Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Smull, Lester - Business Properties Partnership - Appeal to
i PROOF OF SERVICE OF PAPERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. . COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6, on September 20, 2002, 1 served the foregoing documents(s) described as: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed As follows: Lester Smull 17631 Fitch Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 a. [X] BY MAIL -- I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Huntington Beach, California. I am "readily familiar"with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in the affidavit. b. ( ] BY MAIL -- By depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at Huntington Beach, California, addressed to the address shown above. c. [ ] BY DELIVERY BY HAND to the office of the addressee. d. [ ] BY PERSONAL DELIVERY to the person(s) named above. e. [ ] BY FAX TRANSMISSION to No. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 20, 2002, at Huntington Beach, California. AS' glfollowup/appeal/llproof of service letterll.doc REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Lester Smull, 17631 Fitch Ave., Irvine, CA 92614 Location: 10156 Adams Avenue (Southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams .Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 represent a request to operate a daycare facility at the subject site for a maximum of 88 children between the ages of 6 weeks to 6 years of age. The proposed hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The daycare facility is closed on the weekends. The applicant is proposing a total of five classrooms within the subject 5,525 square foot suite including a reception area, two offices, and a teacher's workroom. A total of nine employees, including administrative staff and caregivers will be employed at the facility. The request also includes occupying an existing parking area adjacent to the subject suite with a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area. The proposed play area will be enclosed by a six-foot decorative block wall, which will eliminate 16 existing parking spaces. The proposed outdoor play area is setback approximately 58 feet to the east property line and approximately 53 feet to the south property line. The play area will contain play equipment measuring approximately 12-feet in total height at its highest point. The proposed play equipment will be setback approximately 69 feet from the east property line and approximately 109 feet to the south property line. Step by Step has been operating at the closed Burke School site located at 9700 Levee Drive since 1988. The school site permitted a maximum of 204 children based on its size and available facilities. The daycare is vacating the school as a result of a new lease agreement between the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Christian School, which will occupy the entire school site. A condition of approval for Huntington Christian School allowed the daycare to remain at the Burke School site for a total of sixty days in order to give Step by Step the opportunity to seek approval of a conditional use permit. The sixty days will expire on September 23, 2002. The applicant is requesting a total reduction of 28 parking spaces. The reduction is based on the current and proposed mix of uses within the center and the proposed elimination of 16 parking spaces to allow for the outdoor play area. The applicant has conducted on-site parking counts and an analysis of uses to justify the parking variance. The staff of Step by Step held a community meeting on July 22, 2002 at the closed Burke School site. According to the applicant, flyers were hand carried by the applicant to 80 residential properties within the residential neighborhood to the south and east of the subject site. There were two adjacent property owners in attendance and they expressed concern regarding the potential increase in noise as a result of the outdoor play area. 10156 Adams(Step by Step Daycare)-Appeal -3- 9/5/2002 9:27 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On August 13, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed project. There were a total of three persons who testified in favor of the proposed project and 12 persons who testified in opposition to the daycare center. Neighborhood residents who testified in opposition to the block wall cited several concerns including the potential for excessive noise created by the outdoor play area, the increase in traffic based on the drop-off and pick-up of children, and the cumulative increase in traffic to surrounding arterials. Representatives of the daycare center who testified in favor of the project indicated that most daycare facilities are located adjacent to residential neighborhoods and that Step by Step would be a good neighbor to the adjacent residents by keeping noise to a minimum in the outdoor play area. The Planning Commission concurred with the residents who opposed the project and denied the project based on the potential noise impacts to adjacent residential properties, the 28- space parking variance including the elimination of 16 parking spaces within the parking area, and the cumulative increase in traffic on surrounding arterials. D. APPEAL: On August 21, 2002, the applicant, Lester Smull, appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the project citing that the recommendation in the staff report should have been followed. The appellant also indicated that additional information would be provided to refute the findings for denial made by the Planning Commission. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The primary issues to consider when analyzing this project are the proposed parking variance and land use compatibility of the outdoor play area with adjacent single-family residences. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues: Parking Variance Section 231.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requires that the total requirement for off-street parking be calculated by each separate use within the shopping center. The table below provides the current mix of uses within the shopping center and the respective parking ratios for each use. Two restaurants, Denny's and the Moulin Rouge, account for 23 percent of the total required parking on-site. Denny's restaurant is open 24 hours a day and Moulin Rouge is open on Tuesday through Sunday from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. These restaurants attract more patronage in the evenings and weekends compared to the hours of operation of the proposed daycare use, which is open Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and closed on the weekends. Since the proposed daycare use does not operate on weekends and divergent PL02-31.DOC -4- 9/5/2002 1:26 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 parking needs exist on-site based on the mix of uses and hours of operation, staff is in support of the proposed parking variance. The following table summarizes the existing on- site uses and their respective parking requirements including the proposed daycare use: EXISTING USE w BUILDING AREA CODE PARKING 3 e _ (Sq Ft.) :- PROVISION' SPACES { - REQUIRED Retail 97,535 1/200 s . ft. 487.67 Restaurant (more than 12 17,680 1/100 sq. ft. 176.80 seats Office 11,685 1/250 s . ft. 46.74 Medical 4,386 1/175 s . ft. 25.06 Proposed Daycare 5,525 1 space per 14 classroom 1 space per staff TOTAL 136,811 750 Total Parking Lot Spaces 722 rv - ow28spaW - deficiency `At The requested parking variance represents a 28-space (4 percent) reduction in required parking. In order to analyze the existing parking utilization within the shopping center, the applicant performed parking counts spanning three days on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The following table represents the results of these parking counts: DafeXof Study ATlme of Number of vailabld' arkiA (7�38 d-- Stucl Vehicles Total Tuesday (7/30/02) 10:30 a.m. 226 vehicles 512 parking spaces 3:45 p.m. 257 vehicles 481 parking spaces Wednesday (7/31/02) 11:15 a.m. 243 vehicles 495 parking spaces 5:00 p.m. 237 vehicles 501 parking spaces Thursda 8/1/02 8:00 a.m. 119 vehicles 619 parking spaces The results of the parking counts indicate a large surplus in available parking spaces throughout the entire day. Staff conducted independent parking counts to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the applicant. The proposed location of the daycare facility and outdoor play area is in an underutilized area of the shopping center and the outdoor play area occupies a parking area that is inconvenient to the majority of patrons of the businesses. According to the applicant, the majority of the children are dropped off between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and afternoon pickup generally occurs between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The parking counts show that there is a large surplus of available parking throughout the day, and particularly during the early morning hours. Staff is in support of the proposed parking variance based on the parking analysis which indicates a large surplus of available parking currently on the subject site. 10156 Adams(Step by Step Daycare)-Appeal -5- 9/5/2002 9:27 AM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires the applicant to record a covenant with the County of Orange agreeing to return the parking area, occupied by the proposed outdoor play area, back to its original condition upon termination of the daycare use. The intent of this condition is to increase the number of parking spaces at the time when the daycare use ceases, and eliminate the play area enclosure, which would be unnecessary for a new tenant occupying the building subsequent to the daycare use. The applicant has indicated that this requirement is also a condition of.the lease agreement between Step by Step and the property owner. Outdoor Play Area The 6,000 square foot outdoor play area will be fully enclosed by a six-foot block wall with a section of wrought iron fence located adjacent to the subject suite, to allow parents to view their children in the play area and to allow surveillance into this area. The single family homes to the south of the subject site are separated from the play area by a six to eight-foot block wall, a row of parking (19' stall depth), a 34-foot wide drive aisle, and a three-foot wide landscape planter. The residences to the east are separated from the play area by an eight- foot block wall, a ten-foot wide landscape planter, 29-foot wide drive aisle, a row of parking (19' stall depth), and a three-foot landscape planter. With the three-foot wide planter recommended by staff, the total separation from the residences to the east is approximately 61 feet and 56 feet from the south property line. The applicant is proposing to include outdoor play equipment within the enclosed area with a maximum height of approximately 12-feet at its highest point. The proposed play equipment will be setback approximately 69 feet from the east property line and approximately 109 feet to the south property line. The applicant indicates that the maximum number of children in the outdoor play area at any one time would not exceed 36 children. Two classes at a time would be allowed to use the play area between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The outdoor play area will not impact on-site circulation and all drive aisle widths and remaining parking areas will remain the same. In many projects where noise is a potential problem, a common condition would require a block wall be constructed as a sound barrier. A six to eight-foot wall already exists on the subject site, and the applicant is proposing a second six-foot block wall around the perimeter of the play area, which will act as an additional sound barrier to adjacent single-family homes. With the recommended conditions of approval, proposed separation, and sound attenuation of two block walls, the proposed daycare use will be compatible with adjacent single family homes. Staff is recommending modifications to the proposed location of the block wall enclosure. The modification is to relocate the proposed block wall enclosure three feet inward to allow additional landscaping and trees to be planted directly in front of the block wall. The Citywide Design Guidelines encourage landscaping adjacent to walls to aesthetically enhance the appearance of the wall surface. In addition, the landscape planter area would allow for additional trees to provide shade for children in the play area and screening from adjacent single family homes. Appeal: 10156 Adams(Step by Step Daycare)-Appeal -6- 9/5/2002 9:27 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 The appeal letter submitted by the applicant indicates that additional information will be provided to refute the findings made by the Planning Commission for the denial of the project. The appliant will present a sound study and additional information regarding traffic at the subject site to the City Council. This information was not provided to the Planning Commission and was not included in this report. The applicant has indicated that it would not be available for inclusion in the staff report, however, staff will report the findings of the additional studies to the City Council during the presentation at the public hearing. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act since it involves the leasing and minor alteration to an existing private structure in an already urbanized area. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page . Description 1. Suggested Findings for Denial (PC Recommendation) 2. Suggested Findings & Conditions of Approval (Staff Recommendation) 3. Appeal Letter to City Council dated August 21, 2002 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 13, 2002 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 13, 2002 RCA Author: PD/HF 10156 Adams(Step by Step Daycare)-Appeal -7- 9/5/2002 9:27 AM • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • 1.0 INTRODUCTION • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center (Step-by-Step Daycare) has submitted a • development application to the City of Huntington Beach (City or Lead Agency)for the purpose of • converting and expanding an existing non-residential building, located within an existing retail • commercial center in the City, to operate a daycare facility. Step-by-Step Daycare currently • operates at an existing facility within the City (i.e., 9700 Levee Drive) but must relocate from that • location based on the loss of its existing lease. • In response to public comments submitted to the City's Planning Commission during a noticed • public hearing on August 13,2002, Business Properties Development Company, owners of the • existing retail commercial center in which the project is now proposed, have contracted with an independent environmental consulting firm(i.e., Environmental Impact Sciences)forthe purpose of • assessing the potential noise impacts that would likely result from the approval of the proposed • development application. Environmental Impact Sciences (EIS), author of this report, recently • completed a detailed acoustical analysis for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, located on the site of the former Rancho View Elementary School, and is familiar with the noise • requirements and policies of the City. • As proposed, Step-by-Step Daycare would undertake improvements to an existing 5,525t square • foot non-residential building to accommodate the specialized needs of a maximum 90 students. In • addition, a 6,000± square foot outdoor "play area" would be created through the elimination of • existing at-grade parking located adjacent to the proposed use. In accordance with projections included in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition" (1997), • and based on a maximum of 90 students, the project is estimated to generate as many as 407 • vehicle trips per day. • The project site is located within the existing"Stater Bros. Market"commercial development at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue within the City. The proposed use will occupy an existing storefront located toward the east of the project site. The selected structure • actually includes four separate storefronts. The adjoining storefront includes a "Supercuts" hair salon. The"Huntington Beach Sewing Center"is located beyond the Supercuts. The unit proposed • for conversion and the unit located at the west end of the storefront are currently vacant. • • The areas to the east and south of the project site includes two-story, single-family detached • residential units. The distance from the rear of the proposed daycare center to the adjoining • residential property line is approximately 54t feet. The east wall of the existing retail commercial • center is approximately 129f feet west of the property line. These residences are separated from the project site by an 8-foot high masonry wall. These dwellings have rear-yard setbacks varying • from approximately 10 to 20 feet, providing further separation between the two land uses. • • The area to the west of the project site includes other storefronts within the existing retail • commercial center. Most notably, those uses include an existing "Stater Bros. Market" and its • associated loading dock. Structures to the north include commercial uses of various types. • 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND • • Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. • Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that • include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 1 • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become • the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The • decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. • Because sound pressure can vary by over one trillion time within the range of human hearing, a • logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and • manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire • spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum • human sensitivity in a process called "A-weighting,"written as dBA or dB(A). The human ear can • detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal conditions. Changes of • between 1 to 3 dBA are typically discernable under controlled, quiet conditions. Changes of less • than 1 dBA are usually not discemable. • Noise may be generated from a "point source" (e.g., a piece of construction equipment) or from a • "line source" (e.g., a road containing moving vehicles). Due to spreading losses, noise attenuates • (decreases)with distance. The typical atmospheric attenuation rate for point source noise is 6 dBA • per doubling of the distance as predicted by the equation: Attenuated dBA = 20 (log) measured • distance _reference distance. • A line source will also attenuates with increased distance, however, the rate of attenuation is a • function of both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Over"hard sites"(e.g. • developed areas with paving) noise attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance as • predicted by the equation:Attenuated dBA =10(log)measured distance=reference distance. Over • "soft sites" (e.g., undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas) noise attenuates more • rapidly at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance as predicted by the equation:Attenuated • dBA = 15 (log) measured distance i reference distance. The Orange County Environmental • Management Agency (OCEMA) emphasizes the use of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance for • traffic-generated noise. • These factors represent the extremes and most areas actually contain some combination of hard • site and soft site elements with the resulting noise attenuation placed somewhere in between these • two attenuation factors. • Physical objects that block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receptor attenuate the • noise source if the receptor is located within the "shadow" of the blockage (e.g., behind a sound • wall). If a receptor is located behind the wall but has a view of the source, the wall will do very little • to attenuate the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise • source may actually experience an increase in the perceived noise level as the wall will likely reflect • noise back to the receptor, thus compounding the noise. • • Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of the average energy over time • (called Leq) or, alternatively, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over • some fraction of a given observation period. For example,the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time(i.e.,half the time the noise level exceeds this level and • half the time the noise level is less than this level). This level is also representative of the level that • is exceeded 30 minutes in any given hour. Similarly, the L02, L08, and L25 represent the noise • levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, • respectively. These "L" values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise • sources with the City's noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a • noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root- • mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 2 • • • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • • Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening • and at night, State law requires that,for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to • quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the"Community Noise Equivalent Level" • (CNEL) or the"Day/Night Average Noise Level" (Ldn). In calculation of the CNEL, noise produced • between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM is penalized by 5 dBA; noise produced between 10:00 • PM and 7:00 AM is penalized by 10 dBA. Note that the night period also includes a portion of the morning (AM) rush hour. The penalty added to the night and morning rush hour typically raise the • CNEL to a level that is generally equivalent to or greater than the peak traffic hour's noise. The Ldn • is calculated in the same manner as the CNEL but no penalty is added to the period between 7:00 • PM and 10:00 PM. Both the CNEL and Ldn give about the same value with the CNEL being less • than 1 dBA greater. 3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE POLICIES • Many government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens • from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects often • associated with noise. Applicable standards and guidelines are separately discussed below. • • 3.1 Federal Noise Policies • • The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through • the Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA)underthe United States Environmental • Protection Agency(USEPA). Noise exposure of this type is dependant on work conditions and is addressed through a facility's Health and Safety Plan. Any site construction will be required to • operate under the contractor's Health and Safety Plan. Subsequent site use would, therefore, not • produce noise levels in excess of OSHA standards. • • The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a "goal" of 45 • dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units receiving HUD financial • assistance. While HUD does not specify acceptable exterior noise levels, standard construction techniques for residential dwellings, under those standards established under Title 24 of the • California Administrative Code (CAC), typically provide 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows • closed. Based on this premise, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. • • 3.2 California Noise Policies • The California Department of Health Services' (SDHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the • correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, the SDHS has • established four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses. The • types of land uses addressed by the SDHS and "acceptable" noise, by category are presented in • Figure 1 (California Department of Health Services—Office of Noise Control Standards). • • As indicated therein, noise in the "normally acceptable" category is generally acceptable with no • mitigation necessary. Noise in the"conditionally acceptable"category may require some mitigation • as established through a noise study. The "normally unacceptable" category would require • substantial mitigation while the"clearly unacceptable"category is probably not mitigable to a less- than-significant level. As noted in Figure 1 (California Department of Health Services — Office of • Noise Control Standards), there is some overlap between categories. • • • Environmental impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 3 • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn or CNEL, dS . LAND �yUSE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 60 • Residential-LOW density ;h\{.xl} 4ti'• • Single Family.Duphm Mobile Homes •A}: • ............................... ... .. Residential-Multiple Family `�^1r : Transient Lodging-Motels.No" ;; ti< { Schools,Libraries,Churches.Hospitals. Nursing Homes ------- -- --- Auditoriums.Concert Nall.Amphitheaters --------------------------------------------------- ---- ----- Sports Arena.Outdo Spectator Sports {•s? M sY 3:3.. R 4:i 4kir4ah or {{.o • Playgrounds.Neighborhood Parks Coll Courses.Wwq Stables,Watar Reueatlon,Cemetaries ------------------—---------------- -------- --- ----- -------- --- . I Office Buildings.Business.Commercial :: • and Professional ..*. ':�? ------------•------------------------. ----- - ----- ------------ Industrial.Manufacturing,Utilities. . Agtiadture-------------------------------- ----- --- •-- •«+:;a3��#<c?;8.• 55 60 65 70 75 80 LEGEND Normally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable • specold bad sw b sadasawy,basil upon ear asswpba dal Nw cros&mbn ar dswak: shuM gawasr bp dba- MM kd*1 s tnsbbnd w el neassl mwsbnal eemruaop mrsgaL g—masbwioa or ews.I -doss p�aoad-a . aibAou sny spsobl retss imestlon rsadraawes. dstsisd analrsb d an aoba uAaron rap,isawai aunt be ands ash asadsd east swbdoa Nabaq ieJudsd k tln dsdp aaor mum anal n. • w bs adMdsd. "m mraac4sa or g -.1 uat d=M be wdanwn a*after - a draesd sn.ydi d M adba wdadea waiaasrb b audsand- Cleary Unacceptable aasdad aaM Isossaen baYss bsdsdsd M gr dn*L n...m�ndon a dawbpors doutl gwwal,nor be ardar- tee a0 sdissd Nin o"wd boo ail film C.ornbuclbo mils b bska du Ydsor arMiowrnt • mCipM ar' er atr mil, - us I adoar stdrm. Q w=wl M u&A be pnbbba wd to*wd=arriwrwa wsYarsie a m saw aab►. v wtl as be assbb. • • Figure 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL STANDARDS Source:California Department of Health Services • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 4 • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • Applicable interior standards for new residential dwellings are governed by Title 24 of the CAC. • These standards require that,an acoustical study be performed prior to construction in areas that • exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Such studies are required to establish measures that will limit interior noise to • no more than 45 dBA Ldn. This level has been applied to many communities in California,including • the City of Huntington Beach. • 3.3 City Noise Policies • • As required under Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code (CGC), each community • shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development • containing seven mandatory elements, including a noise element. As required therein, the noise • element shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community,shall recognize the guidelines • established by the SDHS' Office of Noise Control, and shall analyze and quantify current and • projected noise levels. • The"City of Huntington Beach General Plan"(General Plan)includes a Noise Element establishing • a set of local noise standards. The Noise Element identifies goals, policies, and implementation • programs. Basically, the General Plan (Policy N1.2.1) states that residential development shall • conform to the current State standards and sets a residential exterior goal of 60 dBA Ldn for outdoor • living areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor living areas. Exterior living areas are typically defined as rear • yards and do not include the front of a dwelling unit. Interior living areas typically do not include bathrooms, closets, or hallways. In addition to residential units, the General Plan defines health- 0 care facilities, schools, libraries, and places of worship as"sensitive"receptors. The General Plan • (Policy N1.2.2)also notes that new industrial and commercial land uses-or the major expansion of • existing land uses shall not cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior level of 65 dBA Ldn at • noise sensitive land uses. • The implementation programs outlined therein are designed to achieve the City's long-range goals • and policies concerning noise in the urban environment. The City's policy regarding acceptable • noise levels are codified in Chapter 8.40(Noise Control)in the"City of Huntington Beach Municipal • Code" (Municipal Code). The City's exterior noise standards are shown in Table 1 (City of • Huntington Beach — Exterior Noise Standards) and represent the noise levels that should not be • exceeded during each of the time periods specified therein. These standards are intended for enforcement of short-term noise violations. The specified levels do not apply to "pre-empted" or "exempted" sources of noise (e.g., traffic), where noise standards are dictated by other federal, • • State, and regional entities. • These levels represent an average and provide for allowances for short-term noise. Noise which • exceeds these levels is subject to the following criteria: (1) no exceedance of the standard for a • cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;and(2)the noise standard plus(a)5 dBA for • a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, (b)10 dBA for a cumulative period of more • than 5 minute in any hour, (c) 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour,and • (d) 20 dBA or the maximum measured ambient level for any period of time. These levels then • represent the L50, L25, L08, L02, and Lmax descriptors, respectively. These levels are as measured at the nearest receptor property and not at the project site boundary. • • The City's noise ordinance allows for certain exemptions to the noise standards. For example,the • City's noise ordinance recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24- 0 hour community noise standard. Section 8.40.090(Special Provisions)of the City's Municipal Code • states that the fallowing potentially applicable noise sources are exempt: • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 5 • 0 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • Table 1 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH —EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS • PON-, �rrel. 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 • Residential Properties • 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 • Professional Office and Public Institutional Properties Anytime 55 • Commercial Properties with the Exception of Professional Anytime 60 • Office and Public Institutional • Industrial Anytime 70 • Source:City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code • Section 8.40.090(b). Activities otherwise lawfully conducted in public parks, public • ■ playgrounds, and public or private school grounds. • ■ Section 8.40.090(d). Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or • grading of any real property, provided that a permit has been obtained from the City and that • said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, • including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. • Section 8.40.090(h). Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, • ■ provided that said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on any • day except Sunday or between the hours of 9 AM and 6 PM on Sunday or a federal holiday. • • ■ Section 8.40.0900). Any activity or equipment to the extent that design regulation thereof • has been pre-empted by State or federal laws. This latter provision would include the • operation of licensed vehicles operated on public thoroughfares. • 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS • • The most significant and common source of noise in the City is related to the movement of vehicles • over City roadways. Local sources of noise can, however, also pervade an area,especially one that • is located away from major roads. Aircraft overflights add to the overall ambient noise environment. • • 4.1 Field Survey • A field study was conducted on August 27, 2002 to determine the locations of potentially sensitive • receptors and ascertain existing noise levels within the project area. The areas to the immediate • east and south of the project site include two-story, single-family detached residential units. The • distance from the rear of the proposed daycare center to the property line is approximately 54±feet. • The east wall of the daycare center is approximately 129± feet west of the property line. In both cases, these homes are separated from the project site by an existing 8-foot high masonry block " • wall. These dwellings have rear-yard setbacks varying from approximately 10 to 20 feet. • • Noise monitoring was conducted using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2 Integrating/ • Logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) • Standard S1.4-1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission's(IEC)Standard 651 - • 1979 for Type 2, and IEC's Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was field • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 6 • • • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach,California • calibrated at.11:10 PM using a Quest Technologies QC-10 calibrator immediately prior to the • reading. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the • manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the • requirements of the ANSI's Standard S1.4-1984 and the IEC's Standard 942:1988 for Class 1 • equipment. The calibration of the meter was rechecked at 12:28 PM and no meter "drift" was • observed. • As illustrated in Figure 2 (Noise Reading Location), the noise reading (NR) was obtained at the • project site, proximal to the single-family homes located to the south. Specifically, the meterwas • located 100 feet west of the eastern property line and 20 feet north of the southern property line. • This location afforded a view of Adams Avenue, located at a distance of approximately 361 feet. As noted, single-family dwelling units are located to the east and south. These residences have approximately 10 to 20-foot rear yard setbacks and are protected from the project site by existing 8- foot high masonry block walls. The findings of the on-site field measurements are included in Table • 2 (Noise Level Measurements). • • Table 2 • NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS' • `' g WIN g LD2L08 5 L50. Lm�n xLmax' a • Noise Reading 54.2 62.7 58.3 53.1 50.9 45.9 69.9 • Notes • 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of • acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25, and L50 are • the levels that are exceeded 2,8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1,5, 15, • and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and • maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. • Source: Environmental Impact Sciences •` Due to its distal location from adjoining roadways (i.e. Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) and • partial shielding provided by the presence of other local commercial structures, the daycare center • site is somewhat sheltered from roadway noise.The dominant source of noise during the monitoring • period was that from loading dock activities associated with the proximate "Stater Bros. Market," • located approximately 225-250 feet to the west of the noise reading location. Aircraft overflights and • noise generated from traffic traveling on Adams Avenue were also notable during the noise reading. • 4.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic • • Objective N1.3 of the City's Noise Element states that the City is to minimize the adverse impacts of • traffic-generated noise on residential and other"noise sensitive" uses. • • To determine if the proposed project would create a substantial increase in traffic-generated noise,it • is necessary to document the existing noise along the site's access routes. Existing traffic levels • along both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were based on values included in"Traffic Study, • Northeast Corner, Brookhurst Street&Adams Avenue"(Willdan,June 2002),which includes recent • traffic volume data for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and provides peak- hour turning movements. • i • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 7 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California 1 1 1 •N • ® ® f00 • snamn • e SITE • Residentia ® o�c • 0 s • RNRSJLL N ® p e t • I • 8 ADAMS AVENUE • Legend • © Proposed Outdoor Play Area • © Proposed Daycare Center • • • • • Figure 2 NOISE READING LOCATION • Source:Environmental Impact Sciences • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 8 • • • • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • • Because the.Ldn descriptor used by the City to determine impacts from traffic on sensitive land uses • is based on 24-hours of traffic, average daily traffic(ADT)volumes were calculated. The standard method of calculation considers that the average of the morning(AM)and evening(PM)peak hours • represents approximately 10 percent of the total ADT. Noise levels associated with these ADT • volumes along Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were subsequently modeled using the • California Department of Transportation's(Caltrans)Sound32 Noise Model(CALVENO emissions). • The ratio of automobiles and trucks is based on ratios suggested by the OCEMA and reported to be • characteristic of ratios evident on Southland arterials.This ratio includes 97.42 percent automobiles, • 1.84 percent medium trucks, and 0.74 percent heavy trucks. Both routes were modeled at an • average speed of 45 miles per hour(mph). Because the Ldn represents a 24-hour measurement based on traffic volumes,some explanation as • to how the traffic volumes are apportioned over a 24-hour period is in order. The following • methodology was developed as per prior discussions with Caltrans and is deemed reasonable for • typical urban roadways: (1)the nighttime period(i.e., 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM is assigned 10 percent of • the total volume split equally among the 8 hours; (2)the morning (AM)and evening(PM)rush hours • are set from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, respectively, and each hour of these rush • hours includes twice the volume of"off-hour" (i.e., non-rush and non-nighttime)traffic. • The results of this analysis are included in Table 3 (Existing Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels • along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). Model runs are included in the appendix. Note that • the presented values are based on a clear line-of-sight to the traffic. Objects that obstruct this line- of-sight would serve as noise barriers and actual noise levels observed at receptor locations could be considerably less than the presented values. • Table 3 • EXISTING TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS • ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA `ire rC s 4 asi•a,.Iry- # 3m �",`i F % ,� • _ Ldn ,t Distance#o G5 � Dis#ance#0'60 ocation kADT ; , 5 .. • Yam. (dBA @ SO feet) dB�A t dn#{feet) 11 IFin {feet) r Adams Avenue • East of Brookhurst Street 32,430 73.1 173 373 • West of Brookhurst Street 26,895 72.3 153 330 • Brookhurst Street • North of Adams Avenue 24,235 71.8 142 306 • South of Adams Avenue 24,030 71.8 142 306 • Source:Willdan and Environmental Impact Sciences • • 5.0 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA • • All projects will generate some noise impacts. The mere presence of a new noise source, however, • is not necessarily indicative of whether the resulting noise would be deemed "significant" or • "potentially significant." • i Although this document is not intended to fulfill, in whole or in part,the Lead Agency's obligations • under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), under CEQA, as codified in Section 21000 • et seq. of the Public Resources Code(PRC), one of the most important determinations that a public • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 9 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • agency makes is whetherthe environmental consequences of a proposed project are"significant"or "potentially significant." This determination influences the agency's determination concerning • whether or not to commence the preparation of a negative declaration or an environmental impact • report (EIR) and determines whether mitigation measures will be required once a negative • declaration or EIR is commenced. Judgments of"significance"are made at three different points in • the CEQA process: (1) in determining whether a project may have a significant effect and thus require an EIR; (2) in the EIR's discussions of which environmental impacts are significant and • warranting mitigation; and (3) in making findings following EIR completion on whether a project's • significant environmental effects have been avoided or substantially reduced. • • The State CEQA Guidelines, as codified in Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of • Regulations(CCR)indicates that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment, • relative to noise, if it will (1) increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; • and/or(2)conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. With regards to the second criterion, the applicable noise standards governing the project site are • the City s Noise Element and noise ordinance, as discussed above. • • Mobile sources of noise, such as project-generated traffic while traveling on public roadways, are exempt from local ordinance but may still be subject to CEQA. These noise sources would be • deemed to be "significant" or "potentially significant" if the proposed project were to generate a • volume of traffic sufficient to result in a substantial increase in mobile source-generated noise. • Neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines, however,define a"substantial increase." In defining the term, Webster's Dictionary defines "substantial" as "considerable in quantity." • • As noted above, the human ear can detect changes of 3 dBA. Changes of less than 3 dBA, while • audible under controlled circumstances,are not readily discemable in an outdoor environment. As a • result, a change of 3 dBA is considered as a potentially audible increase and is used herein as an • appropriate threshold for assessing a "significant"or"potentially significant" change in the existing • environment. In comparison, Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with the project exceeds existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq. • • 6.