the word "ABSTAIN" written on them. Each disqualified councilmember will choose a piece of paper. The councilmember that draws the paper with the word "PARTICIPATE" written on it will participate in the decision pursuant to the rule of necessity. A simple majority of the quorum is sufficient to act on this item. Each disqualified councilmember will now draw a piece of paper. lam , -------------- Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach op Office of the City Clerk THIS IS A MULTI-'Nil ADDRESS P.O. Box 190 9 All MAIL MUStA ADO'ESSED,T J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 " " t A SPECIFIC AnvR UNI;F NUMBER i C UNDELIVERABLEAETUR O SENDER ►�!1 _ fir_:±11: �_'•;, 937 161 51 James&Margaret Cheney Beard 2 2 q 19481 Pompano Ln IN6tpy �� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �O =�� 1►f �� E7 Uqy to.Eo s . 11 eeNoe� o ==--= - p WARDING ORDER EXPIRED INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS fin � O c� O SUCH NUMBER eti eTTt1UDTrn IINKNnYM i �ONNTY �p�\ LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLI IIfRt '�{�'�I�14'P,�,,. , ,.:,.;� li�l�,,,i�ifii���i�,1.i��l�ii���,,,i{i�i„il„�1,1„i1,�F,�i�il ��►,,;��