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS • • 6.1 Project Construction • • All projects will generate some noise during construction. Construction activities are, however, • short-term in duration and the impacts of those activities cease upon completion. In recognition of • these factors, the City exempts construction noise from compliance with its noise ordinance. In • order to present a comprehensive acoustical assessment,this project-specific analysis includes an evaluation of short-term construction impacts. • • Some noise disturbances in those areas adjacent to the project site are to be expected during • construction. These disturbances, which will be short-term in nature, will be result of site • preparation and subsequent construction of both the proposed outdoor play area and interior tenant • improvements. Generally, with the exception of worker commutes and material deliveries, the • majority of interior construction activities would likely occur inside the building and would be • attenuated by the building exterior. • Exterior construction would generally consist of: (1) the removal of existing asphalt payment; (2) • replacement of approximately 6,000 square foot of existing surface area with materials typical of • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 10 • • 0 • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach,California • those found in a playground settings; and (3)construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall around the • outdoor recreational area. As with most construction projects,construction would require the use of a number of pieces of heavy equipment(e.g., bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, concrete mixers). In • addition, heavy and light trucks would be required to remove debris from and deliver construction • materials to the site. Composite construction noise can be characterized by the findings of a study conducted by the • USEPA and authored by Bolt, Beranek,and Newman(USEPA, December 31, 1971). In this study, • construction noise for commercial development is presented as 89 dBA Leq when measured at a • distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. This value takes into account both the number of • pieces and spacing of equipment used in the construction effort. In later phases, noise levels are typically reduced from this value since the physical structures that are erected further break up line- of-sight noise transmission. As a worst-case scenario, a composite construction noise of 89-dBA is • used for assessing near-site noise levels during the construction effort. • The operation of construction equipment results in the generation of both steady and episodic noise • above the ambient levels currently experienced near the noise sensitive areas closest to the project • site. The noise produced from construction, however, decreases at a rate of approximately 6 dBA • per doubling of distance. At 100 feet,the noise levels would be about 6 dBA less, or 83 dBA,and at • 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less, or 77 dBA. • The nearest residents include those immediately south and west of the project site. The nearest • residences to the south could be as close as about 64t feet from the construction effort. The • nearest residences to the east are about 80t feet from the east end of the proposed outdoor play • area. At these distances, intermittent construction noise is calculated at 87 and 85 dBA Leq, • respectively. These values do not consider the existing 8-foot high masonry block walls that now separate these dwellings from the existing commercial center. Because this sound walls prevents • the line-of-sight transmission of noise, ground-floor exterior noise levels at these residents would projected to be lower then these presented values; however, the existing wall height may not be • sufficient to further attenuate construction-related noise levels at second-floor receptor locations. • • As indicated in the Municipal Code, construction performed within the hours specified in the City's • noise ordinance(i.e.,between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday and at any time on • Sunday or on a federal holiday) is exempt from the provisions of the stationary noise standards. • Construction could, however, represent a short-term nuisance for the adjacent residents. The • following measures are, therefore, recommended and will minimize potential nuisance impacts to the maximum extent feasible. • • The project proponent has reviewed the following recommendations and has agreed to incorporate • these recommendations as self-imposed conditions of project approval: • Recommendation No. 1. During all project site preparation, grading and construction,the project contractors should equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly • operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' specifications. • • Recommendation No. 2. The project contractor should place all stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from adjoining residences and situated so that emitted noise is • directed away from sensitive receptors to the south and east of the project site. • Recommendation No. 3. The construction contractor should locate equipment staging • areas away from adjoining residences so as to create the greatest possible separation • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 11 • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • distance between construction-related noise sources and potentially noise sensitive • receptors during all project construction operations. 6.2 Additional Project Traffic • • As noted above, Objective N 1.3 of the City's Noise Element specified that the City is to minimize the • adverse impacts of traffic-generated noise on residential and other"noise sensitive"uses. As such, • the noise associated with the project's contribution to areawide traffic volumes was modeled to • determine if that contribution would substantially increase traffic-related noise levels. Because • ambient growth in the project area would raise existing traffic levels even without project • implementation, for the purpose of determining if the proposed project would significantly raise traffic-generated noise, a worst-case scenario would impose the totality of project-generated traffic on the existing traffic volume. This is because the project's projected traffic would represent a greater portion of the 'Whole." • • It should be noted, however, that the proposed use is relocating from another location in the City • (i.e., 9700 Levee Drive). As such, traffic associated with the proposed use already exists on the • local street system. The project will, therefore, not result in any new operational traffic but only a redistribution of that traffic associated with the daycare's operation at its existing facility. • Project-generated traffic was calculated using the ITE's"Trip Generation,Sixth Edition,"utilizing the • "student" rates presented in Table 4 (Trip Generation Rates). The manual notes that daycare • facilities generate 4.52 trip ends per student. As proposed, up to 90 students could be • accommodated at the project site. A worst-case scenario then considers 90 students and,based on • that number of students, as many as 407 trips could be produced on a daily basis. • Table 4 TRIP GENERATION RATES • 11% Al ,z T�n'p n51 grw Descnpto�r . • n 1- andKUs pp i i escnptof . = AM P,eak�}-1our , � PM Peak ours, • �Y' -- F In Outer, Irt • ', "... ter.; i 3 _ ate s ,• ��'� • Per Employee 31.19 2.71 2.31 2.44 2.75 • Daycare Center Per Student 4.52 0.43 0.38 0.40 0.46 • 1,000 square foot 79.26 6.74 5.97 6.20 7.00 Fast-Food Restaurant(with Drive Through) 1,000 square foot 496.12 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 • • High Turnover Restaurant 1,000 square foot 130.34 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 • (Coffee Shop) • Bank 1,000 square foot 265.2 7.07 5.56 27.39 27.38 (Drive In) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997 • To further represent a worst-case scenario, the entirety of these trips was assumed to use both • Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. The results of this analysis are included in Table 5(Existing • Versus with Project Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project • Area). Note that even if all of the project-generated traffic were to proceed to and from the same • direction, the project would not generate a volume of traffic large enough to measurably raise the • existing noise levels. As a result, any potential impact is less than significant. • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 12 • • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • • It should be noted that other types of non-residential uses could be permitted on the project site, either with or without any further discretionary review by the City. As indicated in Chapter 211 • (Commercial Districts) of the Municipal Code, both "banks and savings & loans" and "easting and drinking establishments"are identified as"permitted"uses. In comparison, a restaurant"with drive • through" constitutes an eligible use subject to a "conditional use permit." Based on the ITE • generation rates in Table 4(Trip Generation Rates),those uses would generate substantially more traffic than the proposed use. As indicated in Section 5.4.5 herein,traffic-related impacts associated • with those uses would be expected to be greater than the proposed daycare use. • • Table 5 • EXISTING VERSUS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA ".ems '£- • �0 With K With-Pro ect Ldn _ Location Exrstin n aApT dBA� So-,Fetf) • _ _. l � ._ ._ • Adams Avenue • East of Brookhurst Street 32,430 73.1 32,827 73.1 • West of Brookhurst Street 26,895 72.3 27,302 72.3 • Brookhurst Street • North of Adams Avenue 24,235 71.8 24,642 71.9 South of Adams Avenue 24,030 71.8 24,437 T 71.8 • Source:Willdan and Environmental Impact Sciences • • 6.3 On-Site Project Operations • The proposed daycare center is to be operated adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood. • The addition of up to 90 students would provide a new source of noise for the adjoining residents. • • As discussed in Section 3.3 herein, the City's noise ordinance allows for certain exemptions. • Specifically, Section 8.40.090(b) of the Municipal Code exempts "activities otherwise lawfully conducted in public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds." The proposed • daycare facility entails a private school learning environment for children and, as such, is exempt from the stationary noise source limitations included in the Municipal Code. Although exempt,the • following analysis examines the potential operational ramifications of the proposed project with respect to the Citys stationary noise source restrictions. • To determine the noise associated with playground activities, noise readings were obtained at the • Jenny Hart Early Education Center(Jenny Hart)located in the City of Irvine (4445 Alton Parkway). • The Jenny Hart preschool facility accommodates 85 students and is considered comparable to the • proposed project. • Noise readings were obtained at the Jenny Hart facility on September 5,2002. The facility includes • two adjacent outdoor play areas, both enclosed by chain link fencing. A sandy area is located to the • west and encompasses an area of approximately 73±feet by 52±feet in size (3,796±square feet). • This area includes various types on climbing play equipment. An asphalt area is located directly to • the east and is separated by a chain link fence. This area is approximately 64±feet by 88±feet in size (5,632± square feet) and is used for playing ball, hopscotch, etc. Additionally, the school parking lot is located immediately north of the play area. Meadowbrook Road is located immediately • north of the parking lot and about 94 feet north of the play area. The Jeny Hart site is depicted in Figure 3 (Jenny Hart Early Education Center). • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 13 • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach,California Meadowbrook • • • • • • • • • JH 2 • Parking Area • I • 50 FeetOF OF OF • • • • Sand 50 Feet -- JH-1 • Asphalt Structure • z pe . . -�` • • • • • Figure 3 • JENNY HART EARLY EDUCATION CENTER • Source:Environmental Impact Sciences • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 14 • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • • Two representative noise readings were obtained at this facility (i.e., JH-1 and JH-2). The noise • meter was field calibrated at 3:15 PM, prior to the readings, and rechecked at 4:45 PM, after the • readings. No meter"drift"was noted. Monitoring and calibration equipment were as described for • the reading obtained at the project site. The results of these readings are included in Table 6 • (Jenny Hart Early Education Center Noise Level Measurements) and each reading is separately • described below. • Table 6 • JENNY HART EARLY EDUCATION CENTER • NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS' • a `I€t13Q L25 L�0LmNR low12,210 R� e • zca# . 0 JH-1 58.7 65.1 62.4 59.6 57.0 50.3 69.2 0 JH-2 57.4 62.6 60.1 58.2 56.7 50.7 68.6 • Notes • 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric • value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25, and L50 are the • levels that are exceeded 2, 8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. • Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1,5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and • maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. • Source: Environmental Impact Sciences • • JH-1. The first reading was obtained in the asphalt play area while the children were still • playing in the sandy area. The 15-minute reading began at 3:45 PM. Approximately 25 • children were playing in the area at the on-set of the noise measurement. Within approximately 5 minutes, however, the number of children had more than doubled (i.e., in • excess of 50 children were counted). Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles • operating in the parking lot, including their associated noises(e.g.,door slams,alarm honks, • and engine start-ups), ranging from about 50 to 100 feet from the noise meter. Additionally, vehicles on the adjacent roads, aircraft overflights,and people playing tennis(approximately • 150t feet way) were observed during the reading. • JH-2. After the first reading,the children were allowed to occupy both the sand and asphalt • areas. This required that the noise meter be moved into the parking lot area. The meter • was located 50 feet north of the play area fence line, immediately between the sand and • asphalt areas. The 15-minute reading began at 4:25 PM. Approximately 55 to 60 children • occupied the combined areas. Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles that • where operating in the parking lot with their associated noises. Because the meter was • moved into the parking lot, some of these vehicles were observed to pass within 15 to 20 • feet of the noise meter. Additionally 14 automobiles were observed to pass on the adjacent road behind the meter at a distance of about 55 feet from the centerline of the road. Aircraft • overflights also added to the measured noise. • • 6.3.1 Step-by-Step Daycare Student Drop Off and Play Area Noise • • The noise level expected at the Step-by-Step Daycare facility would be comparable to that measured at the Jenny Hart facility. Both facilities include roughly the same number of students and • their play areas are generally of similar size. • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 15 • 0 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • As proposed,Step-by-Step Daycare will limit the number of children allowed in the play area at any one time. This restriction would serve to incrementally reduce noise levels associated with outdoor play activities. Furthermore, the proposed project will include a 6-foot high masonry block wall, as compared to the chain-link fence surrounding the Jenny Hart recreational area. This sound wall • would further contain playtime noise levels. • 6.3.2 Increases in Ambient Noise Levels • • At a distance of 54t feet to the property line, the residents to the south of the project site represent • the nearest receptors. Assuming the use of the louder of the two reading obtained at the Jenny Hart • facility, Leq noise at the southern property line(54t feet)is estimated to be approximately 58.0 dBA Leq. The property line to the east is located approximately 68t feet from the play area and, at this • distance, noise is calculated at approximately 57.4 dBA Leq. • Both Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)note that any solid wall that shields • the receptor from the noise source affords a minimum of 5 dBA of attenuation. As such, with the • inclusion of the proposed 6-foot high masonry block wall, noise levels at the southern and eastern • property lines are estimated to be approximately 53.0 and 52.4 dBA Leq, respectively. If these levels were to be produced for a continuous period of two hour each day, the Ldn values are • calculated as 42.2 and 41.6 dBA, respectively. These levels are well below the existing ambient levels measured in the field study. • • The resulting increase in the Ldn is estimated to be approximately 0.5 dBA. This level of increase is • well under the threshold of significance standard outlined herein (i.e., 3 dBA)and would,therefore, • be deemed to constitute a less-than-significant increase. Actual noise at the residences would be • further reduced by virtue of the existing 8-foot high masonry wall that separates those residential units from the commercial center. • 6.3.3 Adherence to City Stationary Noise Source Requirement • • As discussed above, the City's noise ordinance exempts"activities otherwise lawfully conducted in • public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds." Although exempt, Table 7 • (Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Lines) compares the readings • obtained at the Jenny Hart facility and assumed for the Step-By-Step Daycare facility with the City's • exterior noise standards. These levels would be as measured at the residential property lines and • include a 5-dBA reduction for the proposed on-site masonry wall. Note that in this case, the City does not recognize the Leq noise descriptor but instead uses a L50 value (i.e.,the level exceeded • 30 minutes in any 1-hour period). • As indicated in Table 7 (Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Lines), all •• values are within the City's stationary noise source limitations and while noise from play area • activities could be audible at the adjoining residences,the data indicates that the proposed daycare • facility would be in compliance with the City's noise standards. As such, the resulting operational activities would produce a less-than-significant impact. • • 6.3.4 On-Site Noise Impacts • As noted, the project is appropriately categorized as a learning environment and, as such,for the •• purposes of this analysis, represents a sensitive receptor which itself is subject to the City's 60 dBA Ldn noise restriction. The facility is located approximately 264 feet south of Adams Avenue and • approximately 700 feet east of Brookhurst Street. • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page 16 • • 0 • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • Table 7 • STEP-BY-STEP DAYCARE NOISE LEVELS AT THE ADJACENT"PROPERTY LINES • Nose Rhea,WIN 0 minutes k a 'Y� minutes m� ute _ _ • City Standard 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 75 dBA • Project Level @ South 51:5 dBA 54.1 dBA 56.9 dBA 59.6 dBA 63.7 dBA • Property Line Project Level @ East 49.3 dBA 51.9 dBA 54.7 dBA 1 57.4 dBA 1 61.5 dBA • Property Line • Notes • 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time- varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25,and L50 are the levels that are exceeded 2,8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. • Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15,and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. Source: Environmental Impact Sciences • Sound32 noise modeling was conducted to determine if roadway traffic would create noise levels in • excess of the City's 60 Ldn standard at the project site. The analysis considers traffic on both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and includes both existing and project-related traffic. • Additionally,the modeling includes the presence of the"Moulin Rouge Restaurant,"the"Los Primos • Cantina,"adjoining retail shops, and the"Stater Bros. Market." These structures were all modeled • as masonry walls, with a height of 24 feet. The actual heights and associated attenuation could, • however, be somewhat greater. • The modeling indicates that local traffic would generate a Ldn of 58.1 dBA at the project site. This • value is less than the City's 60 dBA Ldn standard. As a result, any potential acoustical impacts • associated with traffic on proximal arterials is less than significant. • • 6.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts from Other Allowable Site Uses • • An analysis was performed to determine the potential for noise impacts for other types of land uses • that constitute permittable or conditionally permittable uses under existing zoning. This analysis . examines the potential impacts associated with a fast-food restaurant, a high-turnover restaurant • (e.g., coffee shop), and a drive-in bank. • Modeling was performed for both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and the results of this • analysis are included in Table 8 (Existing Versus with Allowable Land Use Traffic and Resulting • Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). While the project does not add • measurably to the existing noise levels,these other uses could increase roadway noise by as much • as 0.5 dBA Ldn. Also note that all of these other land uses would result in a greater level of parking lot activity and its associated noise. Further, some of these uses (e.g.,fast-food restaurant)could • involve the use of an automobile/attendant public address system that could also add to off-site • noise levels. • • 7.0 REFERENCES • • California Department of Transportation, Sound32 Version of the FHWA Noise Program, • Release 1.4, September 28, 1992. • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 17 • 0 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • Table 8 • EXISTING VERSUS WITH ALLOWABLE LAND USE TRAFFIC AND RESULTING NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA xisti s w .. ,, < .P c _ �"` 'Exisiting "�, Hr h �� ng af[�, x • �� � �L�fn =ILdn mavBr t n ���' ..,. �.� _.:��_ ,. .-.,�A.�a50txr.9B,.� Bet ,;' � '�.,. �.� 3 "��n .°� • Adams Avenue • East of 32,430 32,837 35,258 33,172 33,942 • Brookhurst (73.1) (73.1) (73.4) (73.2) (73.3) • Street • West of 26,895 27,302 29,723 27,637 28,407 • Brookhurst (72 3) (72.3) (72.7 Street ) (72.4) (72.5) • Brookhurst Street North of 24,235 24,642 27,063 24,977 25,747 • Adams • Avenue (71.8) (71.9) (72.3) (71.9) (72.1) • South of 24,030 24,437 26,858 24,772 25,542Adams • Avenue (71.8) (71.8) (72.2) (71.9) (72.0) • Source: Environmental Impact Sciences • • ■ City of Huntington Beach General Plan, 1992. • • ■ City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, December 1993. _ • ■ County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Land Use/Noise Compatibility • Manual, Amendment 93-1: December 14, 1993. • • ■ Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model • (CALVENO Version). • • ■ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985, The Noise • Guidebook, March 1985. • • State of California, 1997 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the Califomia State Highway • System, December 1998. • • ■ United States Environmental Protection Agency(Bolt, Beranek, and Newman), Noise from • Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, • December 31, 1971. • ■ Wilidan, Traffic Study, Northeast Corner, Brookhurst Street&Adams Avenue, June 2002. • • • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 18 • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach, California • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix A • SOUND32 NOISE MODELING • FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis • • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING T-BROOKHURST, 1 23610 , 45 , 446 , 45 , 179 , 45 • N,-50. ,-750,0, N,-50. ,750,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL • K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.8 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING T-BROOKHURST, 1 • 23410 , 45 , 442 , 45 , 178 , 45 L-, 1 N,-50. ,-750,0, N,-50. ,750,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32_ - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.8 STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING T-ADAMS, 1 31593 , 45 , 597 , 45 , 240 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, • N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 • TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.1 r STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING • T-ADAMS, 1 a. 26201 , 45 , 495 , 45 , 199 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.3 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i Appendix B ' SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR • • EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis ' • • • • • • • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT • T-BROOKHURST, 1 24006 , 45 , - 453 , 45 , 182 , 45 • Y,-, 1 • N,-750. ,50,0, • N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , • D, 4.5 ALL,ALL • K,-9.3 • ALL,ALL • C,C • • • • • SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 • TITLE: • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT • • • BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS • • RECEIVER LEQ • --------------- R-1 71.9 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • i • • • • • • • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT T-BROOKHURST, 1 23807 , 45 450 45 , 181 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.8 STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT T-ADAMS, 1 _ 31990 , 45 , 604 , 45 , 243 45 • N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL • K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.1 r STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT_ • T-ADAMS, 1 26598 , 45 , 502 , 45 , 202 , 45 L-, 1 i N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,l 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 i TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ------------ it R-1 72.3 i r i • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix C SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR • ALTERNATIVE LAND USES • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis • • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD T-BROOKHURST, . 1 26365 , 45 , 498 , 45 , 200 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, • R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 r TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/0 ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.3 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-BROOKHURST., 1 24333 , 45 , 460 , 45 , 185 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C . SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 r TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT S BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.9 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/0 ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK ' T-BROOKHURST,- 1 25083 , 45 ,_ 474 , 45 , 191 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, • R, 1 , 67 ,1 • 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.1 i • STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST -FOOD T-BROOKHURST,_ l 26165 , 45 , 494 , 45 , 199 , 45 . L-, 1 • N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 • ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C • SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 0 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD ol l • BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ 0 --------------- R-1 72.2 0 0I • • 0 . 0 � 0I � I 0 . STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-BROOKHURST,. 1 24133 , 45 , 456 , 45 , 183 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, • N,750. ,50,0, • R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.9 • I STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK T-BROOKHURST., 1 24883 , 45 , 470 , 45 , 189 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, • N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C 0 10 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 0 0 TITLE: 0 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK 0 . BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND 0 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS 0 RECEIVER LEQ ------------ ol R-1 72.0 • ol 0 • STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD T-ADAMS, 1 3435 , 45 , 65 , 45 , 26 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 • 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K, .7 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.4• STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-ADAMS, 1 32316 , 45 610 , 45 245. , 45 L-, 1 - N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,l 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.2 � I STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK . T-ADAMS, 1 3307 , 45 , 62 , 45 , 25 , 45 • N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.3 i STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST- FOOD T-ADAMS, 1 28956 , 45 , 547 , 45 , 220 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, • R, 1 , 67 ,1. 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- • R-1 72.7 STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-ADAMS, 1 26924 , 45 , 509 , 45 , 205 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, . R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ • -------------_- • R-1 72.4 STEP-BY-STEP, .ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK � T-ADAMS, 1 27674 , 45 , 523 , 45 , 210 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, • R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL • C,C • SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.5 • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix D SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT • TRAFFIC AT PROJECT SITE • • • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis • • STEP-BY-STEP,.. EXISTING + PROJECT LDN @ PROJECT SITE T-BROOKHURST, 1 23807 , 45 450 45 , 181 , 45 T-ADAMS, 2 • 31990 , 45 , 604 , 45 , 243 , 45 L-, 1 N,-740. ,-750,0, N,-740. ,750,0, L-, 2 • N,-750. ,305,0, • N,750. ,305,0, B-Moulon Rouge, 1 , 2 , 0 ,0 -145. ,230,0,24, -85. ,230,0,24, -85. ,105,0,24, • -145. ,105,0,24, • -145. ,230,0,24, B-Los Primos, 2 , 2 , 0 ,0 99. ,230,0,24, 172. ,230,0,24, 172. ,80,0,24, • 99. ,80,0,24, • 99. ,230,0,24, B-Market, 3 , 2 , 0 ,0 -305. ,0,0,24, -172. ,0,0,24, -172. ,-385,0,24, 305. ,-385,0,24, • -305. ,0,0,24, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL • K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C • • SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 • • TITLE: • STEP-BY-STEP, EXISTING + PROJECT LDN @ PROJECT SITE • • • EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS • BAR • ELE----0----1---------3----4----5--------------------- 1 - 0.* B1 Pl • 2 - 0.* B1 P2 3 - 0.* B1 P3 4 - 0.* B1 P4 5 - 0.* B2 P1 6 - 0.* B2 P2 • 7 - 0.* B2 P3 8 - 0.* B2 P4 • 9 - 0.* B3 P1 10 - 0.* B3 P2 • 11 - 0.* B3 P3 12 - 0.* B3 P4 . ------------------------------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 1 • BARRIER DATA BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID -------LENGTH TYPE • -------------------------------------------------- ----------------• 1 - 24.* B1 P1 60.0 MASONRY 2 - 24.* B1 P2 125.0 MASONRY . 3 - 24.* B1 P3 60.0 MASONRY 4 - 24.* B1 P4 125.0 MASONRY • • 5 - 24.* B2 P1 73.0 MASONRY • 6 - 24.* B2 P2 150.0 MASONRY 7 - 24.* B2 P3 73.0 MASONRY 8 - 24.* B2 P4 150.0 MASONRY • 9 - 24.* B3 P1 133.0 MASONRY • 10 - 24.* B3 P2 385.0 MASONRY • 11 - 24.* B3 P3 133.0 MASONRY • 12 - 24.* B3 P4 385.0 MASONRY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------• 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 • I REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) -------------------------------- • 1 R-1 67. 1. 58.1 • -------------------------------- �► BARRIER TYPE COST • -------------------------------- BERM 0. • • • • MASONRY 445591. MASONRY/JERSEY 0. CONCRETE 0. ---------------------------- TOTAL COST = $ 446000. BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION 24.24.24.24.24.24.24.24.24.24.24.24. • I .�L C N _d A C O C d C ev a N s H rrom: 1 is ouu-yi4a I c..s. RACT ANaL h ,4 D`� a 5o 'n V 4� �T b 15 NO TE — A SSESSOR'S BL OCK d /o 2,e�¢� V ' ��' /6 PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN IN CIRCLES a �� i6 �,;" a,sy• ASSESSOR'S MAP h 9 '""• v J/LL _ r' BOOK 155 PAGE 18 15 $ DRIVE COUNTY OF ORANGE w 4 7I.ao a 6F4J' s6i/• 4� '`4 a be' TRACT NO 9889 M.M. 450 - 6 7 j N 14 23 i3 ''�' / PARCEL MAP P. Af 108-40 7 G]53• �� m i a' S,�' NO. 89r�• 4 s i i i i i i j i I i i POR. NW.114. NW.114. SEC.B. T.65.. R.14M. 05 155—1 8 E e $ ALL7AIS — AVENUE r I i; " L y O ' i MIS YAP WAS FP.£PAR£0 FD>CA-A cot.rY ASS£SSdt O£Pf. ^(,�PP'-.£S aq,r. Y —cs O 181 M£ACCWACr AMA SLAES PAN C£As rD As• 17S ACCIHACI Il1P ASSICES AAY LfAB/(Rr �,. FOP afnc.A uses. nr ro t[P[r av�ao. ILL mIc-R£S£RKO. �} oC�^YP/Cxl OLAC£C£N'fY lJS£5507!!JJ 1 WI SBF SfSO-IOJS-f N O i Pr N t GG P.M. /"-IV ✓ .' d MOO At. OO ^.. iI ..•' PJ NOT£ -AS5ESSOR'S BLOCK 6 to s /A PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN /N CIRCLES ASSESSOR'S uAP 24 t✓ILL ~ BOOK 155 PAGE 16 MIT R COUNTY OF ORANGE I Q r 0 TRACT NO 9669 ALAI.450-6,7 j PARCEL NAP P.M./08-40 a N `•`s + r �.� e I n ✓AN(fARY 1998 A,-No. B9 .r«,. 19 I I I i i I METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange(CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 181 18 Owner :Pennington Randy/Cynthia CoOwner Site Address :20091 Viva Cir Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20091 Viva Cir Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner: Tenant: Ii LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :02/11/1994 Loan Amount :$225,000 Document# :110253 Lender :Pib Mortgage Sale Price :$335,000 Loan Type Deed Type :Grant Deed Interest Rate :Fixed %Owned :100 Vesting Type: LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$186,505 Exempt Type: Structure :$191,369 Exempt Amount Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$377,874 Taxes :$3,82928 %Imprd :51 `-PROPERTY DESCRIPTION' Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 9889 LOT I I PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :4 Stories :2 Lot Acres A 5 Bathrooms :2.50 Units Lot SgFt :6,600 Total Rooms :8 Pool :Yes Bldg SgFt :2,635 Air Cond :None Garage Type :Garage YearBuilt :1979 Heating :Forced GarageSpace :3 B1dgStyle : Fireplace :1 Spa :Yes Wall Mad : Dining Room_: Family Room—:Yes AtticType_: Living Room Den METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 181 19 Owner :La Marche Richard A CoOwner :La Marche Kathleen M Site Address :20081 Viva Cir Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20081 Viva Cir Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner:714-964-5271 Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :02/18/1980 Loan Amount Document# :13544-156 Lender Sale Price :$197,500 Full Loan Type Deed Type : Interest Rate %Owned :100 Vesting Type: LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land 3117,579 Exempt Type: Structure :$184,107 Exempt Amount Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$301,686 Taxes :$3,061.54 %Imprd :61 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract :992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 9889 LOT 12 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :4 Stories :2 Lot Acres A 5 Bathrooms :3.00 Units Lot SgFt :6,600 Total Rooms :8 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,917 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt :1979 Heating GarageSpace B1dgStyle Fireplace :3 Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room_: AtticType_: Living Room Den 0,"iff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET _ CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK September 20, 2002 Lester Smull 17631 Fitch Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Re: NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Dear Mr. Smull: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, September 16, 2002 took action on the following Public Hearing: To Consider Appeal Filed by Lester C. Smull, (Business Properties Partnership) of the Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31Nariance No. 02-10 —Step by Step Daycare Facility at 10156 Adams Avenue (sle Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Aven"ue). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision and denied.the.appeal. The Action Agenda and Findings for Denial are enclosed. The September 16, 2002 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 THE DATE OF MAILING OF THIS NOTICE TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk Enclosures: Code of Civil Procedure§1094.6 Findings for Denial 09/16/02 Action Agenda Pgs.13-14 cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator—Letter Only Gail Hutton,City Attorney—Letter Only Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Paul DaVeiga,Assistant Planner Vfollowu p/appeal/90dayltr.doc (Telephone:714-536.5227) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1094.6 § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record, decision and party defined; ordinance or resolution (a) Judicial reviewt'of any decision of a local agency,other than school district,as the term local.agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government.Code,or of any commission,board,officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision,in any applicable provision of any statute,charter;or rule,for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing,the date,time,and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is maned by first-class nail, postage.prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or'certificate of marlling,to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision(a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time,following deposit in.. the mail of the decision or findings,within which a petition shall be filed. (c) The complete record of the proceedings'shall be prepared by'the local agency or its commission,. board, officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its'actual costs for transcnbing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the transrript.of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision,all admitted exhibits,aII rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its cc**+**+�s�on, board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b),the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record-is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one: (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending,demoting, or dismissing an officer or employee,revoking, denying an application for a permit,license,or other entitlement, imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine,_charAe, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. '(f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision(a), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision,"party"means an officer or employee who has been suspended,demoted or dismissed;"a person whose permit,license,or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended,or whose application for a permit,license,or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a.shorter statute of limitations,in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. (Amended by Stats. 1983, o.818, § 3; Stats.1991,.G 1090 (A.B.1484), § 6; Stats.1993, c 926(A.B2205); 1 5; Stats.1995,c.898(S.B.814),§ 1.) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31/ VARIANCE NO. 02-10 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 for the establishment and operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite, within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed daycare facility and associated outdoor play area will result in the elimination of 16 parking spaces and reduce the amount of available on-site parking for patrons of the shopping center. The outdoor play area will result in noise impacts to adjacent residential properties and will be detrimental to the welfare of the residents. 2. The proposed daycare operation will not be compatible with surrounding uses because it eliminates existing on-site parking and results in noise impacts to adjacent residences resulting from children playing and making excessive noise in the outdoor play area. In addition, noise from the designated employee parking area would impact adjacent residents in the early morning. The facility will operate on weekdays and will affect the adjacent residential and commercial uses by occupying an area that has been reserved for customer parking. The daycare use results in a cumulative increase in.traffic to the surrounding arterials during peak traffic periods in the morning and afternoon and will impact the existing on-site drainage patterns and therefore will be incompatible with surrounding properties. 3. The proposed use will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The exception to required parking is not consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the proposed daycare use. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use.Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General with FAR of 0.35) on the subject property because the proposed separation from residential uses does not adequately protect the single-family homes from the excessive or-incompatible impacts of noise, vehicular traffic and visual character. In addition, it is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 10.1.2 Establish incentives for the inclusion of day-care, public meeting rooms, and other community oriented facilities in commercial districts; possibly including the use of density bonus incentives, expedited entitlements, or other techniques. (02c10813 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment 1.1 Policy LU 10.1.6 Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 13.1.3 . Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new child, adult, and senior adult daycare facilities in any land us zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 02-10: 1. The granting of Variance No. 02-10 for a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use and mixture of on- site uses will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed daycare facility is located in an area within the shopping center that directly abuts residential properties and occupies existing parking for patrons of the center. The proposed daycare use will impact on-site parking based on the number of parking spaces required for the drop- off and pickup up of 88 children. The location of the shopping center is typical of many of other properties in the same zoning classification and there are not unique circumstances, which set apart the subject property from others in the same zoning classification. 2:. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape and location, which require a deviation to the strict application of the zoning ordinance..The subject site is located in a typical commercial shopping center with adequate parking for retail and office tenants. The elimination of 16 parking spaces places a burden on the existing uses in the shopping center. There are no unique physical characteristics such as the shape, size, or location of the subject site that warrants the approval of a variance. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject suite may be leased to commercial and office tenants and the existing on-site parking is adequate in supporting these uses with no further parking variances required. 4. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The variance for reduced parking will impact other commercial properties in the vicinity, based on the proposed location of the daycare operation, elimination of 16 parking spaces, and the. requested parking variance. S. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed reduction of 16 parking spaces by the proposed outdoor play area will adversely affect existing and future commercial uses on the subject site. (02c10813 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment 1.2 (13) September 16, 2002 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 13 D-5. (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal Filed by Lester C. Smull, (Business Properties Partnership) of the Planning Commission's Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31Nariance No. 02-10—Step by Step Daycare Facility at 10156 Adams Avenue WE Corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue (420.40) Communication from the Planning Director. Public hearing to consider: Applicant/Appellant: Lester C. Smull. Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children within a 5,525 square foot suite including a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area. The facility is proposed within an existing 135,484 square foot commercial center. The proposed request includes a parking variance to allow a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the shopping center. Location: 1.0156 Adams Avenue (southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue). Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that this item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 the City Clerk's Office on Friday,September 13,2002. 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 items. 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 "Communication from the Planning Department titled Acoustical Analysis, Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center is included in the agenda packet. "Three Communications dated September 3, 2002 and September 4, 2002 in opposition to approval of the variance.are included in the agenda packet. Recommended Action: Motion to: A. Planninq Commission Recommendation: - Deny Conditional.Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the establishment of Step by Step Daycare with Findings for Denial (Attachment No. 1); 2"d Vote: Concurred with Planning Commission and Denied 5-2 (Dettloff, Winchell No) OR (Continued on Next Page) (14) September 16, 2002 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 14 B. Staff Recommendation: Approve the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the establishment of Step by Step Daycare with Findings and Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 2) and those conditions added by Council. 1st Vote: FAILED 2-5 (Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Bauer No) oy �' DO110bA) %Ahv-b Council/Agency Meeting Held: 49—�b-o2 Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Co ditionally Approved ❑ Denied befit Clerk' Signature 5nc(( D!'►t�, t+ CouncifMeeting�\Nate: eptember 16, 2002 Department ID Number: PL02-31 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator cw-) PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE THE APPEAL AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare) 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 the applicant, Lester Smull, of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10. This application represents a request to permit the operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children within a 5,525 square foot suite including a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area. The facility is proposed within an existing 135,484 square foot commercial center. The proposed request includes a parking variance to allow a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the shopping center. The Planning Commission denied the project and is recommending denial based upon the potential for excessive noise within the outdoor play area and cumulative increases in traffic on surrounding arterials. In addition, the Planning Commission cited the loss of 16 parking spaces within the center as a basis for denial of the application. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council approve the appeal and the request because the proposed use will not have an impact to surrounding properties, the daycare use will be compatible with both on-site and adjacent uses, and there is adequate parking for the proposed use and existing shopping center. The staff recommendation is based on a parking demand analysis performed by the applicant, which indicates a large surplus of parking within the shopping center and particularly in the vicinity of the subject suite for which the daycare is proposed. In addition, a 56 to 61 foot separation exists between the adjacent single family homes and proposed outdoor play area, which consists of a six to eight foot block wall along the property lines separating the subject property from adjacent residences. The separation also includes landscape planters, a row of parking, and a drive aisle. A six-foot block wall enclosure is proposed around the perimeter of the outdoor play area. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL02-31 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the establishment of Step by Step Daycare with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO.1)." Planninq Commission Action on Auqust 13, 2002: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY CONDIITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 02-10 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Shomaker, Livengood, Porter NOES: Hardy, Kokal ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kerins MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve the appeal and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the establishment of Step by Step Daycare with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO.2)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 and direct staff accordingly." 10156 Adams(Step by Step Daycare)-Appeal -2- 9/5/2002 9:27 AM Aw� _ < FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31/ VARIANCE NO. 02-10 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 for the establishment and operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite, within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed daycare facility and associated outdoor play area will result in the elimination of 16 parking spaces and reduce the amount of available on-site parking for patrons of the shopping center. The outdoor play area will result in noise impacts to adjacent residential properties and will be detrimental to the welfare of the residents. 2. The proposed daycare operation will not be compatible with surrounding uses because it eliminates existing on-site parking and results in noise impacts to adjacent residences resulting from children playing and making excessive noise in the outdoor play area. In addition, noise from the designated employee parking area would impact adjacent residents in the early morning. The facility will operate on weekdays and will affect the adjacent . residential and commercial uses by occupying an area that has been reserved for customer parking. The daycare use results in a cumulative increase in traffic to the surrounding arterials during peak traffic periods in the morning and afternoon and will impact the existing on-site drainage patterns and therefore will be incompatible with surrounding properties. 3. The proposed use will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The exception to required parking is not consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the proposed daycare use. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General with FAR of 0.35) on the subject property because the proposed separation from residential uses does not adequately protect the single-family homes from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, vehicular traffic and visual character. In addition, it is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 10.1.2 Establish incentives for the inclusion of day-care, public meeting rooms, and other community oriented facilities in commercial districts; possibly including the use of density bonus incentives, expedited entitlements, or other techniques. (02d0813 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment 1.1 Policy LU 10.1.6 Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 13.1.3 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new child, adult, and senior adult daycare facilities in any land us zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -VARIANCE NO. 02-10: 1. The granting of Variance No. 02-10 for a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use and mixture of on- site uses will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed daycare facility is located in an area within the shopping center that directly abuts residential properties and occupies existing parking for patrons of the center. The proposed daycare use will impact on-site parking based on the number of parking spaces required for the drop- off and pickup up of 88 children. The location of the shopping center is typical of many of other properties in the same zoning classification and there are not unique circumstances, which set apart the subject property from others in the same zoning classification. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape and location, which require a deviation to the strict application of the zoning ordinance. The subject site is located in a typical commercial shopping center with adequate parking for retail and office tenants. The elimination of 16 parking spaces places a burden on the existing uses in the shopping center. There are no unique physical characteristics such as the shape, size, or location of the subject site that warrants the approval of a variance. 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject suite may be leased to commercial and office tenants and the existing on-site parking is adequate in supporting these uses with no further parking variances required. 4. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The variance for reduced parking will impact other commercial properties in the vicinity, based on the proposed location of the daycare operation, elimination of 16 parking spaces, and the requested parking variance. 5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed reduction of 16 parking spaces by the proposed outdoor play area will adversely affect existing and future commercial uses on the subject site. (02c10813 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment 1.2 a r , r,. i a c ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31/ VARIANCE NO. 02-10 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 for the establishment and operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite, within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area, will not 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 facility complies with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the exception of required parking for which the applicant has applied for a variance. The day care will utilize an existing suite and parking areas. The outdoor play area will include an adequate separation of approximately 56 to 61 feet from adjacent residential uses and the construction of the proposed outdoor play area will not result in the loss of existing mature trees. In addition,the existing eight- foot block wall and proposed 6-foot block wall provide an adequate sound barrier to adjacent residential properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because it provides adequate parking, landscaping, and access as required by the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The facility will operate on weekdays only and will not generate significant increases to noise levels that would affect the adjacent residential, commercial and public uses based on the proposed separation to adjacent residential uses,the existing eight-foot wall at the property line, and the proposed six-foot block wall enclosure around the play area. The outdoor play area is separated from adjacent residential uses by approximately 56 to 61 feet. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located with the exception of required parking. Commercial General allows general day care uses over 2,500 square feet with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General with FAR of 0.35) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.1.1 Policy LU 10.1.2 Establish incentives for the inclusion of day-care,public meeting rooms, and other community oriented facilities in commercial districts;possibly including the use of density bonus incentives, expedited entitlements, or other techniques. Policy LU 10.1.6 Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 13.1.3 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new child, adult, and senior adult daycare facilities in any land us zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO. 02-10: 1. The granting of Variance No. 02-10 for a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use and mixture of on-site uses will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed location of the daycare facility is located in an area within the shopping center that has an abundance of parking which is inconvenient to the majority of patrons of the shopping center. The parking counts and analysis performed by the applicant and reviewed by staff indicate a large surplus of parking throughout the day,particularly within the vicinity of the proposed daycare facility. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape and location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The shape of the subject parcel segregates the area proposed for the daycare use from the majority of shopping center, therefore, there is much less traffic experienced in this easterly portion of the site than in the westerly and southerly section of the shopping center. In addition,parking counts performed by the applicant and reviewed by staff indicate that a constant surplus of parking exists within the entire shopping center. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Establishment of the proposed daycare use is dependent on the outdoor play area and parking variance. The proposed daycare use is encouraged in commercial districts and satisfies a basic community need for families in the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The variance for reduced parking will not impact other commercial properties in the vicinity,based on the proposed location of the daycare operation in an underutilized area of the shopping center. In addition, it will not impact units within the project based (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.1.2 on the parking counts at the site which indicate a substantial surplus of parking available throughout the entire center. 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Commercial General on the subject property which encourages the inclusion of daycare uses within commercial districts which protects residential uses from excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 1, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The location of the block wall enclosure for the outdoor play area shall be modified to allow for a three-foot wide landscape planter. b. The existing trash enclosure shall be relocated. The new location shall not occupy a parking space or existing landscape planter and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 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. 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. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. Due to a change of use/occupancy and because the area is greater than 5,000 square feet, an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout(the entire building). For Fire Department approval,plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) d. A fire alarm system, automatic and manual, in compliance with Huntington Beach Fore Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as i (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.,%.3 J separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow,tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, and voice communication. (FD) 3. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed: a. A new domestic/irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC). The domestic/irrigation water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. The irrigation water service may be combined with the domestic water service. A separate irrigation water service and meter is also acceptable. (PW) b. A separate backflow protection device shall be installed,per Water Division standards for domestic/irrigation water service. (PW) c. All existing water services and meters serving the proposed development shall be abandoned per Water Division standards. (PW) d. If fire sprinklers are required for the proposed development, they shall have a separate dedicated fire service, with an appropriate backflow protection device. (PW) e. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) f. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. The site plan shall depict all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage, fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for the related expense. (FD) g. Fire extinguishers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. (FD) h. Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (FD) i. A covenant shall be recorded with the County of Orange requiring that the parking area, occupied by the proposed outdoor play area,be returned back to its original condition upon termination of the daycare use. j. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.g.4 k. 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. 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. 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. b. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) 6. Employees of the daycare operation shall park in the row of parking to the south of the subject building. 7. Any modifications to the parking lot that alter the existing on-site drainage shall require the submittal of a grading plan to Public Works for review and approval. 8. 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 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. . 9. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is August 13, 2003 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 Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 ,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. (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.'j.5 r 0 4. 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. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant.shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption 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 permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign-faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. 10. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Attachment No.1.6 rWRIJ r BUSINESS PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY l,I►�Y 0Ff rru 17631 PITCH • P.O.BOX 19586 1iUNT1iq T0!•d 0EAC 1, CA IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92623-9586 (949)474-8900 1002 AUG 21 P 2: 00 FAX(949)474-8936 cb_bp@pacbell.net August 21, 2002 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Mayor and City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA92648 Attn:. City Clerk Re: C. U. P.No. 02-31 10156 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, California Honorable Mayor and City Council: By this notice I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on my application for a daycare facility on my property at subject location. I believe the action of the Planning Commission does not reflect the merits of the application and the recommendation of the STAFF REPORT should have been followed. It is my intention to produce factual information to refute the alleged findings of the Commission. Enclosed is my check in the amount of$1,770.00 which is the fee for this appeal. Timing on this project is critical as the daycare operator has lost their lease at their existing location. Very truly yours, AUSINf SS PROPERTIES (7RTrRSHIP NO. 213 Lester C. Smull, Trustee General Partner CGB: cgb ' PHOENIX OFFICE 8024 NORTH 24TH AVENUE, SUITE 310, PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85021 (602)995-9113 •FAX(602)995-0809 Af NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION I b N6111l mi F O �,� Ue� Date of Planning Commission Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: City Attorney (1 copy) FILED BY01,11100ML4Ada h1fle,C A qzM ggq) 41�_ Egoo REGARDING: V �. 'V o. Il' _ _ (� I G/ A d A m,6 V Q. .� Tentative Date for Public Hearing: 1(14��p_Lt�►n0 r� Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. INUMING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 Vendor # CIT200 08/21/02 NO: 50134 Inv.Date Invoice # Description Co-Pro Amount to Pay 08/21/02 C.U. P. 2-31 FEE TO APPEAL 02-213 1, 770 . 00 TOTAL 1, 770 . 00 �a ii .i .........................._.............. _"__..,.._................ _..........__.._.__._....._...._.____....._......_. .. _. BUSINESS PROPERTIES FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK 90-119 SHOPPING CENTER II 23772 ROCKFIELD BLVD. 1222 17631 FITCH LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 N0: 50134 IRVINE, CA 92614-6021 (9490 474-8900 I P DATE AMOUNT 0 08/21/02 ***********$1,770.00 u E PAY ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS j R i C H E C i K j TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORODER 2000 MAIN STREET, P.O. BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92648 AUTH ED SIGNATURE I 1180SO13411' i: L222OLL98i: IL ?9r. 2 Sti' CASH RECEIPT ■ CIT-9 OF buNTINGTON MACh P.O.BOX 711 CY' HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 HUNTINGTO BE CH• TrEASURER-SHARI L.FREIDENRICH -- --` - -- - ----- DATE h! ISSUING DEPT. �r TELE.# RECEIVED FROM rt 1 1 I 1 i C ' vn: ADDRESS Vly I iWt� FOR Q. �0 I v op d (! . !• 1 -31 cn LLJ VAMOUNT RECEIVED ❑DASH CCHECK# ElCREDIT CARD $ � � 1 PREPARED BY RECEIVED BY O LL IF OBJECT=50000 THRU 90000,FINANCE APPROVAL DATE 0 Business Unit " Object Sub Account Amount co Y - - - - - m — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - w a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o o - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - O Z o - - - � - Y..:- - - - U.cr W `y z a - - - - - - - - - ti - - - - - Uj F. $ - - - - - - - - - - - =:- - - - z N a ¢ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a0 - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - m - - - - - - - - • - - - - - _: — — — - - — — — • — — — — — f' } TOTAL$ i , I D• m N i City of Huntington Beach w City Clerk i a � Date $•til-� u FA:I D �. No. 10435 .1.6 FIN.",LACE-CCP`( q i ✓'�k..,'�':£-.- DRAFT o MINUTES Huntington Beach Planning Commission e Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 Study Session Room B-8 5:15 P.M. 1. 5:15 p.m. Parkside Estates Projects Overview(171 SFR)—Scott Hess 2. 5:45 p.m. The Strand (Blocks 1041105)— Herb Fauland 3. 6:15 p.m. Agenda Review— Herb Fauland 4. 6:20 p.m. Major Projects Update/Planning Commission Inquiries—.Herb Fauland 5. 6:25 p.m. Publics Comments—Joey Ricano, Mark Bixby, and Joel Babich spoke regarding the proposed Parkside development. REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Led by Commissioner Livengood P P P P P P A ROLL CALL: Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter AGENDA APPROVAL A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS— None. (02pcm0813) ATTACHMENT NO. � . i i PC Minutes. August 13, 2002 Page 2 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31NARIANCE NO. 02-10 (STEP BY STEP DAYCARE): Applicant: Lester C. Smull Re uest: To permit the operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children within a 5,525 square foot suite including a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area and associated play equipment. The facility is proposed within an existing 135,484 square foot commercial center. The proposed request includes a parking variance to allow a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the shopping center. Location: 10156 Adams Avenue (southeast comer of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue). Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 request: - Operate a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center. - Site improvements including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area and associated play equipment. • Variance No. 02-10 request: - A reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use, mix of on-site uses and parking analysis Staff's Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 with modifications based upon the following: - Consistent with the goals, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Provides a needed service to the surrounding community - Located in an underutilized area of the shopping center with a large surplus of available parking - Adequate separation consisting of an existing eight-foot block wall, a proposed six-foot block wall, and landscape planters proposed between the adjacent residences and outdoor play area • Staff's Suggested Modifications: A three-foot wide landscape planter shall be provided to aesthetically enhance the appearance of the proposed six-foot high block wall Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Kerins excused himself from action on the item due to a conflict of interest. Commissioners Stanton, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal and Porter disclosed that they had visited the project site and had discussions with the applicant and neighboring residents. (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO. � .z i PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 3 Questions/comments included: • Trash bin relocation • Parking (including business center requirements, number of spaces near the play yard area, and drive aisle widths) • Playground equipment, including type of asphalt material • Number of vacant businesses within the shopping center • Landscape planter width and material - • Back yard setback measurements • Play yard area drainage, including the need for a grading plan • Play yard hours • Traffic concerns at Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Lori Vasquez, Step by Step Daycare; Irvine, spoke in support of the item. Ms. Vasquez referenced a late communication item that held signatures from opposing residents, stating that the daycare center, in its current location that is less than 4 ft. from neighboring residents, has reported no issues in the last 14 years. She provided the Commission information about play yard safety, including surface and play yard equipment and a schedule limiting the hours and number of children who use the play yard. Ed Woolbert, Step by Step Daycare, Irvine, spoke in support of the item. Mr. Woolbert discussed his research in trying to locate a suitable location for the Center, and the willingness of the landowner to work with the Center by moving existing tenants. He also discussed parking, age requirements, play area hours and conditions, including drainage, landscaping and lighting. The Commission asked about relocating the play area to the front of the proposed structure. Mr. Woolbert and staff explained why the shopping center traffic would not allow such an idea. The Commission asked about water drainage patterns in the play area. Mr. Woolbert responded that the drain basins were not located near the play equipment, and therefore would not create any problems. The Commission inquired about the refuse dumpster location. Mr. Woolbert responded that the Center is considering alternatives for the best location. The Commission inquired about the Center's age restrictions and the applicant confirmed, Bob Riedessel, Meredith Gardens HOA, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. Mr. Riedessel voiced concerns regarding noise and reported that the Meredith Gardens Board of Directors voted 6 in favor and 7 opposed to the proposed development. (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO i PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 4 Pat Britt, Meredith Gardens HOA, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and inquired why Step by Step was not considering other vacant school site locations. Ms. Britt stated that childcare centers do not belong in commercial business districts, and voiced concerns about negative traffic impact and noise factors. Kathy LaMarche, Viva Circle, 20-year Huntington Beach resident, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about negative traffic impact and noise factors. Sherry Mac, Step by Step, Irvine, spoke in favor of the item and discussed how strip malls are favorable locations for childcare centers because they are available, visible, economical and business friendly to the community. She confirmed the Center's age restrictions and discussed receipt of state support for outdoor planned activity. The Commission asked about pick-up/drop-off areas. Ms. Mac replied that the schedule was staggered, that parents were personally required to sign their children in and out of the facility, and that designated parking spaces are provided for such activity. The Commission asked about hours of operation, outdoor lighting and play area gates. Ms. Mac outlined hours of operation, including play area hours. She also mentioned that outdoor lighting was not needed, and that any facility entrance or exit would remain locked outside of operational hours. The Commission asked about exposed asphalt in the play area. Ms. Mac explained that the exposed asphalt area would be used for bicycles, and that the majority of the play area would be surfaced with rubber matting for safety. She also described play area equipment. Lawrence Sellars, Lawson Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to traffic because of the busy intersection at Brookhurst and Adams. He also discussed safety issues related to the play area material and equipment, and his feelings that the proposed Center would compromise quality of life to nearby residents. Doug Meriino, Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, stating that the proposed project belongs in an area conducive for day care facilities, not in a commercial zone. He also voiced concerns about the possibilities of decreased property values and traffic hazards created by the proposed project. Jason Wood, Lawson Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, suggesting that the proposed project calls for an Environmental Impact Report, including study on traffic and noise. (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO. 4.q i PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 5 Troy Smith, Lawson Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about noise because he works out of his home. Mr. Smith also discussed the negative traffic impacts and decreased property values associated with the request. Lea Gallup, Lawson Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item by voicing concerns about increased noise. David Wickersham, Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and voiced concerns about increased noise in the early morning hours and poor water drainage in the proposed play yard area. He also discussed trash problems related to the entire shoppin center. Penny Stein, Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to poor water drainage in the proposed play yard area, trash collection and noise. She also stated that the proposed 6-foot retaining wall would not keep noise in, but rather, cause it to echo from the facility. Shannon Kennedy, Lawson Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about increased noise from the large number of children allowed within the play yard area at one time. Betty Wickersham, Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about the negative impacts of increased noise. She also referenced an informational flyer distributed by Step By Step Daycare to area residents, calling it misleading relative to their proposal. She called for those who oppose the item to stand and be recognized. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding parking, specifically the decrease in spaces within the shopping center, and the number of spaces designated for day care staff parking. The Commission inquired about the types of uses permitted within the shopping center. Staff stated that typical uses include medical, office and retail. The Commission voiced concerns about proper water drainage in the play yard area. Staff stated that the drainage was adequate. The Commission and staff discussed the variation in back yard setbacks located along the proposed play yard area. The Commission asked about availability of other school sites within the City. The Commission voiced concerns about increased noise and the possibility of an echo affect that may occur from the wall that surrounds the play yard area, also suggesting that height be added to the wall. (02pcm0813) ATTACHMENT NO. #•'5 PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 6 The Commission asked if the applicant would consider the following modifications: 1. Restricted play yard hours (no earlier than 9:00 a.m.) 2. No play area whistles 3. Increased wall height 4. Relocation of trash bins 5. Relocation of play yard area The applicant agreed to item numbers 1, 2 and 4. Discussion continued regarding the need to initiate a new traffic study. Staff explained why a new study was unnecessary. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY PORTER, TO DENY CONDIITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 02-10 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Shomaker, Livengood, Porter NOES: Hardy, Kokal ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kerins MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31NARIANCE NO. 02-10 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 for the establishment and operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite, within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area, will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed daycare facility and associated outdoor play area will result in the elimination of 16 parking spaces and reduce the amount of available on-site parking for patrons of the shopping center. The outdoor play area will result in noise impacts to adjacent residential properties and will be detrimental to the welfare of the residents. The proposed daycare operation will not be compatible with surrounding uses because it eliminates existing on-site parking and results in noise impacts to adjacent residences resulting from children playing and making excessive noise in the outdoor play area. In addition, noise from the designated employee parking area would impact adjacent residents in the early morning. The facility will operate on weekdays and will affect the (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO, PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 7 adjacent residential and commercial uses by occupying an area that has been reserved for customer parking. The daycare use results in a cumulative increase in traffic to the surrounding arterials during peak traffic periods in the morning and afternoon and will impact the existing on-site drainage patterns and therefore will be incompatible with surrounding properties. The proposed use will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The exception to required parking is not consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for the proposed daycare use. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General with FAR of 0.35) on the subject property because the proposed separation from residential uses does not adequately protect the single-family homes from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, vehicular traffic and visual character. In addition, it is not consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy LU 4.2.4 Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space and other pertinent elements. Policy LU 10.1.2 Establish incentives for the inclusion of day-care, public meeting rooms, and other community oriented facilities in commercial districts; possibly including the use of density bonus incentives, expedited entitlements, or other techniques. Policy LU 10.1.6 Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately_ protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 13.1.3 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new child, adult, and senior adult daycare facilities in any land us zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-VARIANCE NO. 02-10: The granting of Variance No. 02-10 for a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use and mixture of on-site uses will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The proposed daycare facility is located in an area (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO. `� � PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 8 within the shopping center that directly abuts residential properties and occupies existing parking for patrons of the center. The proposed daycare use will impact on-site parking based on the number of parking spaces required for the drop-off and pickup up of 88 children. The location of the shopping center is typical of many of other properties in the same zoning classification and there are not unique circumstances, which set apart the subject property from others in the same zoning classification. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including shape and location, which require a deviation to the strict application of the zoning ordinance. The subject site is located in a typical commercial shopping center with adequate parking for retail and office tenants. The elimination of 16 parking spaces places a burden on the existing uses in the shopping center. There are no unique physical characteristics such as the shape, size, or location of the subject site that warrants the approval of a variance. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject suite may be leased to commercial and office tenants and the existing on-site parking is adequate in supporting these uses with no further parking variances required. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The variance for reduced parking will impact other commercial properties in the vicinity, based on the proposed location of the daycare operation, elimination of 16 parking spaces, and the requested parking variance. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan. The proposed reduction of 16 parking spaces by the proposed outdoor play area will adversely affect existing and future commercial uses on the subject site. THE COMMISSION CALLED FOR A BRIEF RECESS. After the meeting reconveyned, the Commission stated that during the recess certain individuals opposed to the daycare item approached the Commission with suggestions for approval. The Commission and staff discussed the process of reconsidering the Commission's action at a future date. (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO. �•� PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 9 C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 25, 2002 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 25, 2002, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal NOES: None ABSENT: Kerins ABSTAIN: Stanton, Hardy, Porter MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1. FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN ANNUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: Annual review and update of the Flood Management Plan for 2001-2002 Location: Citywide Project Planner: Ricky Ramos The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department requests Planning Commission evaluation of the Flood Management Plan (FMP) annual review report. • The FMP was approved by the City Council in September 2000 following a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission. • The FMP identifies potential local flood hazards and problems associated with those hazards, establishes goals to reduce or mitigate the flood hazards, and recommends activities to attain these goals. • The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandates that an annual review of the FMP's recommended activities must be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to demonstrate that the City is actively pursuing their implementation. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the timeframe for the County to improve the flood control channels in Huntington Beach. Staff referred to Attachment 2 of the staff report, outlining the County's seven-year flood control improvement plan as it relates to the Huntington Beach and the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channels. (02p=0813) ATTACHMENT NO. 4-1 i PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 10 . A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY HARDY, TO ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2001-2002 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Kerins ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS—Commissioner Porter reported on the Shipley Nature Center and the impact of the City budget on the Center. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES/COMMENTS Commissioner Stanton— None. Commissioner Kerins— None. Commissioner Hardy— None. Commissioner Shomaker—expressed her concerns over the funding for the Shipley Nature Center and noted the important role of"Friends of Shipley Nature Center." Commissioner Livengood— None. Commissioner Kokal—expressed his concerns over the possible loss of funding for the Shipley Nature Center due to the City's budget crisis. He also inquired about the possible reconsideration of Agenda item B-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31/Variance No. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare). Commissioner Porter— None. A discussion ensued between staff and the Commission regarding the possible reconsideration of Agenda item B-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31/Variance No. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare). The Commission inquired about the process for reconsideration after Commissioner Kokal reported that a neighbor recommended meeting with the applicant to resolve the issues identified during the public hearing. (02pcm0813) ATTACHMENT NO. ��- PC Minutes August 13, 2002 Page 11 F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner—reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on August 5, 2002. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner—reported on the Planning Department items to be heard before the City Council on August 19, 2002. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner—reviewed items for the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2002. G. ADJOURNMENT—Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2002. The Study Session will begin at 4:45 pm. HZ:H F:rI APPROVED BY: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Jan Shomaker, Chairperson (02p=0813) ATTACHMEENT NO. & _. ..... r City 0 1untingtgn Beacfi flanping Departmentr STAFF REPORT NUNTINGTON BEACH'--:-. - , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Paul Da Veiga, Associate Plannel?�> DATE: August 13, 2002 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31NARIANCE NO. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Lester Smull, 17631 Fitch Ave.,Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 10156 Adams Avenue(Southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 request: - Operate a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center. - Site improvements including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area and associated play equipment. e Variance No. 02-10 request: - A reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the existing shopping center based on the proposed daycare use, mix of on-site uses and parking analysis • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 with modifications based upon the following: Consistent with the goals, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element and provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Provides a needed service to the surrounding community - Located in an underutilized area of the shopping center with a large surplus of available parking - Adequate separation consisting of an existing eight-foot block wall, a proposed six-foot block wall, and.landscape planters proposed between the adjacent residences and outdoor play area • Staff s Suggested Modifications: A three-foot wide landscape planter shall be provided to aesthetically enhance the appearance of the proposed six-foot high block wall ATTACHMENT NO. 'E; . i _ e liGt t ! CQfIY ®WOE \ f tIIO. A�i11ti \ \ aA7Y PROJECT SITE _ /7�OA11 JYWW - r AD S hl U F-- RAN=W 64 r t V V / N in S : IIIAGAPA 0 w r JIU. On ] J = vC7ler G i t^,` e OL 7 � r �• z apt = .,an y .ep00 J � o VICINITY MAP Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31/ Variance No 02-10 2000 main Street ATTACHMENT NO. s- Z THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No.1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 represents a request for the following: A. To permit the operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children in a 5,525 square foot suite within an existing 136,811 square foot shopping center pursuant to Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). B. Site improvements including the construction of a six-foot block wall enclosure for a proposed 6,000 square foot outdoor play area with playground equipment including the elimination of 16 parking spaces. Variance No. 02-10 is requested for the following: A. A reduction of 28 parking spaces pursuant to Section 231.04, Off-Street Parking and Loading Required of the HBZSO. The proposal is a request to operate a daycare facility at the subject site for a maximum of 88 children between the ages of 6 weeks to 12 years of age. The proposed hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The daycare facility is closed on the weekends. The applicant is proposing a total of five classrooms within the subject 5,525 square foot suite including a reception area, two offices, and a teacher's workroom. A total of nine employees, including administrative staff and caregivers will be employed at the facility. The request also includes occupying an existing parking area adjacent to the subject suite with a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area. Step by Step also offers a program called Rainbow Retreat, which provides daycare for mildly ill children and is, according to the applicant, the only child care facility for mildly ill children in Orange County. The proposed play area will be enclosed by a six-foot decorative block wall, which will eliminate 16 existing parking spaces. The proposed outdoor play area is setback approximately 58 feet to the east property line and approximately 53 feet to the south property line. The play area will contain play equipment measuring approximately 12-feet in total height at its highest point. The proposed play ATTACHMENT NO. -5;-3 PC Staff Report—8/13/02- -3- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) equipment will be setback approximately 69 feet from the east property line and approximately 109 feet to the south property line. Step by Step has been operating at the closed Burke School site located at 9700 Levee Drive since 1988. The school site permitted a maximum of 204 children based on its size and available facilities. The daycare is vacating the school as a result of a new lease agreement between the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Christian School, which will occupy the entire school site. A condition of approval for Huntington Christian School allowed the daycare to remain at the Burke School site for a total of sixty days in order to give Step by Step the opportunity to seek approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a total reduction of 28 parking spaces. The reduction is based on the current and proposed mix of uses within the center and the proposed elimination of 16 parking spaces to allow for the outdoor play area. The applicant has conducted on-site parking counts and an analysis of uses to justify the parking variance. The staff of Step by Step held a community meeting on July 22, 2002 at the closed Burke School site. According to the applicant, flyers were hand carried by the applicant to 80 residential properties within the residential neighborhood to the south and east of the subject site. There were two adjacent property owners in attendance and they expressed concern regarding the potential increase in noise as a result of the outdoor play area. ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND..USE Subject Property: Commercial General CG (Commercial General) Shopping Center North and West of Commercial General CG (Commercial General) Shopping Center Subject Property: South and East of Residential Low Density RL (Residential Low Single-Family Homes Subject Property: Density) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is Commercial General. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. ATTACHMENT NO. PC Staff Report—8/13/02- 4- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Policy LU 10.1.2: Establish incentives for the inclusion of daycare, public meeting rooms, and other community oriented facilities in commercial districts; possibly including the use of density bonus incentives, expedited entitlements, or other techniques. Policy LU 10.1.6: Require that commercial properties abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. Policy LU 13.1.3: Allow for the continuation of existing, and development of new child, adult, and senior adult daycare facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the Commercial General (CG) zone and complies with the requirements of that zone with the exception of required parking. A detailed analysis of the parking variance is included in the analysis section of this report. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act since it involves the leasing and minor alteration to an existing private structure in an already urbanized area. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works,Fire, and Building and Safety have recommended conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval. There are no unique or special conditions of approval recommended by these departments. Public Notircation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on Thursday, August 1, 2002 and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification, applicant, and interested parties. As of August 8, 2002, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. ATTACHMENT NO. PC Staff Report-8/13/02- -5- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Conditional Use Permit/Variance: July 22, 2002 September 22, 2002 ANALYSIS: The primary issues to consider when analyzing this project are the proposed parking variance and land use compatibility of the outdoor play area with adjacent single-family residences. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues: Parking Variance Section 231.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requires that the total requirement for off-street parking be calculated by each separate use within the shopping center. The table below provides the current mix of uses within the shopping center and the respective parking ratios for each use. The majority of uses (71 percent) within the center are calculated at a retail parking ratio of one space for every 200 square feet of floor area including 23,939 square feet of vacant tenant space. For purposes of calculating parking in the absence of an established use,the code requires parking for the existing vacant suites based on the general retail parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet. Two restaurants, Denny's and the Moulin Rouge, account for 23 percent of the total required parking on- site. Denny's restaurant is open 24 hours a day and Moulin Rouge is open on Tuesday through Sunday from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. These restaurants attract more patronage in the evenings and weekends compared to the hours of operation of the proposed daycare use which is open Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and closed on the weekends. With the exception of some of the office uses, the majority of the businesses within the shopping center are open on weekends, which is when the parking need is at its greatest. Since the proposed daycare use does not operate on weekends and divergent parking needs exist on-site based on the mix of uses and hours of operation, staff is in support of the proposed parking variance. The following table summarizes the existing on-site uses and their respective parking requirements including the proposed daycare use: EXISTINGUSES < BUILDINGAREA= CODE PROVISION PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Retail 97,535 1/200 sq. ft. 487.67 Restaurant more than 12 seats 17,680 1/100 s . ft. 176.80 Office 11,685 1/250 s . ft. 46.74 Medical 4,386 1/175 s . ft. 25.06 Proposed Daycare 5,525 1 space per classroom 14 1 space per staff TOTAL 136,811 750 Total Parking Lot Spaces 722 `,ate, . ' .- ::. 281 ,gee.deficienc "- ATTACHMENT NO. s PC Staff Report—8/13/02- -6- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) i The requested parking variance represents a 28-space(4 percent)reduction in required parking. In order to analyze the existing parking utilization within the shopping center,the applicant performed parking counts spanning three days on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The following table represents the results of these parking counts: Date of Stud`� #_,x Time of S ut d %Numbe of ihicles -Avi aMeMPark n :738 Total x Tuesday(7/30/02) 10:30 a.m. 226 vehicles 512 parking spaces 3:45 p.m. 257 vehicles 481 parking spaces Wednesday(7/31/02) 11:15 a.m. 243 vehicles 495 parking spaces 5:00 p.m. 237 vehicles 501 parking spaces Thursday 8/1/02 8:00 a.m. 119 vehicles 619 parking spaces The results of the parking counts indicate a large surplus in available parking spaces throughout the entire day. Staff conducted independent parking counts to verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the applicant. Based on observations made by staff,the majority of occupied parking spaces are located directly in front of the Stater Brother's Supermarket and in the parking areas adjacent to Denny's Restaurant. The proposed location of the daycare facility and outdoor play area is in an underutilized area of the shopping center and the outdoor play area occupies a parking area that is inconvenient to the majority of patrons of the businesses. According to the applicant,the majority of the children are dropped off between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and afternoon pickup generally occurs between the hours of 2:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. The parking counts show that there is a large surplus of available parking throughout the day, and particularly during the early morning hours. Parents will typically park for a very short period of time which would consist of walking their child to and from office and signing them in or out and exiting the center. Staff is in support of the proposed parking variance based on the parking analysis which indicates a large surplus of available parking currently on the subject site. Outdoor Play Area The daycare facility is proposed in a remote area of the subject shopping center. Adjacent uses are single- family residential homes to the south and east of this location. The outdoor play area is approximately 6,000 square feet in size and is proposed to the east of the subject building. The outdoor play area will be fully enclosed by a six-foot block wall with a section of wrought iron fence located adjacent to the subject suite, to allow parents to view their children in the play area and to allow surveillance into this area. The single family homes to the south of the subject site are separated from the play area by an eight-foot block wall, a row of parking(19' stall depth), a 34-foot wide drive aisle, and a three-foot wide landscape planter. The residences to the east are separated from the play area by an eight-foot block wall, a ten-foot wide landscape planter, 29-foot wide drive aisle, a row of parking(19' stall depth), and a three-foot landscape planter. With the three-foot wide planter recommended by staff,the total separation from the residences to the east is approximately 61 feet and 56 feet from the south property line. The applicant is proposing to include outdoor play equipment within the enclosed area with a maximum height of approximately 12-feet at its highest point. The proposed play equipment will be setback approximately 69 feet from the east property line and approximately 109 feet to the south property line. The applicant indicates that the maximum number of children in the outdoor play area at any one time would not exceed 36 children. Two classes at a time would be allowed to use the play area between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The outdoor play area will not impact on-site circulation and all drive aisle widths and remaining parking areas will remain the same. ATTACHMENT NO-- ,'�.?- PC Staff Report—8/13/02- -7- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) In many projects where noise is a potential problem, a common condition would require an eight-foot block wall be constructed as a sound barrier. An eight-foot wall already exists on the subject site, and the applicant is proposing a second six-foot block wall around the perimeter of the play area, which will act as an additional sound barrier to adjacent single-family homes. In addition staff is recommending a three- foot landscape planter be provided around the perimeter of the play area to allow for shrubs and trees to be planted, further screening views from adjacent single family residences and adding three feet to the existing buffer to the adjacent residences. With the recommended conditions of approval, proposed separation, and sound attenuation of two block walls,the proposed daycare use will be compatible with adjacent single family homes. The following sections depict the separation from the proposed play area to the adjacent residences to the east and to the south: FIGURE 1.1 —SEPARATION FROM RESIDENCES TO THE EAST C-)e16srIiI6 , LY �-.•31 1�[es til c�� - C 1.Jd1-IL. Y A --L-r-- - �.. . �i IGTt 411 2�1 0{1 iD��QII b� 1_dll FIGURE 1.2—SEPARATION FROM RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH 4 I 31 pt.e+lr�fc'.. I Slol — 4 t1 Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires the applicant to record a covenant with the County of Orange agreeing to return the parking area, occupied by the proposed outdoor play area, back to its original condition upon termination of the daycare use. The intent of this condition is to increase the ATTACHMENT NO. 5• S PC Staff Report—8/13/02- -8- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) number of parking spaces at the time when the daycare use ceases, and eliminate the play area enclosure, which would be unnecessary for a new tenant occupying the building after the daycare. The applicant has indicated that this requirement is also a condition of the lease agreement between Step by Step and the property owner. Staff is also recommending that employees of the daycare operation park in the row of parking to the south of the subject building, which is currently underutilized by patrons of the center. During several field inspections of the site staff observed that the parking area directly behind the subject suite is rarely used by patrons or employees. The nine employees of the facility would be required to utilize this parking area and consequently free up storefront parking for parents dropping off their children for daycare. Staff is recommending modifications to the proposed location of the block wall enclosure. Staff is recommending that the applicant relocate the block wall three feet inward to allow additional landscaping and trees to be planted directly in front of the block wall. The Citywide Design Guidelines encourage landscaping adjacent to walls to aesthetically enhance the appearance of the wall surface. In addition, the landscape planter area would allow for additional trees to provide shade for children in the play area and screening from adjacent single family homes. Staff supports the proposed location of the play area with the recommended modifications based on the proposed buffer to adjacent residences consisting of an existing 8-foot block wall along the property line, 56 to 61 foot separation between the two uses, additional landscape planters, and a proposed six-foot block wall enclosure surrounding the play area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval—CUP No. 02-31NAR No. 02-10 2. Site Plan and Floor Plans dated July 1, 2002 3. Narrative dated May 23, 2002 4. Letter from Applicant dated August 2, 2002 ATTACHMENT NO. PC Staff Report—8/13/02- -9- (02sr30 CUP 02-31 VAR 02-10) L ............. kli :J� I., Z JmM Ida .......... r ne web If— a 14— KIF.7 If.) I EARNINCIeerlWoiW uj N1,11IM1,41 CI;Nn:k REVISED:PERAM 21, AMENDED AUG.02.2W2 C APPROVED- j.:. ............. -17 fa-6 4F ......... ------- C J r rc 3 Li 9 III It I l, I j.PLAN BY UNIT NUMBER . , ' ? j IL L L!, 0 7L/ p Ment P�(Qn dow(do E%ISIINfi �, 2'!-4' ��',.._.._ aV-p _.. _ aC�.p' i( - 2S•O R p 1UWiLR TOILET $SO, CHERS'KROOMGLASS ROOM7B4 SO.FT. CLASSROOM672 SO.FT. AREA NOT A PART OF PLAN PLAV YARU ?'6.0WSoFT. i CLASS ROOM � CLASS ROOM 'NR RRE wALL � 640 SQ.FT. i 720 SO.FT. i T ---- --- RECEPTION j ®1 FNE �11ldiAllF 1 PLAY EQUIPMENT i AREA i SEE AI'IAf.11EU i 51'EC. 2a.:c' l NOTES: My E MWER TO IUVE A FULL AMLIHf]ATEOFSIEAL WSTL4 LLPL\ANTER .. . � ,L:: ?R:K............._.._......_:.i" PARKING T1, EXISTING PLANTER PROPOSED SPACE PLAN NORTH The following information expresses how STEP BY STEP EARLY.LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER AND RAINBOW RETREAT have positively affected the community of Huntington Beach. Step by Step, owned and operated by National Pediatric Support Services, Inc. (NPSS) was established at the former Burke Elementary School in 1988, when Pacifica Hospital was looking to sponsor child care for its employees. Since that time, Step by Step has served employees of nearby businesses, Huntington Beach City School District employees, City of Huntington Beach employees and the general community by offering quality child care for children 6 weeks to 12 years of age. In addition, Rainbow Retreat, day care for mildly ill children, was also opened at the Burke site, and continues to be the only child care available for mildly ill children in Orange County. The Step by Step Facility is licensed for 204 children. Step by Step was one of the first child care centers accredited in Huntington Beach by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and continues to be acclaimed as an accredited center for nearly a decade.: Despite•the,economic shifts within the City of Huntington Beach, Step by Step has continued to serve the community and provide needed infant, toddler, preschool and after-school services for thousands of children, including state-funded children. Step by Step serves families currently on CalWorks and Step by Step Huntington Beach is one of very few child care programs in Orange County that is receiving State of California Child Development Division funding to serve families that qualify for state funding. Rainbow Retreat has been a model for mildly ill programs nation-wide. It has been an answer for many parents who could not afford to miss work to care for their child or feel comfortable allowing their ill school-age child to be home alone. Numerous magazines and newspapers have highlighted Rainbow Retreat for its innovation and ability to meet the needs of working parents. The loss of Step by Step and Rainbow Retreat in Huntington Beach would be felt throughout the community. Quality child care is at a premium, and quality infant care is nearly impossible to find, particularly when few preschool offer care beginning at 6 weeks. NPSS has had an amicable relationship with its landlord, Huntington Beach City School District, since 1988. We have served the community for 14 years. It is our goal to continue to serve the City of Huntington Beach. In order to work cooperatively with its landlord,NPSS is struggling to receive the City's approval quickly in order to move forward with a new location and vacate the Burke Elementary School Site for a private parochial school. With everyone's cooperation, Step by Step and Rainbow Retreat will be able to serve hundreds of children annually in Huntington Beach for many more years. ATTACHMENT NO. 5:�v 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 160 Irvine, CA 92614 - (949' 251-9777 Fax (949) 251-9677 I i��i iii1�i? o'i' Ici'nli CicNi o'F I I'untington 3eEch 2000 M.'a:in St-rc PO Jo:: 190 Huntington ch, Cal A% 9264•8 ra: C.!_1.P. `02.3'11 Pa king St-uCIy Dear ?aul: The following Parking count has been completed: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 '10:30 ,?.M. 226 cars 3:45 P.M. 257 cars Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:15 A.IVi. 243 cars 5:00 P.M. 237 cars The total available parking for -this parcel is 733. stalls. The aVerage use of available parking is 24.0 stalls or 33% of the total. Sincerely, i E.d,,,v_rd G. 0/coter; ATTACHMENT NO. September 4, 2002 Dear City Council Members; (�/D oL /0 My name is Martin Stein and I reside at 20082 Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. As a resident of this area I object to granting the Variance requested by Step-By- Step because of the following reasons: 1. NOISE FACTOR-A proposed outdoor playground in such close proximity to the surrounding homes, with the noise of children in play is very intrusive. The daycare is a year round operation with at least 10 hours a day outdoor play and activities, which will impact our daily lives in a negative way. 2. SAFETY— A. Heavy traffic intersection with many accidents, mostly in the early AM and late PM. (rush hour time). B. The parking lot itself has heavy traffic to include many delivery vans and drivers taking short cuts from Brookhurst to Adams. C. Building a 6 foot wall around the play ground, (as proposed by the daycare), will form an alley with sharp turns. Too sharp for deliveries trucks and refuses trucks to maneuver. D. The immediate building to the north of the proposed site is a walk-in medical clinic, which receives hazardous medical materials and chemicals. 3. HEALTH ISSUES—We have a rat problem in the area. The trash bin, situated on the property will-have to be moved, probably closer toward the homes, and its content will now include leftover food from snacks and lunches and soiled diapers. This will cause a growth in the rodent population and a strong odor on hot days. 4. DRAINAGE—One of the main, above ground, drainage paths for this shopping center is right in the middle of the proposed playground area, and should not be blocked. How will this affect the area? 5. CONGESTION—Adding 88 cars in the AM and PM, dropping and picking up children at about the same time will cause a traffic problem in the shopping center and will burden the already existing heavy rush hour traffic. 6. NEIGHBORS—Most houses bordering the proposed site are owned by retired people who enjoy their backyards. The volume of noise generated by the children at play time,,to include ball games, wheel toys, water games, etc. will prevent them from enjoying their leisure time outdoors and will force them to escape indoors for some peace and quiet. An unfair situation as they were here first. 7. PROPERTY VALUE—According to the real estate office, located in said shopping center, a daycare center with an outdoor playground, will negatively impact the value of the homes in the area due to their proximity to the site and the noise level. I ask you to please deny this appeal. 8S :II V 9- d3S 1001 Sincerely, d0 'HOV101 N015NIINllH -0 A 113 -7 - September 3, 2002 C The City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o RE: Step-By-Step Daycare Variance Appeal rn -- Dear Council Members: As a 43 year resident of the City of Huntington Beach and a resident for 22 =- years in my present home, I strongly oppose this Variance for the following =>> reasons: 1. My home is directly adjacent to the parking lot of the shopping center where Step-By-Step wants to establish the outside playground ffor their operation. The noise generated by the children and their play equipment can only end up being a source of annoyance and disturbance to the peace and quiet of our home. 2. Both my wife and I are retired and are at home during the hours of this business's proposed schedule. So from 6:00 a.m. when staff would be arriving, opening and closing car doors, until 7:00 p.m. when they would be leaving, we would be subjected to the sounds generated. 3. The Meredith Gardens homes were built in the mid 1960's and our homes were built and occupied in 1979-80. People who purchased homes here were fully aware of the shopping center and that all businesses were conducted under roof. So the only noise being generated would essentially be light traffic. We believe we should not now have to adjust our lives to accommodate a business with over half of its square footage operation outside. We do not wish to become prisoners in our own home, having to shut our windows and stay inside to shield ourselves from the sounds generated by this business. a 4. We feel that by allowing this variance, a precedent is established wherein other businesses could apply to operate outside of the confines of the store area they are leasing. 5. Although the studies reported that there was.a limited parking usage of this section of the parking lot, it is only because the Huntington Beach Beauty & Supply Co. vacated this site several months ago and relocated in another area of the center. But when this business was there, and when the restaurant was serving lunch and dinner, this area has always been well used. This is why the City required as much parking as exists now. This is not a case of not caring for the need for child care. It is a case of an inappropriate location. Please help us retain our quality of life by supporting the Planning Commission's denial of this Variance application by denying it also. Sincerely, David . Wickersham 20092 Viva Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 H. B. Library Board Chairman 1964-1977 -7- SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 610 2 �j To: Huntington Beach City Council Re: Step by Step Day Care As a resident of Huntington Beach Meredith Gardens located at Lawson Lane, I strongly oppose the-Step by Step Day Care location Reasons: 1) Being retired, no need for-more noise.in the area concern. 2) Safety.concem for children attending the daycare. 3) Stater Brothers trucks and other trucks delivering merchandise. 4) Cars moving in and out of the parking area have no regard'for stop signs or speed: 5) Parents picking up children will use Lawson lane as a short cut to get back on Brookhurst which will cause heavy traffic in a resident area 6) At peak hour cars are driving on Adams and Brookhurst at excessive speed. 7) No saf- play ground for children inn-a shopping strip mail. With this information available to you, I hopeyou will oppose the Step By Step Day Care. ,Siheerely, _Cz Hank Vandernaald 20091 Lawson Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Cn "=�"` N cj LA-- ' 2> RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of CUP No. 02-31 and VAR No. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 ........ .._ ...._ ......... ... ....... . ....._ .. _.__._ RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) 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) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EX PLA TI F I ING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FOR _ ARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial Gec-� City Clerk D J4� -- ._ EXPLANATION FOR:RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:PD:kjl CITY OF' I HUNTIhIGTON BEACH, CA k ,Q q_� September 12, 2002 1001 SEP I I P 12: 31 ✓'�`UA7 The City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Daycare Variance Appeal Dear Council Members: As a 27 year resident of Meredith Gardens I vigorously and strongly oppose the proposed variance for the following reasons: 1. A commercial shopping center is not a suitable environment for a child day care center with an outside playground where play equipment and the related expressions of childhood exuberance and joy will create unwelcome disturbance to the tranquillity intended for quality neighborhood existence. 2. Brookhurst and Adams remains one of the busiest intersections with high accident frequency. Inevitably, the day care users will(as so many have)learn of the convenience of exit right(east)on Adams then right again on Lawson Lane, and more vehicles will be joining the morning and evening Lawson Lane`Raceway". 3. "Res Ipsa Loquitor",the child care center means additional revenue for our city. Business is not"static". While the initial contract may stipulate children not older than five or six years of age; should enrollment fail to meet their projections, you will be petitioned to increase the age limit to 12 years; or,if at capacity, then expansion is merited. Same situation...12 year olds and the relentless drum beat of basketballs "compound"an already intolerable noise level for those of us near the shopping mall...and literally intolerable for those in residence`juxtaposing"the cinder block separation. 4. While your initial contract may include all forms of`whereas",wherefore, caveats, etc,ultimately the"movement of money"transcends; and resourceful attorneys will find means to abrogate"original intent". 5. This combination of excessive noise, especially for the unfortunate neighbors in Viva Circle and west side of Lawson Lane leaves the Council in the position of imposing (if passed) a form of"eminent dominion"over these homes and their hapless residents. The wisdom of The Planning Commission should be the inspiration of the City Council in declining this"aberrational"variance. ordi ZLa; wrealll , ce R. Sellars 20082 Lawson Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 N tz 4J JJ F /O�/.2� FROm fAePosCO .DLOGK wlgL�- ON EAST..3'/DG o� �LA3� yecy FWCEMW FRO AND MODE A COUNc'.IL MfET1N0 OF \—1 lc�0 CFPoM OF 7H—fo—T—Y�( CONW BRDCKMY,CfT cum rmma — �u s s n e`ss� perIt ` es Memorandum RECE r\) ��� AND MADE A PART OF THE ECORD AT COUNCL MEETLNG OF l To: Chuck Ball OFFICE OF THE CITY CUEW CONNIE BROr"AY,CIT;f CtMK From: Ann Powell ITEM 0 �S Date: September 13, 2002 Subject: BROOKHURST & AMS,HUNTINGTON BEACH (Center 213) TRASH HAULING CHEDULE,EXTERMINATION, and TRASH ENCLOSURE MAINTENANCE Below is a detailed schedule of the maintenance performed at the above-referenced shopping center. 1. Rainbow Disposal picks up the trash at the Center from Monday through Saturday, as noted below. 10042 Adams M-F One 3-yd 10088 Adams M-S One 3-yd 10090 Adams M-F One 3-yd 10118 Adams M, W, S One 3-yd *10156 Adams M,W,F,S Two 3-yd 20100 M &F One 3-yd *Day School Location 2. Western Exterminator Company inspects and sprays the Center once per month and has been for many years. Our contractor has not mentioned that we had a rodent problem, nor have we had any complaints from residents or Tenants. 3. Commercial Maintenance &Repair(CMR) steam cleans the trash enclosures once per month, except for months July, August and September which is twice per month. 4. Attached is a copy of the proposal for dumpster relocation. APIs Attachment as noted. COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE & REPAIR P.O. BOX 19586 IRVINE, CA 92713 PAGER 714) 410-1090 INVOICE STEAM CLEANING SERVICE AUGUST 2002/1ST TO: BUSINESS.PROPERTIES INVOICE# : STEAMJ213 17631 FITCH DATE OF SERVICE: IRVINE, CA 92714 PAID REFERENCE: 213 BROOKHURST/ADAMS BUG 2 2002 �O�� HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA STEAM CLEAN SIDEWALKS: $ 407.00 STEAM CLEAN DUMPSTERS: $ 88.00 TOTAL DUE: $ 495.00 DEBIT CODING: 7187 $ 407.00 7195 $. 88.00 WORK PERFORMED BY: CREDIT CODING: 4025 213 10' a e B `� � HC 010002 w 08/Ol/02 ,. n DISPOSAL CO., INC. -P.O. BOX 1026, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647-1026 INDICATE AMOUNT PAID S Please note-to assure proper cread to your account t rite your account number on your check Make Check Payable To: Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Please Do Not Send Cash BUSINESS PROP 010002 RAINBOW DISPOSAL ANN POWELL P.O. BOX 1026 PO BOX 19586 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-1026 IRVINE CA 92623 ❑ Please check if billing address has changed and indicate changes on reverse side. PLEASE DETACH ABOVE PORTION AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT. DO NOT SEND CASH-PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO"RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO., INC." RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. , INC. FOR SERVICE AT: P.O. BOX 1026 BUSINESS PROPERTIES HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 P.O.# 213 For questions concerning disposal service, HC 01000 08J01/02 please call Rainbow Disposal at (714)847-3581 PAYMENTS :AREDUE UPON RECEIPT 2 K 1 Jz .; _ . m .vr �J\ fit 1 .Y,`. .. v.-,1 SERVICE�PERIOD&DESC�RIPTIONf ` CH " ARGESR G PAYMENTS bY4 BAa NCE BALANCE :FORWARD 21.63 62 01 12jPAYMENT CHK #1'6202 2163 . 62 1 Q;0 4 2 ADAMS AVE In j'3Y D AUG 02 "WASTE REMOVAL 331 .40 S:TATE,:RECYCLING COMPLIANCE FEE 37 .68 lb-088 MADAMS AVE —IY)-5. I3yp AUG :02 WASTE _REMOVAL 387 .46 `�STATE; RECYCLING COMPLIANCE FEE 45 .22 J. 0 9 0 .ADAMS AVE n)-F 13Vb AUG 02 WASTE REMOVAL �3311"'40 STATE` RECYCLING COMPLIANCE FEE 37 . 68 10118 ADAMS AVE ft),N/t 5 (3YD AUG 02 WASTE REMOVAL 220 . 34 STATE RECYCLING COMPLIANCE FEE 20 . 54 10156 ADAMS AVE M;tN Ffj A 3yD AUG 02 WASTE REMOVAL 517 . 62 STATE RECYCLING COMPLIANCE FEE 60 . 28 20100 BROOKHURST ST—Mf F j 3x'p Customer payments may be made in person during business hours at Rainbow Disposal Co.,Inc., 17121 Nichols St.,Huntington Beach. Please do not leave cash payments in the deposit box. 006312 MULT 1 OF 2 Dal Mf-(0 ° ��Pr HC 010002 08/01/02 G DISPOSAL CO., INC. . - INDICATE AMOUNT PAID PO. BOX 1026,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647-1026 / 2163 . 62 7 Please note-to assure proper credit to your account, write your account number on your check Make Check Payable To: Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. Please Do Not Send Cash BUSINESS PROP . 010002 RAINBOW DISPOSAL ANN POWELL P.O. BOX 1026 PO BOX 19586 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-1026 IRVINE CA 92623 ❑ Please check if billing address has changed and indicate changes on reverse side. PLEASE DETACH ABOVE PORTION AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT. DO NOT SEND CASH—PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO"RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO., INC! RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. , INC. 0212 FOR SERVICE AT: P.O. BOX 1026 16./ BUSINESS PROPERTIES HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 /T/ P.O.# 213 HC 01000 08/01/02 2163 62 For questions concerning disposal service, , please call Rainbow Disposal at (714)847-3581 h - ^ t tVV 4 PAID J PAYMENTS ARErDUE UPON RECEIPT A i r " z; a - SE 'PE IOD 8�DESRT�ON CRI CHARGES ' PAYMENTS; BALANCE 2Wt ` 3 50 AST RAL COMPINCE FEERECYC—,N 0 r t 2163..62 S .f i.t a X yc rl [p2fit sl "YeS We R gel ° i rf, r YTHIS IS YOUR'CURRENT AUGUST BILLING sSTATEMENT INCLUDES.:.TRANSACTIONS THROUGH 7/30./02 f . Customer payments may be made in person during business hours at Rainbow Disposal Co.,Inc., 17121 Nichols St.,Huntington Beach. Please do not leave cash payments in the deposit box. 006312 MULT 2 OF 2 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY �/�u�.l�suiru�l�urice sivice 1921 'z i . 7I4-.893-805.5, 562-592-1� 28,CUSTOMER_ NO. 96-.025369-8 DATE 7/31/02 MONTHLY 6=TLL -,:FR:DM-- DATE OF LAST CHARGE 7/02/02 I I 'INVOICE# ;�r aOA E WE INyO1MERrAMDUNT CURRENT �M01dTH `SzTORE# _. g i133262 -z 7/02/fl2 4:8.00= CH;ARGE-S ON613 R P TI, PA 1 D. % I5� BUSINESS P 0 ER ES 4TTIN ANN POWELL:_ "' ' 176�31 1, • rcH : :AUG, 2 2 2002 . z IRdiNE CA 926`14„ 6021 ' f SPEC' -AL } t f SERVICEADDRESSf 1002b 188 ADAMS AV HUN:TI NGTON-;- BCH PLEASE DETACH BEFORE MAILING Iqlppl BUSLNESS PROPERTIES'` CusTOMERNo 96 025369-8 DATE0. ' 7/31/.O2 '; 10026;.r188``aADAMS,AV TOTAL$ 48.00. CENTER ,,F `fiY I{NVOI�CE`#4 133-262 AMOUNT PAID y 1 r- .�_��r WES{ � RNE�X�T�ERMIsNATOR�COMPAN�Y� �� �- 35 59 19,PR-n-UCER IwN' 4�x SPEC I4L= HUNT N-G NBE�ACSH CA ,9�264.9� 1{308 szr r 27.04.. PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR REMITTANCE � ' _WESTERN EXTERMLIVATOR COMPANY: j s� ( iFamtly olvned since 1921 H0TING.T, .N EAC'�i Cat . 2cak9 CAL'IFORNIA-INVOICE SERVICE_SL1:P , y '" � k ,'IT - e - •.`r• l CUSTOMER, 13V-SI:4E-SS' PRO ER-TIEa CUSTOMER9y-`) 536.9'•" SERVICE' -.. 7 ROUTE_ 2 CENTER # 2113: STORE ?13 CENTER t� _SERVICE "30026-186 -Aa,� ;sav: - ADDRESS CURRENT- 14l,1IYY INL7.i�7J Q1✓il - CA' 92-:V4� - - - -( iARGES .T dKET NOW NOWPO GtktRIAI MAP 566 SERVICE TYPE - - ;RECEIVED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SPECIAL .'.—EXTER I OR ONL Y;EX L'O ALSERT S:�'Mk.GE E,J.�8ANK B_I Tj:AYi INSTRUCTIONS.'.DfE[- Ni S K RAGE ft_ iGODDY Aki- : . - :7L'JT TUMAY - i 7/02 MONTHLY SER�IGE C. .�:TItIP .. -COMMENTS... _ ANTS TARGET PEST - - r . -: Material Code y Quantity E e 1 x Area Serviced `.Iri %: t Iri ! Out In / Out In / Out - .In / Out I ' (J KEY ACCOUNT Serving Callforma Arizona and Nevada ❑1094 ISSUED y CUSTOMER SIGNATURE X SERVICE QATE,'•. � . ` SERVICE TECHNICIAN NAME LICENSE NUMBER FORM.01051CA(REV.5101) THIS IS YO ANVOICE CQVERING CURRENT SERVICE ONLY IT IS DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT UR R _ - UNPAID BALANCES ARE NOT REF;ECTED DN-THIS INVOICE-SERVICE SLIP. t' August 29, 2002 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � A IVO FROM �00� Re: Denial of CUP for Step-By-Step Playground CoNta&&,KWAYCrrf CLEW rMM Dear City Council.Members: We are residents of Shorecrest West, the housing development that borders the Burke school site. The long-term tenant of the Burke school, Step-By-Step, has continually been a wonderful neighbor. Their school provides an excellent preschool for the children of Huntington Beach and the surrounding communities. We don't believe that Huntington Beach has a sufficient number of preschools and refusing to permit Step- By-Step to build a playground at their proposed new site would only exacerbate this problem! Additionally, it would displace numerous children, create a greater shortage of much needed local childcare, and eliminate an excellent source of employment for numerous people. Therefore we are asking you to approve Step-By-Step's CUP as submitted and disregard the frivolous complaints made by the residents of Meredith Gardens. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �i David and Carole Cribbs Mullins 20511 Salt Air Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUMMARY OF SOURCES OF LETTERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH, REGARDING C.U.P. 02-31 AND VARIANCE 02-10 SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 RECEIVED FWNC A AND MADE A PART OF THE REOORD AT THE SOURCE CITY FTM CRY\CL�EM CONNIE MCKWAY,CITY CLOK Ana Gomez Unidentified rrEM$ —� Don&Becky Bruyn Huntington Beach Kim Smith Huntington Beach Mark& Shannon Grubert Huntington Beach San Juanita Fernandez Santa Ana Marie &David McCartney Unidentified Mary Schrelher Huntington Beach Steve Hooper Costa Mesa Jennifer& Chet Manmano Huntington Beach Pat Streavel Costa Mesa Maria Macias Santa Ana Anne& Howard Gollay Huntington Beach Kathleen Cooke Unidentified Lily Gutierez Huntington Beach Amber Kaiser Unidentified Helen Robles Unidentified 21 individuals represented. Huntington Beach - 11 Costa Mesa - 2 Santa Ana - 2 Unidentified - 6 City Council Members September 11, 2002 Huntington Beach, California Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, California Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you regarding your recent decision on the conditional use permit for Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center. My two children-Isabella (age 19mths) and Mercedes (age 3)- attend Step by Step and I need to express to you how important it is for me to continue to have this center care for my children. I am a single working mother with a mortgage payment. When I came to Step by Step, I was very excited to hear that I qualified for a special program that they offered to minimize my child care costs. I spent days trying to find any organization that could subsidize the expense based on my salary. Most of the organizations that could help needed me to quit my job and apply for assistance in order for me to qualify through their program. This was not an option for me since I need to feed, as well as house my children. Step by Step saved my life. There are few childcare centers that have openings, and none that I can afford without the state's subsidized funding. The waiting lists for subsidized funding centers are very long and I do not have the luxury to wait for another. Without this center I would have no other alternative but to leave my job and seek public assistance. I have looked at the new site and from what I understand the playground is farther away from the,neighborhood residents than our current playground site. Our children could not make any more noise for the residents at the new site than the constant early morning deliveries that the Stater Bros market gets daily from their vendors. The complaint from the residents is absurd and unsubstantiated. Please approve the conditional use permit so Step by Step can continue to provide the childcare I and the other parents need. Approve the permit for the best possibly future for our children Sincerely a� H - Helen N Robles Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, Ca Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you in regards to the conditional use permit for Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center. Both my son and daughter attend Step by Step and it is absolutely vital that my children retain childcare services at this center. I am a full-time working single mother and my children receive excellent care at Step by Step. They previously attended a different center but they were, unfortunately, not well taken care of. The disciplinary techniques used at the previous school were unusually harsh and age inappropriate. My children were unhappy while attending this center, and I was caused a great amount of stress trying to juggle single parenthood while working full time and searching for a new daycare center. Leaving two small children for ten hours a day is difficult enough as it is, but knowing that the environment of the school in which they were attending was less than satisfactory was causing undue stress for my family and myself. Fortunately the Step by Step Learning Center had two open spaces available at their center and I was able to move my children to this school. I have found this school to be more than adequate in caring for my children while I am at work during the day. The teachers are very loving, supportive, and effective in not only caring for my children, but enriching their young lives as well. My children have gone from being shy, reticent children who used to beg me not to leave them at school, to outgoing, eager kids who look forward to attending the Step by Step Center each day. The change in them has been remarkable. It would be very, very difficult to remove my children from this center they have grown to love. They have been attending Step by Step for six months now, and to remove them now would be devastating for all of us. There are currently only handfuls of nearby centers that offer state subsidized childcare, and the waiting lists are very long. As I stated previously, I am a single working mom, and without childcare, I could not afford to keep my job, as I have no family or friends who are available to take care of my children. I have been to the new site and I think it is very suitable for childcare. I do not foresee any problems with the noise levels on the playground, as it is much further away from the neighborhood residents than our current playground. I implore you to allow Step by Step to utilize the site and continue their excellent childcare for myself and the fellow parents who also have children attending this center. I appreciate your time in reading this letter and I hope you will make the appropriate decision in this matter. / J ` Sincerely, ber`Kaise (714) 319-3766 TO: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ATTN: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN SEP. 08) 2002 RE: CHILD CARE STEP BY STEY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH AREA CHILD CARE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR FUTURE CHILDREN. STEP BY STEP HAS VERY GOOD PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN. MY DAUGTHOR HAS GOOD TIME ON THIS SCHOOL. EVEN SHE IS IN KINDERGARTON NOW. WE HOPE THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ALL OF KIDS. I AM VERY APPRECIATING ALL OF SUPPORT FOR MY CHILD. OUR CITY NEEDS TO HAVE GOOD CHILD CARE IN OUR AREA. PLEASE SUPPORT THEM TO MAKE BETTER EDUCATION INVIRNMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN. PARENT LILY GUTIEREZ 09/11/02 City Council Members Huntington Beach, California Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, California Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you regarding your recent decision on the conditional use permit for Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center. My two children (ages 2 and 3) attend Step by Step and I need to express to you how important it is for me to continue to have this center care for my children. I am a single working mother who is also attending school full-time. When I came to Step by Step last year, I was a very desperate mother who could not afford to pay for childcare because 35% of my weekly check was assigned for this expense. I spent days trying to find any organization that could subsidize the expense based on my salary. Most of the organizations that could help needed me to quit my job and apply for assistance in order for me to qualify through their program. This was not an option for me since I need to feed, as well as house my children. Step by Step saved my life. There are few childcare centers that have openings, and none that I can afford without the state's subsidized funding. The waiting lists for subsidized funding centers are very long and I do not have the luxury to wait for another. Without this center I would have no other alternative but to leave my job and seek public assistance. I have looked at the new site and from what I understand the playground is farther away from the-neighborhood residents than our current playground site. Our children could not make any more noise for the residents at the new site than the constant early morning deliveries that the Stater Bros Market gets daily from their vendors. The complaint from the residents is absurd and unsubstantiated. Please approve the conditional use permit so Step by Step can continue to provide the childcare I and the other parents can depend on and to have the peace of mind for our future, as well as for our children. Sincerely, Kathleen Cooke 6372 Royal Grove Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 September 10, 2002 Huntington Beach City Council Re: Step by Step, Huntington Beach We are parents of a child who attended Step by Step for about 16 months. We are supportive of Step by Step's efforts to remain open as a childcare center in Huntington . Beach. When we were looking for childcare for our new baby in 2000, we were shocked at how few options there are for quality childcare for infants (under 2 years old) in Huntington Beach. Our preference was for care in a public childcare center, not in one that was home-based. We visited about five or six centers, several of which we would not consider for what appeared to be quality issues to us. At that time, Step by Step was the only nationally accredited center in Huntington Beach. We placed our name on three waiting lists, and Step by Step was the only facility that had an opening around the time we needed childcare for our son. The way the waiting lists work at most centers, parents have no assurance that there will be an opening when care is needed. If this opening had not been available, the already stressful experience of returning to work would have become a crisis for us, as we had no other childcare options. An advantage that Step by Step has provided to us personally is that they offer flexible infant care rates for parents who work part time. The other childcare centers that we had considered did not offer this. This was a major consideration for choosing to remain with Step by Step, even when openings became available at other centers. Although Step by Step has experienced some difficulties during this transition, we believe that with the enthusiasm and qualifications of the recently-hired director, and-the upgrades of a new facility, Step by Step will regain their NAEYC accreditation and remain a valuable resource for parents in Huntington Beach. In addition, Step by Step employs some loving, qualified caregivers. We would hate to see them displaced by closure of their center. We ask the City Council to support Step by Step's relocation within Huntington Beach. We believe that there is a shortage of quality childcare in Huntington Beach. As a city, we need to ensure that childcare services are available to our families, not close them down. Sincerely, Anne and Howard Gollay Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA Dear City council members, Purpose of letters is regarding the conditional use permit for Step By Step Early Learning Enrichment Center. I am a parent at Step By Step and I need to let you know how important is for me to have my daughter at the center. I am a single parent and as you know now on times is hard to find a nice babysitter in town or a program that helps parents to enroll children at early school being at a center is safe to avoid any problems like the one's there are now on kid napping and all that kind of staff that why a brought my daughter to Step By Step and other reason is the closes center to my work and the one I could afford, I thank God I found the program to enroll my daughter and have her on place while her mom is working and also to give her a opportunity to grow on a educational environment for her future. There are a few child care centers in Huntington Beach that parents like me can afford. There may be more centers close by bus hard to enroll our kids there all have a waiting list and also more expensive. I have looked at the new site and I think is on a very good location not just for me but for other residence on area for example: those parents that work around the site that do not have a center for their child's. Playground is needed on all center not just on child center is needed on all elementary school to have our kids enjoy their childhood and I believe everybody that went to school will understand this without a conflict. Please act now'so that Step By Step can continue to provide excellent childcare and I, and other parents at Step By Step can keep our jobs, knowing that our children are being cared for in a high quality center. Thank You Maria M. Macias 518 S. Ross Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Home (714) 550-8082 Cell (949) 337-3339 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach CA Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Step By Step Early Learning Enrichment Center. I am a parent at Step By Step and I need to let you know how important it is for me to have the Center continue to provide childcare for my child. It is essential for me to be close to my child during the day and there are very few child care centers in Huntington Beach that are within my budget. With only one other center in the City that has State Subsidized care, the waiting lists are very long and as a single parent, it would be extremely difficult for me to find comparable care for my child. I have looked at the new site and think that it is suitable for childcare. Step by Step only operates during normal business hours and the playground at the new site is further away from neighborhood residents than the current playground. Please act now so that Step by Step can continue to provide excellent childcare in a high quality center. Thank you in adv*&nce for your consideration. Sincerely, Pat Streavel 612 Knowell Place Costa Mesa CA 92627 949-722-7425 September 10, 2002 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA Dear City Council Members, We are writing to you regarding the conditional use permit for Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center of Huntington Beach and why we feel it is so important for Step by Step to continue operating in our community. Our two year old son currently attends Step by Step, our 5 year old son just"graduated" Step by Step to begin kindergarten here in Huntington Beach and we plan on enrolling our infant in early of next year. In the 3 '/2 years our children have been attending Step by Step, the staff members of Step by Step have always acted with professionalism and courtesy to the parents, co-workers and the surrounding neighborhood homeowners. We chose Step by Step over all other child care options for similar reasons that we chose to live in Huntington Beach, quality of life for our children. We have not been able to find acceptable, alternative child care facilities in Huntington Beach that are affordable and/or do not have an extensive waiting list. Huntington Beach is in need of affordable, high quality child care facilities. Step by Step provides a safe and nurturing environment for our children which is, in our opinion, what should be the primary priority for any child care facility. And with the renovations currently taking place at the new site, the new accommodations for Step by Step will further enhance the physical surroundings for our children. We urge you to support Step by Step in their transition to their new site location so that our children can continue receiving high quality care and we, as parents, can continue with our jobs and live in Huntington Beach. Thank you. Sincerely, 4,11 —t, .- --Jennifer and Chet Manmano 9661 Landfall Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714.963.8273 i Stephen Jeffrey Hooper 989 Victoria Street E-4 09/10/02 Costs Mesa Ca. 92627 Huntington Beach City Counsel, I am a single father and my son attends Step-by-Step preschool. This school is one of the most important things in his life. If he did not have a school to go to,I feel he would not develop into a responsible adult. Although he is only three years old,he absolutely needs a school to go to. Children that start learning early in life tend to be more successful. I would hate to see all the children in this school suffer disappointment and disruption so early in life. They deserve better treatment from what is supposed to be a caring community populated by descent citizens cheering them on. If we uproot their progress before they have a chance to defend themselves,what sort of a message are we sending to society as a whole. It is my considered opinion that some people have forgotten what is truly important.The very fabric of our own future lies in the hands of these children. Give them their school,and much,much more. Stephen Jeffrey Hooper Y. l - - - -'� - - - - - -- . CAS J Aq__ geqek P � e ea ct.s e flee- o . Ion fp nezcle me.. ..05 r n ro1 c S cc de� C"e,-7 __ AQ A y DearJfuntington (Beach City Council; I am writing you this letter in response to the denial of Step-6y Step early enrichment centers conditional use permit. I am a parent of a toddler in the program, and I am also a teacher at the program. 'he class that I teach is the infant room. I would like to start by saying that the teachers have never 6lown a whistle while working at Step 6y Step. And that the children go out into the yard at 8:00 am and return 6ackinto the classes at 9:30. At the time that they are outside the children are 6eing dropped off 6y their parents that are required to sign them and normally talka few minutes with their child teacher. When the children go into their classrooms their door are normal y kept open so there is no concern with slamming doors. 'he children stay in their classrooms until about 11:00 - 11:30 when they return outside for a small amount of playtime 6efore lunch. Lunch is.served at noon and then the children go down fora nap. -1-1raptime is for 12:30-1:00 to 3:00 when the children eat snack 'he next time the children go outside is at 3:30. 'hen the children are out untd5.•30 in the summer and5:00 in the winter. 'hie afternoon time is not relevant to the residents 6ecause this is the same time the school age kids get out of school and would 6e playing in the own backandfront yard, so in actuality we are only speaking of a hour and a half that the residence would have to listen to the happy noises of the children playing in the yard. I do not feel that this is a lot of time when you thinkthat the sun is up for 12 hour a day at least. 'here was a concern about the slamming of door. The children that attend the center are 6weeks to S years old these children are not strong enough to slam a door and each door is equipped with a safety mechanism that slows the door down so that it wont slam a Childs hand in the door, also the teachergoes around the Center unlocking the doors at opening and the closing teacher Cocks the door other then that e.)cept in e.�treme heat or cold the doors stay open for ventilation andfresh air. mere was also a concern about large amount of children being dropped off at one time. When we open our center we have two staff at 6:30, the fallowing staff arrive in intervafs of ever half-hour to every hour. When we open our door we have about three famifv's that drop of at one time after that the children trickle in one to two at a time the 6uCk os the children get dropped of at about 8.00-8:30. 'This is not a tot of traffic in any means I would say that at the 6easy time of drop off there are five parents at one time. As most of you must know it is very hard to findgoodquafity childcare near your house or work Step-by-Step provides just that. We case for each individual child and family we offer a safe place for there child to be during the day white they are at work we provide W§ferrafto places parent can get help if they need it, we provide a wide range of su6sidized chifd care that you cannot find any wear else. If we are affowed to move into the shopping center we would provide this same quality, childcare to the parents that workin and around the center.A fot of our family five in the surrounding cities so we would bring 6uness to JTuntington Beach A shopping center is not a dad place for a child care center with the security that would be instatfed the children would be safe and we would bring a Cot of bisness to the surrounding shops. I feefthat the good realty out weigh the noise factor of children at play. Step-by-Step has been a Ountington Beach resident for a Long time and we have never received any complaints from our current residents. Sincerely, Warie ECfen McCartney 17� e-e—w IDavidScott McCartney �"CJ San Juanita Fernandez 2237 S Lowell St Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 751-6617 September 03, 2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission City Counsel Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commission, I am writing to you regarding the in specific The Conditional Use Permit for Step by Step Child Care Center. A Child Care Center is very important, because the parents have the opportunity to go to their work and have a safe place to leave their children. It is important for parents to know that we find a child care center which takes excellent care of our children while we are working. When I am working, and I know that my child is in good hands. When we have someone like Step by Step center to take care of our children. We-feel secure and better. The Step by Step child care center is very important place for the safe of my child. I am a single mother, and order for me to have a full time or part time job; I need someone that will take good care of my son while I am working. I know that they are going to be there for me whenever I need them. I could take him to my neighbors, but it hard to find somebody to trust. At Step by Step, as a parent, I have the right to enter and inspect the child care center without advance notice whenever children are in care. I can also review, at the child care center, report of licensing visits and substantiated complaints against the licensee made during the last three years. I am very happy with this center, and without Step by Step my child will not be living with me, because I did not find someone whom I could trust, before Step by Step accepted my child in their center, my child was living in Mexico with my parents. As soon as they accept my child, I went to Mexico to bring my child. My child was 21\2 yrs at that time now he is always afraid that I will leave him again. Most of the child cares centers are always full with long waiting list, and sometimes there are not only months of waiting but also years. Step by Step is very important safety place to have: If I lose this place, I will lose my job because of not having someone to take care of my child. I don't want to send him to Mexico because now his always afraid. He always remembers that I sent him with my parents. Sometimes, he said that he wants to stay with me. When I ask him if he wants to go back to Mexico, he said that if I go with him then he will go. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I urge you to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Thank you, - Sincerely Aa- n Juanita Fernandez Marl P Slow grldC4 16761 Vawvow /-~ #187 Haoti►c Am Bead; Ga4mmiz 92647 /7I4) 596-I287 August 14, 2002 Huntington Beach Planning Commission City Counsel Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commission, I am writing you regarding the 4i1-C"vt Meeting held August 13, 2002. In specific The Conditional Use Permit for Step by Step Child Care Center. I attended the meeting to show support for Step by Step. I was made aware of the meeting only two days prior of no fault of your own. I asked Step by Step several times if they needed any speakers from the school. I was told that they would appreciate the support of the families, but mostly the Contractor and the Director for the school would be speaking about specifics. I got there five minutes late and did know how important it would be to speak on the side of the parents. I was extremely disappointed with the commissions decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit. There was a lot of support from Meredith Gardens from some very misinformed homeowners. I was also very awestruck watching as some of the commission was so confused with some of the very basic information that was given. I do understand that there was some typo's in the information given to you, but all of which to me seemed to have been clarified. I tried very hard to look at the homeowner's side of the story. I have walked the site, sat there for hours looking at the proximity of the play yard to some of the houses. I also took into consideration the traffic that is currently in the parking lot where the play yard was planned to be. I sat there and saw many cars going around the back and side of the building at different times of the day and night. There are so many issues that were untrue or inaccurate that are just not sitting right with me. One of which was in the very beginning of the hearing all of the commissioners were asked if they had any previous contact with anyone that would be affected by this decision. I remember hearing the greater majority of the commission stating that you had spoken with the residents in the homeowners' association. I remember few of the commission members stating that they had toured the site, possibly a couple of you stating that you had spoken with the applicant. Mostly I remember none of the commissioners stating that you had spoken with any of the affected parents. My door is always open and my phone is always available to anyone wanting to discuss the future of my children, I believe that this is a great disappointment. The second was the very first speaker for the homeowners stating that they received the information regarding the Conditional Use Permit very late, but were able to get a vote out of the 13 of their directors. Seven of which opposed the site, with six of which approved the site. None of those six directors for whatever reason spoke at this hearing. Probably because they were home with their families enjoying there homes, like they will be able to do every evening. The next was one of the homeowners major concerns being that in the play yard there was going to be astro-turf laid down. He seemed to find a correlation with children and professional athletes having suffered tragic career ending injury, up to and including paralysis. Weg as a very ;.; cautious parent this issue has never crossed by mind. I do believe that this possibility of this is more likely to happen as a result of a traffic accident than being caused t My children come home with cuts and bruises from most locations that they visit, anywhere from the grocery store shopping carts that we put them into, to tripping on their own toes while getting out of bed. This argument was an embarrassment. The next was a 22 year old young lady stating that she received her child care training at Step by Step and that there was a lot of noise produced by the children there. More importantly stating that they used to use whistles to get the attention of the children. Though that may have been something that she implemented on her own I will assure you that I have never seen a whistle on site nor heard one ever blown. My children tattle on everyone, the teachers when they feel as though they have been put into time-out for no reason at all( ha), to other children misbehaving. If I would have ever been told of such a tactic I would have marched into the office with the teachers and my children in the office complaining. Which I am known to do. The next would be, as some one of the homeowners stated was a very large river that runs through the play yard. Stating that the children would run and stomp in the grand river and produce too much noise. Well 1, as a parent whom has brought my children to Step by Step in the sun and in the rain, can state that as a fact, play days do not happen in the rain. The children are given free play time indoors. Another issue that I saw brought up was the fact that mass groups of cars would be revving through there in masses. Well seeing as though I have never seen such a thing, I decided to do a car count at the current location. I arrive at 8:02 A.M. were maybe 5 or 6 cars parked there which belonged to staff of Step by Step. My car which was dropping off two children, and another car which was also dropping off an infant and a toddler. All of the children that attend the Child Care Center are still in child safety seats, which is law. All of us must physically remove our children from our cars and personally bring them into the center. Which means we must park, not cue into the area. Anyone with young children will take the closest possible parking space as to reduce the risk of our children getting hit. It always takes me between 5 to 10 minutes to get my children situated, their belongings packed into their cubby's, signed in, then hugs and kisses and straight into the eye of a child-care giver. No children are left in the cars unattended. Lets also state that my husband pickSup our children after work and he has never seen more than a few cars from the parents at any one given time. There seemed to be a lot of mis-understanding of this issue and I couldn't believe the confusion with this issue. Most of the children in the center have siblings there as well the traffic should not be a large concern. If a Starbuck's was proposed in the shopping center the number of cars I believe would increase by hundreds and hundreds not to mention the noise. This situation in my understanding would not even require a Conditional Use Permit, meaning the Homeowners would not have a say. Im sure that even a motorcycle supply store could be brought in and could, and would bring a much larger amount of noise, and parking issues. That too would probably not require a Conditional Use Permit. The next issue that was misrepresented was the hours of the play yard and doors slamming. I have never heard a slamming door in the current facility even once. From my experience, I have seen the children in the play area at random times between 8:00 A.M. and 11:30-11:45 A.M. then they go inside for quiet time and then comes naps. The next time period that I have seen them outside is at around 3:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Believe me we check on the children often and this is how it has always been. Children do not have the ability with this center to roam the facility without a staff member. We are talking about young children that need supervision.. Believe me when I say that, my husband and I are known to do random checks on the facility, to see how thing are running, and to make sure that our children are happy and safe. I will testify that I have never seen children at Step by Step jumping fences to retrieve stray balls. Even while the children use the restroom teachers are with them, these children are attended to. We are talking about children whom are learning toileting habits. Children of this age do not play basketball in teams. Many of the children that we are speaking are baby's, whom haven't even learned to walk. They are learning and discovering the world before them. Learning the basics like eating solid foods and turning over. Many of the children in the center have just learned to walk, but are being taught to use cups not bottles, picking up food to place in their mouths. This group of children (although I do not know the exact number) don't even use the play yard. When I left my children there this morning I looked at the play yard and the groups of children that would be going out to play. There were maybe 15-20 kids whom were of age to go out and play on the equipment. Yes this site will produce some noise,but so will your neighbor whom seems to run his lawn mover every Saturday morning at 7:00 A.M. We are talking about a business being put in that will never be open on the weekends when most of the Homeowners are home from work, they will also not have any noise produced by this business in the evenings when families are trying to settle down. As for the dumpster, I think it could be moved anywhere and there should be a way to move further from the homeowners and there must be a way to lay this issue to rest. If this child care center is not allowed to use this site, my family will be out of child care. I may not be able afford to pay for child care anywhere. I will more that likely need to quit my job because of the lack of affordable child care. Not to mention I will not find child care at the prices that I pay. Also I do not have anymore vacation days left, after taking all of it to take care of my children when they are ill. Not to mention the time it will take to thoroughly research a new child care center. Step by Step does not have much more time left at their current site, and tearing them away from child care providers that they have grown to love and trust will be traumatic on them. Also we never even looked into the positives that Step by Step would bring to the area. Residents of Meredith Gardens with young children, would be extremely close to a great child care center. Workers in the area would be able to bring their children there when they are working and be able to spend their lunch hours with their children. This is huge. This is something that should be considered. Let me just tell you a little about my family. I am a married parent of two young children whom attend Step,by Step, a boy whom is 5 and come September will be moving on with his education and attending Kindergarten. I also have a little girl who is 4 and has another year of pre-school, she should be going into the Pre-K class, once her brother goes to Kindergarten. We moved our little family here from a town named Paradise(which is primarily a retirement community town) in Northern California, a little over a year ago. We took extended time making the decision to move to the city. But rpally felt that we loved the atmosphere, and the pure beauty of the ocean. Although the biggest selling point was the young families in the area(of which there were few of in Paradise) whom work hard to make ends meet, struggling to balance the needs of work and home life. With home prices soaring and the economy the way things are, it is very difficult to make this task balance, but we as parents know that when the end of the day comes (too quickly I must add) it is our children that we are doing this for. To make sure that they go to college and that they have a warm bed to sleep in and food on the table. Lets not forget, caring, quality, affordable and available child care to take care of the future of this country. I think that I speak for most parents that it would be best to have an at home parent taking care of our children, but for my family that is just not able to happen at this time it is just not an option. Before we moved to the area we knew that to do this we would have to find quality child care. Much to our surprise child care teais much more expensive down here than it was in Paradise. Our family was paying one third of the prices that are charged in most area pre-schools. Seeing as though we just moved to the area this was a huge burden and it seems this was the least of our worries. Step by Step is the third Child Care Center in the area that our children have attended, and we were hoping for it to be the last. We have been with Step by Step just short of a year. The first, I pulled the children out of because the teachers had absolutely no control. Every time that I went to drop-off or pick-up my children the place was messy, littered and the children were in charge of the facility. Lets just say that place was short lived. The next, I took a little more time to investigate. Spoke with the staff for several hours before I was willing to turn over my children to them. The first day my son complained that the teachers were mean(thinking that he was just being extremely sensitive with all of the change he had been, and) I spoke with the teachers and they stated that I needed to understand that . Well I walked in one morning to listen to a teacher yelling at the top of her lungs at 4-5 year old that the children were stupid, not to mention the statement of telling them to act their ages. That was the very last moment my children attended that substandard Child Care Center. Finally after touring and speaking with many, many child care centers there was Step by Step. I finally found the center that I had been looking for this entire time. Quality affordable child care. This is the first time since moving down here that I am being given the opportunity to stay on the work force and not having the majority of my salary go to child care. Let me just say that as a parent of a Step by Step child I would highly recommend the center to anyone that came to look into it. My children have loved the center, grown beautiful relationships with the care givers and have real bonding with them. We are just not parents of children whom attend Step by Step, we are productive citizens. of Huntington Beach, the parents many backgrounds, some are students trying to make a better life for their children, some.are professionals struggling with the economy, but all of us at Step by Step need this,center, not just for ourselves but our children. Weblike the homeowneryre voters, and will be for many, many yeafs to came and would like our voices heard. I urge you to approve the Conditional Usie Permit. Thank you, Shannon Grubert (parent) Mark Grubert(parent) AN- 4*S A eoJ S Sv c►� ��.��% l Wo 7. - -- - --------T-��'-r`'�------SPA cis c�,2iJG�=2✓J S__ - .____IU_�'- �_�--_-------__-_---- 'TkI6. 1�O S.. -` `-�"` _l�. -moo _- s .l✓�i G�,/clt - -- Jj 1 —,IVA ----- ------- -- C, c1 c.J _..--__--_-.----__.--_ 70 Illy 5 _-----._-._._._ _ --- -- - - col L4&L .-.._--------------�-----------`-- � S UL S� cis .._.__.__ _-.._.... __ -_-__- .- .. i i om 1:�nP PI_ma =Y-A , -Vic)on (IxA�A,(�ns anA y� nD �b�ci���f�� b s rXe. 5 , n. nr5i' �non I\wW4e-. cn :�be, do�4amtm&:WNe, &'Mvf- 12� eMlym -h-Np- mom� hole 6 s ar � 0 c' ' o . R-dcams a i NwA -�h MA�-P- A R6 Amr-)vcr" W-/-, SU x den a mn+ �m S Ih _ ��a C��ni�—n�� �il� rem . f�lonr, in rfr� ----- r rr. _ lli f a e ors 5 1 S I)l vSl� -r,, s i 1 1 i � JV1�1V-NCrJ A-Cry-1 e c, C- 0L 1J� Clo lilt',t OP o'� c v Coo �A vy-\ v— earn i►n i= 1�r k GVn VYl e✓\`i-. vl�Y' �/�►... .�ti C��c�r1�4 Zt rJ �J C� VN-1 a SL r,cJ l_ _. ... �_ �-�+ SC) l Sv Hof :1�.�_1cxr� V1'�i.1_ �c� In-le �'._ �'Cy q v S L c7 - .� 0 of� vim, C k-vv,-\ o u'� 600 ��c�s �,,�v Y � �v�� ?c�r+ �f-►rr er S�-.v �.�l��� fi� ���K�. GJVA C_V) CA,•r e. U.Y �C,_V.) er -tom% P do o w� 4o 1—c-11 Due �o tvv 4;cc+. -k C ok>VA- eA-44vf' ��� 1d c�Ye 0 -e-�'/e�-� ibcohvj S c�� G>V'ICE-L►�� �'}� y- �c��� C�,�1c� . C� ►�e�.: l vA e d CNII . i • 9 • �1 cL.i Q \G}ClkA \L� .-- 1��3? l �nbCC h IS _ C �`h•V-L V2_ l �d�'Cif...__.. . . -- 0.- ' '-- .. _ - ...................................-- ...- . _ ...... -- -- - - - _ --- I� • RECEIVED FROWA;Cy'4V-'t-\y-S • AND MADE A PART OF-THE RECORD ATTHE COUNO L MEETWG OF • OFFICE OF THE CRY CLERK • COME BROCKWAY.C(TY CLERK i • ffw# �- i ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS =men STEP-BY-STEP EARLY LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER 10156 ADAMS AVENUE • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 VARIANCE NO 02-10 • Prepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 374-1540 FAX (714) 536-5271 � Prepared by: •' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES • 26051 Via Concha • Mission Viejo, California 92691 •, (949) 837-3935 FAX • (949) 837-1195 • • September 2002 • • • • ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS • STEP-BY-STEP EARLY • • LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER • • 10156 ADAMS AVENUE • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 • VARIANCE NO 02-10 MEW • • • Prepared for: • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, California 92648 • (714) 374-1540 FAX • (714) 536-5271 • • Prepared by: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES • 26051 Via Concha • Mission Viejo, California 92691 • (949) 837-3935 FAX (949) 837-1195 • • • • • September 2002 • • • • • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center • City of Huntington Beach,California • TABLE OF CONTENTS • • List of Sections • • Section Paae • 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND 1 • • 3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE POLICIES 3 • 3.1 Federal Noise Policies 3 • 3.2 California Noise Policies 3 3.3 City Noise Policies 5 • 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 4.1 Field Survey 6 • 4.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic 7 • • 5.0 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 9 • • 6.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS 10 • 6.1 Project Construction 10 6.2 Additional Project Traffic 12 • 6.3 On-Site Project Operations 13 6.3.1 Step-by-Step Daycare Student Drop Off and Play Area Noise 15 • 6.3.2 Increases in Ambient Noise Levels 16 • 6.3.3 Adherence to City Stationary Noise Source Requirements 16 • 6.3.4 On-Site Noise Impacts 16 • 6.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts from Other Allowable Site Uses 17 • 7.0 REFERENCES 17 • List of Appendices • • Appendix • • A Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Traffic • B Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Plus Project Traffic • C Sound32 Noise Modeling for Alternative Land Uses • D Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Plus Project Traffic at Project Site • • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 • Acoustical Analysis Page i • Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California List of Figures • Figure 1 California Department of Health Services—Office of Noise Control Standards 4 2 Noise Reading Location 8 0 3 Jenny Hart Early Education Center 14 0 • List of Tables • Table 1 City of Huntington Beach— Exterior Noise Standards 6 40 2 Noise Level Measurements 7 • 3 Existing Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major 0 Thoroughfares in the Project Area 9 • 4 Trip Generation Rates 12 • 5 Existing Versus with Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 13 6 Jenny Hart Early Education Center Noise Level Measurements 15 7 Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Line 17 8 Existing Versus with Allowable Land Use Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels 0 Along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 18 0 • • • • • • 0 • � • • • • • • ' • • • • Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 0 Acoustical Analysis Page ii 0 111ETROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 181 20 Owner :Stein Martin Tr CoOwner Site Address :20082 Viva Cir Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20082 Viva Cir Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner: Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :08/20/1999 Loan Amount Document# :610607 Lender Sale Price :$493,000 Full Loan Type Deed Type :Grant Deed Interest Rate : %Owned :100 Vesting Type:Trust\Trustee LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$327,283 Exempt Type:Homeowners Structure :$175,577 Exempt Amount :$7,000 Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$502,860 Taxes :$5,088.78 %Imprd :35 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 9889 LOT 13 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 Stories :2 Lot Acres :.15 Bathrooms :2.50 Units Lot SgFt :6,600 Total Rooms :7 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,387 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt :1979 Heating GarageSpace BldgStyle Fireplace :2 Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room_ AtticType_: Living Room Den METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 181 21 Owner :Wickersham David L Tr CoOwner Site Address :20092 Viva Cir Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20092 Viva Cir Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner:714-962-3562 Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :05105/1987 Loan Amount Document# :250660 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate %Owned Vesting Type: LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$67,791 Exempt Type:Homeowners Structure :$157,945 Exempt Amount :$7,000 Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$225,736 Taxes :$2,296.20 %Imprd :70 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 9889 LOT 14 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :4 Stories :2 Lot Acres :.15 Bathrooms :3.00 Units Lot SgFt :6,600 Total Rooms :8 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,917 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt :1979 Heating GarageSpace B1dgStyle Fireplace :3 Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room,: AtticType__: Living Room Den o� IB��,�,. y�I'N1/p►�p iv OM •09 N 9. N c�c I P) � •E' •20� N 7- NIP �.7 a o _ ti .9S'92/ N �0 1 V F N h � .'al- /g- 06-o" N 0 o c 4 � ef'2� ' sG .oS 759 .15 _7Nd7 /I/OSOV7 of _ '• 6092 sz SON O " O . � Q D O � 81 From:714 800-4/4a io:Charles Page: 11/18 Date:8/20/2002 12:15:21 PM METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 16204 Owner :Johncola Josepine Tr CoOwner :Johncola Josephine T Site Address :20051 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20051 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner: Tenant : LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :03/27/1997 Loan Amount Document 9 :138933 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type :Quit Claim Interest Rate %Owned :100 Vesting Type:Trust\Trustee LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$21,162 Exempt Type:Homeowners Structure :$59,815 Exempt Amount 37,000 Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$80,977 Taxes :$837.46 %Imprd :74 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 5197 LOT 11 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 Stories :2 Lot Acres A 5 Bathrooms :2.50 Units Lot SgFt :6,600 Total Rooms :8 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,162 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt :1966 Heating GarageSpace B1dgStyle : Fireplace Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room_: AtticType_: Living Room Den rrom: 1 I4 0u 4 i va IQ:Charles Page: 12/18 Date:8/20/2002 12:15:21 1'M METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 162 05 Owner :Gallup Brewster B Tr CoOwner Site Address :20061 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20061 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner:714-963-2253 Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred :05/23/1973 Loan Amount Document 9 :10709-905 Lender Sale Price :$48,500 Full Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate %Owned :100 Vesting Type: LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$21,159 Exempt Type: Structure :$62,341 Exempt Amount Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$83,500 Taxes :$862.88 %Imprd :75 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:l Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 5197 LOT 10 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 Stories :2 Lot Acres A4 Bathrooms :2.50 Units Lot SgFt :6,180 Total Rooms :7 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,261 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt :1966 Heating GarageSpace BldgStyle Fireplace Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room_: AtticType_: Living Room Den -,�,,,. , ,t •• .,...•...._. ay<. ��i 10 ua[e:w2ulzuuz IG 17.LI rive METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 162 06 Owner :Smith Troy Steven CoOwner Site Address :20071 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20071 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner:714-963-1952 Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION) Transferred :02/03/1999 Loan Amount :$318,600 Document# :77624 Lender :National Pacific Mortgage Sale Price :$354,000 Full Loan Type :Conventional Deed Type :Grant Deed Interest Rate :Fixed %Owned :100 Vesting Type:Sole And Separ LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$245,071 Exempt Type: Structure :$123,230 Exempt Amount Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$368,301 Taxes :$3,803.36 %Imprd :33 L' I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block :1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 5197 LOT 9 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :5 Stories :2 Lot Acres A4 Bathrooms :3.00 Units Lot SgFt :6,000 Total Rooms :9 Pool :No Bldg SgFt :2,524 Air Cond :No Garage Type :Attached YearBuilt Heating GarageSpace B1dgStyle Fireplace Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_: Family Room_: AtticType_: Living Room Den rrom: 114 800-4749 To:Charles Page: 14/18 Date:8/20/2002 12:15:21 PM METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Orange (CA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel Number :155 162 07 Owner :Quinn Quentin D Tr CoOwner Site Address :20081 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach 92646 Mail Address :20081 Lawson Ln Huntington Beach Ca 92646 Phone :Owner:714-964-6520 Tenant: LSALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Loan Amount Document# :144257 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate %Owned Vesting Type: LASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$89,545 Exempt Type:Homeowners Structure 3114,929 Exempt Amount :$7,000 Other Tax Rate Area :04013 Total :$204,474 Taxes :$2,081.94 %Imprd :56 L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid :858 E6 Census :Tract:992.17 Block:1 Land Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Legal :N TR 5197 LOT 8 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :4 Stories :2 Lot Acres A 4 Bathrooms :3.00 Units Lot SgFt :6,000 Total Rooms :8 Pool :Yes Bldg SgFt :2,278 Air Cond :None Garage Type :Garage YearBuilt :1965 Heating :Forced GarageSpace :2 B1dgStyle Fireplace :1 Spa Wall Matl Dining Room_:Yes Family Room_:Yes AtticType_: Living Room Den September 10. 2002 S S Honorable Mayor Debbie Cook Nr City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RECENO FRC AND MADE APARTT}I�s A� Dear Honorable Major: couOFFICE OF Irg—My am- MM AAY,C Ty CLERK �10-S_ I am writing this letter on behalf of Step by Step Early Learning er ep y Step). Step by Step has been located at the Burke Elementary School since 1988 and is being forced to relocate because the Huntington Beach City School District has leased the facility for a private school. Originally, Step by Step was a joint venture with Pacifica Hospital and one of the first employer- sponsored child care centers in the County of Orange. Because of the changes at the Hospital, the joint venture was dissolved, but Step by Step continued to operate its child care center. Partnering with businesses within and nearby the City of Huntington Beach, Step by Step had contractual relationships to offer child care for the employees of McDonnell Douglas, Orange Coast Regional Medical Center, PIMCO, Pacific Mutual and the Huntington Beach City School District. Step by Step's programs offered care for thousands of children in the community. In addition, the Rainbow Retreat program-- offering child care for mildly ill children, was the only program of its kind in the County. Step by Step was pleased when Business Properties expressed an interest in housing the child care center at their Brookhurst &Adams shopping center. The proposed location offers child care in a safe surrounding. Easily accessible for parents, the Center will have a safe drop-off and pick-up area, fully protected play yard and environments that can be designed specifically for the ages of the children cared for. Parents will have access to the Stater Bros and other businesses within the shopping complex. As a parent that utilized the Rainbow Retreat and Step by Step programs, I know how difficult it is to find quality care in a program that offers appropriate curriculum, caring and nurturing teachers, longevity of its center and a healthy and safe facility. I am hoping that the City Council will see the important need for Step by Step to continue to offer the very best of care for its community and approve the plans to relocate Step by Step at Brookhurst and Adams. Thank you for taking the time to share this letter with members of the City Council. Sincerely, "Sl ri A. Senter, Ed.D. 17500 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 160 • L-vine, CA 92614 • (949) 251-9777 • Fax (949) 251-9677 REPORT REGARDING CHILD CARE CENTERS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH and REQUESTS FOR CARE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH September 9, 2002 SPACES AVAILABLE IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH According to Children's Home Society of California(CHS), the state Resource and Referral Agency for Orange County, the following statistics have been collected for Huntington Beach: There are 149 infant spaces in the City of Huntington Beach There are 54 toddler spaces in the City of Huntington Beach There are 2452 preschool spaces in the City of Huntington Beach In the last six months, CHS received 267 calls from families looking for care in the City of Huntington Beach. STEP BY STEP EARLY LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center at Burke Elementary was one of the largest child care centers in the City of Huntington Beach, having a capacity for 204 children in licensed child care. The proposed Step by Step Early Learning Enrichment Center in the Brookhurst/Adams shopping center will offer care for 88 children. It will provide care for community children, families who are seeking work, in school or recently employed. SUBSIDIZED GENERAL CHILD CARE, FUNDED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (CHILD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION) There are a variety of types of child care in Huntington Beach. THERE ARE ONLY TWO CENTERS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFERING STATE FUNDED FULL-TIME PRESCHOOL CARE. Step by Step is one of them. The other program is located in the western side of Huntington Beach. Orange County has more than a thousand children on the waiting list for CDD funded child care. Step by Step can accommodate 43 children, ages 18 months - 6 years, subsidized by the State under this program. Additionally, it can accommodate CalWorks subsidized children, ages 6 weeks to 6 years. LOCATIONS OF CHILD CARE CENTERS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH There are 31 child care centers in Huntington Beach(not counting Step by Step). 1 center is open only to CDD funded children 2 centers are only for Head Start children 4 centers are part of a private school 12 centers are on church grounds and affiliated with a religious organization 5 centers (not counting the above programs) are located in residential areas at former elementary schools 1 center is located at Golden West campus 1 center is in a residential neighborhood (not a former elementary school) 3 centers are in commercial buildings, 1 behind a high school I center owns their building and is adjacent to a retail center 1 center is within a retail center (La Petite Academie) BY STEP DAYCARE 6 ADAMS AVENUE L OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CANT: LESTER SMULL SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 ORNER OF BROOKHURST ST. DAMS AVENUE IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING ER UNDINGS G: GENERAL COMMERCIAL E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE H AND EASTZCOMMERCIAL TO ORTH AND WEST f I, � a Mrov rj c� TIONAY. USE PERMIT REQUEST ATE A DAYCARE IN A 59525 S.F. E FOR 88 CHILDREN : 6 WEEKS TO 6 YEARS OF AGE RS: 6:30 A.M. TO 6:30 P.m. M-F 0 S.F. OUTDOOR PLAY AREA NCE REQUEST PACE REDUCTION IN REQUIRED ING BASED ON UNIT MIX AND AND ING DEMAND ANALYSIS ING COMMISSION DENIAL BASED FOLLOWING NTIAL FOR EXCESSIVE NOISE CTS TO ADJACENT RESIDENCES LATIVE INCREASES IN TRAFFIC ON OUNDING ARTERIALS OF 16 PARKING SPACES WITHIN HOPPING CENTER O SOUTH PERIMETER WALL ft c £ 30-- Wmn- TWO � a c It ,• e �� 9 �y u v x3 anRo 2 _:�"`" Po EAST Pm AL ANSI whgjg� "s 3 _ u �7 P� N"P y s "I_'°fat: � g 'FAR a Vo Ms "- `" * G n: MOF FORMER PLAY AREA _ ... tv mow. At �c ,JP OF NORTH ELEVATION T: us s y A �r r' S�- a't yn E-ram 40 IV mi�7 a�.s SED PLAY AREA EQUIPMENT i.sa j NG VARIANCI~..- {& ING SURPLUS OF PARKING GENT PARKING NEEDS RUTILIZED PARKING AREA OR PLAY AREA RATION FROM ADJACENT E FAMILY HOMES ETER BLOCK WALL DAY OPERATIONINO WEEKENDS TE AREA OF THE SHOPPING CTR I FOOT PLANTER ADJACENT TO BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE 2 D A COVENANT TO RETURN NG AREA TO ORIGINAL CONDITION 3 YEE PARKING BEHIND THE CT BUILDING aFRomWNQbQ., gJ \\.j 3 ..f3{E 1335,f3 E 31 33 .. . .,p. ,• 1VIEND APPROVAL BASED ON: ISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN IDES CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR OUNDING COMMUNITY UATE SEPARATION FROM OUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OSED LOCATION IN AN RUTILIZED AREA OF CENTER UATE ON-SITE PARKING L� O' PR IES September 12, 2002 Re: Step by Step Day Care Center My name is Doug Merlino, and I reside at 20121 Viva Circle in Huntington Beach. My family and I have lived in our home for the last 22 years. I have been active in the Huntington Beach Community as a Real Estate Broker for 28 years. The majority of the Meredith Gardens neighborhood backing up or siding to the proposed project is opposing the day care variance in the Stater Brothers shopping center for the following reasons: 1. This shopping center is not conducive to a day care playground, especially behind the buildings of the shopping center. If it were, the city would have .zoned it for a school rather than a shopping center. 2. The noise created by 88 children, from 6.00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., will not sound like the ocean. The echo caused from the surrounding buildings will increase the noise disturbance. 3. Most of the homeowners in our neighborhood are retired or working out of their homes, as I do on occasion, and the noise of-the slamming doors, crying children, and loud voices when the parents are dropping off and picking up their children, plus during the hours of operation will not be pleasant and will make it especially hard for those of us trying to conduct our businesses from our homes. 4. As a Real Estate Broker, and having sold many homes in the Huntington Beach area, it is mandatory to disclose any and all items that may affect the value of a,home. A noise factor is definitely an item that must be disclosed to a prospective homebuyer. From my 28 years of experience, a home that backs up to a school playground will be sold for considerably less than homes that do not. We were not aware that a day care playground was going to be built when we purchased our home. If there were a day care already in place, it would have definitely been part of our decision on buying our home. 5.. .What is even more amazing is that the day care will be using more outdoor space than indoor. It seems.to me that the landlord will be receiving income not only from the building, but also from public parking spaces that were necessary in order to build this center. This location seems to be a political and monetary move rather than a concern for the children. Parents take their children to the park to play, yell and scream and where there is grass, riot to a park that has hard - rubber mats for their children to run and play on. 6. Lastly, I am sure there are plenty of locations that would be more suitable for the day care center. If they need help in finding a more suitable location, I will be more than happy to search for a more likely location. We are asking the City Council to oppose this.variance. Yoh Do d Merlino .. 18682 Beach Boulevard, Suite 165, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone (714) 465-2000 Fax (714) 465-2001 T�- C-cmV VN CP\r Of f ° ink CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION z C H TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator T z FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Appeal of CUP No. 02-31NAR No. 02-10 (Step by Step Daycare-10156 Adams Avenue) DATE: September 13, 2002 Attached with this memo is an acoustical analysis prepared by Environmental Impact Sciences on behalf of the applicant, which analyzes the existing noise condition at the subject site and potential noise impacts resulting from the proposed daycare facility. The acoustical analysis was submitted by the applicant on September 13, 2002. Because of time constraints and the late submittal, staff was unable to comment on the accuracy or legitimacy of the acoustical analysis in the staff report. Staff will be available to answer questions regarding the acoustical analysis at the September 16, City Council meeting. ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS STEP-BY-STEP EARLY LEARNING ENRICHMENT CENTER 10156 ADAMS AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-31 VARIANCE NO 02-10 man Prepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2000 Main Street D Huntington Beach, California 92648 1 (714) 374-1540 FAX (714) 536-5271 Prepared by: 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCIENCES 26051 Via Concha Mission Viejo, California 92691 (949) 837-3935 FAX SEP 13 2002 (949) 837-1195 September 2002 i Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center 1 City of Huntington Beach, California 1 � TABLE OF CONTENTS ) List of Sections ) Section Page ► ► 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 ► 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND 1 ► 3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE POLICIES 3 I 3.1 Federal Noise Policies 3 r 3.2 California Noise Policies 3 3.3 City Noise Policies 5 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 4.1 Field Survey 6 i 4.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic 7 5.0 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 9 + 6.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS 10 6.1 Project Construction 10 6.2 Additional Project Traffic 12 6.3 On-Site Project Operations 13 6.3.1 Step-by-Step Daycare Student Drop Off and Play Area Noise 15 ` 6.3.2 Increases in Ambient Noise Levels 16 6.3.3 Adherence to City Stationary Noise Source Requirements 16 ► 6.3.4 On-Site Noise Impacts 16 + 6.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts from Other Allowable Site Uses 17 7.0 REFERENCES 17 List of Appendices Appendix A Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Traffic B Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Plus Project Traffic C Sound32 Noise Modeling for Alternative Land Uses D Sound32 Noise Modeling for Existing Plus Project Traffic at Project Site Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page i . 1 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California 1 1 List of Figures Figure 1 1 1 California Department of Health Services—Office of Noise Control Standards 4 1 2 Noise Reading Location 8 1 3 Jenny Hart Early Education Center 14 ! 1 List of Tables 1 Table 1 1 1 City of Huntington Beach— Exterior Noise Standards 6 1 2 Noise Level Measurements 7 1 3 Existing Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major 1 Thoroughfares in the Project Area g 1 4 Trip Generation Rates 12 1 5 Existing Versus with Project Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major 1 Thoroughfares in the Project Area 13 1 6 Jenny Hart Early Education Center Noise Level Measurements 15 1 7 Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Line 17 8 Existing Versus with Allowable Land Use Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels 1 Along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area 18 1 1 01 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 t . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i i Environmental Impact Sciences September g Acoustical Analysis Page iii 1 1 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center (Step-by-Step Daycare) has submitted a development application to the City of Huntington Beach (City or Lead Agency)for the purpose of converting and expanding an existing non-residential building, located within an existing retail commercial center in the City, to operate a daycare facility. Step-by-Step Daycare currently operates at an existing facility within the City (i.e., 9700 Levee Drive) but must relocate from that location based on the loss of its existing lease. In response to public comments submitted to the City's Planning Commission during a noticed public hearing on August 13, 2002, Business Properties Development Company, owners of the existing retail commercial center in which the project is now proposed, have contracted with an independent environmental consulting firm(i.e.,Environmental Impact Sciences)forthe purpose of assessing the potential noise impacts that would likely result from the approval of the proposed development application. Environmental Impact Sciences (EIS), author of this report, recently completed a detailed acoustical analysis for the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, located on the site of the former Rancho View Elementary School, and is familiar with the noise requirements and policies of the City. As proposed, Step-by-Step Daycare would undertake improvements to an existing 5,525±square foot non-residential building to accommodate the specialized needs of a maximum 90 students. In addition, a 6,000t square foot outdoor "play area" would be created through the elimination of existing at-grade parking located adjacent to the proposed use. In accordance with projections included in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition" (1997), and based on a maximum of 90 students, the project is estimated to generate as many as 407 vehicle trips per day. The project site is located within the existing"Stater Bros. Market" commercial development at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue within the City. The proposed use will occupy an existing storefront located toward the east of the project site. The selected structure actually includes four separate storefronts. The adjoining storefront includes a "Supercuts" hair salon. The"Huntington Beach Sewing Center'is located beyond the Supercuts. The unit proposed for conversion and the unit located at the west end of the storefront are currently vacant. . The areas to the east and south of the project site includes two-story, single-family detached residential units. The distance from the rear of the proposed daycare center to the adjoining residential property line is approximately 54t feet. The east wall of the existing retail commercial center is approximately 129t feet west of the property line. These residences are separated from the project site by an 8-foot high masonry wall. These dwellings have rear-yard setbacks varying from approximately 10 to 20 feet, providing further separation between the two land uses. The area to the west of the project site includes other storefronts within the existing retail commercial center. Most notably, those uses include an existing "Stater Bros. Market" and its associated loading dock. Structures to the north include commercial uses of various types. 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 1 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary by over one trillion time within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire d spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity in a process called "A-weighting,"written as dBA or dB(A). The human ear can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal conditions. Changes of 4 between 1 to 3 dBA are typically discernable under controlled, quiet conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually not discernable. 4 Noise may be generated from a "point source" (e.g., a piece of construction equipment) or from a 4 "line source" (e.g., a road containing moving vehicles). Due to spreading losses, noise attenuates (decreases)with distance. The typical atmospheric attenuation rate for point source noise is 6 dBA 6 per doubling of the distance as predicted by the equation: Attenuated dBA = 20 (log) measured 4 distance T reference distance. 6 A line source will also attenuates with increased distance, however, the rate of attenuation is a 1 function of both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Over"hard sites"(e.g. 1 developed areas with paving) noise attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance as 1 predicted by the equation:Attenuated dBA =10(log)measured distance-reference distance. Over / "soft sites" (e.g., undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas) noise attenuates more 1 rapidly at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance as predicted by the equation:Attenuated dBA = 15 (log) measured distance _ reference distance. The Orange County Environmental 4 Management Agency (OCEMA) emphasizes the use of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance for 4 traffic-generated noise. 1 These factors represent the extremes and most areas actually contain some combination of hard 1 site and soft site elements with the resulting noise attenuation placed somewhere in between these 4 two attenuation factors. 1 1 Physical objects that block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receptor attenuate the t noise source if the receptor is located within the "shadow" of the blockage (e.g., behind a sound 1 wall). If a receptor is located behind the wall but has a view of the source, the wall will do very little 1 to attenuate the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may actually experience an increase in the perceived noise level as the wall will likely reflect 1 noise back to the receptor, thus compounding the noise. 1 Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of the average energy over time 1 (called Leq) or, alternatively, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over 1 some fraction of a given observation period. For example,the L50 noise level represents the noise 4 level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time(i.e., half the time the noise level exceeds this level and t half the time the noise level is less than this level). This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in any given hour. Similarly, the L02, L08, and L25 represent the noise 4 levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, < respectively. These "L" values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with the City's noise ordinance, as discussed below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root- •� mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 2 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the"Community Noise Equivalent Level" (CNEL) or the"Day/Night Average Noise Level" (Ldn). In calculation of the CNEL, noise produced between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM is penalized by 5 dBA; noise produced between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM is penalized by 10 dBA. Note that the night period also includes a portion of the morning (AM) rush hour. The penalty added to the night and morning rush hour typically raise the CNEL to a level that is generally equivalent to or greater than the peak traffic hour's noise. The Ldn is calculated in the same manner as the CNEL but no penalty is added to the period between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both the CNEL and Ldn give about the same value with the CNEL being less than 1 dBA greater. 3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE POLICIES Many government agencies have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens i from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects often associated with noise. Applicable standards and guidelines are separately discussed below. 3.1 Federal Noise Policies t The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA)underthe United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). Noise exposure of this type is dependant on work conditions and is addressed through a facility's Health and Safety Plan. Any site construction will be required to • operate under the contractor's Health and Safety Plan. Subsequent site use would, therefore, not produce noise levels in excess of OSHA standards. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a "goal" of 45 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum interior standard for residential units receiving HUD financial assistance. While HUD does not specify acceptable exterior noise levels, standard construction techniques for residential dwellings, under those standards established under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code (CAC), typically provide 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the exterior Ldn should not exceed 65 dBA. 3.2 California Noise Policies The California Department of Health Services' (SDHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, the SDHS has established four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses. The types of land uses addressed by the SDHS and "acceptable" noise, by category are presented in Figure 1 (California Department of Health Services—Office of Noise Control Standards). As indicated therein, noise in the "normally acceptable" category is generally acceptable with no mitigation necessary. Noise in the"conditionally acceptable"category may require some mitigation as established through a noise study. The "normally unacceptable" category would require substantial mitigation while the"clearly unacceptable"category is probably not mitigable to a less- than-significant level. As noted in Figure 1 (California Department of Health Services — Office of Noise Control Standards), there is some overlap between categories. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 3 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California a_ • • Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure • COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn or CNEL. dB ' LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 80 • Residential-Low densiZY `;:: :` �....:•::•- - Single Family,Duplex,Mobile Homes Residential-Mull*Family < wY? Transient Lodging-Motels,Hotels ................... ------------ ------- --- --- Schools.Librarles.Churches.Hospitals. Nursing Homes "< '" - -----Auditoriums.Concert Hays, Amphitheaters ---�'--�---- ``r�----- - ----- `�;>`��'x%;`'•"" --- ---Sports Arena.Outdoor Specsatw Sports ------------ -------------- ^--- - ----- ---- ---- Playgrounds.Neighborhood Parks • -------------------------------------------- --- ------ ---- ----- Goa Courses.Riding Stables,Water . Recreation.Cemetaries Otrwo Buildings.Business.Commercial ....................... and Professional :...... • ------------------------------------- Industrial,Manufacturing.Utilities. Agrkwiture -----------------------------------------5 5 -----60--65---7 0----TS 80 LEGEND C Nomia9y Acceptable MMM Nonna4y Unacceptable Sv�•d red ws Y asroia0M.bow span tr aaawnprbs tru N.. mnmwnn +d f AS ti ��a O •ar *qa teoMd w d for"mwtidrf wakwtim a.wapad .Cod Ir rota bwrdnlrrr rsp draid snalr b d trs rrob.n&AS rr raprirsswa mm be ra&&.U�rrsdsd loss inaubdm%am**idudsd b to design. . QMtor arse.uD be aNsNs0. ..'�3i•ir'•� Nw miun:lon v dwnbpa-v 0=W be wdsnarun 0*ans. . . •d.0"wralrb ar tr rrsbs rsdoam waiaa—b Is mods ww Clearly Unacceptable •.ww robs &Odom= Isasaaa Y.ekrdsd.b trs dssga Nilm mmouc n or dw+bpcw.s arordd Va^s-ar nil be urslo- . tkr.w'dwol mwrrdrrn,but.tl d awl.ir I Weil bosh a. UMsk C060 WM Mara O rwb tea - "I w.iarnsm sappy n'nw r at mrAbr+q.i so we,Now. o bw s .pt*Ao.mM be p our to Doom- -j.-ws . ar.:assrrl.6 w■'ww- war!eras be vaabra. Figure 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL STANDARDS 6 Source:California Department of Health Services Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 4 . i Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Applicable interior standards for new residential dwellings are governed by Title 24 of the CAC. These standards require that an acoustical study be performed prior to construction in areas that exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Such studies are required to establish measures that will limit interior noise to no more than 45 dBA Ldn. This level has been applied to many communities in California,including the City of Huntington Beach. 3.3 City Noise Policies As required under Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code (CGC), each community shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan,for its physical development containing seven mandatory elements, including a noise element. As required therein, the noise element shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community,shall recognize the guidelines established by the SDHS' Office of Noise Control, and shall analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. The"City of Huntington Beach General Plan"(General Plan)includes a Noise Element establishing a set of local noise standards. The Noise Element identifies goals, policies, and implementation programs. Basically, the General Plan (Policy N1.2.1) states that residential development shall conform to the current State standards and sets a residential exterior goal of 60 dBA Ldn for outdoor living areas and 45 dBA Ldn for indoor living areas. Exterior living areas are typically defined as rear yards and do not include the front of a dwelling unit. Interior living areas typically do not include bathrooms, closets, or hallways. In addition to residential units, the General Plan defines health- care facilities, schools, libraries, and places of worship as"sensitive" receptors. The General Plan (Policy N1.2.2) also notes that new industrial and commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses shall not cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior level of 65 dBA Ldn at noise sensitive land uses. The implementation programs outlined therein are designed to achieve the City's long-range goals and policies concerning noise in the urban environment. The City's policy regarding acceptable noise levels are codified in Chapter 8.40(Noise Control)in the"City of Huntington Beach Municipal . Code" (Municipal Code). The City's exterior noise standards are shown in Table 1 (City of Huntington Beach — Exterior Noise Standards) and represent the noise levels that should not be exceeded during each of the time periods specified therein. These standards are intended for enforcement of short-term noise violations. The specified levels do not apply to "pre-empted" or "exempted" sources of noise (e.g., traffic), where noise standards are dictated by other federal, State, and regional entities. These levels represent an average and provide for allowances for short-term noise. Noise which exceeds these levels is subject to the following criteria: (1) no exceedance of the standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;and (2)the noise standard plus(a)5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, (b) 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minute in any hour, (c) 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour,and (d) 20 dBA or the maximum measured ambient level for any period of time. These levels then represent the L50, L25, L08, L02, and Lmax descriptors, respectively. These levels are as measured at the nearest receptor property and not at the project site boundary. The City's noise ordinance allows for certain exemptions to the noise standards. For example,the City's noise ordinance recognizes that construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a 24- hour community noise standard. Section 8.40.090(Special Provisions)of the City's Municipal Code states that the following potentially applicable noise sources are exempt: Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 5 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California i Table 1 � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH — EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS �-F.,�"xtk T . �sr e!'t s=,e'��i'' La h -t l-- , � '+`_�.,5 roc '-'�� s"r �' -�x`. �:.r sk.'fit u •s 3 zTimellMl nferval tNo�se Level `�._�.?e.. :.....,:.,:#_- ;,., R - ;7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55 Residential Properties 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 � Professional Office and Public Institutional Properties Anytime 55 1 Commercial Properties with the Exception of Professional Anytime 60 v Office and Public Institutional v Industrial Anytime 70 Source:City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code ■ Section 8.40.090(b). Activities otherwise lawfully conducted in public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds. ■ Section 8.40.090(d). Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or e grading of any real property, provided that a permit has been obtained from the City and that v said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, v including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Section 8.40.090(h). Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, ■ provided that said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on any day except Sunday or between the hours of 9 AM and 6 PM on Sunday or a federal holiday. 0 ■ Section 8.40.0900). Any activity or equipment to the extent that design regulation thereof has been pre-empted by State or federal laws. This latter provision would include the operation of licensed vehicles operated on public thoroughfares. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The most significant and common source of noise in the City is related to the movement of vehicles 41 over City roadways. Local sources of noise can, however, also pervade an area,especially one that is located away from major roads. Aircraft overflights add to the overall ambient noise environment. 4.1 Field Survey o s A field study was conducted on August 27, 2002 to determine the locations of potentially sensitive receptors and ascertain existing noise levels within the project area. The areas to the immediate east and south of the project site include two-story, single-family detached residential units. The distance from the rear of the proposed daycare center to the property line is approximately 54±feet. The east wall of the daycare center is approximately 129±feet west of the property line. In both cases, these homes are separated from the project site by an existing 8-foot high masonry block d wall. These dwellings have rear-yard setbacks varying from approximately 10 to 20 feet. 4111 a Noise monitoring was conducted using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2 Integrating/ Logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) Standard S1.4-1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission's(I EC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC's Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was field Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 4P Acoustical Analysis Page 6 4p do T • ! Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California ► calibrated at.11:10 PM using a Quest Technologies QC-10 calibrator immediately prior to the reading. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of the ANSI's Standard S1.4-1984 and the IEC's Standard 942:1988 for Class 1 r equipment. The calibration of the meter was rechecked at 12:28 PM and no meter "drift" was observed. ► As illustrated in Figure 2 (Noise Reading Location), the noise reading (NR) was obtained at the ► project site, proximal to the single-family homes located to the south. Specifically, the meterwas located 100 feet west of the eastern property line and 20 feet north of the southern property line. This location afforded a view of Adams Avenue, located at a distance of approximately 361 feet. As noted, single-family dwelling units are located to the east and south. These residences have approximately 10 to 20-foot rear yard setbacks and are protected from the project site by existing 8- foot high masonry block walls. The findings of the on-site field measurements are included in Table 2 (Noise Level Measurements). Table 2 NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS' if;Jy 5 Le �L02L085 50� Lm�n Ltnax ; Noise Reading 54.2 62.7 58.3 53.1 50.9 45.9 69.9 Notes 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25, and L50 are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. Source: Environmental Impact Sciences Due to its distal location from adjoining roadways (i.e. Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) and partial shielding provided by the presence of other local commercial structures,the daycare center site is somewhat sheltered from roadway noise.The dominant source of noise during the monitoring period was that from loading dock activities associated with the proximate "Stater Bros. Market," located approximately 225-250 feet to the west of the noise reading location. Aircraft overflights and noise generated from traffic traveling on Adams Avenue were also notable during the noise reading. 4.2 Computer-Generated Noise Projections for Existing Traffic Objective N 1.3 of the City's Noise Element states that the City is to minimize the adverse impacts of traffic-generated noise on residential and other"noise sensitive" uses. To determine if the proposed project would create a substantial increase in traffic-generated noise, it is necessary to document the existing noise along the site's access routes. Existing traffic levels along both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were based on values included in "Traffic Study, Northeast Corner, Brookhurst Street&Adams Avenue"(Willdan,June 2002),which includes recent traffic volume data for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and provides peak- hour turning movements. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 7 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California .a n uPAD ��Q g W. a PROJECT SITE o f Residential = ® Cr m e d ® : t . 1 a •• M qw ADAMS AVENUE - a Legend O Proposed Outdoor Play Area © Proposed Daycare Center 0 Figure 2 NOISE READING LOCATION Source:Environmental Impact Sciences Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 t Acoustical Analysis Page 8 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California r, Because the.ldn descriptor used by the City to determine impacts from traffic on sensitive land uses is based on 24-hours of traffic, average daily traffic(ADT)volumes were calculated. The standard method of calculation considers that the average of the morning(AM)and evening(PM)peak hours represents approximately 10 percent of the total ADT. Noise levels associated with these ADT volumes along Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were subsequently modeled using the California Department of Transportation's(Caltrans)Sound32 Noise Model(CALVENO emissions). The ratio of automobiles and trucks is based on ratios suggested by the OCEMA and reported to be characteristic of ratios evident on Southland arterials.This ratio includes 97.42 percent automobiles, 1.84 percent medium trucks, and 0.74 percent heavy trucks. Both routes were modeled at an average speed of 45 miles per hour(mph). Because the Ldn represents a 24-hour measurement based on traffic volumes,some explanation as to how the traffic volumes are apportioned over a 24-hour period is in order. The following methodology was developed as per prior discussions with Caltrans and is deemed reasonable for typical urban roadways: (1)the nighttime period (i.e., 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM is assigned 10 percent of the total volume split equally among the 8 hours; (2)the morning (AM)and evening(PM)rush hours are set from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and-4:00 PM to 7:00 PM, respectively,and each hour of these rush hours includes twice the volume of"off-hour" (i.e., non-rush and non-nighttime)traffic. The results of this analysis are included in Table 3 (Existing Traffic and Resultant Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). Model runs are included in the appendix. Note that the presented values are based on a clear line-of-sight to the traffic. Objects that obstruct this line- of-sight would serve as noise barriers and actual noise levels observed at receptor locations could be considerably less than the presented values. Table 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA r `3£` _t+�^% s y. `a,a - ,.,, -"4 ='``�st '.. `� d. �^-T x i t. v a 3 , .�a 4�N`i' '� '?xt41 �'`ry -`x' `F� d R , Location , 2, �D..�T� o Ldn ` �s�tanc�e to 65 iD nce � {SBA @O felt) 5dBA Ltln(feet) dBALtln(feet) Adams Avenue East of Brookhurst Street 32,430 73.1 173 373 West of Brookhurst Street 26,895 72.3 153 330 Brookhurst Street North of Adams Avenue 24,235 71.8 142 306 South of Adams Avenue 24,030 71.8 142 306 Source:Willdan and Environmental Impact Sciences 5.0 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA All projects will generate some noise impacts. The mere presence of a new noise source,however, is not necessarily indicative of whether the resulting noise would be deemed "significant" or "potentially significant." Although this document is not intended to fulfill, in whole or in part, the Lead Agency's obligations underthe California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), under CEQA,as codified in Section 21600 et seq. of the Public Resources Code(PRC), one of the most important determinations that a public Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 9 d i Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, Califomia d agency makes is whether the environmental consequences of a proposed project are"significant"or "potentially significant." This determination influences the agency's determination concerning whether or not to commence the preparation of a negative declaration or an environmental impact ! report (EIR) and determines whether mitigation measures will be required once a negative declaration or EIR is commenced. Judgments of"significance"are made at three different points in the CEQA process: (1) in determining whether a project may have a significant effect and thus d require an EIR; (2) in the EIR's discussions of which environmental impacts are significant and 4 warranting mitigation; and (3) in making findings following EIR completion on whether a project's significant environmental effects have been avoided or substantially reduced. d The State CEQA Guidelines, as codified in Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations(CCR)indicates that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment, relative to noise, if it will (1) increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; and/or(2)conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. With regards to the second criterion, the applicable noise standards governing the project site are the City's Noise Element and noise ordinance, as discussed above. Mobile sources of noise, such as project-generated traffic while traveling on public roadways, are exempt from local ordinance but may still be subject to CEQA. These noise sources would be ! deemed to be "significant" or "potentially significant" if the proposed project were to generate a , volume of traffic sufficient to result in a substantial increase in mobile source-generated noise. Neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines, however, define a"substantial increase." In defining i the term, Webster's Dictionary defines "substantial" as "considerable in quantity." ! Q As noted above, the human ear can detect changes of 3 dBA. Changes of less than 3 dBA, while audible under controlled circumstances,are not readily discernable in an outdoor environment. As a result, a change of 3 dBA is considered as a potentially audible increase and is used herein as an appropriate threshold for assessing a "significant"or"potentially significant"change in the existing environment. In comparison, Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted i noise levels with the project exceeds existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq. 6 4 6.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS f 6.1 Project Construction ! ! All projects will generate some noise during construction. Construction activities are, however, ! short-term in duration and the impacts of those activities cease upon completion. In recognition of ! these factors, the City exempts construction noise from compliance with its noise ordinance. In , order to present a comprehensive acoustical assessment,this project-specific analysis includes an evaluation of short-term construction impacts. 4 Some noise disturbances in those areas adjacent to the project site are to be expected during ! construction. These disturbances, which will be short-term in nature, will be result of site preparation and subsequent construction of both the proposed outdoor play area and interior tenant improvements. Generally, with the exception of worker commutes and material deliveries, the ! majority of interior construction activities would likely occur inside the building and would be ! attenuated by the building exterior. Exterior construction would generally consist of: (1) the removal of existing asphalt payment; (2) replacement of approximately 6,000 square foot of existing surface area with materials typical of Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 10 4 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California . those found in a playground settings; and (3)construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall around the outdoor recreational area. As with most construction projects,construction would require the use of a number of pieces of heavy equipment(e.g., bulldozers, backhoes, loaders, concrete mixers). In addition, heavy and light trucks would be required to remove debris from and deliver construction materials to the site. Composite construction noise can be characterized by the findings of a study conducted by the USEPA and authored by Bolt, Beranek,and Newman(USEPA, December31, 1971). In this study, construction noise for commercial development is presented as 89 dBA Leq when measured at.a distance of 50 feet from the construction effort. This value takes into account both the number of pieces and spacing of equipment used in the construction effort. In later phases, noise levels are typically reduced from this value since the physical structures that are erected further break up line- of-sight noise transmission. As a worst-case scenario,a composite construction noise of 89-dBA is used for assessing near-site noise levels during the construction effort. The operation of construction equipment results in the generation of both steady and episodic noise above the ambient levels currently experienced near the noise sensitive areas closest to the project site. The noise produced from construction, however, decreases at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. At 100 feet,the noise levels would be about 6 dBA less,or 83 dBA,and at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less, or77 dBA. The nearest residents include those immediately south and west of the project site. The nearest residences to the south could be as close as about 64t feet from the construction effort. The nearest residences to the east are about 80t feet from the east end of the proposed outdoor play area. At these distances, intermittent construction noise is calculated at 87 and 85 dBA Leq, respectively. These values do not consider the existing 8-foot high masonry block walls that now separate these dwellings from the existing commercial center. Because this sound walls prevents the line-of-sight transmission of noise, ground-floor exterior noise levels at these residents would projected to be lower then these presented values; however, the existing wall height may not be sufficient to further attenuate construction-related noise levels at second-floor receptor locations. As indicated in the Municipal Code, construction performed within the hours specified in the City's noise ordinance(i.e., between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday and at anytime on Sunday or on a federal holiday) is exempt from the provisions of the stationary noise standards. Construction could, however, represent a short-term nuisance for the adjacent residents. The following measures are, therefore, recommended and will minimize potential nuisance impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The project proponent has reviewed the following recommendations and has agreed to incorporate these recommendations as self-imposed conditions of project approval: ■ Recommendation No. 1. During all project site preparation, grading and construction,the project contractors should equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' specifications. • Recommendation No. 2. The project contractor should place all stationary construction equipment as far as feasible from adjoining residences and situated so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the south and east of the project site. • Recommendation No. 3. The construction contractor should locate equipment staging areas away from adjoining residences so-as to create the greatest possible separation Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 11 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California distance between construction-related noise sources and potentially noise sensitive receptors during all project construction operations. 6.2 Additional Project Traffic As noted above, Objective N 1.3 of the City's Noise Element specified that the City is to minimize the adverse impacts of traffic-generated noise on residential and other"noise sensitive"uses. As such, the noise associated with the project's contribution to areawide traffic volumes was modeled to determine if that contribution would substantially increase traffic-related noise levels. Because ambient growth in the project area would raise existing traffic levels even without project implementation, for the purpose of determining if the proposed project would significantly raise traffic-generated noise, a worst-case scenario would impose the totality of project-generated traffic on the existing traffic volume. This is because the project's projected traffic would represent a greater portion of the 'whole." It should be noted, however, that the proposed use is relocating from another location in the City (i.e., 9700 Levee Drive). As such, traffic associated with the proposed use already exists on the local street system. The project will, therefore, not result in any new operational traffic but only a redistribution of that traffic associated with the daycare's operation at its existing facility. Project-generated traffic was calculated using the ITE's"Trip Generation,Sixth Edition,"utilizing the "student" rates presented in Table 4 (Trip Generation Rates). The manual notes that daycare facilities generate 4.52 trip ends per student. As proposed, up to 90 students could be accommodated at the project site. A worst-case scenario then considers 90 students and, based on that number of students, as many as 407 trips could be produced on a daily basis. • Table 4 TRIP GENERATION RATES v�� s � -�' .ss g�. 4x'"- - 4 Ts __ id'ry a,z r:� '•� e'1Fc�`r s` l"6s '�'zu` '" ' '.. _i R' �k � � � x ,a:ffi .�' Trip ' "�` - s �'�� ��"`,e3r ..aet• KS�.,.�e t�fcan .. ��m. �t�.�' }-v- - , .0 r cC , ..4+i a sw5 S tF rag,{, - U*F Y' s• ^* Z` - -+" s :>-r .-.,+ f r Fn - AMfReak our` � 'PMPeak�iour�`x g Desch for Lanced Used Yr t��`tF ��_3 r � Daily `y t - a ' �. 3n.sdC '" >, :-sw? w;Fat.�T' ..raf xs�i3�•cr:1erw1a}i...[.s;..,4+:;. e,E f< sSir si`+..7' �S ' u.G t�OT.n _ckER, Per Employee 31.19 2.71 2.31 .2.44 2.75 Daycare Center Per Student 4.52 0.43 0.38 0.40 0.46 1,000 square foot 79.26 6.74 5.97 6.20 7.00 Fast-Food Restaurant 1,000 square foot 496.12 25.43 24.43 17.41 16.07 (with Drive Through) High Turnover Restaurant 1,000 square foot 130.34 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 (Coffee Shop) Bank 1,000 square foot 265.2 7.07 5.56 27.39 27.38 (Drive In) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997 To further represent a worst-case scenario, the entirety of these trips was assumed to use both Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. The results of this analysis are included in Table 5(Existing Versus with Project Traffic and Resulting Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). Note that even if all of the project-generated traffic were to proceed to and from the same direction, the project would not generate a volume of traffic large enough to measurably raise the existing noise levels. As a result, any potential impact is less than significant. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 12 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach,California It should be noted that other types of non-residential uses 1could be permitted on the project site, either with or without any further discretionary review by the City. As indicated in Chapter 211 (Commercial Districts) of the Municipal Code, both "banks and savings & loans" and "easting and drinking establishments"are identified as"permitted"uses. In comparison, a restaurant"with drive through" constitutes an eligible use subject to a "conditional use permit." Based on the ITE generation rates in Table 4 (Trip Generation Rates),those uses would generate substantially more traffic than the proposed use. As indicated in Section 5.4.5 herein,traffic-related impacts associated with those uses would be expected to be greater than the proposed daycare use. Table 5 EXISTING VERSUS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC AND RESULTANT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA , �) � Existing�� �Ezistrng Ldn� ��_ Witli�� :°���Witlt"�Pro�ect�Ldn �� Location Yr ,L >,..ADT .r, (dBAa@A50Feet) �Pro�ec#ADT (dBA:@ 50,Feet) 1 Adams Avenue East of Brookhurst Street 32,430 73.1 32,827 73.1 West of Brookhurst Street 26,895 72.3 27,302 72.3 Brookhurst Street North of Adams Avenue 24,235 71.8 24,642 71.9 South of Adams Avenue 24,030 71.8 24,437 71.8 Source:Willdan and Environmental Impact Sciences 6.3 On-Site Project Operations The proposed daycare center is to be operated adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood. The addition of up to 90 students would provide a new source of noise for the adjoining residents. As discussed in Section 3.3 herein, the City's noise ordinance allows for certain exemptions. Specifically, Section 8.40.090(b) of the Municipal Code exempts "activities otherwise lawfully conducted in public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds." The proposed daycare facility entails a private school learning environment for children and, as such, is exempt from the stationary noise source limitations included in the Municipal Code. Although exempt,the following analysis examines the potential operational ramifications of the proposed project with " respect to the City's stationary noise source restrictions. To determine the noise associated with playground activities, noise readings were obtained at the Jenny Hart Early Education Center(Jenny Hart) located in the City of Irvine (4445 Alton Parkway). The Jenny Hart preschool facility accommodates 85 students and is considered comparable to the proposed project. Noise readings were obtained at the Jenny Hart facility on September 5, 2002. The facility includes ' two adjacent outdoor play areas, both enclosed by chain link fencing. A sandy area is located to the west and encompasses an area of approximately 73±feet by 52±feet in size (3,796±square feet). This area includes various types on climbing play equipment. An asphalt area is located directly to the east and is separated by a chain link fence. This area is approximately 64±feet by 88±feet in size (5,632± square feet) and is used for playing ball, hopscotch, etc. Additionally, the school parking lot is located immediately north of the play area. Meadowbrook Road'is located immediately north of the parking lot and about 94 feet north of the play area. The Jeny Hart site is depicted in Fi ure 3 (Jenny Hart Early Education Center). Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 13 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center i City of Huntington Beach, California I . M eadowbrook 7H-2 � Parking Area i 50 Feet j I i i t . i Sand 50 Feet JH-1 Asphalt i Structure _k Figure 3 JENNY HART EARLY EDUCATION CENTER Source:Environmental Impact Sciences . Environmental Impact Sciences _ September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 14 r� Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California representative noise readings were obtained at this facility i.e., JH-1 and JH-2 Two rep 9 Y . The noise( ) meter was field calibrated at 3:15 PM, prior to the readings, and rechecked at 4:45 PM, after the readings. No meter"drift"was noted. Monitoring and calibration equipment were as described for the reading obtained at the project site. The results of these readings are included in Table 6 e (Jenny Hart Early Education Center Noise Level Measurements) and each reading is separately described below. Is Table 6 JENNY HART EARLY EDUCATION CENTER NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS' "Isme t .asa ''' y' s tA{'Yy€' �:--,t `"'' ma's`-rxs kr,• tq. ^ri -w*: -m 't � y� r Noise Reading Leq :L02 1.08 L25,R LSQ Lmin� Lmax JH-1 58.7 65.1 62.4 59.6 57.0 50.3 69.2 JH-2 57.4 62.6 60.1 58.2 56.7 50.7 68.6 Notes P 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25,and L50 are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15,and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. 't Source: Environmental Impact Sciences j� ■ JH-1. The first reading was obtained in the asphalt play area while the children were still playing in the sandy area. The 15-minute reading began at 3:45 PM. Approximately 25 children were playing in the area at the on-set of the noise measurement. Within approximately.5 minutes, however, the number of children had more than doubled (i.e., in excess of 50 children were counted). Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles operating in the parking lot, including their associated noises(e.g.,door slams,alarm honks, and engine start-ups), ranging from about 50 to 100 feet from the noise meter. Additionally, vehicles on the adjacent roads,aircraft overflights,and people playing tennis(approximately 150±feet way) were observed during the reading. JH-2. After the first reading,the children were allowed to occupy both the sand and asphalt ■ areas. This required that the noise meter be moved into the parking lot area. The meter was located 50 feet north of the play area fence line, immediately between the sand and y asphalt areas. The 15-minute reading began at 4:25 PM. Approximately 55 to 60 children y occupied the combined areas. Additional sources of noise included eight vehicles that where operating in the parking lot with their associated noises. Because the meter was moved into the parking lot, some of these vehicles were observed to pass within 15 to 20 feet of the noise meter. Additionally 14 automobiles were observed to pass on the adjacent road behind the meter at a distance of about 55 feet from the centerline of the road. Aircraft overflights also added to the measured noise. b d 6.3.1 Step-by-Step Daycare Student Drop Off and Play Area Noise `r The noise level expected at the Step-by-Step Daycare facility would be comparable to that measured at the Jenny Hart facility.'Both facilities include roughly the same number of students and their play areas are generally of similar size. 4 9 Environmental impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 15 i i Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center i City of Huntington Beach,California As proposed,Step-by-Step Daycare will limit the number of children allowed in the play area at any one time. This restriction would serve to incrementally reduce noise levels associated with outdoor play activities. Furthermore, the proposed project will include a 6-foot high masonry block wall, as i compared to the chain-link fence surrounding the Jenny Hart recreational area. This sound wall i would further contain playtime noise levels. r 6.3.2 Increases in Ambient Noise Levels At a distance of 54t feet to the property line,the residents to the south of the project site represent the nearest receptors. Assuming the use of the louder of the two reading obtained at the Jenny Hart facility, Leq noise at the southern property line(54t feet)is estimated to be approximately 58.0 dBA Leq. The property line to the east is located approximately 68t feet from the play area and, at this distance, noise is calculated at approximately 57.4 dBA Leq. Both Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)note that any solid wall that shields d! the receptor from the noise source affords a minimum of 5 dBA of attenuation. As such, with the inclusion of the proposed 6-foot high masonry block wall, noise levels at the southern and eastem property lines are estimated to be approximately 53.0 and 52.4 dBA Leq, respectively. If these levels were to be produced for a continuous period of two hour each day, the Ldn values are calculated as 42.2 and 41.6 dBA, respectively. These levels are well below the existing ambient levels measured in the field study. The resulting increase in the Ldn is estimated to be approximately 0.5 dBA. This level of increase is well under the threshold of significance standard outlined herein (i.e.,3 dBA) and would,therefore, be deemed to constitute a less-than-significant increase. Actual noise at the residences would be further reduced by virtue of the existing 8-foot high masonry wall that separates-those residential e units from the commercial center. 6.3.3 Adherence to City Stationary Noise Source Requirement As discussed above,the City's noise ordinance exempts"activities otherwise lawfully conducted in public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds." Although exempt, Table 7 (Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Lines) compares the readings obtained at the Jenny Hart facility and assumed for the Step-By-Step Daycare facility with the City's a exterior noise standards. These levels would be as measured at the residential property lines and include a 5-dBA reduction for the proposed on-site masonry wall. Note that in this case, the City does not recognize the Leq noise descriptor but instead uses a L50 value.(i.e.,the level exceeded 30 minutes in any 1-hour period). O • As indicated in Table 7 (Step-by-Step Daycare Noise Levels at the Adjacent Property Lines), all values are within the City's stationary noise source limitations and while noise from play area activities could be audible at the adjoining residences,the data indicates that the proposed daycare facility would be in compliance with the City's noise standards. As such, the resulting operational activities would produce a less-than-significant impact. 6.3.4 On-Site Noise Impacts As noted, the project is appropriately categorized as a learning environment and, as such,for the B purposes of this analysis, represents a sensitive receptor which itself is subject to the City's 60 dBA Ldn noise restriction. The facility is located approximately 264 feet south of Adams Avenue and approximately 700 feet east of Brookhurst Street. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 16 1 f I► Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Table 7 STEP-BY-STEP DAYCARE NOISE LEVELS AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES a s .,1 5xt: ' i.,>-�• -f ,1. a. f a "`fit" sus -e7z:�, ' r ,z,s..qx e - r t ri-Y x z: " - ''U'- -_ Noise Rea�ng E 30mnutes 15 m�n�ttes `minutes 6R minute Lrtax 4 City Standard 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 75 dBA Project Level @ South 51.5 dBA 54.1 dBA 56.9 dBA 59.6 dBA 63.7 dBA PrODerty Line Project Level @ East 49.3 dBA 51.9 dBA 54.7 dBA 57.4 dBA 61.5 dBA Property Line Notes ! 1. All values are in dBA. The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic.energy as the actual time- varying sound level.The L02, L08, L25, and L50 are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8,25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively,these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of 1 second. Source: Environmental Impact Sciences Sound32 noise modeling was conducted to determine if roadway traffic would create noise levels in ! excess of the City's 60 Ldn standard at the project site. The analysis considers traffic on both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and includes both existing and project-related traffic. . Additionally,the modeling includes the presence of the"Moulin Rouge Restaurant,"the"Los Primos Cantina,"adjoining retail shops, and the"Stater Bros. Market." These structures were all modeled )� as masonry walls, with a height of 24 feet. The actual heights and associated attenuation could, ! however, be somewhat greater. The modeling indicates that local traffic would generate a Ldn of 58.1 dBA at the project site. This value is less than the City's 60 dBA Ldn standard. As a result, any potential acoustical impacts associated with traffic on proximal arterials is less than significant. >+ 6.3.5 Potential Noise Impacts from Other Allowable Site Uses L An analysis was performed to determine the potential for noise impacts for other types of land uses that constitute permittable or conditionally permittable uses under existing zoning. This analysis G examines the potential impacts associated with a fast-food restaurant, a high-turnover restaurant (e.g., coffee shop), and a drive-in bank. Modeling was performed for both Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue and the results of this analysis are included in Table 8 (Existing Versus with Allowable Land Use Traffic and Resulting ►, Noise Levels along Major Thoroughfares in the Project Area). While the project does not add s measurably to the existing noise levels,these other uses could increase roadway noise by as much 3 as 0.5 dBA Ldn. Also note that all of these other land uses would result in a greater level of parking '7 lot activity and its associated noise. Further, some of these uses (e.g.,fast-food restaurant) could involve the use of an automobile/attendant public address system that could also add to off-site noise levels. 7.0 REFERENCES all 3 California Department of Transportation, Sound32 Version of the FHWA Noise Program, 3 Release 1.4, September 28, 1992. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 17 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Table 8 EXISTING VERSUS WITH ALLOWABLE LAND USE TRAFFIC AND RESULTING NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE PROJECT AREA xar. t tiro ecood "� ADT1C�''tln Location r E� x ,rL`Qn i'1Ldn° lk� sy-"4 c ! eBA @5 Feet) (dBA@ 5d Feet) ;; BA@eet)"� Bq@�DFsiiBAja�t50tFeet} , � c Adams Avenue East of 32,430 32,837 35,258 33,172 33,942 Brookhurst (73.1) (73.1) (73.4) (73.2) (73.3) Street West of 26,895 27,302 29,723 27,637 28,407 Brookhurst (72.3) (72.3) (72.7) (72.4) (72.5) Street Brookhurst Street North of 24,235 24,642 27,063 24,977 25,747 Adams (71.8) (71.9) (72.3) (71.9) (72.1) Avenue South of 24,030 24,437 26,858 24,772 25,542 Adams (71.8) (71.8) (72.2) (71.9) (72.0) Avenue Source: Environmental Impact Sciences ■ City of Huntington Beach General Plan, 1992. ■ City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, December 1993. ■ County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual, Amendment 93-1: December 14, 1993. ■ Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Version). ■ United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985, The Noise Guidebook, March 1985. ■ State of California, 1997 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, December 1998. ■ United States Environmental Protection Agency(Bolt, Beranek, and Newman), Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. ■ Willdan, Traffic Study, Northeast Corner, Brookhurst Street&Adams Avenue, June 2002. Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis Page 18 Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California Appendix A SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC r Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis r STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING T-BROOKHURST, 1 ® 23610 , 45 , 446 , 45 , 179 , 45 N,-50. ,-750,0, N,-50. ,750,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 S ALL,ALL ALL,ALL C,C S D l 1 ! SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 ! TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING 1 BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.8 i i i • 1 1 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING 1 T-BROOKHURST, 1 1 23410 , 45 , 442 , 45 , 178 , 45 1 L-, 1 N,-50. ,-750,0, N,-50. ,750,0, 1 R, 1 , 67 ,1 1 0,0,5. , / D, 4.5 ALL,ALL 1 K,-9.3 1 ALL,ALL t C,C 1 a t 1 t SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 t TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING t 1 . t BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND 1 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS 1 RECEIVER LEQ 1 --------------- 1 R--1 71.8 1 . 1 i i STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING • T-ADAMS, 1 31593 , 45 , 597 , 45 , 240 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.1 i STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/0 BROOKHURST, EXISTING �ADAMS, 1 . 6201 , 45 , 495 , 45 , 199 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, i N,750. ,50,0, i R, 1 , 67 ,1 i 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL i K,-9.3 i ALL,ALL C,C f ! SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 ! TITLE: 4 STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/0 BROOKHURST, EXISTING i f BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND • CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS ! RECEIVER LEQ ! --------------- ! R-1 72.3 f f f f f f i f f " i ii i� Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California i i D i I l Y y D� D D l i- ) ) !r ) i Appendix B SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC i Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis t 1 . TEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT -BROOKHURST, 1 24006 , 45 , - 453 , 45 , 182 , 45 10 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C 1 f i f i SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 i TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/0 ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND 0 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS i RECEIVER LEQ --------------- P R-1 71.9 i 1 ' 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 � i . o 0 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT T-BROOKHURST, 1 23807 , 45 , 450 , 45 , 181 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, o� R, 1 , 67 11 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 0 ALL,ALL � K,-9.3 ALL,ALL o C,C 0 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 6 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ------------ R-1 71.8 � I i 4 1 ! ! 1 1 1 ' I&TEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT T-ADAMS, 1 D 31990 , 45 , 604 , 45 , 243 , 45 1 L , 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL 1 C,C C 1 1 f SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT 1 BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.1 ! ! ! ! ! b ! I ! ! 1 ! i ! STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT T-ADAMS, 1 26598 , 45 , 502 , 45 , 202 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + PROJECT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.3 I i fi t' Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California 3 f s Appendix C SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND USES Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD T-BROOKHURST, - 1 26365 , 45 , 498 , 45 , 200 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , 1 D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C � I , SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.3 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-BROOKHURST., 1 24333 , 45 , 460 , 45 , 185 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9. 3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND S CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.9 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING "+ BANK T-BROOKHURST, 1 ® 25083 , 45 , 474 , 45 , 191 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL 4 C'c SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: 4 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, N/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ 0 --------------- R-1 72.1 10 4m 4 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST .FOOD kT-BROOKHURST, 1 26165 , 45 , 494 , 45 199 45 -, 1 •. N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 a 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C 4 SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ ----- R-1 72.2 O m O STEP-BY-STEP., BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-BROOKHURST,- 1 24133 , 45 , 456 , 45 , 183 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL i K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C ) i i i SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 i 1 TITLE: i STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS 1 RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 71.9 ) ) i r r r I i 1 1 1 1 STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK T-BROOKHTJRST., 1 24883 , 45 , 470 , 45 , 189 , 45 L-, 1 1 N,-750. ,50,0 , N,750. ,50,0, 1 R, 1 , 67 ,1 1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C d Q Q Q SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 Q TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, BROOKHURST, S/O ADAMS, EXISTING + BANK Q Q BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND e CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS e RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.0 e e Q e 1 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e • 1 - 1 STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD T-ADAMS, 1 3435 , 45 , 65 , 45 , 26 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K, .7 ALL,ALL C,C ) ) f SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD ) ) ) BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND ' CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.4 ) ) ) ) ) i a 41TEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT 0 T-ADAMS, 1 - f 32316 , 45 , 610_ , 45 , 245. , 45 @ L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, t N,750. ,50,0, i R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0',5. ,. f D, 4.5 1 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 f ALL,ALL C C,C 1 e e c SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.2 i STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK . T-ADAMS, 1 _ 3307 , 45 , 62 , 45 , 25 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K, .7 ® ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, E/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK i® BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 73.3 a , STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD T-ADAMS, 1 28956 , 45 , 547 , 45 , 220 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/0 BROOKHURST, EXISTING + FAST FOOD BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.7 i i i STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT T-ADAMS, 1 26924 , 45 , 509 , 45 , 205 , 45 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, � 0, 15. 67 ,1 0 , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL ® K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, .W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + HT RESTAURANT BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72.4 S 1 i i b *STEP-BY-STEP, .ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK T-ADAMS, 1 27674 , 45 , 523 45 , 210 , 45 L-, 1 N,-750. ,50,0, N,750. ,50,0, R, 1 , 67 ,1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9.3 ALL,ALL C,C SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, ADAMS, W/O BROOKHURST, EXISTING + BANK BASED ON FHWA-RD-108 AND CALIFORNIA REFERENCE ENERGY MEAN EMISSION LEVELS RECEIVER LEQ --------------- R-1 72 .5 • I Step-by-Step Early Learning Enrichment Center City of Huntington Beach, California s D D ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appendix D SOUND32 NOISE MODELING FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ' TRAFFIC AT PROJECT SITE 1 1 i •1 1 1 Environmental Impact Sciences September 2002 Acoustical Analysis i. i s PerTEP-BY-STEP,.. EXISTING + PROJECT LDN @ PROJECT SITE -BROOKHURST, 1 23807 , 45 , 450 , 45 , 181 , 45 T-ADAMS, 2 31990 , 45 , 604 , 45 , 243 , 45 L-, 1 N,-740. ,-750,0, N,-740. ,750,0, L-, 2 ® N,-750. ,305,0, ® N,750. ,305,0, B-Moulon Rouge, 1 , 2 , 0 ,0 -145. ,230,0,24, -85. ,230,0,24, -85. , 105,0,24, D -145. ,105,0,24, -145. ,230,0 ,24, B-Los Primos, 2 , 2 , 0 ,0 r 99. ,230,0,24, 172. , 230,0,24, 172. ,80,0,24, 99. ,80,0,24, 99. ,230,0,24, B-Market, 3 , 2 , 0 ,0 -305. ,0,0,24, ��172. ,0,0,24, 172. ,-385,0,24, 305. ,-385,0 ,24, -305. ,0,0,24, R, 1 , 67 ,l 1 0,0,5. , D, 4.5 ALL,ALL K,-9. 3 ALL,ALL C,C ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 1 li i M SOUND32 - RELEASE 07/30/91 TITLE: STEP-BY-STEP, EXISTING + PROJECT LDN @ PROJECT SITE i EFFECTIVENESS / COST RATIOS *************************** BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ------------------------------------------------------ 1 - 0.* B1 Pl 2 - 0.* B1 P2 3 - 0.* B1 P3 4 - 0.* B1 P4 5 - 0.* B2 P1 6 - 0.* B2 P2 7 - 0.* B2 P3 8 - 0.* B2 P4 9 - 0.* B3 P1 10 - 0.* B3 P2 11 - 0.* B3 P3 12 - 0.* B3 P4 ------------------------------------------------------ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 BARRIER DATA BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR ELE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ID LENGTH TYPE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------i 1 - 24.* B1 P1 60.0 MASONRY 2 - 24.* B1 P2 125.0 MASONRY 3 - 24.* B1 P3 60.0 MASONRY 4 - 24.* B1 P4 125.0 MASONRY Q 5 - 24.* B2 P1 73.0 MASONRY 6 - 24.* B2 P2 150.0 MASONRY 7 - 24.* B2 P3 73.0 MASONRY 8 - 24.* B2 P4 150.0 MASONRY 4 9 - 24.* B3 P1 133.0 MASONRY Q 10 - 24.* B3 P2 385.0 MASONRY ` 11 - 24.* B3 P3 133.0 MASONRY 12 - 24.* B3 P4 385.0 MASONRY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------! 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Q REC REC ID DNL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL) -------------------------------- d 1 R-1 67. 1. 58.1 d -------------------------------- BARRIER TYPE - COST- ------------------------- BERM 0. 1 I . a• /*MASONRY 445591. MASONRY/JERSEY 0. CONCRETE 0. ----- - -------------------------- TOTAL COST = $ 446000. BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION 24.24.24. 24. 24.24. 24. 24.24.24.24.24. i i ) D D ) ) 1 ) 1 l �1 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) .. SS. County of Orange ) NOTICEOF ! Avenue (s..,,east-COr= I am a Citizen of the United States and a ner of Brookht Street PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE ' and Adamsurs Avenue) resident of the County aforesaid; I am I THE CO.COUNCIL:' Project Planner: Paul Da over the age of eighteen years, and not a OF THE CITY OF NOTICE IS HEREBY HUNTINGTON BEACH I GIVEN that item No: 1 party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS HEREBY I is covered under Envi- I GIVEN that on'Monday, ronmental Impact Report entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of September 16, 2002,,at No. 82-conjuncttion with the approved ini . 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Downtown Specific Plan. the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a NOTICE IS HEREBY; i Main Street, Huntington GIVEN that Item No. 21 newspaper of general circulation, printed Beach; the City Council is categorically exempt b will hold a public hearing and pu lished in the City of Huntington an the zoning following from the provisions of and zonin the California Environ- 1. ANNUAL REVIEW mental Quality Act. Beach, County of Orange State of (AND MONITORING RE- ON FILE:A copy of the PORT - DOWNTOWN proposed request .is on 'PARKING MASTER PLAN: file in the City Clerk's California, and that attached Notice is a Applicant: City of Hun- Office,2000 Main Street, 'tington Beach Planning\. 'Huntington Beach, Cali- true and complete copy as was printed (Department Request: fornia 92648, for in- ,Annual review of the spection by the public. and published in the Huntington Beach Downtown Parking A copy of ,the staff MasterPlan addressing report will be available and Fountain Valley issues of said building activity between to interested parties at June 1, 21101.and June the City Clerk's Office �.1, 2002 Location:., on Friday, September newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Downtown Specific Plan 13,2002. area (generally bounded ALL INTERESTED ;by Pacific Coast High'- PERSONS are invited to !way, Sixth Street, attend said hearing and ;Acacia Avenue and express opinions or Second Street) Project- sdbmit evidence for or (Planner:Wayne Carvalho against the application September 5 2002 2; APPEAL-,OF,'THE as outlined above.If you P.LAN.NING COMMd;S- challenge the City SION'S DENIAL, OFCON- Council's action in court, DITIONAL, USE PERMIT• you may be limited to �140.02-31/VARIANCE No. raising only those issues 02-10 (STEP BYSSEP you or someone else (DAYCARE): Applicant/ raised at the public Appellant: tester.. C. hearing described in this declare, under penalty of perjury, that ;Smull Request:Appeal of notice, or in written the Planning Commis- I correspondence . deliv- sion's denial of Condi. Bred to the City at, or the foregoing is true and correct. tiohal Use Permit No.02- prior to, the public 31 and Variance No..02. hearing. If there are any 10 to permit the oper-. further questions please ation of a daycare call the Planning De- facility with a maximum partment at (714) 536- Executed on of 88 children within a , 5271 and refer to the September 5 , 2002 5,525 square foot suite above items.Direct your including a 6,000 square written communications at Costa Mesa, California. foot.outdoor play area. to the City Clerk. The facility is proposed Connie Brockway, within - an" existing. City Clerk, 135,484, square foot I =` City of. commercial center. The Huntington Beach proposed, request'in- 2000 Main Street, cludes a parking vari. 2nd Floor ance to allow a reduc- Huntington Beach, tion of approximately-28 California 92648 parking spaces within (714)536-5227 the shopping center. Published -Huntington) Location: 10156 Adams i Beach Independent —' September 5;2002 Signature Fi o .UU Lul U! Ci MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Fire Adoption of the 2001 Edition of the California Fire Code and Supplements Thereto Building Adoption by Reference of State of California Construction Codes Planning - Carvalho Downtown Parking Master Plan nin - ie vie - r a Planning- Da 3a Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of CUP#02-31 VE[4,A and Variance#02-10 Step by Step Daycare TODAY'S DATE August 29, 2002 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: APPROVED BY: Ray Sfiver City Administrator 8/29/2002 4:10 PM SenT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, September 16, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. 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. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT— DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: Annual review of the Downtown Parking Master Plan addressing building activity between June 1, 2001 and June 1, 2002 Location: Downtown Specific Plan area (generally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Second Street) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho X2. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-311VARIANCE NO. 02-10 (STEP BY STEP DAYCARE) : Applicant/Appellant: Lester C. Smull Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-31 and Variance No. 02-10 to permit the operation of a daycare facility with a maximum of 88 children within a 5,525 square foot suite including a 6,000 square foot outdoor play area. The facility is proposed within an existing 135,484 square foot commercial center. The proposed request includes a parking variance to allow a reduction of approximately 28 parking spaces within the shopping center. Location: 10156 Adams Avenue (southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2, approved in conjunction with the Downtown Specific Plan. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Enviromental Quality Act. 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 the City Clerk's Office on Friday, September 13, 2002. 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 (g\1ega1s\CCLGFRM2\02cc0916) 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 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\1ega1s\CCLGFRM2\02cc0916) f i CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: ----LIP #* DZ- fZ. f DZ— to DEP 1 MENT:;�I o.k1►J ti.t.l;� MEETING DATE: q X LW o CO ACT: &A _PHONE: �_ S '�'cl 44 JL/A YES 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? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal,is the appelIanes name included in the notice? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal DeIvelopment Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) (V Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached 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 applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellanes name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ( ) O If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept items only) PIeas complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication.to bearing date 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications 21 OWNERSHIP LIST CERTIFICATION FORIM Attached to this certification form is a list of all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property as obtained from the latest Orange County Assessment Rolls. This list is certified to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed: CAM Donna Scales 684 S. Gentry Lane Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 921-2921 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this day of C , 200t before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public commissioned for Los Angeles County, California, personally appeared Donna Scales known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same. WITNESS My hand and official seal 4ignature 3 } i Thaniel Davidson Name (Typed or Printed)Notary Public in and for said State THANIEL DAVIDSON V COMM.: 1325196 �. NOTARY PUB IC-CAUFORNIA O LOS ANGELES COUNTY C COMM.EXP.OCT. 1 t.2005 j _�=_-L _-27 _5--271-25 DA'71 Ls - -D =.r<S,= _'_i.'=-J: _5_-27_-3' -27?-I_ _5_-2-_-32 rvl-=CHT N vU K.=_C_ _ & GFEGG M'Y_RJ .-v-=.f - �-_- 20162 RU`i1,17:G SPRINGS LN 2C1 2 Uc11-1=`!G SP==_ G 20192 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 FUN__NG=ON BEACH, CA 926=6 C` 151-271-33 151-271-34 151-271-35 REUBEN & DIANE-JARAMILLO ROBERT G & NANCY MILLS HSU C TSENG 20202 RUNNING SPRINGS LN 20212 RUN14ING SPRINGS LN 20222 RUNNING SPRINGS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 151-272-16 151-272-17 151-461-24 JOSE GRIMBERG DORIS M GERARD EQUILON ENTRPRS LLC 9952 KINGS CANYON DR 9951 MAMMOTH DR 1980 POST OATS BLVD 110 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HOUSTON, TX 77056 151-461-26 151-461-28 151-461-29 RODNEY K COUCH NEVADA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS It BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA 6104 RIVERSIDE AVE B 220 CONGRESS PARK DR 230 PO BOX 37000 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33445 SAN FRANCISCO, .CA 94137. 155-051-07 155-051-10 155-051-11 BEACHMONT PLAZA LLC RICHARD G LAVENTHOL *M* BEACHBANK PARTNERS 10111 ADAMS AVE 14905 TERCER VERDE 2760 E SPRING ST 200 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 DEL MAR, CA 92014 LONG BEACH, CA 90806 155--d51 12 155-053-58 155-053-59 BE HM NT ROP£RTT S LLC GEORGE W & COLLEEN PHIPPS LAURELLA L SCHORLE 2 60 S IN ST 200 19947 PICCADILLY LN 6518 CROSSWOODS CIR , ON BE CH, CCA 0806 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95621 155-053-71 155-053-72 155-053-73 SUZANNE MATTHEWS MERRITT G MEAD *B* JOSEPH R CAIATI 10142 ASCOT CIR 4683 W 133RD ST 1001 FATHOM AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HATivTHORNE, CA 90250 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 155=053-74 155-053-75 155--053-76 BRR?NDON P MUSICH HELEN L EARNER JIM R & KA24= ?ADILLA 10136 ASCOT CIR 5121 MCFADDEN AVE 10-32 ASCOT CIR HUNINGTOQ BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BE=.Cry, CA 92646 NESTOR. H & =.F._ S-_'sir.<^ R'-=- L & CORCT:.L_. r t-CKEt A: N L 1013= ;�SCCT CIR 1_01 - ASCOT CIR ASCO CIR —?iT_NG''CN --ACC, CA 92616 HUNTINGTON 3EAC , C- 92646 HUN-_NIGTON __— , C-. �2c'1 053-8J _55-053-31 _.5-053-02 cCB=?:T T JON JA_!ES F R✓`7C= BRCC:� D_CK_- 10158 :.SCOT CIR 26592 N CCO.ME Dom. 10162 A.—SCOT -R .- CL 2.— IN r 1 ' B 6. . 155-053-63 155-053-24 _55-053-c5 :ODD D & KARA J-=Fr LvlKU K.'z.SUL C��.`..I.__. VZ-..- Q; 10164 ASCOT CIR 10166 ASCOT CIR 1016C mSC,0 T. C_R HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON B=AC_:, CA 9264_6 HUN'=I iGTOU 3==C C= s26.6 155-053-86 155-053-87 155-053-39 DONNA B PIKULSKY AMANDA L HAL•DEN DONALD E CONNORS 5562 E WARDLOW RD 10172 ASCOT CIR 10174 ASCOT CIR LONG BEACH, CA 90808 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-053-89 155-053-90 155-054-60 CLARA PARKER LEE A KESWICK KHALIQ-TERRI ABDEL 10176 ASCOT CIR 17821 ASH ST 19948 PICCADILLY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-054-61 155-054-77 __ 155-054-78 RICHARD L BIRKHOLM KAREN L GAYNOR NORMAN E BENDER 19952. PICCADILLY LN 10224 ASCOT CIR 10091 BEVERLY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264.6 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646. 155-054-79 155-054-80 155-054-81 DENNIS A ZAGER PAUL KLEINMAN EMMA HRYDOWYJ 10391 PLACER RIVER AVE 10216 ASCOT CIR 10214 ASCOT CIR FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-054-82 155-054-83 155-054-84 ROBERT C FLAHERTY THOMAS C THURSTON THERESE J SCHLOBOHM 10212 ASCOT CIR 10210 ASCOT CIR 10208 ASCOT CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-054-85 155-054-86 155-054-87 DIANA ELDER CHRISTOPHER W & PENNY DOVE MARY S WASHBURN 10206 ASCOT CIR 24 E GREENBRIER 10236 ASCOT CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 DOVE CANYON, CA 92679 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-161-01 155-161-02 . 155-16 1-03 CHARLES F DURBIN COL=EN SCARMINACH EDTTH C KING 20012 LAWSON LN 20022 LAWSON LN 20032 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-161-04 155-161-05 155-161-06 ROBE_._ & BRANDA SECREST JOHN D & JENN=FE.. -'RR ALVTN H CRUZ,! 20032 L.AWSON LN 20062 LAWSON LN 20072 LAI9SON LN UNT=NGTON 3EACci, CA 926=6 HU\TINGTON BEACH, Ca 92616 HUNT-TNG'TON BE�+C:, CA 326-16 20092 L-. SON LN 9532 SALINE DR =0 EJr Eel :.i i__NG vii 3 =C-, Cn 02 C'_S ? .._1.1v:G1.1 SE C , C 92 6 . DNARD H Kr.RINS DJ:1:� L & D j ri__ ';`v Oi'i L ft =_Y_. L�-------_ 20061 COLGATE CIR 2005-1 COLGATE C_K 200'3_ COLG T E CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HU:i_INGTON BEACH, CA 92646 ..sii_=:iG-OZN 27=CH, C= 155-161-1.3 155-161-14 1��-102-01 KARL & PAULA HANONLD GUY E & LYNNE ROUGEAU QUY M NGUYEi-1 20021 COLGATE CIR 20011 COLGATE CIR 20011 LAWSON 1-t•1 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 9 155-162-02 155-162-03 155-162-04 DAVID P & HELEN FREDIANI LAWRENCE J & JAYMIE LAGANA JOSEPINE T JOHNCOLA 20021 LAWSON LN 20031 LAWSON LN 20051 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-162-05 155-162-06 155-162-07 LEA D GALLUP TROY S SMITH QUENTIN D QUINN 20061 LAWSON LN 20071 LAWSON LN 20081 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA, 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646.. 155-162-08 155-162-09 155-171-03 HANK & CONNIE VANDERNAALD DOROTHY M MATSON LOUISE T GLENN 20091 LAWSON LN 20101 LAWSON LN 20131 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-171-04 155-171-05 155-171-06 HERBERT J JONES JOHN W RUSSELL LOUISE T GLENN 20151 LAWSON LN 20161 LAWSON LN 20131 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-172-01 155-172-02 155-172-03 BEVERLY J STEINBECK LLOYD B BRITT ALAN & TAMI DAVIS 20122 LAWSON LN 20112 LAWSON LN 20102 LAWSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-175-02 155-181-03 155-181-04 GORDON P & CHRISTINE MCCLOSK1 DAVID F WILHELM DOrINEY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN 20111 LAWSON LN 10028 ADAMS AVE PO BOY 6010 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92658 i55-181-05 155-181-08 81-09 DOWNE•i SAVINGS & =CAN ASSN AH_�_A D MOUSSAVI RO_ERT P & NANC`- :.S0L=_-_ FO SCx 6000 20132 VIVA CIR 20152 VIVA CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 HUN=INGTON _EACH, CA 92646 HU`i-_,I;;TOIi BEACH, C?_ 92c46 20_62 I ,�_%A CIR 272 Tlvn CIS. 20_6= i_ .- C_ •,.;_v `i =C-, :26:5 .r. __I'i .:ri'l•; C LAUF= T 1 K wI : �.K & CV- 7 -..-_..J 20151 VIVA CIR 2013_ VIVA CIR 2.12_ TT iiUNTIFGTON 3_'E'P.CH, CA 92646 EUNTTNG_ON �=-C=, r- 92:_6 r_'t'�--_iGTOii 155-181-16 155-181-17 155-181-18 DOUGLAS C & CHUNG YOON KIJUNG P & JUNE SUNG RANDY D PEIiiiIldG^:Ofd 20111 VIVA CIR 20101 VIVA CIR 20091 VIVA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-181-19 155-181-20 155-181-21 RICHARD A LA MARCHE MARTIN T STEIN DAVID L WICKERSHAM *PlI* 20081 VIVA CIR 20082 VIVA CIR 20092 VIVA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-181-22 155-181-23 155-181-24 DONNA K MCKINNEY JOSEPH DEMEO *M* MELVIN R SCHANTZ 20102 VIVA CIR 20112 VIVA CIR 32 N VISTA DE CATALINA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, -CA. 92646 LAGUNA BEACH,. CA .92651 155-181-27 155-191-08 155-191-09 BUSINESS PROPERTIES PARTNERSI MAE J ANDERSON KENNETH W WALKER 17631 FITCH 10011 MEREDITH DR 20191 PRINCETON CIR IRVINE, CA 92614 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-191-10 155-191-11 155-191-12 RICHARD & JOYCE ROUPOLI FRED W WOODS LODGE SAM & JULIE 20181 PRINCETON CIR 20182 PRINCETON CIR 20192 PRINCETON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-191-13 155-191-14 155-191-15 DENNIS G & HELEN TVELIA DANIEL R STACK THEODORE W DENNEY 20202 PRINCETON CIR 20201 TANBARK CIR 20191 TANBARK CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-191-16 155-191-17 155-191-18 ADA.yI L JOHNSON DALE S MENKE ALBERT 'A NAT ALE 20181 TANBARK CIR 20182 TANBARK CIR 20192 TANBARK CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264_6 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926=6 15-z-191-19 15-5-191-20 155—'_91-21 R03ERT G CACERES *B* J-_MES R WELT—ON LEE R & DEMISE WEBER 10121. ME REDITH DR 10131 c"IEREDI"H DR 10141 MEREDITH DR HUN'TT_NGTCN 3EACH, C= 92046 HtNTINGTON BEACH, C= 9=c' 6 H NT7NG_ON BEACh, Cl 926 6 :.•/4AJ . :.%� r_'_:LC' :i!''i" �.. t`:0�._:,�v UV!?L'! :0-KE' 10151 MEPcED DR -0 20.a. SOi`. C-, C- 92646 �:.. iVG1OCi = Cr., C :L6S� - .`i_!_. 00': 155-191-25 1 9,3-02 SAUL T ZIT-- C-F--STOP:ER _- _.-R E 20171 L :WSC\T L-N i0012 MERED OR 10032 HUi`iTIi4GTCDI ?EACH, C= 92640 HUid^1II`IGTOi'1 B=: H, - L6-o =i:iGT_:iGC i SE:-LC"., CA .2 - _ 155-193-03 155-193-04 155-193-05 GISELA RASOE EDWARD J LUPARELLO JOHN P MOREr 21692 KANEOHE LN 10052 MEREDITH DR 10072 MEREDITH DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-193-06 155-193-07 155-193-08 RICHARD J WHEELER DAVID J & PAM ERICKSON WILLIAM J & MARCIA MANKER 10082 MEREDITH DR 10092 MEREDITH DR 10102 MEREDITH DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 . 155-193-09 155-193-10 -- 155-193-11 STEVEN R & LAURA MEYER ALFRED C DI SIENA RICHARD H APPLEGATE PO BOX 1536 16 CALLE DE PRINCESA 10132 MEREDITH DR GRANTS PASS, OR 97528 .COTO DE CAZA, CA .92679 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-193-12 155-193-13 155-193-14 MICHAEL F & MARY GROFF JAMES P & B HAWBAKER BARRY D & WENDY KIELSMEIER 10142 MEREDITH DR 10152 MEREDITH DR . 10162 MEREDITH DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-193-15 155-193-24 155-193-25 DEAN F & MARGARET ELDER MICHAEL NOONE JOSEPH & SHEILA BABAZADEH 10172 MEREDITH DR 10151 JON DAY DR 10141 JON DAY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 155-193-26 155-193-27 *** 143 Printed *** JAMES H WHITE JOYCE T LEEDY 10131 JON DAY DR 10121 JON DAY DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 151-181-27 151-181-27 151-181-27 AFFORDABLE KIDS. INC. N.B. BEAUTY SUPPLY KRAGEN AUTO=1468 10086 ADAMS AVE 10090 ADAMS AVE 10072 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 i 151-181-27 151-181-27 151-181-27 CENTURY 21 SUPERCUTS #9519 H.B. SEWING CENTER 20100 BROOKHURST ST. 10158 ADAMS AVE 10162 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 I51-181-27 VACANT UNITS 10088& 10156 ADAMS AVE 151-271-30 155-053-59 155-053-72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 20162 RUNNING SPRINGS LN 19951 PICCADILLY LN 10140 ASCOT CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-053-73 155-053-75 155-053-81 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10138 ASCOT CIR 10134 ASCOT CIR 10160 ASCOT CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-053-86 155-053-90 155-054-78 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10170 ASCOT CiR 10178 ASCOT CIR 10222 ASCOT CiR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA. 92646 155-054-79 155-054-86 155-054-87 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10220 ASCOT CIR 10204 ASCOT CIR 10202 ASCOT CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-093-09 155-093-10 155-161-08 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 19942 LEXINGTON LN 19962 LEXINGTON LN 20081 COLGATE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-161-09 155-193-03 151-461-28 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 20071 COLGATE CIR 10042 MEREDITH DR 9882 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 151-461-29 155-051-11 155-181-03 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 20061 BROOKHURST ST 10119 ADAMS AVE 10026 ADAMS AVE, UNIT A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 15 5-181-03 155-051-07 155-051-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10026 ADAMS AVE. UNIT B 10109 ADAMS AVE 10 10 1 ADA,NTS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-051-07 155-051-07 155-051-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10089 ADAMS AVE 10097 ADAMS AVE 10061 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-051-07 155-051-07 155-051-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 10059 ADAMS AVE 10057 ADAMS AVE 10041 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 155-051-07 155-051-07 155-051-07 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT VACANT UNITS 10039 ADAMS AVE 10011 ADAMS AVE 10089,10087,10081,10077,10069, HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 10063,10055,10045, 10043 ADAM AVE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" (MAILING LABELS—July 25,2002 G:Libels\labels\Public Hearing President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 H.B. Chamber of Commerce . O. Box 791 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 unset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Beta• to %N oollett 2 \X i iam D. Holman 11 ue Johnson 16 Orange CountyAssoc. of Re. rs PL 9671 Quiet Bay Lane 5552 La Paz Road 19 rporate Plaza Drive untington Beach,CA 92648 L na Hills,CA 92653 New ort Beach CA 92660-7912 Presid t 3 Mr.To Zanic 12 E a Litdebury 17 Amigos e Bols Chica New U ban West GI n St.Mob. Hm. Owner Leag. 16531 Bols ca Street,Suite 312 520 Bro dway Ste. 100 11 21 Magnolia Blvd. Huntington ach,CA 92649 Santa M nica,CA 90401 Ga en Grove,CA 92641 Suns Beach Comm city Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B. .st. Society 13 Paci Coast Archaeol gical 18 Pat ies,President C/O Newl d House useum Socie ,Inc. P Box 215 19820 Beac Blvd. P.O.B x 10926 unset Beach,CA 90742-02 5 Huntington each,C 92648 Costa sa,CA 926� Atin. an Gothold President 5 Community a ices Dept. 14 Tom Mattn ws 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O.C. Pin . De .Services Dept. PO Box 865 Historical Resou es Bd. P.O. Boxg 404 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 9 702-4048 Julie Vandecmost 6 Council on Agi g 15 Vicky Wilson 19 BIA-OC 1706 Orange e. O.C. Public Fa ill 'es &Res. Dept. 9 Executive Circle#100 Huntington B ach, 92648 P. O.Box 404 ine Ca 92714-6734 Santa Ana,CA 270 -4848 Ric rd Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 SCA Seacliff HO 818. st 7th, 12th oor 19391 Shad Harbor C' le Los An les,CA 9 17 Huntingto Beach,CA 9 648 I E.T.I. Corral 0 8 John Roe 16 \•tan-Bell Seacliff A + 20292 Eas ood ir. 19382 Su fdale Lane i Huntingt Beach, A 92646 Huntingt n Beach,CA 92648 Al H dricker 9 Lou M one 6 Planaui Dir. 20 Env' onmental Board Ch 'nnan Seacliff O A City of osta Mesa S4 2 Grace Circle 19821 cean Bluff Circle P. O. ox 1200 itington Beach,CA 9264 Hun on Beach CA 92648 Costa i fesa,CA 92628-1200 151-2 71-34 151-461-24 151-461-28 Deer Roehair . .quilon Entrprs Nevada Investment Holdings Inc 1636 Briar Rose Tax Department Prop Attn Sunbelt iV•Ingt Co Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 4369 5405 Morehouse Dr-?50 Houston, TX 77210 San Diego, CA 92121 151-461-29 155-051-07 155-053-75 Bak of America NT&S A Beachmont Plaza LLC John Eamer 750B Stret 4"1500 2760 East Springy St Ste 200 PO Box 1880 San Diego, CA 92101 Long Beach, CA 90806 1733 Anderson Station Rd Chilicothe, OH 45661 15.5-053-87 155-053-90 155-054-80 Amanda Holden Lee A Keswick Paul Kleinman 840 Coyote Rd 10178 Ascot Cir 1659 5`h St Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Sarasota, FL 34236 155-161-02 155-161-03 155-161-09 Amold Stevenson Edith King Rahmatollah Simani 20022 Lawson Ln 26282 Mount Diablo Rd 20071 Colgate Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-162-09 155-191-18 155-193-10 Dana Wood AIbert Natale Alfred Di Siena 17 Delaware Ave 309 Lexington Cir 10122 Meredith Dr Salem,NJ 08079 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 155-193-13 Lester Smull James Hawbaker Business Prop.Develop.Corp. 19Glaston Dr 17631 Fitch Hillfield Solihulluk B913YE Irvine, CA 92623 England Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 LOS PRIIN-tOS CANTINA MAMA'S SWEETBREAD PALM BEACH TANNING 10176 ADAMS AVE 10178 ADAMS AVE 10180 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 LYNN VOGEN DANCE STUDIO SO CAL MED ASSOC-TLC CLUB MOULIN ROUGE 10184 ADAMS AVE 10188 ADAMS AVE 10142 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 DENNY.'S#7293 LIVING WATER ANNA'S NAILS 10136 ADAMS AVE 10042 ADAMS AVE 10046 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 MM'S TAILOR SHOP ROYAL DONUTS R CLEANERS 10054 ADAMS AVE 10056 ADAMS AVE 10118 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 SIMONE&SONS JEWELRY PLATINUM PLUS RECORD ADAMS PET CLINIC 10124-26 ADAMS AVE, STE A 10126 ADAMS AVE,STE B 10130 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 L'AUNDERLAND STATER BROS#0147 COAST CITIES ESCROW 10132 ADAMS AVE 10114 ADAMS AVE 10104 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 SHIMA RESTAURANT EGG ROLL KING LAMPOST PIZZA 10076 ADAMS AVE 10078 ADAMS AVE 10084 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 VACANT UNITS 10044. 10052, 1011, 10120 10122, 10128, 101 10. 101 12& 10106 i AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160�R I Connie Brockway, City Clerk 1.0 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk :, "� y P.O. Box 190 . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 155-05 1-07 OCCUPANT 10101 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 IN6rpy _.�.M,,,, BF ` 9. _ �� •--- RETURN ,�•:.:� �NNNTY _ .ki i.'L AL NOTICE- WQG HEARING ��.- :. :. :, :..... :,r�.�,��•�n:�t3'»�, ��=. : . �i{�{����1�{�{{�,Eli,{{;,{,{{������i{I�f�:I{�„I�{„I{���►�{J{ Connie Brockway, City Clerk �- City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 01.r U;i"..'? Huntington Beach, CA92648 16;-061-0 i OCCUPANT 10089 ADA,MS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 INGTpy RETURN N n T pUNPY: ?�i LEG L NOTICE-PUBLIC BEARING_ ���a�� Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ;;',.i' ;5"'% ,• , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ri 155-051-07 OCCUPANT 10059 ADAMS AVE INGTDyB + HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 .�gyy CQco -- --i+� ` e: ram: .. xrev�a•r7w�..anP 9 _ � RET UR N' /;;..'—�' ��t-�;Hff•►9 `�p '. T 0 E-fIfif_R1...:;` `J .C.•iisitiJi. 1 LEGAL NOTICE- L;aC1Rl�V�_ .�� � �t.`i.�a:::��--•�-•., II�I����Lf�ll���f��ll��l�ll„����Iil�if,li,;�l�l�.�i1�����1311 �...,.-. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r; Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648Li `' V ?.,. 155-051-07 BEACHMONT PLAZA LLC 10111 ADAMS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 INGTp�, Q =�rperor�� B [J INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS TTEMPTED UNKNOWPI ;� f' Y• r �F^ It leeNTY s. t A LE -W1 JPL1C hE�RING- :....-:.. _3 .Sir Connie Brockway, City Clerk 4 S a City of Huntington Beach >. F a�+4 Office of the City Clerk P.O. BOX 190 � � YR del " b'�6r a'��-�°U'F�r;i.,'.��`�"ra i�- � . t� f `�•' ^1.1 a,.,�.,,. ,� Huntington Beach, CA92648 z ,�fysar r, sNI, Q � "f� ii' f�� yGa 4 fi :,.., •!:'.:t. •,1 •�':1 �•j� — .f� .Ilya ' °:LS,".'�` tpP�:.e?7Y .,+!:w::�,s.^%"�L•r."°..;.��-:y<7..;.�e+�ua�..p'r.•� J STEVEN R & LAURA MEYER / PO BOX 1536 GRANTS PASS, OR 97528 ^ � 1NGTpy ., 19 NTI LEGAL NOTICE- P '3?a Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 :i? Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 151-271-330 ; OCCUPANT i 20162 RUNNING SPRINGS LT 6TOy HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 /I a4p B�9 RETURN IF,ETllZ1, CCU Cp`�� - - 7U S�_tl{7ER c -T n. L- �aUE LINTY i) LEGAL NOTICE -_PUBLI [HEARIjQ(3 u E n O n o jf -4 s e4c4eft,6V —6-"! 111111111111111 all 11111111111111111111111II111111I 1111111II "° �" Connie Brockway, City Clerk -� - City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 `r) • .y e �5 I 0097 INGTpy HUNT sjdci3 A 92646 tip ►L ill. �FcppNTY �a`` LEGAL N.QJIQE PUBLIQ KARING iI,IF D �,� _E a= �'J• it d�� .. �� - ' ,t: � u•- \\\ \ \ ` ,, \ \_ per' I ` � �tO�. //F ' =��1''....._ P— � �I f7GVF!•W FFil�id cY\WJ R s D- C, AND MADEAPAFTTOF7M AT ° 00oha. T. ...P COIJNCtL M E rM OF F (Mveo VfTn�G�Ir1GM1�VLir1K ! � F Io0 CONNIE BROCKWAY,C17Y CLERK a _ J L"k\ ME1A QUENTIN D.QUINN y c ! ?O\, trod 20031.LAWSON LN. p--7 , ZTROY STEVEN SMITH20071 LAWSON LN m (`'�1' 5HOP5 Z r g. ....,.. ( I ' i 1 1 F ti' P+FiO¢q.FT. 37.FliliN O 1 tm 4, 13i.0 fi2.� . 21ray D o�7.rr, EBREWSTER B.GALLUP 20061 LAWSOP4N.., JOSEPHINE T.JOHNCOLA 20051 LAWSON LN. ;.. I `''i Pi' 7' Al Y I I I ILL WRE CE JAYMIE GUN LA N 8 LA _�,i 40$� \ >\� •, \ / �' a _ I I I � � �i i r 20031 LAWSON LN. u d - �.. \ tX><'WEY 5d L. lei 50OrF. P n V2, P ra,850<�F. +� 42t_ ro I �; 2G, 'i /' tl p�1G .Mtfi WALL;..•I P ' ' I.i - —j I /� 712r HIGH P -�5 \\ll.' to 20 21 _ Mh?GH gX19T.=raDJ.P1'CR \ ..j 1{ 4 . P _� 1-ili� ,\ •.1 m� .i;7.4.cr!,_Ire - I MOt: I : `5 - RECEMSD - W QA yV a FMCM AT 1M OFRCE OF TWMR CLERK COHM B5MMAY,CRY CLERK UCCESS Y Q J Helping achildren succeed for life. 1 The Economic � / of the Child Care Industry IN ORANGE COUNTY 2002 Dedicated to the well-being of children aged 0 to 6. Y Orange County's United Way The best investment � in your community d s !tr Child Care Investments L7 susdm omngo CountyS ECONOMY Child care is.an income generating,job-creating industry that is critical to Orange County's economic vitality and quality of life. The child care indushy helps sustain and stimulate other industries • by enabling parents to enter and remain in the workforce, • by improving productivity,and _ • by purchasing goods and services from other sectors. Moreover, it provides an early,yet critical and long-lasting, investment in the K_ development of Orange County's future workforce. As Orange County's population has grown to more than 2.8 million, so has the need for child care. But the child care indushy has not been able to expand to meet this s need. Without policies and investments to strengthen and expand the child care infrastructure, Orange County's economic growth will be constrained. A better understanding of the child care industg's dynamics is critical to developing success ul new strategies to address the child care shortage. With funding from the Bank of America Foundation/United Way of America,Orange County's United Way(OCUW),Success By 6®,sought information to assist the Orange County community to understand the importance of child care to the county's economy and the particular o 3 Apo pOdi 0 ' (�i characteristics of the child care field.Armed with this information,policy makers,planners, and civic leaders will be able to create partnerships and identify resources to provide child care services in a way that promotes both economic vitality and positive outcomes for children, families,and communities.With assistance from Success By 6 staff and a volunteer Advisory Board representing a wide variety of interests,the National Economic and Development Law Center has produced the Economic Impact of the Child Care Indushy in Orange County OQ f o • o report. Results of this work are summarized here. Key Hndings—Qua Dnco e M usfty 60° 9 The licensed child care industry generates approximately$412 million annually in Orange County,with centers accounting for$340 million and family child care homes an additional $72 million. • Licensed child care businesses contribute approximately$29 million in direct taxes to state and local governments. • The child care industry supports 13,902 local jobs,including 10,694 in the child care industry itself and 3,208 in other industry sectors. • County%vide, direct child care employment is comparable to the "computers, peripherals and software" industry as well as the "apparel and other textile products" industry. -ach year, American taxpayersdeep into their pockets to meet the cost, both direct i indirect, policies that are based on ffremediation rather than prevention.* A. Report ofthe Carneoic Task Force Child Care's Ripple Effect Orange County's Child Care Industry On Productivity Faces Economic Challenges The child care industry has a tremendous effect on Orange Orange County is one of the most densely populated areas in the United States. County's economic productivity.The earnings of parents,who With a Gross County Product of$137.7 billion,Orange County's economy are able to work because their children are in reliable child benefits from a diverse industry base including manufacturing,high-tech care arrangements, can be traced as they ripple through the clusters,trade,services and retail. If the county's overall economy economy in the form of indirect and induced earnings and is to grow,the labor force must continue to expand, and the other productivity effects. county's supply of affordable child care must expand with it. i For Orange County, the following estimated direct, In recentyears, however, Orange Counol's licensed child care supply indirect, and induced productivity effects are found• has expanded at a rate of just lie of I%per year,far below the need.• • The licensed child care sector enables Orange County • Orange County has only, 1 licensed child care space for every workers to earn approximately$828 million annually; 6 children ages 0 to 13 with working parents. � • These productivity gains create $2.8 billion in total • A severe shortage of licensed child-care exists for infants and toddlers direct, indirect and induced income; and for families that need care during evenings or weekends. • These productivity gains generate $312 million • Some areas of the county where population is increasing and job in indirect tax revenues; growth is expanding show particularly low levels of child care supply. • These productivity gains support approximately The licensed child care industry has not been able to meet 69,900 jobs; this increasing demand because of several factors: • These productivity gains contribute $4.13 billion • the high cost of pro-viding care; to the gross county product (the total value of • the shortage of qualified staff; goods and services produced in the county); and • The productivity effects of licensed child care • high land and development costs; in Orange County amount to a$6.7 billion • the lack of affordable financing products, and contribution to industry output. • inadequate business skills of child care operators. Direct Employment Comparisons By Industry, Orange County 25,000 Source for von-Child Care Industries:Estimated for 2001 based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics ES-202 Survey,1997-2000. i 20,000 15,000 10,000 ' j,000 0 Hotels and other Amusement Computers,peripherals apparel and other licensed Radio.television and Nursing and personal lodging places parks and software textile products child care electronic stores care facilities 0 This work is based upon support from the Bank ofAmerica Foundation/UWA Success By 6®Enhancement Initiative. Bankof America. W The information in this report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bank ofAmerica Foundation. s UCCESS B Yims ,* Helping all children succeed for life. Success By 6, is a collaboration of civic and business leaders, early care and education professionals, children's advocates, and other community volunteers. With this rich collaboration, Success By 6 seeks to affect systemic change to improve the quality and accessibility of early care and education in our county. Success By 6 invites and encourages participation among diverse sectors of our community to continue to address these challenges. Together, Orange County can find sound, long-lasting solutions that will ensure the success of our youngest children. You Can Help! Contact Orange County's United Way Success By 6 at (949) 660-7600. For a copy of the full report,contact Orange County's United WAy.Success By 6,at 949-660-7600. Investments In Child Care How Communities Can Invest Make Economic Sense In The Child Care Industry Parents and child care providers cannot solve Many jurisdictions have realized the value of child care to their economy and P , 1 . the problem of inadequate affordable child care community well-being,and have brought new partners to the table to tackle services on their own.The federal government, the child care shortage and strengthen the child care infrastructure. These states, local communities and the private Local Investment in Child Care (LINCC) projects have proven effective sector all stand to benefit from a larger role in integrating child care with economic development planning.The in investing in and planning for child care. following examples of these community-based efforts demonstrate the These investments can: importance of non-traditional partners: • improve Orange County's productivity THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN COUNTY—Community Development Block Grant and economic competitiveness.Worker and other public funds will be used to develop at least 10 licensed child care absenteeism due to child care problems is centers and/or family child care homes accommodating 1,500 children; estimated to cost businesses $3 billion per year; The Small Business Development Center provides countywide training in English • contribute to labor force participation and Spanish to child care providers in business practices. gains among lower-and middle-income SAN MATEO COUNTY—Local child care facilities can alleNiate traffic problems and are families in Orange County.Such gains included as a mitigation measure and incentive in the C/CAG Transportation would directly increase output,personal Demand Management Program. The measure applies to all new large income, business formation, and property developments throughout the county. and sales tax revenues in the county; Family child care homes are to be included in the Santa Inez affordable • improve the county's ability to capture housing development in the City of San Mateo. federal and state child care subsidies to expand child care supply to low-income VENTURA COUNTY—Zoning ordinances have been revised to exempt large family working families. Public expenditures have child care facilities from permits and allows child care centers in the expanded, but remain well below the amount Commercial Office zone. needed to serve all eligible families and ALAMEDA COUNTY—The Child Care Fund of Alameda County offers loans, increase familv self-sufficiency; grants, technical assistance,and training to child care providers for facilities • help Orange County residents capture development and business practices. federal and state tax credits and SANTA CRUZ—The Santa Cruz Community Credit Union has tripled the size of deductions for child care expenditures; and its loan fund to $150,000 for child care providers during the past two vears. • increase the quality of life for all Orange These efforts have benefited the child care industry,financing institutions, County residents by preventing crime, � local government,and the business community alike. Through collaboration, and reducing social service costs.A study � all stakeholders have learned more about the importance of a healthy child on the benefits of quality child care found that care infrastructure while developing local, cost-effective solutions to child one dollar spent on early child care saves care shortages. $7.16 in public sector expenditures later in the individual's life. The Economic Impact of the Child Care Industry in Orange County demonstrates that child care is an essential part of the Orange County economic infrastructure, and efforts to strengthen the child care industry will benefit the county's overall economic health. With a rich collaboration of civic and business leaders, early care and education ~ professional, children's advocates, and other community volunteers Success By 6 _- seeks to affect systemic change on behalf of the child care industry in our county. We invite and encourage representatives from a variety of community sectors to join us in this challenge. r � q : SUCCESS y Helping all children succeed for life. OUR VISION To measurably improve the lives of at-risk children aged 0-6 in Orange County. OUR MISSION Focus all available resources on prevention and early intervention programs for at-risk children aged 0-6, to ensure that they enter first grade ready to learn. To realize our Vision and Mission, Success By 6 is committed to Improving the Quality of Early Care and Education in Orange County: A C C R E D I TAT 10 N —instituting child care accreditation as the county standard; 0 M oxmbw ACCESSIBILITY —increasing access to child care, especially for low-income working families; e a TRAINING —planning and coordinating leadership training for early care and education professionals; COMPENSATION AND RETENTION —improving the valuation, compensation,and resulting retention of early care and OnPvfw g m ° ° • education professionals; mow&aWmn @W SUSTAINABILITY —as quality is improved,identifying resources and creating action @Am ° plans for maintaining and extending these improvements in a systemic manner; AmbW k @04 U 0943 COLLABORATION —building traditional and non-traditional partnerships in the community aJKig)�9 W to target resources for greatest impact; EVALUATION —measuring the benefits of our efforts to children and their families and instituting a mechanism for continuous quality improvement. °